Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Defending Iran is where credibility goes to die

    Defending Iran is where credibility goes to die

    When someone finds himself so in need of criticizing the U.S. that he ends up defending the brutal Iranian regime which for over 30 years has funded anti-U.S. and anti-Israel groups around the globe and sought to export Islamist fundamentalism, then all credibility has been lost.

    See, Glenn Greenwald, George Orwell on the Evil Iranian Menace, in which he portrays Iran as a victim of U.S. and Israeli encirclement and attack without any mention of the history of Iran arming of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria, various Shiite militias in Iraq, and Shiite agitators in the Gulf states.  It’s as if the world started when an Iranian scientist was assassinated recently (presumably by Israel, but that’s not proven).

    At least he didn’t blame the Israel Firsters.  But they always are lurking in the background, aren’t they?


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Milhouse | December 5, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    And just for the record, no, the CIA didn’t overthrow a legitimate government and install the Shah in its place. The CIA didn’t even put down the coup that had unconstitutionally overthrown the Shah, though that would have been a perfectly fine thing for it to do; it merely helped the pro-Shah people with their propaganda, so that a public which had initially supported the coup leaders turned against them and demanded the Shah’s return.

    Milhouse | December 5, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    “Propaganda”, of course, being merely another word for advertising, public relations, persuading people. In this case, making them see that the economic misery into which their country had been plunged was all the fault of the coup leaders, which was true.

    LukeHandCool | December 5, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Greenwald’s spelling is just fine. It’s obvious his dyslexia now manifests in his logic.

    It is ironic that Greenwald uses Orwell and his Notes On Nationalism as the centerpiece of his essay. Americans, along with Israelis and the rest of the free world, have abundant justification to be concerned with Iran much like the free world had justification to be concerned with Hitler by 1937. The justifications have nothing to do with the manifestations of xenophobic nationalism described by Orwell. Ironically, Greenwald’s utter refusal to acknowledge reality, the mind numbing moral relativism, and the blame he places on his own country seems to fit perfectly into the category of “negative nationalism” Orwell described in his essay. Indeed, it is a disease that seems endemic to our modern left.

    Iran is no victim, however, Greenwald is not necessarily wrong to imply that Israel and the US have it out for Iran. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with the CIA and Mossad stirring the pot over there and sabotaging their military ability. Iran as the number one world sponsor of terrorism needs to go and is long overdue. As a foreign policy matter, regime change via destabilizing Iran is a ligitimate means to an end. Unlike the Libyan misadventure, the US has a direct interest in toppling the Iranian regime. Obama would have complete support of the GOP in doing this.

    What we should be concerned about regarding Obama and any instigation of war with Iran is the wag the dog gambit. Obama is in big trouble domestically and it wouldn’t hurt Obama politically to be in a shooting contest with Iran, in fact it would be to his benefit. Obama’s reasons will be for his own political benefit NOT the US or for world peace (any benefit would be merely coincidental and accidental).

    Let’s imagine the results of a military conflict with Iran: 1. Price of oil jumps to $200/barrel. Benefits? Obama blames profiteering and the war for tanking the economy, thus he is no longer to blame for his policy screw ups. Additionally, all his cronies then will start making money in the so called Green Sector thus salvaging green agenda. Obama then claims credit for back stopping the nation’s energy security via his Green policies as they are now economically competitive in a world with $200/barrel oil. 2. Obama gets to crow that he is NOT a foreign policy whimp, that he is successful in dealing with those who are actively working against US interests. 3. Obama takes credit for striking a fatal blow to world terrorism since without Iran funding terrorist organizations in general, Hamas and Hezbollah specifically, propping up Syria, and shipping IEDs to Iraq and Afghanistan thus the Middle East settles down for a while.

    With those benefits Obama’s re-election would be assured. But only if the shooting war is occuring while the election in the US is underway, say October to December 2012 time period. Remember what happened to HW Bush, he won the war (Gulf War I) but lost the election months later due to the economy tanking from high energy prices before the elections occured. HW Bush was judged on the economy, NOT his liberation of Kuwait. So look for lots more incidents in Iran, this being December 2011, we have about 10 months until open hostilities begin from the US military, unless Iran is goaded into a confrontation at the appropriate time or they simply lash out militarily and Obama claims Iran started the war. In other words, Greenwald is correct for the wrong reasons.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend