PDA

View Full Version : Paranoia As Policy: The Bush Regimes Drive to War With Iran



Nbadan
05-23-2006, 12:24 PM
Paranoia as Policy
How Bush Brewed the Iran Crisis
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Why did the Bush regime create a crisis over Iran?


The answer is that the Bush regime is desperate to widen the war in the Middle East.

What has Iran done? Unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, countries that developed nuclear weapons on the sly, Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty. Countries that sign this treaty have the right to develop nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency monitors their energy programs to guard against the programs being used to cloak a weapons program. Until the Bush regime provoked a crisis, Iran was cooperating with the inspection safeguards. The weapons inspectors have found no Iranian weapons programs.

There is no evidence for the Bush regime's accusation that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. What the Bush regime is trying to do is to unilaterally take away Iran's right under the non-proliferation treaty to develop nuclear energy. It is the Bush regime that is violating the treaty by attempting to deny its benefits to Iran. The Bush regime is acting illegally because of its paranoid suspicion that 5 or 10 years in the future Iran will use what it has managed to learn about uranium enrichment to develop a weapons program.

Why is the Bush regime concerned about what Iran might do in the future? Is it because the US government intends to continue its bullying in the MIddle East and is worried that Iran will get tired of it and develop nuclear weapons as a check on US hegemony over the Muslim world? Why does the Bush regime think that its interest in the Middle East takes priority over the interests of the countries that are located there?

In a CNN TV interview on Sunday May 21, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said that it was only a matter of months before Iran would be making nuclear weapons.

Olmert's claim is absurd as every weapons expert knows, and, indeed, as he knows himself. The only possible purpose of such a nonsensical claim is propaganda. Olmert is helping the Bush regime use fear to prepare Americans to accept an attack on Iran, just as Dick Cheney and Condi Rice invoked images of mushroom clouds to prepare Americans for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

One might think that having been deceived by the Bush regime over Iraq, the American people would have their eyes open to deception this time around. But apparently not. The same public that gives Bush a mere 30% approval rating, largely because of the Iraqi fiasco, is making no demands that Bush stop his march to war with Iran.

Not a day passes without new threats and lies issuing from Dick Cheney, Bonkers Bolton, and Condi Rice, and no one holds them accountable. The US media is proud to be complicit in lies and war crimes.

Ah, but the Iranian president said that he was going to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth."

He did not. He said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Middle East in the sense of being removed to Europe. He was making the rhetorical point that if the Europeans so favored a Jewish state, why did the Westerners not give the Jews part of Europe or North America? Why did they give the Jews Palestine, which was not theirs to give?

One may agree or disagree with the Iranian's point, but it was not a threat to kill the Jews.

The Iranians cannot kill the Jews even if they wanted, because Israel has nuclear weapons. Being somewhat paranoid--not altogether without reason--Israel is not going to sit there and be destroyed.

The US cannot forever dominate the Middle East in behalf of its interests and Israel's. The US is running out of resources. The US is heavily in debt, yet continues to hemorrhage red ink. Washington is dependent on foreigners to finance its wars. Offshoring has diminished America's ability to manufacture. The US is now dependent on China for advanced technology products and on Europe and Asia for manufactured goods. The American middle class is beginning to experience employment problems and income stagnation. The neocons' idea that the US can patrol Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria in perpetuity is insane. The Bush regime has proven that the US cannot even occupy Baghdad.

Unless the US government intends nuclear genocide against Muslims, it cannot prevail in war in the MIddle East. A solution in the Middle East requires diplomacy and good will, not threats and aggression. Yet, the Bush regime refuses to even meet with Iranian leaders.

By refusing to meet, talk, and negotiate, Bush is telling Iranians that they have no choice. Either they comply and do what Bush demands, or they will be attacked.

That is the Iranian Crisis in a nutshell.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: [email protected]


CounterPunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05232006.html)

This is how great civilizations end, more with a whimper than a bang.

Nbadan
05-23-2006, 12:38 PM
More from Craig Roberts:

Ex-Reagan official and Columnist Blasts the Bush Administration and the Media

<snip>


Creators Syndicate columnist Paul Craig Roberts said in a Monday piece: "The American public has been trained to obediently accept their government's lies fed to them by their government's handmaiden, the U.S. media. No statement or claim by a Bush regime official is too outlandish to be received with acceptance. Consider the claim by Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary for war and aggression, made to the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on May 17, that Iran was to blame for the instability in Iraq.

"Did the senators laugh Rumsfeld out of the room? No. Did the media remind the 'informed public' that it was actually the U.S. invasion and unsuccessful occupation, together with mass detentions, torture, slaughter of citizens and invasions of their homes, destruction of infrastructure and entire cities, such as Fallujah, and removal of Saddam Hussein's government, which kept the three Iraqi factions from each other's throats, that destabilized Iraq? Needless to say, no."

Roberts -- assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Reagan and a former editor at The Wall Street Journal and National Review -- added: "The only person in the Senate committee room who spoke the truth called Rumsfeld a liar and was hauled off by the police."

The columnist continued: "Freedom of expression still exists in America, but only on behalf of lies. Truth is forbidden, except on the Internet. The Internet is still free, because Americans are accustomed to believing what they hear on TV and read in the news columns of newspapers, whereas the Internet is new and iffy to most Americans and of less concern to the government. The mainstream media, which serves as a government propaganda organ, and the Internet are two parallel universes."

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/syndicates/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002540674)

Roberts is on a roll.

:hat

xrayzebra
05-23-2006, 04:15 PM
^^What hogwash.

Nbadan
05-23-2006, 04:48 PM
De ja vu?

Bolton: Iran regime can stay if ends arms pursuit
May 22, 2006


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on Monday that Iran's leaders could stay in power and improve their ties with Washington if they ended their pursuit of nuclear arms.

(snip)

"...if (the rulers in Tehran) give up their long-standing support for terrorism and they give up their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, that their regime can stay in place and that they can have a different relationship with the United States and the rest of the world," he said.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060522/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_bolton_dc)

Sound familiar?

Now, why does that ring a bell?

Saddam can stay if he disarms, Powell says
October 22, 2002


(snip)

Mr Powell, raising the possibility that the US might not seek "regime change" as it has repeatedly promised over the past 18 months, said on Sunday that if Saddam abandoned his chemical, nuclear, and biological programs, the Government would be altered so dramatically that in effect the goal would be reached.

"We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime," he said, "but the principal offence here is weapons of mass destruction ... The major issue before us is disarmament."

SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561443683.htmlx)

Nbadan
05-23-2006, 04:53 PM
A beauracratic mouthpiece says you can handle even higher gas prices...

U.S. Says World Could Handle Loss of Iran Oil


Iran’s dispute with the West over its nuclear program will probably not lead Tehran to cut off its oil exports, but if it did, the world could handle the lost supply, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on May 23.

The United States and other western countries are worried that Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, even though Tehran insists its seeking nuclear power only to boost electricity supplies.

"I don’t lose sleep over their (Iran’s) withholding oil from the marketplace because they are so dependent on oil export revenues," Bodman said at the Reuters Global Energy Summit in New York.

The Energy Department told Congress last week that the 26 countries that belong to the International Energy Agency have enough government-controlled and private commercial oil stocks to cover a disruption in Iran’s crude oil exports for more than four years.

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1821394&C=america)

Didn't these same jokers say that Iraqi oil would pay for the costs of the war and the rebuilding of Iraq?

xrayzebra
05-24-2006, 09:39 AM
dan - 4
Xray - 1
Dan is the mostest with posties.