Today on DN (democracy now) Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh discussed the implications of a War with Iran and in particular the role of israel. So I surfed over to my trusty (but mostly mainstream) google news and typed in “U.S. War Iran” and it came up with 209 articles from the 19th to today. You can listen to the show on DN or just read some of the news articles. As I was reading about these issues I was listening to a podcast from This American Life which you can hear for yourself entitled “Shouting Across the Divide”. The last story is about an Ad agency trying to make an Ad campaign to convince muslims that they should feel more favorably toward the U.S. or something like that. Towards the end of that story the company brings in “an arab” to help the jewish guy who is on the campaign. The Lebanese arab guy tells the the other one that the biggest problem for all the arab’s is that there will be no peace until 3 cities are under muslim rule. mecca in saudi arabia, madina in saudi arabia, and jerusalem are the three cities he stated. I looked around for the whole legend but could not find it easily. Anyway, the key is the jerusalem thing because that is an excuse for all arabs to blame israelis for all of the problems in the middle east. Form that point all we have to do is read a little recent history about the west’s (U.S. and Britain et. al.) in the middle east (and let’s just forget the crusades and such) such as this:

In May 1941, in the midst of a World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered his reluctant Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Sir Archibald Wavell, to march on Baghdad to effect a “regime change.” The British Prime Minister’s arguments reflected many of those same concerns expressed today by members of the George W. Bush administration: British intervention would “pre-empt” Axis support for Rachid Ali, a violently anti-British Arab nationalist whose government threatened Britain’s strategic position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It would strike a blow at a terrorist challenge orchestrated by a charismatic Islamic cleric. British intervention also would protect oil reserves vital to the British war effort. Furthermore, Churchill was willing to wave aside offers of third-party mediation in favor of a “unilateralist” approach.

you can read the rest of this here. So the west repeatedly invades the mideast and supports the militarism of israel and therefore the occupation of jerusalem by non-arabs. What do I think about this?

There are too many people in the world.

There are not enough resources for everyone.

People, by virtue of the LAW of self-preservation, are inherently violent.

Violence begets more violence.

This is a very simplistic and narrow view for sure but I want to share one more thing with you I heard on DN the other day. This is Robert Fisk, chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and veteran war correspondent. He is the author of several books, his latest is “The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.”

I’m going to read you a very brief paragraph by Winston Churchill, not about the Battle of Britain. It is Churchill prophesying the future from 1937, eleven years before the Nakba. This is Winston Churchill writing in a totally forgotten essay. He reflected upon the future and wrote of the impossibility of a partitioned Palestine. And he talked of how, I quote — this is Winston Churchill in 1937 — “The wealthy, crowded, progressive Jewish state” — see, it doesn’t exist yet, but he’s already getting it right — “lies in the plains and on the sea coast of Palestine. Around it, in the hills and the uplands, stretching far and wide into the illimitable deserts, the warlike Arabs of Syria of Transjordania, of Arabia, backed by the armed forces of Iraq, offer the ceaseless menace of war. To maintain itself,” — 1937, remember, — “To maintain itself, the Jewish state will have to be armed to the teeth and must bring in every able-bodied man to strengthen its army. But how long will this process be allowed to continue by the great Arab populations in Iraq and Palestine? Can it be expected that the Arabs would stand by impassively and watch the building up, with Jewish world capital and resources, of a Jewish army, equipped with the most deadly weapons of war until it was strong enough not to be afraid of them? And if ever the Jewish army reached that point, who can be sure,” Churchill asked, “that, cramped within their narrow limits, they would not plunge out into the new undeveloped lands that lay around them?”

“Ouch,” I said when I read that. 1937

So will the U.S. go to war with iran? Scott Ritter outlined 3 things that wouls need to happen to make that possible.

 

  1. There has to be a serious diplomatic offensive to secure the military basing required to support the aerial forces necessary for sustained bombardment and the logistic apparatus that goes along with that — the fuel, the bombs, the support personnel, the maintenance. We haven’t done that. We’re doing it.
  2. There has to be political preparation here at home. The Bush administration is not a dictatorship yet. They still have to go to Congress, and they still have to get a degree of congressional approval for military operations against Iran. Not that much, though. I mean, everybody is aware that after 9/11, Congress pretty much gave the Bush administration a blank check to wage war anyway they saw fit, so long as it dealt with the global war on terror.
  3. The most important thing is the American military, getting the American military positioned. The easy thing is getting the air forces positioned, the naval force and air forces that will do the bombardment. The hard thing is getting the American military leadership to go along with that, and that might be the one little glimmer of hope that’s out there.

 

 

 

Advertisements