The war in Iraq is an Oil war, not a religious one. There is no wrong with Iraqis protecting their own land, rescources, families and culture. I opposes any invasion of Iranian land, I oppose war imposed on Iranian people on any pretext. Iranians should be free to sell their Oil to who ever they like. Fighting for God, I don't think so; I don't think he cares ; if he did there would not be conflict. It is a mistake to fight for religion while your land is being plundered. I am like Christie, I side with the poor against capitalism and opression.

"Celebrating Human Lives," an ElectricPolitics interview with Fatemeh Keshavarz, author of Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran (University of North Carolina Press, 2007)

"Native informers and the making of the American empire," Hamid Dabashi, Al-Ahram Weekly, June 1-7, 2006

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

…and walking it with elevator shoes. Frederic—thank you for your lengthy response—a proper reply would probably have to be much longer than the one I offer here. You say, “Frankly, I'm appalled to be having this conversation. Imagine if during the Holocaust we were psychologically pondering why Hitler hated the Jews! Who cares?” I was asking why you “hate” a certain class of people (the “elites”); every soul is precious, imo—I care: it's a root issue. You ask, “what's your view? How do you believe people advocate things that are horrendously wrong?” Are you so sure you're fantastically right? If so, “how?” Certitude and confidence may come from lack of contemplation—lack of considerable Hamlet-like moments of indecision. And usually, not reflecting means acting on impulse or “tried and true” tradition. We need doctors with tried-and-true habits to rely on in an emergency… but one would definitely be wise to consider a second opinion before a major experimental surgery. So there must be some balance struck between relying on a possibly erroneous (and evil) tradition, and finding a new and better path (possibly by comparing various traditions, and reflecting on how one Feels about their various conflictions). Hitler may have been a psychopathic exception, but I doubt every Nazi was a biological sociopath jumping out of social-norms just for the sake of murder. Am I correct that you equate the current capitalist-socialist (im)balance of the world as on par with the holocaust? Perhaps just as many are dying because of it… and there may be alternatives. But those alternatives are speculative: we simply do not know if something like Parecon would kill more, despite its good intentions. And that's just it: good intentions. Possibly the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but many promoters of an “improved status quo,” like Jeffrey Sachs must believe that they are doing what's best for a world with no easy answers. I think Dick Cheney has good intentions—he's probably a “consequentialist” who believes that heavy risk and sacrifice of lives must be made now, and quickly- before it's too late, for the greater good of the future: lives can be in the balance, and more in the future could be saved by losing some now. Would you throw one baby into a fire today, to save 100 other lives ten years from now? That's a tough decision, which I'd hate to have to make (especially if the time for the decision making was short). But I'd definitely look for any alternative—and in this way, declaring war seems like the least creative of alternatives—it's the evil of lazy thinking along the lines of tradition. Dick Cheney may care less about Iraqi lives than US lives—and that's evil: but I think that's parallel to any “us vs. them” attitude—which can be as subtle as your “anti-elites” attitude (different than “anti-elitism”) or loving your family more than strangers. We're all in this lifeboat together, imo—and declaring war—even class warfare with its cousin “political bigotry” usually arises out of a failure to take the “other” as seriously good, within the broadest framework of human or universal value. Whether or not a certain ideology is Mistakenly evil is another issue. But I can be even more evil than this: the capitalist “elite” may not simply have good intentions and mistaken beliefs—they may be right! Take the concept of “fairness” or “equality.” I say, who cares? Those concepts are about materialistic envy—avarice concerning your share of the pie. If you and your loved ones (everyone?) are healthy, and not anyone's slave, who cares? That's where the quibble—or possibly revolutionary war—comes in: how subtle a form of “slavery” are we talking about? I think much turns on the definition of “exploitation.” Parecon suggests: no bosses, no owners, fair work & wages. It aims, I believe, to make human slavery (not environmental slavery) even more subtle: displacing authority over our lives to worker's councils. I repeat: others will still have authority over your life in Parecon. Michael Albert has discussed that illicit drug use may be prohibited in a Parecon society: Lighting up a joint may remain illegal. Some types of authority may be inevitable; and I do think equality is a noble goal— buy the efficiency potential of a political-economic system for keeping the planet alive is important too; how to keep us humans, animals, and plants alive while reducing any sort of subjugation to anyone or any sort of belief system. Many people have a reasoned belief that a democratically steered capitalist-socialist balance is the most efficient way to strike a balance between “growing the most food (and medicine)” and “making sure everyone's fed, healthy, & free.” I'm not so sure that it isn't. Does that make me evil? Although I have a deep conviction that things must be changed for the better; I would hesitate to start swinging a sword to decapitate the “highest held heads,” or pull out the carpet that would leave us all on the ground. I'd try to be more creative… maybe get into the elevator shoe business.

...hopefully that "don't you" settled you down a bit and shined a bit of light on your own motivations for you.  If not you, then your "soul".  A person who longs for war with other people is not really a good person.  A person that fights against oppression has a right to (Khomeini).

The Islamic State is not another thing.  Both types (Saudi/Iran) attempt to approximate the law in the Quran in order to promote a society that fosters the buildng of the basic building blocks of all societies:  family.  It is all about the family you know and a disunited family is one less thing to rely on in any society.  Disunited families lead to social injustice, financial loss and basically, mayhem. 

An Islamic State then, must promote a society in which children can be taught what their elders need to teach them in order to achieve paradise.  I am not referring to suicide bombers either.  I am referring to a great many things that you do not know about.  And no one has a right to say an Islamic State does not have the right to exist and if they do it is only because they like their own type of state better.  What type of state are you living in right now?  Is it leading to social justice or injustice?  Do you have human rights abuses at the level of the individual or just "the state".  I'd say that the level of human rights abuses in the United States of America is unprecedented:  pedophilia is just one of the many indicators of that not to mention the rampant divorce rate, sexually transmitted disease epidemic in the young and as well, their (the youth) binge drinking and drug abuse.

Now, if that "ideal" (your) society promotes a culture of rebellion amongst its youth (when the parents of that culture are older and more rightly guided towards their inevitable ends)is it correct in doing so?  You might think so but just turn on the TV.  I am relatively sure your parents didn't teach you to participate in a school shooting.  Your parents taught you to support the state (your doctrine) by voting, paying taxes, etc.  If they don't teach that to you they can be sanctioned by your laws and/or you will be sanctioned by them.  An Islamic State is not different and is liable to its people to attempt to try to approximate as closely as it can "a moral universe". 

YOU don't understand that because your parents taught you wrong according to me.  Not according to your state.  What your state has taught them however is not only inappropriate, it has been ineffective.  It has led to social disorder and social order is one of those things that is necessarly for all individuals to thrive.  Period.   And in that, the "proof is in the pudding".  What the US has done in Iraq will most likely not be fixed in our lifetime you know.  And it will (regardless of the final victor) hang around the neck of you and your children and your children's children.

You only have to turn on the TV to see this social disorder.  Or to see how they have labeled your type of chaos as order and our type of order as chaos.

It's all in how you describe things and perceive them and in the end...the best man will win.  Regardless of opinion polls because that is part of the design.  You have only to look at the situation with the humble honey bees to know that when you alter certain things in the chain you end up with extinctions.  When in fact, the humble bee demonstrates that eugenics exists there and we cannot equal it nor can we deny it. 

It just so happens however that in our case, we know who the eugenicist is.  He has no favorites in that except those who worship only Him.  Any color and any blood type.  And when you look at it honestly, the US and Israel both support ethnic cleansing, ethnic rearrangement and ethnic biases.

 

Therefore...I reinterate:

Ending this war depends on defining what this war's goal is.  Is it really "Al Qaeda" or is it the prevention of a Shia state in Iraq?

It makes a big difference when it comes to predicting outcomes, suggesting alternatives and evaluating results which hopefully have endpoints.

This war you know...could go on for an ever at this point and precisely because on side is arrogant and not willing to listen to the other older, more experienced culture.

...is not trivially easy.  I don't think you understand at all the nature of categorization and how that pertains to the Quran.  When I say we can describe others I mean, we (or you if you were a muslim) categorize motivations.

If you would like to understand that I think you'd have to read a little more than just my post in order to question the rationale like the Quran and the Nahjul Balagha.

I would expect that at the very minimum, you have read those two things.  But I know that is not true.  You might have read "about" the Quran but you most likely have not read it yourself.  As for the second, I'm positive you have not read it.

As far as prosletysing....well.  You know...I've come to the conclusion that some people will not get this and others will.  I have no idea who they are.  I do however view your request that I not state these things in an open forum (which is about war with a Shia Islamic State) to be a form of oppression and your will to silence another.

And by all means, point out to me the examples of bad rhetoric in the Constitution will you.  In the case of the Mahdi young man, we do not consider it bad rhetoric but a fact.  You wouldn't know about it though would you :) nor the many tangents of philosophical approaches it leaves open in order to resolve differences in culture, human nature and human differences.  Some muslims might take it metaphorically (agnostic ones) and some like me (with certitude) take it literally.  This scares you...how so?  I'm much more scared of the IDF and US concrete actions whereas you (collectively as in "non muslims") are terrorized simply by ideas.  I'd say that your ideas are much more horrifying because they have led to exactly these results.  Ours have led to the urge to fight in the way of Allah in legitimate ways (most of us anyway) and specifically, those of us who are active supporters of one Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah who has never lied to anyone about what is going on.  Can you tell me ONE of your leaders who hasn't lied?

And FYI...a person who is right does not worry about hypocrisy.  You believe that those two sects are in competition with Islam.  I don't.  Not in the least but you wouldn't know about that because 1. you are hostile to Islam and 2. You haven't read our books and 3. You aren't likely to read our books and if you do (your leaders know this btw) you might become one of us.

I'd advise "young man" that you practice a bit more tolerance in the future.  It goes a long, long way.  I'd also advise you to ask or debate, one thing at a time instead of getting waylaid in my answers.  I realize my answers open up mansions for you but it is best to stick to just one door.  The door of this piece is whether or not an attack on Iran is likely and/or being considered.  One thing is for sure, the US is suggesting a non ending war of words with Iran.  And sanctions.  In my estimation that is the best they can do under the circumstances.  I don't believe there will be an attack right now.  And not anytime in the near future either.  I could be wrong but I hope I'm not.  Don't you?  Oddly enough that should be your inclination in this but it appears to me that topics like this bring out the worst in those who despise us and in some ways, these types of articles are part of the problem.  And on top of that, people like you (even though you are too young I think to understand this notion) insist that people like me (knowledgable Shia) have no place in the discussion!  Oh dear. 

Peace on you in any case.  In the end, we wait and you too wait (for death and resurrection) regardless of whether you choose to believe in that or not. 

:)

And as for Sunni moderates....no one ever said they weren't okay.  That is your assumption when reading that statement.  I can assure you though, they aren't Shia.  A Shia is a Shia is a Shia. It isn't "something else".

Here, for your benefit, I have gleaned an example of the manner in which Ali ibn Abi Taleb (pbuh) categorized people...any person regardless of their belief:

"Among⁽¹⁾ all the people the most detested before Allah are two persons. One is he who is devoted to his self. So he is deviated from the true path and loves speaking about (foul) innovations and inviting towards wrong path. He is therefore a nuisance for those who are enamoured of him, is himself misled from the guidance of those preceding him, misleads those who follow him in his life or after his death, carries the weight of others' sins and is entangled in his own misdeeds.

The other man is he who has picked up ignorance. He moves among the ignorant, is senseless in the thick of mischief and is blind to the advantages of peace. Those resembling like men have named him scholar but he is not so. He goes out early morning to collect things whose deficiency is better than plenty, till when he has quenched his thirst from polluted water and acquired meaningless things.

He sits among the people as a judge responsible for solving whatever is confusing to the others. If an ambiguous problem is presented before him he manages shabby argument about it of his own accord and passes judgement on its basis. In this way he is entangled in the confusion of doubts as in the spider's web, not knowing whether he was right or wrong. If he is right he fears lest he erred, while if he is wrong he hopes he is right. He is ignorant, wandering astray in ignorance and riding on carriages aimlessly moving in darkness. He did not try to find reality of knowledge. He scatters the traditions as the wind scatters the dry leaves.

By Allah, he is not capable of solving the problems that come to him nor is fit for the position assigned to him. Whatever he does not know he does not regard it worth knowing. He does not realise that what is beyond his reach is within the reach of others. If anything is not clear to him he keeps quiet over it because he knows his own ignorance. Lost lives are crying against his unjust verdicts, and properties (that have been wrongly disposed of) are grumbling against him.

I complain to Allah about persons who live ignorant and die misguided. For them nothing is more worthless than Qur'an if it is recited as it should be recited, nor anything more valuable than the Qur'an if its verses are removed from their places, nor anything more vicious than virtue nor more virtuous than vice."

 

David – I think the way “decent” opinions are contorted by “ideological question” phrasings that introduce distorting contexts in polls, couldn't be made much clearer. And, moreover, the press will often contort the results of poll analysis in order to get a “man bites dog” headline. The notions of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity… or the notion that human beings shouldn't be subjugated by one another or by institutions… these notions can get lost when outright crimes are de-familiarized and re-contextualized as promoting the very values they violate. While only some depraved psychopathic individuals might get it plainly wrong on issues of fundamental decency (I don't think justice is relative)—somehow the plain ethical implications of “complex” institutional actions often fail to be spelled out in simple terms for the majority of the “moral public.” Take the term “collateral damage,” for example. A nice way to say you shot some baby in the face… by accident… but it's OK, since your aim was righteously toward “the enemy” (and a faceless “enemy;” not Alan Smithee, a neighborhood baker, and sometimes militant political “freedom fighter” [maybe another euphemism]). Accidents happen? But the adoption of the term “collateral damage” as official US military terminology demonstrates that such hideous events are expected in war: I.e. there is an intention to kill babies, at least indirectly. Guilt alleviating excuses and euphemisms can turn into standard operating procedure and official terminology. The subtleties of language and indoctrinated common sense can be deadly… and such twists of language and thought have been building on a mountain of obfuscation for a considerable length of human history. Can culture brainwash itself into believing that killing children is OK? It already has—but it's buried by culture-defense-mechanisms sublimating violence through language. But then again, these same cultural and linguistic customs have been refined over the centuries, in what we teach children is decent to say and do. Is there more to assessing morality than simply LOOKING at a situation with innocent eyes without cultural context? Isn't something subtle lost that way? What, in a complex world, should US foreign policy be towards Iran? Developing viable alternative options can help. As for the unviable: Iran— Why not teach the US a lesson through example: drop the nukes in favor of solar and wind power; and refrain from all political manipulation of Iraq's future. US—your equivalent is telling— self nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from Iraq—such would demonstrate that, you, USA, have already stepped over the line you accuses Iran of contemplating transgression of; just the sort of hypocrisy that Noam Chomsky discuses so often: Chomsky: Preventing War with Iran

..then for that matter, imposing ANY doctrine on anyone is wrong.  :)  You can't have it your way and eat it too you know :)  

If you peruse the Constitution of Iran, you will note that it admits to fallibility.  It is found in the first few articles of the document and reflects the idea that all politics/government is lacking and that when the Mahdi (the last "infallible")arrives, all laws will be null and void in Iran as well as elsewhere.  I guess you'd have to be a much better Islamic scholar to get to those nitty gritty points however.

And no, I don't think an attack will make Iran more oppressive.  It would however unite them under whatever government is present be they highly conservative, moderate or liberal Shia.  The best anyone can hope for in that case is that the next Iranian president is a moderate through and through.  Shia moderates are the cream of the moderation crop you know...not too funky and not to drab.

Iran is an Islamic State.  Shia Islam, ironically enough, is a democratic method.  Iran has elections and even though the Western press calls Ahmadinijad a "dictator" and calls the Iranian government a "regime" that doesn't make it so.  It is though, through and through, a Shia Islamic State and not SOMETHING ELSE.  I capitalize that so that hopefully you can understand the categorical nature of what is being discussed.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand is the sum total called a Sunni Islamic State and there are some very serious differences which are absolutely dependent on the origin and nature of the "Imamate" as opposed to the "Caliphate".  Those two separated at the event horizon of Islam (the death of Mohamed, SA).  Having those two examples to work from, I'm truly surprised at how often people fail to gather the difference between the non democratic one (Saudi Monarchy which is a descendent of the Ottoman Sunni Empire) and the democratic one (Iran which is based entirely on what we could actually call "Divine Right"..noting that what makes Divine Right Divine is that it comes from "on high").

How do you suppose the Divine Right State (Iran/Iraq/etc) ended up with the most pluralistic and democratic systems and the non Divine Right one (Saudi Arabia and the "party of theologians") ended up as a Monarchy and police state?

For that matter, the US has a Supreme Court doesn't it?  It guides the law and the government doesn't it?

Why?  And how is it that any specific thing is considered "constitutional".  What are those statutes based on?  WHO made murder or rape or anything else illegal?  (Refer to Kant and the Metaphysics of Morals perhaps.)

Iran is not something else and it appears to me that it is true....non muslims are never satisfied until they convert "us" to their "religion" and in that, those religions that we are referring to (the Judeo-Christian) upon which "democracy" are based are more "ideologies" than Allah sent.  If they were "authorized" by Allah then there would be actual proof of that in those documents which are used to derive all constitutional law in the United States.  In actuality, Judaism and Christianity are actually SECTS of Islam!  They were never authorized to start separate religions you know (per Quran). If it (democracy) were just common sense and all of that altruistic stuff....well then we could just call it a day and say there is not a need for a body of "elders" to decide for us what is right and what is wrong.

 I appreciate what you are saying though...and when it comes to human rights, I have little doubt your concept of that varies a great deal from my own and with good reason.

Islam is hard for you to understand.  You most likely have too many biases to grasp it (particularly if you are over the age of forty).  I assure you however, we understand everyone else and can describe them very well in our terms and theirs.  And, I am an American.  Born here and raised in a small border town by some white people hahahaha. 

Peace

 

JD Casten:

Of monumental importance is exactly what question people are asked to share their opinions about.  Do the questions tunnel into the respondents' underlying, intuitive sense of right and wrong?  Or do the questions exploit whatever's in the news, assume the validity of this material as background knowledge, and therefore lead the respondents up and down a path already established by the doctrinal institutions?

For example (and just to toy around with the material -- though our subject is a very serious one):

Decent Questions

Question X.  For each of the following statements, tell us whether you (a) absolutely agree, (b) strongly agree, (c) mildly agree, (d) mildly disagree, (e) strongly disagree, (f) absolutely disagree, or (g) are neutral or have no opinion with respect to it.

1. Homicide -- taking another person's life -- is good.
2. The human world ought to be ruled by force.
3. In the country where you live, a citizen's rights ought to rise or fall, according to how much or how little wealth he/she posseses.
4. In relations among states (or international relations), everything should be guided by the power of each state, without regard for law or for whatever negative consequences may befall the less powerful states.

Ideological Questions

Question X.  For each of the following statements, tell us whether you (a) absolutely agree, (b) strongly agree, (c) mildly agree, (d) mildly disagree, (e) strongly disagree, (f) absolutely disagree, or (g) are neutral or have no opinion with respect to it.

1. A terrorist attack using nuclear weapons against the United States will take place within the next five to ten years.
2. The United Nations is doing a good job at trying to stop the spread of international terrorism.
3. One way to enhance the security of the United States would be for it to build a missile defense system.
4. The manpower of the United States armed forces is too small to stop both the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the spread of international terrorism. 

I believe you know what I think about all of this. 

"Iraq, Israel, Iran," David Bromwich, Huffington Post, September 4, 2007
"From al-Qaeda to al-Quds," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online, September 7, 2007

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Frederic – you have an “us vs. them” attitude against “elites” that I don't share. The “crap buffet” is attended by all, “elite” and “non-elite” as well, imo; and the “elite” don't “have a better knowledge of what's going on” than your typically well informed plebian. What exactly is it that makes someone an elite?—is it occupying a position of power (intellectual, financial, institutional, or otherwise); or is it a system of beliefs and attitudes? Do you think that power shapes attitude, or that it takes a certain attitude to acquire power?—since you seem to believe that the two go hand in hand for the most part. If power changes views (corrupts?) it probably wouldn't be the fault of the “elite” (it would be some sort of institutional thing). This leaves me with a guess that you may believe that if the elite are to be held in contempt, becoming an elite requires a corrupt attitude in the first place. Where does one get this attitude? Is it a cultural (indoctrinated), or an inherently evil nature? Again—is corruption due more to the system, or to individuals? Would you care to single out some typical “elite” individual, look at their background, and explain how it was their evil nature that led to their self-conscious collaboration with unfairness? I'll pick on some one: Jeffrey D. Sachs. In many ways a typical intellectual elite collaborator: do you think he doesn't know that the system is unfair? And if Mr. Sachs is not evil, why, despite his wanting to change some things for the better, does he want to perpetuate the system in many ways? Jeffrey D Sachs in Wikipedia

In his “A Hall of Mirrors” blog entry David noted: “What findings such as these show us is that not only the American public, but an impressive majority of its foreign policy elite, hold reasonable positions on any number of categories of concern whereby the United States interacts with the rest of the world. But these beliefs are seldom acted upon. Evidently, the policy elite find themselves entrapped by the institutions of the American state and corporate sectors. While the American public remains marginal to the decision-making process. At best” I imagine that the a majority of members of government and big-business also hold more “enlightened” attitudes—but when “commanding” their own ships, jockey for positions representing their own constituencies, with a resulting “fun house mirror” distortion of the somewhat wiser public opinion. It seems to me that at most there should be a delay between public opinion and institutional policy, as laws guiding the courses of those institutions, both governmental and corporate, are refined by democratic demand—but this delay probably takes too long for emerging issues to be adequately addressed. Yet there are perennial problems, like the bloated US military budget; and I can't wrap my head around how this “tradition” has become so entrenched (you'd think the medical industrial complex would be powerful enough to steal those tax funds from the military industrial complex). Concerning foreign policy, I think the US's public opinion should of course be calculated as just part of the larger picture— note the poll of Europeans largely rejecting a bombing of Iran (and I'm sure the people of Iran would have something to say on this issue as well): AFP-US more eager than Europe for military strikes on Iran: survey Again, not considering the world's opinion concerning foreign policy is just a jockeying for position that ignores the possibly broader wisdom of the entire globe. What if the US had followed the UN's opinion on invading Iraq? (The UN may have its own distortions too, but at least it has a much broader base of representation).

SK:

How do you unearth all of of these "intriguing" gems?

"Selling War with Iran: Next Week at AEI," Spencer Ackerman, Muckraker.com, September 4, 2007 

Also see my comments on the mulitple targets of Great Power psychological warfare at "'The Language of Force'," ZNet, January 17, 2006. -- Unfortunately, the really vicious cartoon that I had posted to this blog, by the now defunct Doug Marlette, no longer reproduces.  So let me post several of Marlette's exercises here. (All eight of them date from 2006.  The very first was the one that I used in my blog.) 

It must be nice -- at least in some lizard-like sense -- to  breeze through life with no conscience beyond that which is dictated by Power or driven by Fear.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahaha it's the old saying:  Doomed if you do and doomed if you don't.

Well...even if they don't attack they are already doomed to this Iraqi failure and the need for an exit soon.  Then the Shia will (already are) going to be the majority and most likely, militarily superior.

Hopefully in that event...the Shia there live up to their name and standard.

Well, it is hard for most people to distinguish what makes oppression actually an oppression.

Iran is an Islamic state.  NOT "something else". 

An Islamic state enforces Islamic doctrine.  How it enforces that...well if we are to imagine that the press leaks out the truth once in a while and most of the time leaks out a "version" of the truth (which is not the same thing)...well.  We cannot really know at this point in time if Iran is actually an oppressive regime.

I've little doubt however (and most average Iranians agree on this point) that an attack on Iran will turn that sort of possible oppression to its best advantage and it will reflect the underlying truth of the Islamic State as an idea.

The West simply cannot see what makes an Islamic State what it is, let alone what makes a muslim a muslim.  Completely blind to it all.

I also think that the other example of an Islamic State (Saudi Arabia) is so close that non muslims and especially non Shia muslims...fail to see the differences between the two types of realities.

I wish I could verbalize this better so that you could completely understand it but I think that sort of thinking is reserved for us Shia. 

I believe that no country has ever won an war of invasion or occupation.  Occupations mind you, are not over until they are over but they eventually do become "over". 

Secondly, they are doomed to suffer the consequences of another false invasion to establish false democracy...can you not understand the truth of that?

I am a Shia you know and lived through Israel's invasion of south Lebanon, evacuated here to Arizona where I am now. 

And just as Sayyed Nasrallah promised Israel that he would make Lebanon a "graveyard" for them, so similarly has Ayatollah Sayyed Khameini promised the same to the US.

The US fails to understand the Divine Leadership of the Sayyeds and fails to even believe in the Creator.  I assure you, we Shia do believe in Divine Victories, can promise them and will achieve them.

Our success as muslims is already a given.  The path to that success however is long and punctuated with its ups and downs.

I completely understand that you are a secular thinker and cannot comprehend this type of thing.  But that's okay.

You don't have to.  The notion that the "West" cannot or will not comprehend these events works in our favor.  The ignorance of the west is the strength of Islam.  I wish that wasn't so but it is so.  I wish, as Ahmadinijad suggested to GWB, there was a new age of enlightenment and "cultural exchanges" but looks to me that we have a bit more to go and a bit more proof is necessary to get those on board who wish to be on board, on board. 

It isn't btw, "we want to control" the world.  Allah controls all of that you know.  But we do accept membership on the successful team by agreeing to follow Islam willingly.

Others will follow Islam too but unwillingly.  We won't force them but the consequences of these foul actions will be suffered by one and all.  We will just suffer them differently.

I think it is incredibly important to distinguish what the real goal of this war actually was.

 It wasn't oil.  Oil was an added benefit.

The goal was to prevent another Shia state.  The kind that plods ahead whether the West likes it or not.

The secondary goal was to maintain a monopoly over Nuclear Energy.  That is why the primary target of this proposed war is Nuclear Power stations.

Iran is well aware of all these things.  The West is blind and disunited.  How can a country win a war when they are disunited?  The West has hidden the true nature of its strategy but not from us Shia and not from the majority of Sunni muslims.  Not at all.  We have the book you know and we believe in it and read it all the darn time.   

Now you tell me...why do I think the West is doomed?

 

Look around you.  The West is suffering the consequences of its failure to address human moral issues because those consequences are directly proportional and related to:  the Creation.  Don't you think the Creator understands the Creation best?

 

All my best and salaam wa alaikum

Maggie Porter:

Why do you believe that, if the United States attacks Iran, the United States is "doomed"?  And why do you believe that, if the United States doesn't attack Iran, the United States is equally "doomed"? 

Would you also say that Iran and its many peoples are equally doomed, whether or not the United States attacks their country?

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

"Intimidation In Tehran," Azadeh Moaveni, Time Magazine, September 10, 2007 

I haven't been to Zblogs in such a very long time.

 The US might attack Iran and it might not.  It might attack them in ten years or twenty or not at all.

 I personally think that if they do attack, they are doomed and if they don't?

They are doomed.

That is the problem with "those" whose back is against a wall.

http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

FYI, intriguing commentary. Excerpt follows:

On this reading, the real target of any coordinated campaign between the VP and right-wing D.C. think tanks on Iran isn't the Iranians themselves, or even general public opinion, but the Pentagon. Cheney needs to soften up his opposition inside the administration if Bush is to ultimately double down on a future conflict, something that a drumbeat of warnings about the Iranian threat can help accomplish.

Diplomacy - why not?

So while the Americans were celebrating Labor Day and still trying to kill any Iraqi who held a gun, other Iraqis secrectly went to Helsinki, Finland. Advisors from Ireland and S. Africa (who stopped their internal terrorism campaigns a while ago) actually know how to come to peaceful solutions - unlike the current US gov't. Where is Jimmy Carter - did Bush take his passport away?

The simple answer to why the US gov't isn't promoting negotiations is that you can't "sell" peace. The only people that profit are a couple hotels, maybe a catering company and someone selling some pens and notebooks. The Defense Industry would lobby against that very strongly.

So screw the Defense Industry, they've made their profits, not maybe they can take that money and invest in energy research to allow the American public to be self sufficient - no more blood for oil.

I'm hoping that peace breaks out soon and I don't care who is responsible. The US Generals have been saying that there is no military solution in Iraq for a long time - they just know they have to go where they are ordered to go.

Thank you to Finland and good night. Time to welcome the US troops home and make sure you think about who you vote for next time in the US.

Ajit:

Vital material here.  Thanks.

"Speaking From Experience, Part II: Former CIA official expects war with Iran," Ken Silverstein, Harper's, September 4, 2007

The part of the quote you've excerpted from the "former CIA officer...who speaks with [Silverstein] only off the record" contains these three very important sentences:

There's a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it's stuff the United States can't hide. It's a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we've got three of them there....The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high. 

What this suggests is that the decision for launching a war on Iran may already have been been taken; that the huge expense and commitment of materiel very well may represent a one-way ticket to launching this war (i.e., a buildup of pressure against turning back); and that all of the rest, including the heated rhetoric -- which has emanated from the Washington regime and its clients -- including now the backward regimes in Berlin and Paris -- on-and-off for the past four-years -- serves merely to reflect the fait accompli nature of the Washington regime's decisionmaking.

They're determined to attack.  All else follows from this as a consequence, rather than as a cause.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

       

   Ken Silverstein talked to a CIA Officer and the CIA Officer is saying,

          

It looks like a military strike is in the works and I base that on two things: observable fact and the rhetoric emanating from the White House. There's a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it's stuff the United States can't hide. It's a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we've got three of them there. We've also moved new fighter planes to Guam amidst much public fanfare. You can plainly see the upturn in US Naval activity in and around the Norfolk Naval installations. The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high.

 

  More ,  http://harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001112

A lot of americans know that they are on the wrong side of this war, yet they will only support their home team, thus they will pretend not to know; they will get upset because critics of the land is being viewed as anti-american.. they will RELIGIOUSLY support the office of the presidency just by blind patriotism.

David said,

  Afterword: The Captive American Mind must be the single most strategically disenlightened strip of territory on the face of the planet earth.  For all of its vast wealth, territory, and power, the reality is that the United States of America occupies a space no wider than half-the-width of a razor's edge.  If that.

       I offer this lengthy quote from VL Parrington's  Classic "Main Currents in American Thought".

                  

    Now what is the tremendous discovery that Sinclair Lewis makes so much of, and what we pay so great a price to learn? It is no other than this: that the goodly United States of America are peopled by a mighty herd, which like those earlier herds that rumbled about the plains, drives foolishly in whatever direction their noses point -- a herd endowed with tremendous blind power, with big bull leaders, but with minds rarely above their bellies and their dams. In the mass and at their own romantic rating they are distinctly imposing-big-necked, red-blooded, lusty, with glossy coats got from rich feeding-grounds, and with a herd power that sweeps majestically onward in a cloud of dust of its own raising, veritable lords and masters of a continent. But considered more critically and resolved into individual members, they appear to the realist somewhat stupid, feeble in brain and will, stuffed with conceit at their own excellence, esteeming themselves as the great end for which creation has been in travail, the finest handiwork of the Most High who spread the plains for their feeding-grounds: with a vast respect for totems and fetishes; purveyors and victims of the mysterious thing called Bunk, who valiantly horn to death any audacious heretic who may suggest that rumbling about the plains, filling their bellies, bellowing sacred slogans, and cornering the lushest grass, are scarcely adequate objectives for such immense power: a vast middleman herd, that dominates the continent, but cannot reduce it to order or decency.

Frederic:

These are very good points.  Particularly your remark about the reality of the "forces that make politics irrelevant to the average person."  (For one set of cases along these lines, see "A Hall of Mirrors," ZNet, October 19, 2004. -- Though I fear that some of the hyperlinks may have been changed at their source since I posted it.)

But when Americans these days register opposition to the war in Iraq, what are they really saying?

"Opposition to Iraq war has grown," UPI, August 29, 2007
"Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach," Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post, September 4, 2007

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Frederic—I think you are correct to see a problem included in my last comments. I really don't think there is a correct political stance or aesthetic taste— and my political stances and aesthetic tastes are not necessarily less idiotic, or more intelligent than just about anyone else's (although I try to be a little informed). Who am I to judge? I'm not sure what an “average person” is—or that I'm not one. My comments on political opinion that the polls cited was mostly an attempt to demonstrate that, if not by a wide margin, a winning margin might agree with what many left commentators have claimed for some time: The war is on a lost track; (lost) support was originally founded on misleading information; Bush is not “keeping the trust base,”(his approval numbers are low) but the newly elected Congress failed to fulfill its mandate too; the US is currently policing a civil war in Iraq; and the election of a GOP president may be unlikely if the general public has given up on a decisive victory in Iraq. I personally see a modicum of sanity in the poll results, even if they are closer and more complicated than some purists would like (maybe this story the public is telling themselves now is all too convenient: “where was your non-violence consciousness to start with, public?” some may inquire.) I think most people see the truly “clueless” as always “someone else,” and not the face in the mirror, despite any self-image or self-love problems they may have. And concerning the general public, depending on your perspective, you might say that the public at large determines what “reality” is—or what is really important. We are all born into and out of society, go our own way as we may—the flame of the soul is ignited and passed on by the bonfire of society; one may try to step out of inter-subjective society, but this will be of little consequence for those abandoned, unless some go with you—and this can be dangerous (as one may follow a “brown-belt” bodhisattva into a “higher reality of the heart” and not the “black-belt” Buddha). Maybe American Idol is a more direct form of democracy than US politics… yet in each case the “candidates” are pretty much preselected to fit the power-elite agenda (read: visible power-brokers Randy, Paula, and Simon—or… the hidden producers and sponsors [all of whom, however, need to satisfy the mass consumers to make a buck!])—and this “power-elite agenda” need not necessarily be bad for the public it serves (e.g. the US public—but also not necessarily good for the public of other countries that may take a “subservient” roll in fulfilling US desires). But then again, many across the world would like a piece of the American Pie (in the sky): it offers some of the most enticing “images” of living on the planet. Who doesn't want a little slice of heaven, even if they know it's illusory? (Or, to mix Milton quotes, Is it “better to reign in hell than serve in heaven” when “the mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven?”) Maybe I was seeing the US public's education “glass,” if not its conscience potential, as half-empty for the wrong reasons—and that could have been My problem.

Taking a quick speculative look at these headlines: “Most Americans say Iraq war not lost”—I would hazard that a significant percentage wouldn't say the war is “lost” or “won” until it's “over.” 54% said “not lost”—I'm not sure if this implies that 46% said “it's lost already,” but only 11% said there was a “victory already.” 46% to 11% would mean a heavy leaning towards “lost already”—my confidence in the general public is not completely crushed. “Opposition to Iraq war has grown”— The numbers are pretty clear here—50% strongly oppose (up from 34.4% in 2003) and 30.2% strongly support (down from 39.2% in 2003)—indicating to me that the public can become wiser… given enough time. “Bush keeps trust base on Iraq”—This is a misleading headline, as Congress almost always scores less than a President; and in this case, the Democrats failed to change a thing for their base who would retaliate more with opinions than votes, imo—note this figure from the first article above (“Most Americans say Iraq war not lost”): “Congress faces overwhelming dissatisfaction among Democrats - 95% give Congress negative ratings for handling the war.” 95% of Democrats are not going to switch their votes to Republicans! You'd expect the public to feel betrayed by the Congressional failure to make good on a public mandate. “Iraq in civil war” – Again, the numbers are clear here—60% of the polled believe the US is policing a civil war. “GOP pres[ident] better for Iraq war”—this was a close poll (39.4% to 35.9%) as a national Republican vs. Democrat race would be (and actually a few more Republicans crossed the aisle than did Democrats, with a large fraction of Democrats saying “neither” would be better)—but the question is misleading too: what is seeing “the Iraq war to a successful end?” A successful “victory,” or a successful withdrawal? Maybe the question should have been, “who will get our troops out fastest?” That said in defense of democracy and the median voter, I must say there are other polls that dismay me concerning American culture. In the US only about 14% definitely believe evolution is “definitely true” while 33% reject it outright. But the score is not so hot on the other side of the belief system either: only about 50% can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels; a significant percentage (12%) believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife; and 75% of Americans believe that “God only helps those that help themselves” (not a real bible quote). Such doesn't bode well for the education level of America—on the “idiot box,” “Wheel of Fortune” has had a higher Nielsen rating than “Jeopardy,” and now “American Idol” takes the Nielsen cake—not “The McLaughlin Group.” But then again, maybe the general public “really” knows what is “entertaining and/or important,” (like being famous: i.e. getting the general public's approval—the general public likes to be the object of its own approval!) and it is you or I (with my mere “self-approval”) that are truly clueless.

JD Casten:

My primary concern is that too few people -- most Americans, anyway -- are not amenable to the kind of argument and suasion you are looking for and highlight in your sixth paragraph, for example ("Changing Minds").  The United States of America -- by which I mean something other than that part of the planet earth contained within its internationally recognized border -- is a very, very creepy place.  Being an American is more a state of mind than a fact of citizenship.  But it is a strategically disenlightened state of mind. 

Previously, Jonas mentioned having been "born and raised in the matrix," having "us all plugged in."  Jonas aside, my sense is that this is deeply true of a dangerously high percentage of the people who live in the United States (i.e., the Red, White, and Blue Americans), and less true of a smaller percertage of us, with the number of us about whom it is true declining as our instinctive defenses against the bullshit grows in strength.  But it is most true about the largest cohort of Red, White, and Blue Americans.  And the cohorts about whom it is less true become smaller and smaller the less true that it becomes (or the more false it becomes). 

Let me post here a few clippings that report the findings of a mid-August UPI - Zogby International opinion survey, and you tell me what you find.  (Some repetition might seep into what follows.)

"Most Americans say Iraq war not lost," UPI, August 28, 2007
"Opposition to Iraq war has grown," UPI, August 29, 2007
"Bush keeps trust base on Iraq," Martin Sieff, UPI, August 30, 2007 
"Iraq in civil war," UPI, August 30, 2007
"Iran fight now more likely," UPI, August 30, 2007
"GOP pres[ident] better for Iraq war," UPI, August 31, 2007

David Peterson
Chicago, USA  

Oops, sorry, try this for Malalai's interview (search for 'nato' to get to question where her quote comes from). Interestingly, the program that aired this interview, a rarity in US mainstream media in itself, has been under prolonged right wing attack for daring to question the party line on foreign affairs. 

David—your examples of commentaries “Facilitating War” vs. “Countering War” are instructive—and the issue goes deeper than simply an attitude of being either pro or anti interventionist; there is the subtler issue of a being an un-witting “dupe” to propagandistic efforts when trying to report in an “objective” manner. Cited former Middle East specialist at the CIA Gerecht concludes: “They [Iran] are unlikely to be overwhelmed by moderate tactics. Instead, they seem set to continue killing Americans in Iraq, waiting to see if and when the United States gives up and run for the exits.” While cited former CIA analyst McGovern concludes: “There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us today: ‘There is such a thing as being too late.... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity.... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: 'Too late.''” While neither one of these former CIA insiders is a dupe, nor refrains from heavy subjective rhetoric, each would probably not persuade people, but would rather fan the flames of those predisposed to their attitudes. Although “whipping up the base” can be important for each side of an issue, I think it also critical to “Change Minds” as well. This requires, imo, like it or not, climbing inside the opposition, understanding things from their perspective, and not vilifying some straw-man but instead showing how their case fails even on ITs merits. The best the press can do, for those truly on the fence of an issue, is to provide transparent facts and educate by putting things in proper perspective and broader context. That being said, I think those articles are best that expose the “workings of the game” (e.g. “it's a bluff,” “propaganda,” or “a marketing campaign” trying to establish a “cause for war”)—those written by people who may be playing the game, but are not lost in it entirely only as advocates, and can educate others on the rules and who's cheating, etc.—and to know it's not a game. There are no impartial judges, and hence the Machiavellian Arts of War must be exposed—even if no-one but a naïve 10-yearold is a naïve 10-yearold, there remains the paradoxical task of making critical thinking convenient. Yet, in this case, “whipping up the base” may itself be the crucial route, as the base should be a clear (US [& Iranian]) majority against what too many see as the inevitable bombing of Iran. Thanks again for striking so many of the right chords.

SK: Stop for one minute and consider the Wittgenstein House in Vienna.  (Pictured at left.) Far too many people lack his level of decency.  I'd love to combine this aesthetic against decorative waste and fluff -- which only needs to be moved and cleaned, anyway -- I like walls to be walls and not collectors for mounds of lifeless objects that make the space feel oppressive, like the inside of a closet -- with my own preference for steel-reinforced concrete bunkers shaped exactly like the Jupiter II.  Just so long as the domicile has indoor plumbing and electricity.  (No propulsion system required.) 

Wittgenstein's sister, Hermine, summed up his design quite well, I believe: "Even though I admired the house very much, I always knew that I neither wanted to, nor could, live in it myself."

Form truly does follow function.

As for his other sister, Gretle?  I think the concrete shaped flying saucer will solve this problem.

As for Malalai Joya: I can't seem to find anything relevant at the end of your hyperlink.  But it's a great quote.  She's always welcomed.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

Seeing such nonsense being peddled in Spiegel Online reminds one of Karl Kraus's quote on the potential for destructiveness of ideas that once germinated in the intellectual hothouse of German-speaking Central European metropolises like Vienna and Munich. He named that urban milieu the "research laboratory for world destruction".

Malalai Joya's straight talk might be of help to those taken in by the delusions of Spiegel Online:

"I think that no nation can donate liberation to another nation."

JD Casten:

Thanks for putting up so carefully sourced a comment.  ("Will President Bush bomb Iran?" Tim Shipman, Daily Telegraph, September 3, 2007.)

In the quote you draw from me, my point is that I'm not an insider.  Nor am I privy to insider-type discussions.  We read Seymour Hersh, for example, who is working with various insiders.  But until some act is committed by U.S. forces, it's all planning and talk about planning -- nothing more.  And it is beyond our powers to know when talk about planning is leaked for reasons of mass psychological effect (i.e., unless it's really outlandish), and when talk refers to planned events the commission of which really is imminent.

The likelihood of the U.S. invading Iran on the ground is very small, I believe.  What I can't tell you is how successful U.S. forces and money may have been at lining up allies inside Iran, particularly far away from the capital.  If the Washington regime decides to attack Iran, it would have to be from the air, as it would be logistically unimaginable for Washington to undertake a third ground war anything remotely like its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.  And it will be justified by the conjunction of Tehran's alleged support for "terrorist" resisting the U.S. occupation inside Iraq, Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons program, and Tehran's repression of its own populations -- political dissidents and women in particular. 

But, clearly, counterattacks would occur.  Nor need the counterattacks be coordinated for them to occur in multiple theaters simultaneously: Inside Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel for starters.  Perhaps even the United States. 

Depending on how the dynamic develops (i.e., if somebody can't stop Washington, London, Israel, Paris, and so on, from escalating it further, after counterattacks occur), this could turn out to be catastrophic and dwarf the current crimes.

If you want to watch how commentary can "alarm the public about the dangers of war without re-enforcing the bluff, which may consequently lead to that exact war," I suggest you notice the contrast between these two bundles of commentaries:

Facilitating War

"The next war?" Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI, August 29, 2007
"Don't Bomb, Bomb Iran," Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online, August 31, 2007
"Deadly Persian Provocations," Reuel Marc Gerecht, Newsweek International, September 3, 2007

Countering War

"Behind Bush's Latest Anti-Iranian Threats," Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Center for Research on Globalization, August 31, 2007
"Now or Never: Do We Have the Courage To Stop War with Iran?" Ray McGovern, CounterPunch, August 31, 2007
"Bush Plans War on Iran," Marjorie Cohn, CommonDreams.org, September 2, 2007

Net-of-net, I think that as we scour the media countryside, we find a lot more examples that belong in the first bundle, rather than the second. 

And to repeat something very important I've noted previously: If there is the slightest hint that the International Atomic Energy Agency is preparing to "close the file on its more than four year investigation of Tehran's past nuclear activities," the threat of a peaceful resolution to the allegations about Iran's nuclear program will force the Washington regime to attack Iran.

Don't forget it.  Either.  The system of American Power is so prejudiced in favor of violence that it would rather launch another war than watch an agency empowered by the United Nations resolve a conflict that prevents it from using violence to determine the outcome.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

SK:

Thesis: With respect to the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, the NATO-bloc powers are neither imperial nor colonial in their ambitions. 

"Ten More Years in Afghanistan?," Spiegel Online, September 3, 2007 

Proof One: It was the population of Afghanistan that aggressed against and occupied NATO's 26 member states.

Proof Two: Besides, those pathetic Islamo-fascist fucks couldn't dig a well without our help.  Let alone establish a free and functioning modern democratic state.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Jonas:

As long as each of us is lucky enough to draw a breath in this world, we are all plugged-in.  But, clearly, some of us are plugged-in a lot differently than others.  I heard somebody recount recently of his days in the Washington news corps.  Understand that by now, he had had it up to here with everything about the scene.  But, he added, the second he vacated his seat, somebody else's butt filled it.  This, I think, is one of the truly frightening characteristics of our species.  As long as every next generation is willing and eager to plug into the preceding generations' errors, we never get anywhere.  "Dangerous it is to be an heir."

A question I always ask is, Are we any different than ants, bees, and termites?  Or, at bottom, are nothing but more sophisticated instances of the same?  After all, even a cursory survey of the Washington regime does not inspire very much confidence.  But it does give lots of reasons for despair.

What is needed is more dropouts, and more people willing to disengage.  But, frankly, I don't believe our species is smart enough to do it.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

FYI:

From a marketing standpoint, if you're going to roll out a new product, you don't do it in August; you wait until September. That's how former White House chief of staff Andrew Card explained the administration's strategy of waiting until fall to introduce a war resolution on Capitol Hill. Now it's five Septembers later, and a new team in the White House is getting ready for another big rollout.

This is the same Card who later shared his insight that President Bush likes to think of America as a collective "10-year-old child".

David—as usual your post has a plethora (in a good sense) of information, and much to ponder. Your following comment gives me pause for thought: “Short of ourselves being insiders, there is no sure way to know what's merely manipulation, and what's genuine planning for eventual military missions that have a timetable bearing down on us” This sentiment was echoed in the “right leaning” Telegraph article (which begins by recounting a “war game” rehearsal): Will President Bush bomb Iran? Which noted: - ‘Mr Bush had another reason for speaking out, too. With General David Petraeus due before Congress on September 11 to report on progress on his "surge" in Iraq, Mr Bush wanted to make the case that a withdrawal from Iraq would boost Iranian influence there - in the hope that this would increase domestic support for his policies. In Teheran, Mr Ahmadinejad was also quick to make the Iraq connection, but as an impediment, not impetus, to American adventurism. "We have an expression in Farsi which says, 'Bring up the one that you have given birth to first, then go for another one'," he said. "Let them do what they started in Afghanistan and Iraq then think of other countries." He dismissed threats of military action as "more of a propaganda measure than factual".' - Yet further said: - ‘Complicating everything is President Bush's weak ratings in public opinion and on Capitol Hill, and the fact that some of his closest allies, including the political strategist Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have jumped ship. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and Mr Bush would need Congressional approval for military action against Iran within 60 days. Some think he might struggle to win that approval. "I don't think there is any real fight left in this White House. And no one in Congress wants to help them," said one Republican. But critics fear that if Mr Bush cannot advocate confrontation with Iran, he might yet seek to provoke it. Joseph Cirincione, of the Centre for American Progress, accuses Mr Bush of "taunting Iran". He said: "Like the similar campaign for war with Iraq, this effort seems to be designed to find a casus belli, perhaps by provoking Iran into some action that could justify a military assault."' - What I gather from the above quotes, is that Ahmadinejad is not be being bluffed—Bush is trying to bluff congress into extending the Iraqi occupation as is—but few are seriously buying it. But in order to make the bluff serious, serious preparations for war must be made (e.g. war games and bombing plans)—preparations that increase the ability for, and thus likelihood for war —and one may wonder how far a bluff (and a bluff that most see as a bluff) may go before it becomes reality. In this case, it seems that some of the press might soft-peddle the bluff (as in, “don't worry about US war preparations”—maybe until it's too late); while others in the press could hard-sell the bluff (“worry about war!”—possibly to the extent that it might worry targeted Iran to escalate their military posture): something of a Catch-22 double-bind? How can the press alarm the public about the dangers of war without re-enforcing the bluff, which may consequently lead to that exact war? Personally, I don't think the Bush administration is so clever as to cause a war through bluffing: it would simply be a blundering bluff into a war that is possibly desired by them. Something like serendipity? Paranoid observation can lead to complications beyond fact, but paranoid planning can also lead to more insidious plots.

Jonas & SK:

For starters: "Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran," Sarah Baxter, The Times, September 2, 2007.  (Am impressed that SK found it and posted it so rapidly.)

My major concern is that reports just like Baxter's -- focused on hostile-sourced allegations about Iran's nuclear program, and conduiting what the Washington regime might do about it -- have been seriously in circulation now for 24 months (or so -- the allegations date back much further).  To reproduce a partial sample here, though sticking to the pages of the London Times over the past five-and-a-half years:

"Bush trains his military sights on the Iran-Iraq 'axis of evil'," Sarah Baxter et al., The Times, February 3, 2002
"A word of warning from Arab history," Sarah Baxter, The Times, May 5, 2002 
"CIA fears Syria could go nuclear," Sarah Baxter, The Times, July 4, 2004 
"Israel prepares forces for strike on nuclear Iran," Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, The Times, December 11, 2005 
"Bush urged to stir rebellion within Iran," Sarah Baxter, The Times, February 12, 2006
"Nato may help US airstrikes on Iran," Sarah Baxter and Uzi Mahnaimi, The Times, March 5, 2006 
"Gunning for Iran," Sarah Baxter, The Times, April 9, 2006
"Bush plans strike on Iran's nuclear sites," Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith, The Times, April 9, 2006 
"The nuclear fanatic," Sarah Baxter, The Times, August 20, 2006
"Defiant Iran in new step to nuclear weapons," Sarah Baxter, The Times, August 27, 2006
"Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria," Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, The Times, September 3, 2006
"Pentagon targets Kim's nuclear sites," Sarah Baxter, The Times, November 5, 2006
"Mission Iran," Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, The Times, January 7, 2007
"Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran," Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, The Times, January 7, 2007
"Tehran trains Iraqi insurgents;Is this Iraq's most prolific mass killer?" Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, The Times, January 21, 2007
"US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack," Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, The Times, February 25, 2007 

You see the problem?  There is no telling exactly how to take a report like "Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran."  Throughout, my approach has been to regard all such reports minimally as cases of the Washington regime's use of the Western media to carry out psychological warfare against not only the Iranian leadership and population but also, and more importantly, against the Western political regimes and their populations. 

Taking this one step further: They also indicate that the reporters and media that feature leaks with regularity -- such as Baxter's on the U.S. military's "three-day blitz" or, in the States, that unholy trinity that includes the regime, the corporate media, and the think tanks -- are regarded by the leakers as trusted allies, and therefore conduits capable of carrying the load.

Only slightly more speculatively, they very well could indicate efforts by dissenters within the Washington regime to tip its hand and thereby generate negative fallout that might deter it from carrying out its military plans.  

But reports such as these might also be intended to soften-up opposition to the regime's plans, and to gauge the level of opposition that's out there, should they come to pass.  Thus, based on these leaked plans, opinion surveys will be taken that incorporate more questions about Iran; these surveys will report suchandsuch findings; and these findings will provide real-time feedback to the regime's planners about how well or how poorly its objectives have been sold, and what else they need to do to sell them.  ("UPI Poll: Iran fight now more likely," UPI, August 30, 2007.)

Short of ourselves being insiders, there is no sure way to know what's merely manipulation, and what's genuine planning for eventual military missions that have a timetable bearing down on us.

The same general caveats apply to Seymour Hersh's writings on these topics, incidentally.  (“The Coming Wars,” New Yorker, January 24/31, 2005; "The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?" New Yorker, April 17, 2006; "Last Stand: The Military's Problem with the President's Iran Policy," New Yorker, July 10, 2006; "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" New Yorker, November 27, 2006; "The Redirection," New Yorker, March 5, 2007.) 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Postscript. Both of you have taken issue with the unfriendliness of the ZNet Blogs system. -- I hear you.  Believe me.  It does negate whatever is communal about the alleged (and in my honest opinion largely self-serving sloganeering) "community of people committed to social change."  My god.  Think about it.  All that the ZNet Blogs really accomplish is to empower software designers. -- Should they inherit the earth?

Here comes the 'Shock and Awe'.

David,

It is quite right that the head of state of five percent of the world's population sees nothing wrong with mafia-like thuggery toward the other ninety-five percent, which is outside of the "international community." Absurdity abounds. As part of that "captive" five percent, this causes me much embarrassment when trying to explain my country and its actions toward some international students at my college, if they're so interested. Thankfully, they've understood the difference between the, say, ninety-nine-point-seven percent of the population that has nothing to do with executive policy and planning and the .3 percent who are (just for argument's sake), i.e. the "Washington regime" as you put it, and its outlying outposts. It so happens that I was born and raised in the matrix, e.g. the Washington metropolitan area. It has us all plugged in.

(You may not see this comment for awhile because it would doubtless be marked as spam, by the way. Okay it will definitely be marked as spam because I failed the "captcha" test the first time. Oh what a pain that is.)