The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Who Wants War with Iran -- and Why?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the run-up to Christmas, President Donald Trump has been the beneficiary of some surprisingly good news and glad tidings.

Sunday, Vladimir Putin called to thank him and the CIA for providing Russia critical information that helped abort an ISIS plot to massacre visitors to Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

Monday found polls showing Trump at his highest in months. Stocks soared 200 points at the opening bell in anticipation of pre-Christmas passage of the Republican tax bill. The Dow has added a record 5,000 points in Trump’s first year.

And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are being made that Robert Mueller’s sleuths gained access to Trump transition emails illicitly.

This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller’s team, already under a cloud for proven malice toward the president.

Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked free when it was learned that the White House “Plumbers” had burgled his psychiatrist’s office.

With things going Trump’s way, one must ask:

What was U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley doing last week at what looked like a prewar briefing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in D.C.?

Looming behind Haley was part of what was said to be an Iranian missile fired at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

Though the rocket had Iranian markings, it was not launched from Iran, or by Iranians. Houthi rebels, for two years victims of a savage war waged by the Saudis — using U.S.-made planes, missiles, bombs and drones — say they fired it at the Riyadh airport in retaliation for what the Saudis have done to their people and country.

If so, it was a legitimate act of war.

Indeed, so great is the Yemeni civilian suffering from a lack of food and medicine, and from malnutrition and disease, Trump himself has told the Saudis to ease up on their air, sea, and land blockades.

As there is no evidence as to when the Houthis acquired the missile, or where, the question arises: What was Haley’s motive in indicting Iran? Was this part of a new propaganda campaign to drum up support for America’s next big Mideast war?

There are reasons to think so.

Haley went on: “It’s hard to find a conflict or a terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.”

But Iran is Shiite, while al-Qaida, which brought down the twin towers, aided by 15 Saudi nationals, is Sunni. So, too, are ISIS, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and Islamic Jihad. Most Mideast terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.

As for these Mideast “conflicts,” which did Iran start?

We started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO started the war in Libya. The U.S. helped trigger the horrific Syrian civil war by arming “rebels.” Only when President Bashar Assad looked like he was about to fall did Russia and Iran intervene on his side.

As for the “Shiite crescent,” from Tehran to Bagdad to Damascus to Beirut, who created it?

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was Sunni dominated. It was the Americans who overthrew him and brought Shiite power to Baghdad.

In Syria, it was U.S.- and Sunni-backed “rebels,” allied at times with al-Qaida, who drew Iran and the Shiite militias in to save Assad.

And the Israelis called the Shiite Hezbollah movement into being by invading and occupying South Lebanon in 1982. As Yitzhak Rabin ruefully said, “We let the Shia genie out of the bottle.”

Are we now to fight a new Mideast war against a larger enemy than any of the others we have fought, to clean up the bloody mess we made of the region by our previous military interventions?

Before we march, with Haley as head cheerleader, Trump should consider the likely consequences for his country, the Middle East, and his presidency.

A war in the Persian Gulf would send oil prices soaring, and stock markets plummeting, even as it would split us off from our major allies in Europe and Asia. The Airbus-Boeing deal to sell Iran 300 commercial aircraft would be dead.

ORDER IT NOW

While the U.S. would prevail in an air, naval and missile war, where would the troops come from to march to Tehran to “democratize” that nation? Do we think a bloodied revanchist Iran would be easier to deal with than the one with which John Kerry negotiated a nuclear deal?

Would Hezbollah go after U.S. soft targets in Beirut? Would Iraqi Shiite militias go after Americans in the Green Zone? Would the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the oil-rich northeast of Saudi Arabia rise up and rebel?

And who would our great fighting Arab ally be?

Jared Kushner’s new friend: a 32-year-old Saudi prince who has become famous for putting down $500 million each for a chateau near Versailles, a yacht on the Riviera, and a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Iran, Middle East 
Hide 92 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I’ve said it before on this site and I’ll say it again, if Iran develops a nuke they will try to wipe Israel off the map.

    After the likely conflict with North Korea, Iran’s nuclear facilities are next on the list. They must be stopped before they develop nuclear weapons. This would not require a ground invasion of Iran, only a bombing campaign via airstrikes and missiles launched from ships and submarines.

    Come at me Jew haters.

    America must stand by Israel. I like this site and the different viewpoints it gives, but boy, you guys are demented in your hatred of the Jews. You’d think intelligent people would realize that Israel is about the only good guy in the Middle East.

  2. MEexpert says:

    What was U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley doing last week at what looked like a prewar briefing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in D.C.?

    UN is a very solumn body. Nikki Haley was trying to provide some comedy. Nikki Haley was hired by Netanyahu and her job at the UN is to do Israel’s bidding. She may still be trying to get a better job, say an ambassadorship to India.

    Looming behind Haley was part of what was said to be an Iranian missile fired at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

    How much more desparate can the US get? They have to bring this piece of junk as a prop to make their case to the World. Did she provide any evidence that the missile was smuggled into Yemen through the Land-Air-Sea blockade? If it was, what does it say about the Saudi blockade?

    Are we now to fight a new Mideast war against a larger enemy than any of the others we have fought, to clean up the bloody mess we made of the region by our previous military interventions?

    No Pat, you don’t have to worry about the US fighting this war. The Clown Prince Muhammad bin Salman will lead the Saudi forces on his shinning white Arab Horse with sword unsheathed charging toward Iran. Oh no wait! The Moon of Alabama has just posted to its site as hillarious a video as Nikki Haley’s missile prop.

    Some Saudi organization put out a funny comic movie (vid)
    about a Saudi attack on Iran. In it the Saudis defeat the Iranian navy, air- and missile forces. They invade Iran, capture IRGC General Suleimani and are welcome by the people in Tehran with sweets and flowers. Clown prince MbS is overseeing the operation. It is hilarious fiction.

    To make sure everybody understood his commands, the clown prince was shouting his orders in perfect American accent. And of course, General Sulemani was so terrified that he just waited to be captured. Link below:

    Pat, you know who is driving the war against Iran. It is not the US or Saudi Arabia. They are just the puppets in the hands of puppet masters Netanyahu/Kushner.

    Would Hezbollah go after U.S. soft targets in Beirut? Would Iraqi Shiite militias go after Americans in the Green Zone? Would the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the oil-rich northeast of Saudi Arabia rise up and rebel?

    You bet. But it will be only Muslim and the American blood that will be spilt. Furthermore, we can always put more sanctions on these entities.

    And who would our great fighting Arab ally be?

    Jared Kushner’s new friend: a 32-year-old Saudi prince who has become famous for putting down $500 million each for a chateau near Versailles, a yacht on the Riviera, and a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.

    And he talks about corruption. The entire Saud family is the most corrupt family in the world. MbS will be giving orders from his chateau or the yacht.

    Moral of the story; if there is one sane person left in the US government the talk about this war with Iran must stop now before it gets out of hand. The people must start writing their representatives. 2018 election is almost here and these guys only know one thing. To retain their seats.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Talha
  3. neutral says:

    Q: Who wants war with Iran?
    A: Israel and the international jews

    Q: Why?
    A: Because Israel wants to eliminate all rivals and rule the middle east

    It really does not require more insight than this. All other talking points from neocons, liberals, paleocons are just obfuscating the obvious, directly mentioning the real truth regarding Israel gets one into big trouble but we all know what the Iran war push is ultimately about.

  4. Randal says:

    What was U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley doing last week at what looked like a prewar briefing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in D.C.?
    ……..
    What was Haley’s motive in indicting Iran? Was this part of a new propaganda campaign to drum up support for America’s next big Mideast war?

    There are reasons to think so.

    Well the Trump regime really needs to make its mind up as to whether it’s going to go to war against Iran or North Korea, in order to finally nail down its total betrayal of its voters and seal the final end of the Republicans in America.

    If the Trump regime is planning another war for Israel, it seems to have done a characteristically masterful job of swinging the world behind it:

    US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem

    Then again, one possible motive for dropping the Jerusalem hand grenade was precisely to create violent resistance by Arabs in order to provide cover for war, so maybe making the US look stupid and antisocial (again) was just a price worth paying to manufacture the right context for war.

  5. Once again Pat reinforces the ridiculous nonsense about the 15 Saudi high-jackers being the cause of the toppling of the Twin Towers, a physical impossibility and one contradicted by the evidence. This is totally unhelpful to real American patriots because the full exposure of the 9/11 false flag hoax is very likely the only event capable of producing a tipping point of sufficient outrage to address the real problem in America and the real perpetrators.

    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Rurik
  6. @whyamihere

    “I’ve said it before on this site and I’ll say it again, if Iran develops a nuke they will try to wipe Israel off the map.”

    Based on what? You don’t think the several hundred nuclear weapons possessed by the Israelis might act as a deterrent?

    The Persians are for the most part rational people in no hurry to get to the afterlife.

    Your view, however, certainly opens the “Homeland” to revenge attacks if carried through to fruition.

  7. Renoman says:

    There are no good reasons for attacking Iran it’s just the Neocons selling arms which is about all America does any more. I believe Trump wants to be like China and rule the World through good business deals but he is held back by the idiots that surround him. As for the Jews, wouldn’t the World be a better place without Israel? look at the trouble they cause literally every day and they only care about themselves, we are just goy patsies to them.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The last war with Iran (between the US) in 1988 was called Praying Mantis. It lasted about 1-2 days with Iran’s small fleet in flames. Iran was so overawed it didn’t even want to fight. Next conflict could also be a decisive short bang and usher in many years of stability. Let’s not get histrionic.

    • Replies: @anon
  9. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked free when it was learned that the White House “Plumbers” had burgled his psychiatrist’s office.”

    The choice of anecdote and phrase “walked free” begs a question. Would Mr. Buchanan have preferred to see Mr. Ellsberg imprisoned?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @nebulafox
  10. @whyamihere

    “I’ve said it before on this site and I’ll say it again, if Iran develops a nuke they will try to wipe Israel off the map.”

    I don’t believe this is true at all. The Persians are by far, the most sophisticated, intelligent and rational people in the region. Shia Islam is second only to Sufi Islam for being peaceful, relatively speaking (it is still Islam after all).

    The biggest threats to the region, and the world, are bellicose, hyper religious and violent Israel, nursing its ancient grudge against the Persians and the US armed inbred morons in Sunni Saudi Arabia.

  11. “Are we now to fight a new Mideast war against a larger enemy than any of the others we have fought, to clean up the bloody mess we made of the region by our previous military interventions?”

    A rhetorical question, I know, but it still deserves an answer.

    The whole idea of cleaning up messes with limited wars is crazy. Wars (and armies) are for killing lots of people until an issue is settled (or defending our soil, which is beyond the point). We have no casus belli to justify going in and laying waste to the entire Middle East. Even if the government thought we had one the people would not support a long bloody war, a war that could not be fought with our small “professional army”.

    Our half measures and limited wars serve only to unite our enemies and divide our people while prolonging an unsustainable situation. Americans have grown tired of playing World Police.

    The big problem is that the people have come to depend on the false economy we have created and that credit fueled economy depends on the Pax Americana being maintained. This is the way empires end.

  12. Hunsdon says:
    @whyamihere

    How many Persians are you down with killing? You know, as a preventative measure? And what about the Iranian Jews?

  13. MEexpert says:
    @whyamihere

    And as I have asked before, why are you here? You have no clue. You are a Jews/Israeli troll. You keep repeating Netanyahu/neocon mantra of Iran having a Nuclear Weapon.

    if Iran develops a nuke they will try to wipe Israel off the map.

    Iranian leaders, the European Union, and the IAEA inspectors are all liars. Only Israel tells the truth. Netanyahu has been crying wolf over Iranian nuclear weapons only to fill Israeli coffers. Israel and the US and now Saudi Arabia have threatened to wipe off Iran more than Iran has done otherwise. Iranian leaders are rational people. Israeli, Saudi and the US leaders are not.

    You’d think intelligent people would realize that Israel is about the only good guy in the Middle East.

    Intelligent people do realize Israel for what it is. Land grabber, killer of women and children, starving people, causing genocide, lying and cheating and trying to destroy her only friend in the world. With friends like Israel who needs enemy.

  14. nsa says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    The initial 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade supposedly created by a low flying 757 piloted by a flight simulator trained saud goat herder is still available on line…….where are the wings, turbines, and fin as they could not have fit through the hole? In a world of total disinfo, Buchanan is an “innoculator” providing a mild exposure to a pathogen so as to create antigens which prevent the patient from succumbing to a full exposure to the disease. And what is the disease? A severe, chronic, and probably fatal case of severe virulent Jooieitis……….

  15. utu says:
    @anonymous

    Would Mr. Buchanan have preferred to see Mr. Ellsberg imprisoned?

    Sure. Buchanan was Nixon man. Nostalgia for Nixon often pops up in his writings.

  16. Patrick style of writing: Simple undeniable facts, iron logic, incontestable conclusions.

  17. Rurik says:

    What was Haley’s motive in indicting Iran? Was this part of a new propaganda campaign to drum up support for America’s next big Mideast war?

    There are reasons to think so.

    >sigh<

    so again Pat, we see six million wasn't enough for you

    Sieg Heil, Herr Buchanan

    if you haven't been paying attention, Iran is Hitler!

    don’t you get that?!

    Iran is committed to pushing all the Jews into the sea. Didn’t you hear Iran say it would ‘wipe Israel off the map’?!

    I hope you have stock in oven-building companies Pat. How many lampshades adorn your own abode, eh?

    ‘God said those who abase themselves to the Jews will prosper’, ‘and those who support Iran/Hitler/Putin will feel His flaming sword’

    do you want to feel like Germany after the Jewish wars against them?!

    how well did it go for the last century’s Nazis, eh Pat?

    what about the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Libyans or the Syrians?

    how did the Syrian Christians like being crucified by our “moderate rebels” when they earned the wrath of the Jews by not supporting ISIS ?

    did they read the warnings in the Bible?!

    no sir, they did not. And now you want America to take sides with the modern day Hitter = Iran ?!

    well we cud-chewing Americans know better! We know that by serving the Jews and Israel (especially with the lives of our children), god will grant us rapture, and Iran and Putin and all the other wannabe Hitlers out there will feel god’s terrible vengeance

    it is time to fully support Israel! We need to tell them that the Jews can steal the Golan Heights now !

    and that Jerusalem has always been Israel’s eternal capital !

    and that there are, and never have been any so-called “Palestinians” !

    they are a made up people, and Bibi should slaughter them all to the last man, woman and child !

    such slaughters are “worth it” !

    just as our noble allies are doing today in Yemen as they drone weddings and starve Hitler’s children by the hundreds of thousands !

    that’s God’s wrath for you, and you better get used to it !

    serve the Jews and Israel on your knees with a bowed head, and god will smile down upon on you with shekels and campaign donation$ and favorable ((media)) coverage!

    oppose the chosen, and god will rein down upon you His unholy wrath, and steal the Golan Heights and genocide the Palestinian people and give the Christian zionists their rapture !

    get with the program Pat !

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @MEexpert
  18. Art says:
    @whyamihere

    whyamihere,

    Do you salivate when you post?

    Drooling on your keyboard could be injurious to your health.

    We would miss you – you remind us just how disgusting you Jews can be.

    Thanks for your motivational help – you can be sure that we will keep up the good fight against Zionist Israel.

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. Buck up boy – big time sanctions against Jew nukes are coming your way.

  19. Grumbler says:
    @whyamihere

    “America must stand by Israel”

    Says who and why?

    “You’d think intelligent people would realize that Israel is about the only good guy in the Middle East.”

    What yardstick do “intelligent” people use to measure “good”? Seems to me that deceit, theft, and attacking one’s neighbors to take their land/resources is not an honest yardstick.

  20. Randal says:
    @Rurik

    if you haven’t been paying attention, Iran is Hitler!

    NO, you blithering idiot! The modern day Hitler isn’t Iran, it’s Kim Jong Un!

    If North Korea isn’t immediately attacked (or at most within the next few months), then an American city will be nuked. As night follows day.

    Why would they do that, you ask? It’s just how new Hitlers are – they can’t have weapons and not use them (unlike the original Hitler and his nerve gas). It’s like the scorpion and the frog – it’s in the nature of people who don’t like America to be murderously insane. They can’t be deterred – they actually want to be slaughtered and their entire nations reduced to radioactive rubble, because they think it will make America look bad.

    And they’re after our precious bodily fluids….

    HR McMaster weighs in on North Korea nuclear threat

    • Replies: @Rurik
  21. Rurik says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Hey Duke,

    I get what you’re saying, but the way I read Pat, what he’s saying is…

    “But Iran is Shiite, while al-Qaida, which (if you believe the neocon lies) brought down the twin towers, aided by 15 Saudi nationals, is Sunni.”

    Pat is not writing for an Unz audience. I feel he is writing to a general American audience, full-to-the-brim with bovine, cud-chewing, intellectually apathetic, professional consumers who believe all the lies they’re fed daily by the (((media))).

    and so in Pat’s heroic and relentless attempts to stave off yet another catastrophic war (for Israel), he’s trying to appeal to the largest common denominator in the American electorate and public.

    Most people have a vague idea that it was Saudis who were the “terrorists” on 9/11

    there is the cryptic ’27 pages of redacted intelligence’, and so Pat is trying to connect the dots in an insouciant, cud-chewing public more interested in what new IPhones are coming out for the Winter Holiday, than what might be a new neocon scheme for war.

    what’s going on in Yemen is untenable. Something’s got to give. And the more demonic the Saudis are in their tactics and intentions, the more intractable are the Houthis going to be in their (heroic) resistance to the corrupt House of Saud.

    And what about Russia and China

    and what about Europe?

    all the world can see that the zio-regime / deepstate that run$ the West is corrupt in absolute terms. Pat is trying to make the case to the typical American to be against more evil wars for Israel, and he’s up against the entire media and Israeli occupied Senate and House, (not to mention legions of dispensationalist, evangelical rapture bunnies praying for slaughter in the holy land)

    There isn’t one politician in our congress (or the potus for that matter) that wouldn’t vote for more war if he or she thinks that vote will win them re-election.

    this is a battle between the zio-deepstate banksters who own the governments and media of the west vs. the people of the planet.

    What I’d like to see are more Sunnis (of all nationalities) speak in cogent condemnation of what the Saudis and Al Qaeda are doing in Yemen.

    ‘We are all Yemenis now’ , should be the mantra of the world.

  22. Rurik says:
    @Randal

    The modern day Hitler isn’t Iran, it’s Kim Jong Un!

    get with the program please!

    Lil’ Kim is a Hitler enabler‘ !

    the real Hitler du jour is Iran !

    Obama’s Iran deal was Munich, and it sent the message to lil’ Kim that America is weak !

    so now all the enemies of freedom and democracy are crawling out of the Nazi woodpile

    we can only save freedom by supporting the Saudis in their starvation campaign in Yemen

    N. Korea is a pathetic attempt on Trump’s part to avoid war with the true Hitler = Iran

    god’s people (g-d) will never be safe as long as Iran is a functional state

    we must reduce Iran to smoking ashes like we did Dresden if we’re to avoid another Holocaust !

    do we really want to be Hitler-enablers ourselves (again)?! Even now we all know we didn’t bomb the railroads to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and now we have to live with that. And that’s why all Americans should bow their heads in shame when ever they meet a Jew. But have we not learned?! Do we want to be Hitler enablers all over again?!

    Dubya did his part to keep us all safe, and he destroyed several countries that hated our freedom and were building ovens for the Jews.

    Hitllary did her part, and she came and saw’

    Obama did his part, and hundreds of thousands of innocent souls perished horrifically, because they all thumbed their noses at Israel, and we know what the Bible teaches!

    And so now it’s Trump’s turn. Is he going to look the other way as Israel languishes under an Iranian/Hezbollah/Syria still claims the Golan Heights – Holocaust?!!!

    • Replies: @Randal
  23. Randal says:
    @Rurik

    Damn! Can’t beat argufying like that!

    Ok. Mullahs first, then the dinks.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  24. Zionists want the war with Iran cuz it is the main rival of Israel.

    We all know that but…

  25. MEexpert says:
    @Rurik

    Didn’t you hear Iran say it would ‘wipe Israel off the map’?!

    No one heard that because it wasn’t said. The word used was “Israeli Regime.” Now, Netanyahu may think he is Israel but he isn’t. He is just a little punk. He and his wife have been milking the Israeli system and the US for a long time and the “supersmart” Israeli public is so dumb that they keep electing him. He has been showing off his cartoon bomb all over the place and no one except the gullible American politicians and the public is buying it.

    But he has learned to fool the American and Israeli population from the master (CIA). The CIA makes a tape of Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, or ISIS. Then they analyze it and claim that it is authentic and the Americans fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Example; in the video tape of Osama bin Laden shown on TV during the campaign against John Kerry in 2004, OBL looked younger than he did in 2001 or earlier. His voice was barely recognizable. Only the CIA analysts confirmed it that it was him. Who is to question our super spooks.

  26. nebulafox says:
    @whyamihere

    I’m pretty solidly in the anti-anti-Semite and relatively Israel-friendly camp on Unz. But I’ve got to be frank: the Persians just aren’t that stupid, as none other than Ehud Barak has made clear. They’ve been around for longer than any civilization since China, and know how to play the realpolitik game as good as anybody. They know the Israelis have a nuclear arsenal that will dwarf theirs, and that any such attack will bring in the United States into direct conflict with them: and that is a war they cannot ever hope to win. Such an event will completely abort their real goal of becoming the regional powerhouse.

    This is about cold, hard power politics, not Twelver fantasies about nuking the Zionist entity. Iran doesn’t exactly have a Seoul that they can hold hostage, like North Korea, and their relationship with Russia is far too tentative for them to set up a “no-divorce” situation like the Pakistanis did with the US. (There is a certain parallel with India playing the Israel role for Pakistan, now that I think about it, but I digress…) Hence the real goals of the program are political, and deterrent based (especially if the Sauds decide to develop their own bomb down the road). Now, there is an anti-Israeli bent to the Iranian program, for sure: but in the sense that they want to break Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region, which will unquestionably shift the balance of geopolitical weight to their disadvantage. Being in the club gives you a different status.

    An Iranian nuke would be disastrous for the world-but because would set off an arms race in that God-forsaken region and further hit home the blunders of US foreign policy in providing incentives (Gaddafi doesn’t develop a nuke, he gets sodomized and thrown in a ditch, the Kim dynasty does, they get nasty portrayals in Hollywoood movies. Other countries see that). However, the Iranians have wanted a nuke since the Shah was in power, as the CIA and Mossad at the time well knew. They’d probably have one by now if the mullahs didn’t decimate Iran’s scientific community in the 1980s. I don’t think the Shah or the Safavids would be acting too differently in wanting a bomb, the former’s pro-Israeli sentiments notwithstanding, and I don’t think the mullahs geopolitical thinking is as removed from them as often implied. Ideologies come and go. Cultures and national psychologies stay. The Iranians are going to do whatever it takes to get a bomb because they see their national security and geopolitical status as intimately tied into having a bomb, no matter what papers they sign in Geneva, and it would behoove the West to accept the situation for what it is.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @L.K
  27. nebulafox says:
    @anonymous

    Um, yes? Buchanan cut his teeth under the Old Man. And I mean the real one, not that former Democrat, crypto-classical liberal movie star.

  28. @whyamihere

    The future of the Israeli regime and its inevitable downfall will not be decided or enacted by Iran; it will come about by Arabs (and perhaps assisted by Turks) who are closest to and surround Palestine.
    Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Turkey – just to mention a few – that so far have been kept away and denied the attainment of nuclear energy and know-how, are now racing ahead and will acquire it within a decade or two.
    Israeli regime in Palestine is an unsavory Western implant in a region seething with hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims on the cusp of great transformations. Going by the trajectory of the upheavals in the last five years, only wildest imaginations can picture what might or could happen in this highly unstable region. That a tiny Israeli regime might emerge unscathed and intact in this vast sea of unpredictable humanity in due time, would indeed require a miracle of biblical proportions.

  29. Rurik says:

    The word used was “Israeli Regime.”

    from my limited memory, I think what was said was ‘Zionist regime’

    iow it didn’t mean necessarily that Israel per se would cease to exist, (although such a sentiment would certainly be founded upon just rationales, considering how the Israelis have conducted themselves), but rather that Israel would continue to exist as a state with 1948 borders and limited sovereignty over some territories, but the Zionist regime, (much like the Nazi regime it is patterned after) would become a failed experiment. Israel, like Germany, would exist. But the rabid racism and uber-aggressive, war-mongering criminality of the Zionist regime will be reined in by the collective outrage of the civilized world.

    Who is to question our super spooks.

    you mean like the ‘sixteen intelligence agencies’ that agree that Russia hacked our election and installed Trump as Putin’s quisling?

    these sixteen intelligence agencies?

    • Agree: MEexpert
  30. nebulafox says:
    @nebulafox

    Comment timed out…

    In that part of the world, there’s no such thing as good guys-good guys don’t last long in the Middle East. Only varying shades of gray-and I will give you that the Israelis are a lighter shade of gray (and have a much brighter future than most Western leftists think if they play their cards right) than the other players in the region. But the United States doesn’t have friends, we have interests. We would not blunder in foreign policy if we recognized that.

    The Iranian regime is deeply hostile to the United States and willing to resort to measures like attempting to assassinate foreign ambassadors on US soil in broad daylight (they tried in 2011, and Obama ignored it-you want to know why the Saudis understandably hated him and welcomed Trump, liberals who might come across this comment, there you go). And it would be the height of foolishness to pretend they don’t have a long standing habit of compulsively lying to the world. But Iran has a solid basis in population dynamics, economic future, and national coherency that no other country in the region except for Israel has. Saudi Arabia may or may not be around in 50 years, but some kind of Iran almost certainly will be. A successful American foreign policy in the region needs to take that into account.

    Iran’s goal of achieving a Shi’a crescent to the Mediterranean is not necessarily against long-term US interests. Perhaps against Saudi ones. Definitely against Israeli ones, given that Hezbollah-who routinely announces that they want to slaughter all Jews-is right there. But the job of the President is to take care of American ones. We do have certain mutual interests, especially regarding Afghanistan/Pakistan and curbing radical Sunni jihadists. And in the long-term, the Russians and Iranians have deeply conflicting agendas for the future of the region, that a President with some foreign policy competence can exploit.

    On a different note, my guess is that the mullahs would opt for either Israeli style nuclear ambiguity or Japanese style nuclear latency rather than testing a bomb. But that’s not going to stop the Saudis from suspecting. If they think Iran is getting close, they’ll call Pakistan and order one for themselves. Since the Saudis are active participants rather than passive observers in Pakistani politics, agreed to bankroll the bomb program under the understanding that it would serve as a pan-Sunni bomb of sorts at Multan after the Indo-Pak war of ’71, and the civilians in Pakistan have limited (at best) control of the nuclear arsenal, they will get whatever they want from Islamabad. At best-meaning that Mohammed bin Salman manages to salvage the Saudi state from its long term structural problems-we have a nuclear mini-Cold War. At worst, if the regime collapses in the long run when the petrodollars and CENTCOM support runs out, as the Iranians probably believe is the case… well, that means we’ll have a nuclear arsenal possibly in the hands of Qutbist jihadists, or an anarchic situation in which we have no idea who has the nukes.

    So, yeah. The long term effect of the Iranian program is to bind us closer to Saudi Arabia. I don’t think that’s quite what Obama had in mind when cooking up the deal, or what Trump had in mind on the campaign trail when talking about putting Iran on notice.

    I don’t know why I typed this all out. I guess now that I’m trying to leave politics behind for the next 5 years-at least-I decided to dump it all out for one final afternoon.

    • Troll: L.K
  31. nebulafox says:

    >And who would our great fighting Arab ally be?

    Well, the Saudis can’t fight for beans, as it stands. My father helped train them in the early 90s, now over a quarter of a century ago-he and his colleagues were unanimous. Way too spoiled and lazy to ever run their own competent military campaigns. There’s zero indication that has changed since. So, they have to rely on mercenaries, aka, us and/or other Arabs, to do their dirty work. Trump and Kushner are deluding themselves if they think the Saudis stand a chance against battle hardened Persians under Soleimani’s command in anything approximating a fair fight.

    Now, the Israelis, on the other hand, can fight. But the Iranians (again: not being the drooling ideological morons the Beltway, for whatever reasons, needs to insist they are) are aware of that, and if they opt for covert action against the de-facto Jerusalem/Riyadh axis, they are definitely going to opt to take on the Saudis, even absent the nuclear factor. The Saudis are the ones who will more directly contest their attempted hegemony across the Levant, anyway. And that’s not even bringing who Putin might or might not collaborate against into the discussion.

  32. nebulafox says:
    @Randal

    I take it that Trump doesn’t have the ability to appreciate the fact that he flat-out slew Rubio and Bush in the GOP debates by pointing out the absurdity of advocating a maximally aggressive policy against all rivals simultaneously, regardless of whatever contradictions such a strategy would raise.

    If Trump goes on Operation IRANIAN FREEDOM, I can make one confident prediction: the Democrats will win in 2020, no matter how loony SJW they go. Trump’s voters supported him in no small part because their male relatives disproportionately contributed to the post-Iraq PTSD-addled contingent-Trump, as far as foreign policy went, became anti-neocon backlash personified. He was aided by the fact that Hillary, from her past actions and present statements, seemed willing to risk WWIII with Russia over Syria-something that no doubt caused her issues with Sanders voters on the other end of the ideological spectrum. But, I digress. Economic betrayals are one thing-most of his voters knew the risk of that all along when they gambled on the possibility of him being an unlikely Marius rather than the Berlusconi he looked like, knowing full well that if they didn’t, Hillary would unquestionably embrace ruling neoliberal/globalist dogma. (Contrast with Obama, who occasionally show mental presence and questioned it.) This is quite another. This will make him a one-term President, at best.

    • Replies: @Randal
  33. Jim Given says:
    @whyamihere

    Obviously written by an anti-Semite, posing as a Jewish commentator, wishing to tar Jews with the accusation of being cheerleaders for American wars.

  34. Talha says:
    @MEexpert

    Salaam Bro,

    One wonders if they did that video in CGI because Saudis can’t really drive those large boats in real life. Hilarious though – Iranis celebrating with pictures of the Sauds.

    Wa salaam.

    • LOL: MEexpert
  35. Randal says:
    @nebulafox

    I take it that Trump doesn’t have the ability to appreciate the fact that he flat-out slew Rubio and Bush in the GOP debates by pointing out the absurdity of advocating a maximally aggressive policy against all rivals simultaneously, regardless of whatever contradictions such a strategy would raise.

    It’s starting to look that way, certainly, given the multiple signals being given off that war is imminent – both in Korea and in the ME.

    And although it’s perfectly possible Trump thinks he’s not planning to go to war and he’s just cunningly bluffing to structure the environment for a masterful deal, the fact is that he’s creating situations in which wars can be started by actors not fully within US control, such as legitimately jumpy North Koreans or cynically manipulative supposed allies with their own agendas, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    He looks more and more out of his depth, and more and more the prisoner of self-interested advice given to him by neocon inner circle advisers with ulterior motives. More and more like Bush II, in fact.

    Trump goes on Operation IRANIAN FREEDOM, I can make one confident prediction: the Democrats will win in 2020, no matter how loony SJW they go. ….. This will make him a one-term President, at best.

    That seems the most likely outcome, I agree. That’s why I suggested in my first comment to this thread(#5) that the Trump regime starting such a war would constitute the “total betrayal of its voters and seal the final end of the Republicans in America”.

    I think the stakes are higher than just one electoral cycle. The Republicans imo have basically one shot with Trump to win the support of the rising anti-establishment vote in the US. Betray it, reveal themselves to be just another set of lying, warmongering, tax cuts for the rich Republican establishment stooges, and it’s probably over for a generation, imo.

    It’s not that the Trump base is particularly anti-war (only some of them are, I think), it’s that he’s very much teetering on the edge of being seen not delivering on any of his key promises with any real substance, and enough of his base were to some extent or other motivated by hostility to yet more stupid wars that such an obvious betrayal will be seen as symbolic of a general betrayal.

  36. There are so many wise people supporting the war on Iran.
    So I do have these questions for them.
    What final goals US would need to achieve?
    What would be beginning and end of the conflict?
    What would be limits of theater of the conflict?
    What wold be sequence of achieving final goals?
    What would be the methods of achieving these goals?

    And do not talk to me about decapitation you F ers!

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rurik
    , @anon
  37. Talha says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    We’re Americans, we don’t think of all that crap – yeeehaaaw!

    Bang-bang-bang!

    • Replies: @Talha
  38. Rurik says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    the war on Iran.

    What final goals US would need to achieve?

    What would be beginning and end of the conflict?

    ‘shock and awe’ is the beginning, as for the end, see above

    What would be limits of theater of the conflict?

    the last time Hitler menaced the world and attempted the ‘final solution’, he did so by trying to expand his nefarious domination all across the globe from Norway to the Aegean.
    Just as it was necessary then, more than ever, it is necessary now, to rein in the enemy of Jewish supremacy by destroying every bastion of Hitler’s power today, from Iran to Iraq (where the insidious power of Iran/Hitler has its tentacles once again) to Lebanon to Syria to Yemen and beyond.

    The enemies of Jewish supremacism must be hounded off the face of the Earth. If that crusade takes the forces of freedom down to New Zealand (who recently proposed a UN sanction against g-d), then so be it. We can destroy New Zealand as well, it that’s what it will take to establish global freedom and democracy once and for all !

    What wold be sequence of achieving final goals?

    first media hysteria conflating Iran with Hitler

    then media hysteria over Yemeni Nazis/terrorists resisting the forces of freedom and democracy from Saudi Arabia.

    next some of Rothschild’s dueling puppets to read a script comparing Iran to Hitler = sheople of the west respond like Pavlov’s dogs, as they’ve been programmed to

    next shock and awe, as Iran is savaged by Mad Dog. At this point a UN security council meeting is convened and it’s decided that anti-Semitism is a global capital offense, and New Zealand is sanctioned. Iran is condemned for ‘waging aggressive war’ and demands are made against Iran to pay reparations to Israel.

    What would be the methods of achieving these goals?

    promises of fresh meat from the conflict to the global pedophiles in the UK and Vatican

    Putin is secretly told he can keep the Crimea and a new gas pipeline

    China is mollified with promises of additional markets for plastic products in the conquered lands

    The Sunnis (present company excepted ; ) will be rapturous at their victory over the infidel Shiites

    so, the only remaining people to convince will be the Iranians and Syrians and Lebanese and Yemenis – who’ll be systematically crushed under a juggernaut of death and destruction not seen since the last time Hitler tried his ‘final solution’.

    when the smoking ashes of Iran are contemplated, maybe finally people will begin to understand just what is meant by freedom and democracy.

    • Replies: @Wally
  39. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @whyamihere

    America must stand by Israel. I like this site and the different viewpoints it gives, but boy, you guys are demented in your hatred of the Jews. You’d think intelligent people would realize that Israel is about the only good guy in the Middle East.

    When did this Israeli love of America begin?

    When they savagely attacked the unarmed USS Liberty and murdered 34 Americans?

    Maybe when Israel knew about the planned attack on the US Marines barrack in Lebanon and said NOTHING?

    When they sent that Popeye cruise missile into the USS Cole?

    Or when Israel masterminded and set off the 9/11 False Flag?

    http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch11_en.html

    Maybe when Bernie Madoff stole billions and laundered most of that loot to Israel?

    Or when Israel got some free advanced American weaponry, reverse-engineered that weapon, built it in Israel and sold it to Commie China, like those air-to-air anti-aircraft missiles?

    I could go on for pages, but will stop here.

    And PLEASE stop trying to mix legit criticism of Apartheid Israel into some kind of neo-Nazi hate of Jews.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Wally
  40. Mr. Buchanan, your analysis should be published by the NYT, but this newspaper has sided with the war party, the Ziocons. President Trump should sack Nikki Haley, the poster girl of the Zionist Israel lobby. Her remake of Colin Powell embarrassing speech before the United Nations should be a warning to all Americans. Hayley’s performance was just an embarrassment.

    In your analysis, you forgot the Elephant in the room, the Zionist regime, which does everything possible to push the US into war with Iran. If the US wants to rely on the decadent Saudi elite, they should stop thinking about attacking Iran.

    Terrorism is not spread by Iran but by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE that financed all the terrorist groups in Syria with the support of the US. One should not forget about the spread of the wicked Salafist version of Islam by the Saudis all over the world Instead of attacking Iran for nothing, the Trump administration should confront the Saudi regime to stop their murderous bombardment of the Yemeni people or the US should topple these filthy rich bummers in Riyadh.

    No American soldier should die for the rogue regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

  41. FLgeezer says:

    Superb post Greg Bacon. Thanks!

  42. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    screw your inspirational invitation to disaster by stealth. Go and fight yourself

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  43. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    Peace is achieved through war. Tyranny is through democracy. Existence of opportunities for all is through crony capitalism and overt nepotism . Access to information is through self censorship.
    Defeat is handled by ignoring the factors that lead top defeat . Bribing and lobbying are manged by rewording the known culprit- corruption.

    Wisdom is worn by the culture of the stupidity paid by New York Money

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    , @G Orwell
  44. Rurik says:
    @Greg Bacon

    great post Greg, only consider

    And PLEASE stop trying to mix legit criticism of Apartheid Israel into some kind of neo-Nazi hate of Jews

    who it is that is creating the meme that any and all criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism

    in fact, they’re (Jewish donors and their goyim whores) writing such things into law as we speak

    this from an article right here on Unz

    I have previously reported on how 24 states are now requiring statements pledging not to boycott Israel from those citizens and organizations that receive government funding or even seek local government employment. And there is the reported progress in Congress of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which constitute two major steps forward in the same direction. Both seek to define as anti-Semitism any criticism of Israel. On December 12th the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act was approved by the House of Representatives with 402 affirmative votes and only two libertarian-leaning congressmen voting “no.” The Israel Anti-Boycott Act that is also currently making its way through the Congress would far exceed what is happening at the state level and would set a new standard for deference to Israeli interests on the part of the national government. It would criminalize any U.S. citizen “engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” who supports a boycott of Israel or who even goes about “requesting the furnishing of information” regarding it, with penalties enforced through amendments of two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Act of 1945, that include potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Senate bill was drafted with the assistance of AIPAC.

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/a-good-year-for-israel-and-its-friends/

    as for neo-Nazis, anyone who now protests the destruction of monuments to the Southern states resistance to tyranny is now considered a “neo-Nazi”

    I just read a story on Drudge where Tom Hanks hectors us thus:

    I would not have been able to imagine that we would be living in a country where neo-Nazis are doing torchlight parades in Charlottesville [Va.]

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-hanks-wouldnt-screen-post-at-white-house-decries-attacks-first-amendment-1066846

    what that means is if you oppose the ubiquitous smearing of your heritage or ethnicity because you happen to be a (probably poor, working class, especially Southern, heterosexual) white guy, then that automacitally means you’re a goose-stepping Nazi screaming to ‘gas the Jews!’

    you see how that works?

    Israel (and inordinate Jewish power in the West) are being made beyond criticism by law

    any protest of Israeli serial atrocities = are de facto evidence of anti-Semitism (irrational hatred of all Jews) and must be punished by the law

    whereas

    any protest by scourged and maligned white guys watching their icons demolished and spat upon….

    = neo-Nazis (who want to kill all non-whites and gas the Jews)

    so that doesn’t leave the rest of us a lot of wiggle room vis-a-vis these otherwise nuanced issues, you see?

    if Alan Dershowitz demands we conflate any criticism of Israel = with rabid anti-Semitism and Jew hatred, then what does that make you when you mention the USS Liberty?

  45. @anon

    Yes! Yes! But radical solution would result in river of blood. So lets not advocate it.
    Eventually the system will readjust by itself.
    Here is my point! In process of money loosing the value it is the wealthy who are the biggest losers.

  46. Albert12 says:

    You know there are Jews living in Iran, right?

  47. L.K says:
    @nebulafox

    Let’s be very clear; you are another Zionist shill.

    • Agree: Rurik
  48. Wally says: • Website
    @Greg Bacon

    said:
    “And PLEASE stop trying to mix legit criticism of Apartheid Israel into some kind of neo-Nazi hate of Jews.”

    Garbage in, garbage out, aka: Zionist indoctrination.
    fact:
    The Germans did nothing more to Jews than the US did to Japanese-Americans.
    There is no proof otherwise.

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny. The tide is turning.
    http://www.codoh.com

  49. Wally says: • Website
    @whyamihere

    What a bunch of creepy Jew wusses. Go fight your own wars.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Fighting Israel’s Wars
    How the United States military has become Zionized

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fighting-israels-wars/

    Pandering to Israel Has Got to Stop
    Pledges of loyalty to Israel are un-American

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/pandering-to-israel-has-got-to-stop/#comments

    America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/#comment-2012898

    America or Israel?
    Quislings in Congress and the Media need to decide which comes first

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/america-or-israel/

    Israel First or America First
    Pat Buchanan

    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/israel-first-or-america-first/

  50. RickDo says:
    @whyamihere

    Whyamihere–I guess you forget that Israel is the only nuclear power in the middle east, and how Iran is going to wipe them out without being wiped out is beyond me.

    I love Israel and wish them the best…but can’t understand why we should go to war for them. Not even sure if you are an American and put the interest of our nation first.

  51. Robertson says:

    Since much of strategic thinking comes from Europe, the concept that a two-front war is bad should not surprise most people.

    Yet, the Trumpettes seem to desiree a two-front war, and two fronts located on opposite sides of the world, more than anything else.

    It seems that can’t make up their minds about whether they want a war with North Korea or a war with Iran?

    The US military has justified having tax-payer money thrown at them by saying they need to be prepared to fight and win two wars at the same time. Yet, the history of the last few decades seems to indicate that they have a very hard time getting any sort of victory in even one war. In Afghanistan, we attacked perhaps the weakest country on the planet, and yet 16 years later we are still figthing, still losing Americans, and still pouring the national treasure into what has become the longest war in American history.

    And both North Korea and Iran would be much tougher fights than Afghanistan was.

    We are told by the pro-war crowd that the US military that the US military would crush either North Korea or Iran. But, surely by now we’ve learned that the pro-war crowd has a very bizarre definition of victory. By their terms, they crushed Saddam’s military in the first part of that conflict. Yet, we still have troops fighting and dying in Iraq some 13 years later. It was the first three weeks of those 13 years that the pro-war crowd would label as the US ‘crushing’ Saddam’s military. But surely the lesson is that the war continues for long after. So long that Iraq would be America’s longest war except that we started the war with Afghanistan first.

    And both North Korea and Iran would be tougher to defeat than a divided Iraq held together only by a dictator and his Republican Guards. Much tougher.

    Does the US really want a not only a two front war but a two front war on opposite sides of the world? Against two opponents both of which would be tougher than the ‘easy’ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we to be told again that a few weeks into either war that we’ll be greeted by grateful populations all waving tiny American flags? Have we already ordered the tiny American flags and have them waiting for a parade that never materializes like we did in Iraq?

    If the US has to pick a nation which we can’t knock-off and decapitate right now, which would it be? Do we tolerate and live with the presence of ‘Rocket Man’? Or do we give up on our decades-long wet dream of revenge against the Iranian people for daring to overthrow the torturing Shah? It doesn’t really seem possible to do both. Heck, the US Navy brass says that the reason their warships can’t avoid slow moving merchantmen any more is the high ‘operational tempo’. How high does th operational tempo go if we start wars with both Iran and North Korea? Remember, the only way Trump got his show of three CVNs off North Korea was by having no CVNs in the Middle East/Persian Gulf at the time.

    So, which war will America admit that it can not have? And could that be the moment like the old movie scene where the robot says ‘Does not compute’ and smoke starts coming out of its fake ears? Can America possibly admit that it can’t have every single war that it dreams about? Or will that cause the smoke to come out of America’s fake ears?

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  52. G Orwell says:
    @anon

    “war is peace
    freedom is slavery
    ignorance is strength”

    These words are the official slogans of the Party, and are inscribed in massive letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth

  53. Wally says:
    @Rurik

    said:
    “the last time Hitler menaced the world and attempted the ‘final solution’, he did so by trying to expand his nefarious domination all across the globe from Norway to the Aegean.”

    That’s laughable.

    Just look at a world map of the period, see who already ‘dominated the globe’.

    The “Final Solution” was just as German officials openly stated, the deportation of Jews.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

  54. peterAUS says:
    @Robertson

    Agree that attacking both Iran and North Korea at the same time doesn’t look possible.
    Or, it goes against basic principles of art/science of war.
    If we really see that it will mean that Washington really lost its plot.

    Having said that, well, one is possible.

    Yes, I know all the memes about Yalu river, Tet offensive and failures in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Most people here delude themselves thinking that “Yalu river”, “Tet offensive” and the rest of “failures” mean much here.
    The challenges/possible points of failure are different.

    In Iranian case it’s keeping Hormuz open.
    In North Korean case it’s a detonation of a single North Korean nuclear weapon.

    It’s simple: what’s the objective?

    Iran: degrade regime’s capability to develop a nuclear weapon; put it back, cay, 20 years.
    North Korea: prevent regime’s to develop/acquire nuclear tipped ICMBs.

    Both achievable.

    The problem, of course, is what happens after those objective are achieved?
    Wars often have their own logic after first shot is fired.

    How about “we achieved the objective, but the situation has changed; the enemy rejected cessation of hostilities (add couple of pages of propaganda here) ;we are, unfortunately, compelled to re-evaluate the objective and act accordingly”.

    And, as well said here before, US “business model” demands a war.

    Looks interesting.

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @bluedog
  55. KenH says:

    Israel wants a war with Iran as do their innumerable shabbos goys on D.C. like Lindsey Grahamnesty and John insane McCain. It seems (((they))) now reason that if they can weaken Iran their other enemies in the region, like Syria and Lebanon, will fall like dominoes and the realm will finally be secured thanks to their dumb murican goyim who are all too happy to pay the bill in both blood and money.

    Russia was able to foil an impending terrorist attack with intelligence provided by the CIA which makes me a bit suspicious and leads me to think we’re trying to court Russia in our campaigns against N. Korea and Iran or at least assure their neutrality. But once those two have been laid low (they aren’t willing to quietly) then we’ll turn against Russia. Putin is much too seasoned not to know this.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  56. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Why must you think it will certainly be a disaster? A short almost didn’t happen war with Iran can be a success.

    • Replies: @anon
  57. I have read some of the comments. Let us put some reason and logic and let us look at History. Smedley Butler retired general. He gave us the truth in 1936 senate hearings he stopped the fascist coup in the land of the free. US industrial capacity is mostly related to the industrial military complex. Wolfowitz doctrine . The `oligarchs Wall Street had crashed the world economy in 2007. The largest wealth gap exceeding the Gilded age. Close to 10trillion dollars in the pentagon budget that cannot be counted for.
    I conclude it is a racket/Ponzi scheme to enrich the few and genocide the many. Perpetual;l war since 2001 has made a few people a lot of money destroyed many countries and the people and further more destroyed basic social ,economic and po0litical structures of western countries. CUI BONO. Not we the sheeple or the ME our Israel but a few 300 families who continue to enslave humanity and force the world to the modern Middle Ages.

    • Replies: @Anon
  58. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @falcemartello

    A modern Middle Ages would actually be a vast improvement. I think.

  59. KenH says:
    @Rurik

    The last sentence in the article:
    But it’s one sure sign that Trump’s foreign policy views are evolving — or at least being influenced — as his presidency progresses.

    IOW, Trump is coming to embrace the neoconservatism that he decried on the campaign trail and that Americans rejected. But I think we all knew that the Syria cruise missile strike effectively ended hopes of a humble, America first foreign policy. The swamp is winning and Trump is becoming putty in the hands of the neocon and establishmentarians.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  60. Rurik says:
    @KenH

    the Syria cruise missile strike effectively ended hopes of a humble, America first foreign policy.

    what alarmed me about the strike was that it was done on the one hundred year anniversary (to the exact day) of the US entering the first world war.

    as S2C has pointed out, these anniversaries are yuge to the tribe. Their entire psychological make-up having marinated in constant and relentless celebrations of the anniversaries of ancient victories over their sworn ‘enemies’ (Gentiles). Their holiest and most sacred holidays are nothing more than celebrations of the anniversaries of military victories over the goyim, going back millenniums.

    so when Trump attacked Syria on the centennial anniversary of Judaism’s ultimate victory over Western civilization (the US involvement in the world wars), I knew it wasn’t a coincidence.

    it was the nadir of my hope for Trump to be different

    but now several months later, we have seen the Zionist war on Syria wind down. Russia has been triumphant, and Assad remains in Damascus. Turkey is warming to Putin’s orbit and there’s other small signs of hope, mostly that all of Trump’s bluster has been just that, bluster.

    The swamp is winning

    yes, but..

    they still seem to hate his guts with a psychotic obsession

    and there is a growing war between some members of congress, (like Trey Gowdy) vs. the FBI

    the FBI is insisting that they’re not accountable to congress, and it is getting rather interesting..

    so long as he doesn’t start a war with Iran, or any other such cave-in to the ziocons..

    on the bad side I was watching John Bolton last night praising something Trump had done

    there’s ominous signs and small signs of hope

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @KenH
  61. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    War doesn’t stop at the 1st salvo . Before war is ordered, a whole slew of activities are ordered to shape public hatred animosity anger and fear . is generated the urgent need to face the enemy .
    Once war starts, the need for further action and expansion are ordered by the same nefarious forces.
    1991 Gulf war proved it 2003 “cakewalk” theorist imbibed the fact and used it to expand the war .
    You know it. But you are shilling for the “Cakewalk” theorists.

  62. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    Wars often have their own logic after first shot is fired.

    How about “we achieved the objective, but the situation has changed; the enemy rejected cessation of hostilities (add couple of pages of propaganda here) ;we are, unfortunately, compelled to re-evaluate the objective and act accordingly”.

    This is, of course, an important point and one of the techniques by which consent is manufactured for wars of choice. The likely costs are systematically and dishonestly downplayed by war’s advocates, who know that once war has begun the calculus changes and they will never be held to account for their pre-war lies.

    Just one of the reasons the advocates of wars of choice ought to be regarded as profoundly antisocial and ignored as systematically as they lie.

    It would be nice to have them held to account afterwards and punished appropriately for their “errors”, but of course no system could ever be devised that would not be corrupted by the establishment to protect its own.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @peterAUS
  63. Rurik says:
    @Randal

    It would be nice to have them held to account afterwards and punished appropriately for their “errors”, but of course no system could ever be devised that would not be corrupted by the establishment to protect its own.

    yes Randal, but here a man engages in wishful thinking.

    imagine if there were a Harvey Weinstein-type of falling dominoes for America’s (and England’s and France’s and Israel’s, etc..) serial war criminals ..

    In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance. But to judge from published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed to survive their encounters. None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder. No one died.

    Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country’s various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated “terrorism,” as President George W. Bush promised back when today’s G.I.s were still in diapers.

    Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts.

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/why-a-harvey-weinstein-moment-is-needed-for-americas-wars/235475/

    we could start with George Bush and Tony Blair, two of the most execrable cowards, liars and war criminals on the planet. Not only are both guilty of treason against their respective nations and people, but they’re both guilty of ‘waging aggressive war’ for which the Nazis hanged by the neck.

    • Replies: @Randal
  64. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Agree.

    At last a reasonable reply here.
    I have to say that I am not impressed by the level of conversation here.
    No surprise but, still, disappointing.

    You know, I’ve been, obviously, following all this “war” thing since primaries in U.S.
    When Trump won all appeared really good.
    And then, that launch. And the rest.

    I’ve come to conclusion that he realized the hard fact that US demands constant war in order to simply exist.
    People like those theories “he was shown that video” or “they” pulled “Hoover” on him with some file.
    I just believe that he (as all of Presidents) was simply given a presentation where he realized that with no “war thing” there will be “no America thing”.

    The rest is simply managing that reality.
    Like…President is a Marketing Manager of a company; he sells the product to consumers; hard realities of internal workings, finances in particular, are managed by other people and they run the company. Maybe not the best analogy but close enough I guess.

    So…..now all the current administration needs is to pick up a proper war.
    Obviously, they have two possibilities here. Two card trick for the masses.

    I believe they had their sights set on Iran but The Fat Man threw a wrench into that for his own (and probably his big friend) needs.

    On practical level I don’t see a problem in realization of a war against Iran.
    Can present,easily, a couple of feasible scenarios .The problem, there, is selling that war to the masses. And, it will give The Fat Man a breathing space and time which can prove quite bad later on for US.
    At the other hand there are also a couple of feasible scenarios for NK. That would be much easier to sell to the masses but PTBs would, REALLY, prefer Iran. And, of course, there is that NUKE thing which could get out of control.

    I think they are, now, just in a phase of choosing which one.

    And, this mess they created in own house, all this politicking, doesn’t help much in organizing the war.
    That business (organizing the war and selling it) is a serious business and demands focus and time. All this politicking takes both away.

    At the same time, well, the mechanism of war is moving on regardless, under the surface.
    Re North Korea it’s been going by the book.
    Re Iran I suspect the same.

    So, I can’t say I actually agree with:

    Just one of the reasons the advocates of wars of choice ought to be regarded as profoundly antisocial and ignored as systematically as they lie.

    SOMEBODY should address that need for war by U.S. and expose it.
    Again, I think it’s systematic, not related to some people/groups/personalities.

    And

    It would be nice to have them held to account afterwards and punished appropriately for their “errors”, but of course no system could ever be devised that would not be corrupted by the establishment to protect its own.

    Maybe the system itself needs to be held responsible.

    I mean, it’s easy to see a pattern here:
    We need a war->people don’t like it->we construct a story and designate “fall guys”->we execute the war->we “punish” the “fall guys” (like resignation and such; resignation with full package that is for their services).

    That element, “system demand” is missing from all this “Internet chatter”.

    • Replies: @Randal
  65. @KenH

    I do not know. Maybe you know.
    What happened to all those highly paid armchair warriors that were handling Obama’s drones?
    Are they still on payroll?

  66. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    You know you give the board a bad name with your endless warmongering,this one is against the empire or that one so we need to bomb them back to the stone age,now you have been beating that old drum on Iran and its desire for nuclear weapons but offer NO proof that it exisit,now either crap or get off the pot and post that proof.Now here’s one AMERICAN and i’m sure there are many more that hopes that we attack both Iran and N.K. get the shit knocked out of us so that the world is some what a saner and peaceful place..

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  67. peterAUS says:
    @bluedog

    Ah, I feel for you (and your types).

    A dissenting voice and you can’t reasonably respond.
    What to do…what to do?

    Ban him; well, you can’t.
    Complain about him and mods will ban him; well, apparently THIS site doesn’t work that way.
    Gang on him with …ahm…debates….; as you’ve probably noticed that ain’t working.
    Heap pure abuse and he’ll quit; I am not quite sure that will work either but you can try.

    Free speech “brother”; if you don’t like my posts just skip over all of them.
    I do it all the time with plenty of posters around.

    As for that weak argument of yours, so nicely stated (BTW, you don’t even see the irony here)

    either crap or get off the pot and post that proof

    I don’t need to.
    I am not a member of US administration. Nobody posting on this board is either I am sure.

    For “your types” here it is: you guys just don’t get how stupid you are.
    I repeat……….stupid…….
    Here is an example for you idiots:
    Before Japanese attack on US Japanese Navy played a war game. In that game US won. Now, I am positive that you…idiots…..would’ve probably shot those guys who played US side.
    And plenty of examples in history of warfare.

    I am sure you and your types simply don’t even get what I am trying to say here.
    Fear not.
    I really don’t give a shit what you….idiots…think. It does amuse me seeing that idiocy.
    A couple…couple…of guys actually make me participating here. All the rest…as I said..I skip over their posts.

    Funny.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @bluedog
  68. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS

    Re skipping over most posts here.
    There are a COUPLE of guys here who actually know something about war and related things.
    All the rest are…..the rest. Ambient noise.

    Now, once upon a time when I was in command of something and had to make The Order this is how it worked (and works …):
    It’s me and a couple of guys; the rest of the unit just do NOT get access to the command post.
    A couple of us hammer The Order and then the unit is told what and how to do things.

    When I was one of those guys helping The Man the same: we do the work and the rest of the unit just does not get access to the place we work.

    Nothing special there; all organized entities work the same way. Corporate boards and management teams, for example.

    Now, here, or anywhere in the free and open Internet, anybody can barge into the conversation.
    Freedom of speech etc.
    It’s…like…a couple of us are thinking how to take THAT hill and a girl from a village walks into the Command Post and starts giving us opinions/ calling us names and such.
    Funny, a?

    And here we are talking about geopolitics and superpowers going to war.
    The irony……

    So….the ONLY way to have a decent conversion is to skip over most of posts. Those are ambient noise: occasional incoming shell, yell/scream around, sound of vehicles, troops moving around….the works. Tune them out and focus on those couple of guys in the bunker.

    Makes sense?

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  69. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    Hell I don’t even think you know what your saying or trying to say,you say we ought to attack Iran, reason they must have a nuclear program hid from all the agencies that are watching them,and of course we need to nuke Kim because he’s crazy,crazy like a fox,and quit blaming “a couple of guys” for your participation for without those couple of guys you would still be peddling your own special brand of bullshit…

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  70. Randal says:
    @Rurik

    imagine if there were a Harvey Weinstein-type of falling dominoes for America’s (and England’s and France’s and Israel’s, etc..) serial war criminals ..

    Preach it, brother!

    we could start with George Bush and Tony Blair, two of the most execrable cowards, liars and war criminals on the planet. Not only are both guilty of treason against their respective nations and people, but they’re both guilty of ‘waging aggressive war’ for which the Nazis hanged by the neck.

    Well I’m right there with you on trying and hanging Blair and Bush. I’m not opposed to the death penalty for principled reasons, only pragmatic (I don’t trust the government to get the right people) and that objection doesn’t really apply here. It would require making up retroactive laws to try them under, but that was no obstacle at Nuremberg, so let’s go with it.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  71. peterAUS says:
    @bluedog

    Two questions:
    -Have you ever managed, say, at least 200 persons, in crisis?
    Or
    -Have you had any PhD level position anywhere?
    I know the answer to both questions; anyone with brains does when looking at your posts.

    And you want to debate geopolitics and superpowers getting into wars?
    I know the answer to that question too; it’s obvious.

    And you, and your types, just don’t see how STUPID that sounds.

    I actually like reading your type replies to my post.
    Keeps things real.
    Explains why we are where we are.

    • Troll: L.K
  72. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    I agree with you that there seems to be a disagreement over the preferred target for the next war, and that “now or never” seems to militate toward NK whilst the interest groups with the President’s ear in a clamp desperately prefer Iran.

    I don’t agree with your hypothesis about how Trump was persuaded mostly because I don’t agree with you that war is necessary for the US in that sense (very useful indeed for certain particularly “influential” lobbies, certainly. And I doubt Trump could as easily be bamboozled when talking about business – something he understands and has experience of. It’s far more plausible imo that, much like Bush II, he just isn’t equipped to tell when he is being flannelled by neocons and military men, especially when so much of his innermost circle – family even, is backing them up.

    SOMEBODY should address that need for war by U.S. and expose it.

    Seems to me it’s often been addressed, and from various angles, from the Smedley Butler conspiracist end to “broken window fallacy” economists pretending war spending is beneficial to the economy by ignoring opportunity costs, via oil obsessives insisting a few billion barrels of oil per day is all you need to explain huge collective policy decisions and, yes, those who blame it all on the Israel lobby.

    Most of them are plausible up to a point but none of them ultimately persuasive in isolation, to me, at least. The last, though, is clearly the strongest single elemet when it comes to ME wars, but even there oil and militarist lobbying play their parts.

    Again, I think it’s systematic, not related to some people/groups/personalities.
    ….
    Maybe the system itself needs to be held responsible.

    I think it’s a lot easier to target the individuals visibly enabling the system, at least for a start.

    I mean, it’s easy to see a pattern here:
    We need a war->people don’t like it->we construct a story and designate “fall guys”->we execute the war->we “punish” the “fall guys” (like resignation and such; resignation with full package that is for their services).

    The kind of people we are talking about are not “fall guys”, any more than Julius Streicher was a “fall guy” for the Nazis, but rather are enthusiastic enablers. And some kind of punishment would be better than the current situation for most of them, which is no loss whatsoever.

    Most of the men who argued for the attack on Iraq are still represented in the media and on establishment sinecures as “experts” in military and international affairs, incredibly! And that after many of them reinforced the evidence of their own incompetence by arguing for the destruction of Libya and then for doing the same to Syria (by which time at last the general public seemed to have finally learned to ignore them to some extent).

  73. @peterAUS

    There is on this site intellectual nobility but you are not one of them.
    I am neither but than I never did claim that I am.

  74. peterAUS says:

    I agree with you that there seems to be a disagreement over the preferred target for the next war, and that “now or never” seems to militate toward NK whilst the interest groups with the President’s ear in a clamp desperately prefer Iran.

    Agree.

    I don’t agree with your hypothesis about how Trump was persuaded mostly because I don’t agree with you that war is necessary for the US in that sense (very useful indeed for certain particularly “influential” lobbies, certainly.

    I probably haven’t made myself clear.
    I am not saying it is necessary because I do not understand high end economics. I am saying “it appears to be necessary” because, regardless who is in the White House we see wars.
    I am old enough to be part of the Cold War. I was delighted when the Wall came down and thought “well, we’ve made it….no The Day After movie in real”. Bush Sn executed that limited war against Iraq and, then, a “peace guy” Clinton came into office. At that moment I, as IDIOT, thought “at last, a smart civilian, no more wars……”.
    Funny, a?
    Then, we got the rest, from Bush to Trump. Doesn’t matter, the drill is the same. So…why is that?

    And I doubt Trump could as easily be bamboozled when talking about business – something he understands and has experience of. It’s far more plausible imo that, much like Bush II, he just isn’t equipped to tell when he is being flannelled by neocons and military men, especially when so much of his innermost circle – family even, is backing them up.

    I don’t know……..

    SOMEBODY should address that need for war by U.S. and expose it.
    Seems to me it’s often been addressed, and from various angles, from the Smedley Butler conspiracist end to “broken window fallacy” economists pretending war spending is beneficial to the economy by ignoring opportunity costs, via oil obsessives insisting a few billion barrels of oil per day is all you need to explain huge collective policy decisions and, yes, those who blame it all on the Israel lobby.
    Most of them are plausible up to a point but none of them ultimately persuasive in isolation, to me, at least.

    Well, the same sentiment here.
    The difference is, apparently, we both don’t really understand it but you don’t buy it and I do. Makes sense?
    I’ve been on THAT topic for the last several months trawling the Web. Same thing. Some very smart people with some very smart presentations believe war is bad for the current US economy. And, some other smart people with some very smart presentations believe war is very good for the current US economy. And it’s not even that simple re their political persuasion; some “progs” believe it’s good, some “reactionaries” belive it’s bad.

    I think it’s a lot easier to target the individuals visibly enabling the system, at least for a start.

    Well, if I understand you correctly, you believe that for tactical/practical reasons it is easier to go against a person rather than against the system.
    I don’t know…………..not saying I disagree, just don’t know.
    Because you “take out” that person (resignation, for example), they replace him/her with somebody else. The replaced doesn’t get hurt much. True, should he/she get into, say, Hague, oh yes, that would work. Unlikely to say the least. Some internal US court thing, well, looking how all that works over there don’t see that happening.

    I just have that feeling that there is some iron logic behind all these wars. The logic which is at the very foundation of USA.
    Touching..unbalancing…that logic feels…………impossible?
    Or at least impossible until the attacked party is really somebody capable of fighting back.

    One can even go beyond that, like “it is what it is; humans just do that; no wonder that Armageddon stuff is so imbued in our psyche”.

    • Replies: @Randal
  75. KenH says:
    @Rurik

    but now several months later, we have seen the Zionist war on Syria wind down. Russia has been triumphant, and Assad remains in Damascus.

    Which is why we have now apparently set our sights on Iran. Don’t think Izzy is going to give up on their wet dreams of eretz Israel and the destruction of all regimes that might stand in the way of its nefarious goal. Things might be quiet now, but that’s only because the Likudniks and neocons are mulling their next moves.

    and there is a growing war between some members of congress, (like Trey Gowdy) vs. the FBI

    Try not to get too hopeful. It’s just a family quarrel and Congress and the bureaucracies are more loyal to each other than they are to the American people whom they rule over with an iron fist, er, I mean humbly serve.

  76. HD says:

    @8 anon: By 1988 Iran had already suffered eight years of war against US-supported Iraq, which included almost daily chemical weapons attacks. To compare the state of Iran’s armed forces to 1988 now is inane. Go google “Millennium Challenge 2002″ and see who was so overawed they stopped the ~$250 million war game and changed the rules. (Hint: the DoD, after the US side got its hiney whipped in the first five hours). And that was 15 years ago! But yeah, you probably shouldn’t “get all histrionic” since you will be one of those arm chair generals watching it on CNN, just like Iraq.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @peterAUS
  77. peterAUS says:
    @HD

    By 1988 Iran had already suffered eight years of war against US-supported Iraq, which included almost daily chemical weapons attacks.

    Things were a bit more….complicated…..then and there.

    From page 46 onward.
    Maybe interesting.

    https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/81ali.pdf

  78. anon • Disclaimer says:

    May 8, 2011 – It’s been a bad week for Iran hawks. Not only has Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak repeated his long-held assessment that a theoretical nuclear-armed Iran would not pose an imminent or existential threat to Israel, but former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, recent scourge of the ‘Bomb Iran’ crowd, has again made things even more difficult.
    Speaking at a senior faculty conference at Hebrew University in Jerusalem on Friday – his first public appearance since leaving the Israeli spy agency – Dagan called the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”
    Ha’aretz reported:
    Dagan said that Iran has a clandestine nuclear infrastructure which functions alongside its legitimate, civil infrastructure. It is the legitimate infrastructure, he said, that is under international supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Any strike on this legitimate infrastructure would be “patently illegal under international law,” according to Dagan.
    Dagan emphasized that attacking Iran would be different than Israel’s successful air strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran has scattered its nuclear facilities in different places around the country, he said, which would make it difficult for Israel to launch an effective attack.
    Dagan also claimed, according to Ha’aretz, that “there is proof that Iran has the capability to divert its nuclear activities from place to place in order to take them out of the watchful eye of international supervision and intelligence agencies.”
    When the consequences of an Israeli air strike were brought up, Dagan stated, “It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end.”
    Furthermore, in an interview with the Washington Post’s Lally Weymouth published this week, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil El Araby outlined numerous policy changes since the ouster of long-time U.S.-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak. In addition to fully supporting (and largely responsible for) the new reconciliation between Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas and working to end the illegal siege of Gaza, El Araby also noted the Egyptian initiative to normalize foreign relations with Iran – a move Iran has been open to for quite some time.
    When Weymouth attempted to provoke El Araby into saying something negative about potential Egyptian-Iranian relations by asking if “a big Hezbollah cell [was] aimed at Egypt a few years ago,” the Foreign Minister was unfazed. He replied:
    “They are not an enemy. If you want me to say it — Iran is not an enemy. We have no enemies. Anywhere.”
    Weymouth then suggested that if Egypt restored its diplomatic relationship with Iran, it would thereby jeopardize its “strategic” relationship with the United States. El Araby, again, didn’t take the bait nor did he accept the premise of Weymouth silly suggestion, answering:
    “This concept of opening up and turning a new page does not affect our relations with the United States or anyone. Your closest friends and allies — the U.K. and France and Germany — all have diplomatic relations with Iran. I don’t see the problem. All your allies have relations with Iran.”
    In response to the new Egyptian policies, the Los Angeles Times’ Jeffrey Fleishman writes, “This new agenda has angered Israel and is an indication that Egypt’s emerging diplomacy will test allies and enemies on sensitive matters that could upset the balance of power in the region.” Clearly, any shift in the balance of regional power would frustrate and worry both the United States and Israel, since it would inherently weaken their long-established hegemonic hold on the Middle East. As such, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Israel Radio that the recent Egyptian developments “do not bode well.”
    Poor little Israel, things just don’t seem to be going their way these days.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/the-neverending-story-updates-on-the-fantasies-falsehoods-and-fear-mongering-about-irans-nuclear-program/

  79. Rurik says:
    @Randal

    It would require making up retroactive laws to try them under, but that was no obstacle at Nuremberg, so let’s go with it.

    yes, at Nuremberg the Nazis were found guilty of breaking laws that didn’t exist at the time, it’s true. But now they do, and did..

    A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of “might makes right”, under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

    Jus cogens[edit]

    See jus cogens.

    A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens, Latin for “compelling law”) is a fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted. These norms rooted from Natural Law principles,[3] and any laws conflicting with it should be considered null and void.[4] Examples include various international crimes; a state which carries out or permits slavery, torture, genocide, war of aggression, or crimes against humanity is always violating customary international law.[5]

    what Bush and Blair did was illegal (and immoral and iniquitous and murderous and heinous and egregious) at the time they did it.

    nations are not allowed by international law to bomb other nations or do regime change or drone their weddings or torture their citizens on a whim, and certainly not based on outright and obvious lies.

    Bush and Blair are the world’s ‘most wanted criminals’, and must be brought to trial. If I had my druthers, that would be priority one.

    cheers

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Randal
  80. Well?
    Looks like Russians will have to return to Syria.
    It will never end.

  81. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    Well, the same sentiment here.
    The difference is, apparently, we both don’t really understand it but you don’t buy it and I do. Makes sense?
    I’ve been on THAT topic for the last several months trawling the Web. Same thing. Some very smart people with some very smart presentations believe war is bad for the current US economy. And, some other smart people with some very smart presentations believe war is very good for the current US economy. And it’s not even that simple re their political persuasion; some “progs” believe it’s good, some “reactionaries” belive it’s bad.
    …..
    I just have that feeling that there is some iron logic behind all these wars. The logic which is at the very foundation of USA.

    Yes, these issues are fantastically complex and if you are talking about general economic explanations for any top level phenomenon, the reality is that as you say for every person you find who seems to be qualified and intelligent enough who says one thing, you can generally find a similar person to say the opposite. It’s perfectly possible (likely indeed) that understanding real world systems on such a level is simply beyond the possible comprehension of intelligence within the human range, after all.

    We all, I think, tend to resort to particular principles that we do understand to try to clarify the issue for ourselves, as I, for instance, sit pat on the broken window fallacy in order to dismiss those who claim overall economic benefits from war per se (as opposed to benefits from looting enabled by successful war-making, obviously).

    But your view seems to be that there is probably some particular single systemic motivational explanation for US military aggression if only we can find it (other than “they do it because they can”, as you suggest, which is true but not very useful), whereas mine is rather that there will be no such single political explanation. Rather there is a shifting sea of lobbies and issues, which collectively promotes the exercise of military power and occasionally comes together to point in the direction of a particular war. The US is particularly prone to that process because its system is particularly prone to lobbying, and the strongest lobbies are the Israeli/jewish lobby, the oil lobby (more so in the past) and the “military industrial complex” lobbies.

    Well, if I understand you correctly, you believe that for tactical/practical reasons it is easier to go against a person rather than against the system.
    I don’t know…………..not saying I disagree, just don’t know.
    Because you “take out” that person (resignation, for example), they replace him/her with somebody else. The replaced doesn’t get hurt much. True, should he/she get into, say, Hague, oh yes, that would work. Unlikely to say the least. Some internal US court thing, well, looking how all that works over there don’t see that happening.

    Courts and laws I think are not practicable. They would just be corrupted in “interpretation” and application by the war-making establishment. The best we could perhaps hope for is a society in which people who advocate a particular war are generally held to account and properly ridiculed and discredited when that war doesn’t go as they predicted it would.

    Yet even that (one would think fairly common sense) approach to things appears to be beyond us, collectively.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  82. Randal says:
    @Rurik

    Bush and Blair are the world’s ‘most wanted criminals’, and must be brought to trial. If I had my druthers, that would be priority one.

    Here’s the problem, in practical terms.

    As far as Blair is concerned, he broke no domestic law against waging aggressive war by doing so, because there is no such law. The highest English court has ruled specifically that the laws used to convict Germans were never incorporated into English law. That’s rather impressively hypocritical on the part of the English elites, don’t you think? Anyway, it is the case that they “overlooked” incorporating laws against waging aggressive wars into domestic law for more than half a century even while pontificating themselves about it being the “ultimate crime”, etc etc.

    As far as prosecuting him for breaking international laws the problem is that no tribunal for doing so exists. One would have to be created for the purpose, as the Nuremberg tribunal was create to impose victor’s justice on the defeated Germans. But the US and UK have not been defeated in the sense Germany had been, and there is not a chance in hell that the powers that be will create a tribunal to try their own tools.

    That’s the situation as far as Blair is concerned: he is self-evidently guilty of the crime described even by himself and his ilk as “the highest crime”, but he is un-convictable because there is no tribunal in which he can be tried and no way to set one up because those whose purposes he served are too powerful and too hypocritical to do so or to allow it to be done. I don’t like it, but I see no benefit in pretending reality is other than it is.

    I’m a little less familiar with US law, but I imagine broadly similar considerations (certainly in relation to international law) apply to Bush II.

    • Replies: @KA
  83. geokat62 says:

    That’s the situation as far as Blair is concerned: he is self-evidently guilty of the crime described even by himself and his ilk as “the highest crime”, but he is un-convictable because there is no tribunal in which he can be tried…

    Why not do to Blair (and Bush) what was done to Milosevic?

    [T]he International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), is a body of the United Nations established to prosecute serious crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars, and to try their perpetrators. The tribunal is an ad hoc court located in The Hague, Netherlands…

    The Court was established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council, which was passed on 25 May 1993. It had jurisdiction over four clusters of crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The maximum sentence it could impose was life imprisonment. Various countries signed agreements with the UN to carry out custodial sentences.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

    • Replies: @Randal
  84. Randal says:
    @geokat62

    As I said, trying Blair would require setting up a tribunal to do it (or backdating the ICC’s jurisdiction and allowing it to go ahead with it, which amounts to the same thing), as was done to impose victor’s justice in Yugoslavia with the ICTY.

    I wouldn’t have any objection to it being done, in fact if it were an option I’d be a willing contributor of support and funds to the project, just to show willing, but I have no illusions that it’s going to happen. Do you?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  85. geokat62 says:
    @Randal

    Do you?

    None, at all. I would, however, like to see the other members of the UNSC propose the establishment of such a tribunal and let the US/UK veto it. This would reinforce their hypocrisy of condemning the Germans for something they themselves would do 50 some odd years later.

  86. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    It’s perfectly possible (likely indeed) that understanding real world systems on such a level is simply beyond the possible comprehension of intelligence within the human range, after all.

    Same sentiment recently.

    But your view seems to be that there is probably some particular single systemic motivational explanation for US military aggression if only we can find it (other than “they do it because they can”, as you suggest, which is true but not very useful), whereas mine is rather that there will be no such single political explanation. Rather there is a shifting sea of lobbies and issues, which collectively promotes the exercise of military power and occasionally comes together to point in the direction of a particular war. The US is particularly prone to that process because its system is particularly prone to lobbying, and the strongest lobbies are the Israeli/jewish lobby, the oil lobby (more so in the past) and the “military industrial complex” lobbies.

    Yes.
    Or, to reiterate/clarify:
    My position:
    In order for the current US economic/social/political system, way of life in fact, to survive it demands/requires a war.
    Or, in order not to have those constant wars a deep restructuring of all that is required.
    It is systemic.

    Yours, as I get it:
    Wars have been waged for the benefits of certain lobbies.
    It is not systemic.

    Well, researching this is something that will keep me busy in months to come:).

  87. KA says:
    @Randal

    How does ICC decide ? How did it decide to go after Taylor, Bashir,m Milosovec ?

  88. @whyamihere

    “Iran’s nuclear facilities are next on the list. They must be stopped before they develop nuclear weapons.”

    Their nuclear facilities are monitored round the clock by full electronic surveillance by the IAEA and European inspection teams. There is no nuclear weapons program. But you have a magic telepathic helmet that allows you to see past these devices to the “real” Iranian nuclear program which only you have been able to find. Really? What does your magic helmet tell you about the horses running in the 5th race at Belmont?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.