To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Striking Iran

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Striking Iran

By Noam Chomsky at Dec 01, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
My guess is that the US will not attack Iran, either directly or via Israeli mercenary pilots flying US aircraft (which would be called an Israeli attack). We do know that in the past year the US has provided over 100 advanced jet bombers to Israel, which already had a larger and more advanced air force than any NATO power (apart from the US itself), very openly advertised as capable of attacking Iran, and equipped with "special weapons" (whatever that means; it's not explained).  The goal may be to provoke Iran into some action that can provide a pretext for attack, or -- more likely in my opinion -- as an effort to provoke the leadership into harsher internal repression, which will incite resistance, and help break up the country from within, a long-term project.  But we don't know -- and I doubt that US planners know. I also don't think that the US/Israeli military-intelligence can make an informed guess about what the response would be, from Iran or the world generally.  The historical record of such predictions is awful. And there's little point speculating about it.  Rather, as usual, trying to do something about it.  We're not passive observers, or at least need not be.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (14)

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By K, Mr at Jan 03, 2005 21:23 PM
the response from a coalition attack upon iran would be jihad times two. o wait jihad times three now since the afgans, iranians and iraqi/bin laden coalition of the willing is fighting the coalition of the bush 2 jesus freedom army. ok now the sides have been picked what's the deal? Iran uses one of those new russian cruise missiles and wipes out an american carrier. iran would be in it for the long haul and how many bunker busters do the yankees have to fight with. jeesh lets count the underground faucilities. north korea, iran, and god knows where else if china flexes it's right for reunification against taiwan. so yeah any jew attack on the jihad sleeping giant would be a foolish enterprise with very little incentive for profit. the chinese and iran axis of natural gas is quite a threat. america should hire that iranian foriegn minister. he's done a good job of screwing up the neo-cons master plan of isolating iran just like poor saddam. saddam should have opened the doors to united everyone even let in disney for some new arab disney world. too late for him or is it? did they really get him or is he drinking tea with osama on the black sea coast villa somewhere?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Shahinh1984, Shahin at Dec 07, 2004 02:27 AM
A few thoughts on Iran, Blair, US public opinion: 1. Bush administration couldn't care less if Blair lost the upcoming elections. It has nothing to lose. In fact it is a win-win situation since the alternative is even closer to them ideologically. 2. US public opinion has always been in favor of quick, successful military attacks against "foreign enemies", (after it is done). Even anti-war movement typically gains momentum before a war but dies down after it starts. It doesn't pick up momentum unless war is prolonged and deemed harmful to US interests. A quick targeted bombing of Iran will not raise media concerns either, unless it fails. Failure in this case defined as "more than a few downed US warplanes and casualties", e.g., Carter's mission to rescue hostages held in Iran.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Hesed00, Hesed at Dec 04, 2004 11:19 AM
Paymun, right now I have a lot of hope for Iran. With what's happening culturally, there is reason to believe that with help (not invasion) that they could effect the needed changes on their own.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Paymane, Paymun at Dec 04, 2004 09:15 AM
I grew up in Iran. When I compare Iran to US interms of democratic values, I see very similar attitudes. Of course, no freedom of speech and no freedom of religion. But the system tried very hard to "manufacture" a generation that conforms to the system's standards. The remarkable fact about Iran is that they have not succeeded to any extent! The sad thing is that US did succeed in portraying itself as a "heaven". Aside from that, Iran is "unmolested". minds are pure and people are informed to amazing extents. the brutality has effectively driven people to absolute despair. it is a tragedy! I am glad that the chance of attack has reduced. With no foreigne intervention Iranians have a chance to move faster toward democracy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Mnutter2001, Hoping4anarchy at Dec 04, 2004 07:39 AM
To paraphrase Chomsky, clearly, the American news media is bought and paid for by corporate interests. They serve primarily only as a conduit for right-wing corporate propaganda. It is completely unrealistic to expect or force them to cover legitimate news stories about Iraq or resistance to the war in the U.S. Rare exceptions occasionally surface like Abu-Ghraib or Bush's AWOL National Guard service. But the results are inconsequential: low-ranking soldiers receive prison sentences, and Dan Rather is forced to retire simply for having a crisis of conscience and doing his job one morning. According to Howard Zinn, mainstream American journalism, broadcast in particular, is designed to convince people that the “news” it presents is what most people believe. Therefore, if you dare hold a dissenting opinion, your beliefs are instantaneously defined as being unpatriotic and in the minority of Americans who are simply malcontents. Of course this is bullshit, but it's what Americans are supposed to believe and is the message we receive every evening on the national news.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 04, 2004 01:07 AM
Re: possibility of getting a response on this blog -- this part of the site is basically a free preview. The postings are verbatim from the message board section, where you can ask questions and will get answers. Someone asked about Iran a couple weeks ago. It costs like $5 a month to get access to that. I still tend to check this blog though because I enjoy the discussions with peers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Shahinh1984, Shahin at Dec 03, 2004 23:21 PM
A more likely scenario is a targeted bombing of Iranian nuclear and military facilities such as rocket factories and launch installations. Such an action could be rather painless for US. It can happen overnight, without the need to garner international support, quicker than any anti-war movement can gather momentum or UN security council can set up a meeting to discuss the matter. It may upset international community a bit, but nothing more than a few polite comments by foreign secretaries and some protests in a few cities will come out of it. Iran's Chinese and European partners can swallow such an attack, so can US economy. But what will it accomplish? At the least, it will put Iranians in their place, make Israelis feel more “secure”, boost the eroded confidence in US military power and reinforce US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East for years to come. Such an operation is also more acceptable to US establishment. Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein are not going to object. Iranian reaction could range from calls of “death to America” in the streets to launching a few rockets toward Israel at most, nothing more.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Shahinh1984, Shahin at Dec 03, 2004 23:14 PM
I think the question of attacking Iran should be qualified with its scale and dimension. I agree that the probability of an all out attack on Iran, with the purpose of occupying it Iraq style, is low. On the other hand, a “surgical” operation, similar to bombing of Iraq's nuclear facility by Israel back in 80's or bombing of Libya by the US in 85 is quite a possibility. The willingness to go to Iraq was a follow-up to 3 previous experiments: relatively easy occupation of Afghanistan and overthrow of Taliban, painless bombardment campaign against Serbia and removing Milosovic, and the first Iraq war which had demonstrated Saddam's Army quite ineffective. But a rag tag army of insurgents, whatever their goals or tactics, has proven that US military CAN be hit hard, if not defeated. Also, I cannot see the neo-cons to be able to convince the US ruling class to accept and join a similar adventure in Iran. The price paid, militarily in the field and economically at home, will be too high. But a quick targeted bombing of Iranian nuclear and military facilities is a different story.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Hihopes, Hihopes at Dec 03, 2004 20:13 PM
Ninjafish, How do you know I'm not Dennis? How does anyone know I'm not you? It wouldn't be the first time someone posted to a discussion forum using two or more different names. Ha, I've even seen alter egos arguing hatefully with each other in the same discussion. This sort of stuff happens quite often. And, that's all I said. "Often, they aren't really what they seem." Does it happen here? I don't have a clue. Although, if what Dennis say is accurate, the person who posted here under the name Noam Chomsky is not named Noam Chomsky. Just for the record: I said nothing about dishonesty, nor do I I said nothing about anything needing to be ratified by Chomsky, nor do I I said nothing about the merit of the post or the worth of Chomsky's contributions, nor do I. So, what are we arguing about? If we are arguing. Or am I you?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Hihopes, Hihopes at Dec 03, 2004 15:46 PM
Dennis, since Noam neither posts nor reads this "blog" isn't it unintentionally misleading to put his name on it? Of course it is. Hoping4anarchy wasn't being unreasonable in his or her assumption. He was misled. Not intentionally, but mislead all the same. Let's see, if it's kosher to label a post as coming from Chomsky when it has not and is merely a snatch of writing from another source at another time then I suppose it's kosher to pretend that any author with a lot of material is posting here. We could have the late Mark Twain post here. That's a big name and drawing card. Using this blogging method Twain being dead for many years is no handicap to his present participation. Bill Clinton has a lot of material in his book, "My Life." Ask him if you can grab snatches of that. That should bring the rubes in. Maybe this exemplifies a basic truth of online discussions. Often, they aren't really what they seem. Probably, at best, they are just an enjoyable time-waster and just so much tommyrot.

Reply this comment

Person

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 02, 2004 19:41 PM
Re, what might it mean to say that we're not passive observers (or at least need not be), hoping4 wrote, "...if you're suggesting protesting, do you really think it's that effective?" Protesting seems to be what you suggested in your interpretation -- if you find that it's the first thing that comes to mind, but perhaps "not very effective" then let's brainstorm some other ideas. Thoughts?

Reply this comment

586351

Re: Striking Iran

By Ott, Dennis at Dec 02, 2004 02:12 AM
@hoping4anarchy: Noam won't answer you, since he doesn't read the comments here (he doesn't do the posting either). Noam frequently emphasizes our responsibility as citizens of a democratic state, for we have at least some influence on the actions of our governmen (in contrast to those living under the bludgeon of dictatorship or the like). Protesting does make sense, it's not ineffective. It won't change the world in a day, but it will direct people's attention to what is going on and thus serve as a base for slow but steady change. The protest against the Iraq war, for example, didn't stop Bush & Co., but it tells those rich war criminals that there's a fair amount of people who won't simply tolerate their crimes. Democracy is what those guys fear, and public protest is democracy speaking out against its enemies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Mnutter2001, Hoping4anarchy at Dec 01, 2004 23:13 PM
First of all, I'd like to say I'm a great admirer ever since I heard you speak at Michigan State when I was a student in the 80s. That being said, I'm a bit perplexed when you say things like "we're not passive observers, or at least need not be." Perhaps I'm too alienated, but if you're suggesting protesting, do you really think it's that effective? As you know, protests are never covered in the "news" and if they are, the message is distorted and the protestors are portrayed as kooks on the fringe of society.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Striking Iran

By Hesed00, Hesed at Dec 01, 2004 21:20 PM
Now that Britain, Germany and France have put their hand in, I don't think that there will be immediate open agression towards Iran either. However, the appointment of John Negroponte to the new US Embassy in Iraq is a pretty clear indicatator of what our intentions towards the region are. He's a man who has a lot of experience in handling the diplomatic ends of dirty little wars. Why else would he be there if not for the fun and games to come?

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (14)

Loading_border