Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
This article was interesting and I agree with some of it, although I must take point with parts of it. It was informative until the obvious personal biases started to shine through. To say that Israel would be unprovoked if it attacked Iran is either misinformed (probably not) or stemming from an anti-Israel bias. The author needs to study the history of the Middle East and it’s current affairs. Instead of demonizing certain peoples or countries, try looking at the facts of the world around you and the reasons why countries take the stands that they do.
Your antiwar campaign would be more effective if you had a better grasp of reality. Your article started off informatively but quickly turned to propaganda. Any intelligent and reasonable person can clearly see this.
Jorge Hirsch replies:
An Israeli attack on Iran would be unprovoked and unjustified. Iran has not nor will attack Israel; in fact, Iran has never started a war. It has also never threatened to attack Israel. Verbal “provocations” by Iran (i.e., voicing support for Palestinians) can justify verbal responses by Israel but not real attacks, nor even threats of attacks by Israeli officials and politicians that lead to escalation of an already tense situation.
Why wouldn’t the malevolent, ruthless, and psychopathic Cheney mastermind the 9/11 attack on the American soil with crews recruited by his terrorist buddy, the famous Osama? Didn’t he need the fear factor in order to scare the American people to accept any rubbish in the name of war on terror? War on terror or American blood for oil? Hasn’t the time come yet for the truth about 9/11 to come up? Do we have to wait until the murderer is dead and out of justice’s reach? It is your responsibility to go beyond the lies.
Christopher Deliso replies:
Thanks for the comments. As free-thinking individuals, I suppose we have to consider every hypothetical situation, though I have no idea about what “really happened” on that fateful day. I don’t know if it is my “responsibility” or not to find out, though.
As I’m sure you have realized, the droning noise of 9/11 theories and counter-theories and other suppositions have succeeded only in canceling each other out. So only the government-approved line can prevail – this is perhaps the great success of a policy of free speech. At least in totalitarian dictatorships, you could tell that whatever the government said, the truth was dependably the opposite. Now we just have no idea about what is true or not.
Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented?
Unfortunately, your logic for a nuclear strike on Iran is very solid. An extremely compelling argument indeed. What’s even worse and more frightening, if that’s possible, is your argument for an almost certain aerial nuclear-conventional attack is further backed up by the following: The Iranian Oil Bourse is scheduled to open March 2006. This exchange will trade oil for euros, not dollars. This will allow the euro to gain a firm foothold in international oil trading and greatly weaken the current dollar supremacy in that market. Given the dollar’s already weak position relative to other currencies, this will seriously threaten the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency. This would be catastrophic for the U.S. The real or main reason we invaded Iraq was not just the oil reserves, but Saddam in September 2000 switched from dollars to euros for oil payment. The U.S. invaded in June 2003. Iraq switched back to selling oil in dollars. So clearly The United States cannot allow Iran to open their oil bourse. See this.
I think we’re doomed unless Fitzgerald comes out with a huge smoking gun real quick. I guess the only thing we can do is wait for Bush and Cheney to initiate some kind of false-flag event or verbiage that would directly imply an immediate threat to our troops in Iraq by Iran.
Jorge Hirsch replies:
What you point out could be a contributory factor, although I don’t believe it is a principal reason nor that it was in the case of Iraq. In the short term, at least, I would expect the Iran bombing to have a negative economic effect on the U.S.
Yes, I also hope for some miracle from Fitzgerald or anybody. Meanwhile, Israel is stepping up its dangerous rhetoric.
Hey Justin,
I’m sure I don’t fit neatly into libertarian/liberal/conservative categories, so, like a lot of my friends, I read both Antiwar.com and the Huffington Post. Both sites oughta continue to focus on the true enemy – the war party – at least until this current disaster is over. Save your ammo for the enemy and make it easy for me to direct less-ideologically oriented folks to your site to check out the great work you folks have been doing.
“[T]hose aren’t Egyptian Jeffersonians who are being elevated to power and prominence by that nation’s recent elections, but members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that combines Islamist fanaticism with a hatred of all things Western.”
As I know the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, I think that Justin should reconsider these remarks.
The Brotherhood actually are as close to modernist liberals as anyone in the spectrum of Egyptian politics will come. They resemble a European party of Christian Democrats. Yes, they emphasize the religion of Islam, but then that just reflects the practice of the people in that country. While they hardly approve of Israel, they do not intend to resume war with it nor to end the peace treaty with it. If they actually come to power, they will be faced with the same problems that any government is and will have to make compromises. Of course, they will reflect the actual popular attitude toward the U.S. that previous imperialism has caused and the Bush administration has exacerbated. But that does not mean that they are wholly anti-Western or anti-American, and they are certainly not anti-modern. While trying to maintain economic autonomy, they will certainly not try to stop the import of goods that Egypt needs. In attempting to implement more ethical policies on the beast that is the government, they are sure to find a lot of disappointments, but this does not make them unfit for the task. And if they do not deliver, they will lose their popularity like any politicians.
Secondly, it is not wise of Justin to play the “Islamic threat” card any more than it is for the U.S. government, because this leads to the reinforcement of inaccurate and prejudicial generalizations and stereotypes. There are people who are more radical because they are more hurt, especially people whose countries have been trashed by immoral aggressive wars, but the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is not in this category, as Egypt has been spared wars in most of its recent history, especially since 1973. Islam in Egypt is very complicated, and one should avoid facile generalizations like the one above. Muslim Brotherhood supporters are not even necessarily statist, although some of them might be. Their support stems from a yearning for greater justice and a desire to protect the autonomy of the Muslims in their families. They should be considered people whom libertarians can profitably address, especially since socialism has now come to be viewed somewhat unfavorably in Egypt after the ‘Abd al-Nasir regime experience of 1952-1970.
Other than this, I want Justin to know that I remain a supporter of nearly all of what else he says, both in this article and in his other articles. I especially enjoy his exposure of fake libertarians who are really statist imperialists. I believe Justin has been consistently true to his principles, so I wish he would take another look at the Muslims. He ought to know that while Islam as a religion is not quite libertarian in its economic system, perhaps, there are many parallels, even though today there are also modernist interpretations that try to make room for a more-developed state. This will elicit opposition, however, just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, because the state will always alienate the people, and the modern state, with all the intrusive means at its disposal, will alienate them even more.
I am an American professor, but I lived in Egypt for 11 years and travel there frequently.
~ Khalid Yahya Blankinship, director of graduate studies and associate professor, Department of Religion, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
Etc.
I have a question if you don’t mind: I’m going to the Marines in one month (boot camp that is), and I really don’t understand how people can be antiwar, when war settles disputes. After all, haven’t you heard the saying that “the strongest survive”? Without war, our country would not be in the position it is in today, a high world power. I hear all the talk about just talking through your problems and such, but talking doesn’t settle it, like a good ol’ fight. I want to fight in war and have the pride that goes along with it.
Michael Ewens replies:
We are not pacifists. Self-defense is a human basic right. However, using it correctly is very important when the government goes to war. I believe that war on Iraq was not defensive and did nothing to protect me. Moreover, it spread our defensive resources and made the U.S. government larger and more corrupt (I was raised a conservative and dislike most things government).
War is itself rarely defensive (WWII being an exception). Instead, it brings death of innocents and change of political power. As a libertarian, I am opposed to the initiation of force: one can only use force in self-defense. This standard is more stringent for government because of its huge tendency for inefficiency and mistakes. Moreover, it tends to bring about way more “defense” than is probably necessary.
I hope that this clears things up a bit. I can write more if you would like.
