Hillary’s contortions on Iran

I don’t know if the Cirque du Soleil is accepting new applicants for starring roles, but Hillary Clinton certainly seems to have been going through great contortions in the arguments she’s been trying to make about Iran in recent days.
In the “Townterview” (!) that she held in Qatar yesterday, she was very evidently trying to build a case for U.S. intervention– quite possibly, including forced regime change– in Iran, based on the allegedly anti-democratic nature of recent developments in that country.
This was a supplement to the arguments the U.S. government has made for many years now, that it must “keep on the table” the “option” of launching a war against Iran based on the Tehran government’s alleged violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT.)
Sound familiar?
Of course it is. This kind of slippery bait-and-switch regarding the casus belli on the basis of which Washington plans to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign country is exactly what we saw from George W. Bush (and his dreadful poodle, Tony Blair), in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Then, as now, when it seemed that the arguments about the alleged “necessity” of going to war based solely on the arguments made about WMDs seemed unconvincing to many around the world (including the U.S.’s own citizens), the U.S. administration used feats of rhetorical legerdemain to try to claim that, well, just in case the WMDs arguments weren’t convincing enough, well then, how about those arguments concerning democratization and human rights?
What did Hillary actually say in Qatar?
She said,

    on the nuclear front we see Iran being exposed for having a secret facility at Qom. We see Iran refusing an offer from Russia, the United States, and France to help it get the enriched uranium it needed to run something called the Tehran Research Reactor, which makes medical isotopes, something that we are willing to support Iran to do, for medical purposes. We see the president of Iran ordering the nuclear program to do its own enriching, and to begin to move toward the level of enrichment that certainly is troubling to us, because of what it well could be, with respect to nuclear weapons. We hear a lot of very negative language coming out of Iran.
    And we are deeply concerned about the way Iran is treating its own people, and the way that it has executed demonstrators, imprisoned hundreds and hundreds of people whose only offense was peacefully protesting the outcome of the elections. Sitting here in this extraordinary campus, where you are encouraged to think and speak freely, it is hard to imagine what it must be like now to a young person in Iran, who wishes to have the same opportunities.
    So, we are still hoping that Iran will decide to forgo any nuclear ambitions for nuclear weapons, and begin to respect its own people more on a daily basis, provide opportunities that the young students of Iran deserve to have for their future. But we cannot just keep hoping for that. We have to work to take action to try to convince the Iranian government not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Notice the mishmash of arguments she was using there; and the way she tried to weave them together into one single fabric that would be stronger than either of its components would be, separately.
Notice the many strong parallels with the way GWB and Blair worked extra-hard in the weeks leading up to March 19, 2003, to create a whole thick fabric of different casi belli against Iraq. Or, to use a better metaphor, how they created an entire smorgasbord of different reasons to launch a war just in case one of the options should turn out not, on its own, to be convincing enough.
But then, notice these two incredible contradictions/ironies in Hillary Clinton’s latest resort to the smorgasbord approach:

    1. The “description” she gave in Qatar of the way the Obama administration sees current political developments in Iran was this:

      We see that the Government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship [run by the revolutionary Guards].

    So presumably, the only honorable way forward for a lover of democracy would be to defend the Supreme Leader, the president, and parliament against this onslaught??
    2. The location where she gave this address. Qatar, after all, may have many of the appurtenances of an ultra-“modern” state in the world, with conference centers, Brookings Institution offices, etc etc. But it is notably not a country whose citizens enjoy much political freedom at all. Even the neoliberal U.S. organization Freedom House recognizes this, giving Qatar a 6-5 ranking this year on its assessment of political rights and civil liberties, in which ‘7’ is the worst possible’ and ‘1’ is the best possible.
    Freedom House gave Iran a 6-6 assessment this year. Saudi Arabia, the country Sec. Clinton visited right after Qatar, got a 7-6. So who’s being a little misleading here?
    (Also, she seems completely unaware that, ever since the viciously anti-democratic campaign Washington waged against the elected Palestinian leadership in 2006, its judgments on all matters of democracy and political accountability in the Middle East are themselves extremely suspect.)

Hillary’s contortions on this issue are important. They are a crucial part of a broad, AIPAC-fueled campaign that the Obama administration is now ramping up, to try to win public support in the U.S. and further afield for a U.S. war of forced regime change against Iran.
We have to call this campaign for what it is, and all work together to halt it in its tracks.
From this point of view, the kinds of questions that Clinton got from her host in the Qatar “townterview”, Al-Jazeera’s Abder-Rahim Foukara, and from most of her other questioners there, showed that her anti-Iranian campaign wasn’t winning many converts at all.
Foukara and many of the questioners from the floor wanted to ask her about Israel’s nuclear arsenal (a question that she ducked and wove to avoid giving a straight answer to.) They wanted to ask her about Washington’s policies on a broad range of Palestinian rights issues. (More ducking and weaving.) And they notably unswayed by her arguments over Iran.
It was a similar story in the remarks Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, made during the joint press appearance the two of them had in Riyadh, later in the day.
According to the U.S. State department, on Palestine Saud said,

    Within the framework of considering regional and international issues, the peace process received particular attention… The Kingdom believes in the importance of launching the peace process comprehensively to treat all the main issues of the conflict simultaneously, according to specific terms of reference and a clear-cut time schedule taking into account that the step-by-step policy and the confidence-building (inaudible) strategy have failed to accomplish their objectives. This is mostly evidenced by the current Israeli Government’s refusal to resume negotiations starting from the negotiations steps that were taken by the previous government.

And on the nuclear weapons question he said,

    Our talks also considered the Iranian nuclear issue. The Kingdom reiterates its support of the P-1+5 or the 1+5 group to solve the crisis peacefully through dialogue, and we call for a continuation of those efforts. We also call upon Iran to respond to these efforts to remove regional and international suspicions towards its nuclear program…
    The Kingdom also stresses the importance of regional and international efforts being focused on having the Middle East and the Gulf region being totally free from all weapons of mass destruction, notably nuclear weapons. It also stresses the criteria that the standards must apply to all states in the region without exception, including Israel’s nuclear program. History testifies that any weapon that enter the region has been used.

It’s really a pity that the WaPo’s’s Glenn Kessler spent so little time in the despatches he published today actually exploring and explaining the Saudi Foreign Minister’s positions on these matters, and ways too much time drooling over the lavishness of the dinner King Abdullah laid on for Sec. Clinton.
Including in this gem of out-of-place reporting: “The food selection was worthy of an elaborate wedding, a Hollywood opening or a fancy bar mitzvah.”
In this piece of more political reporting, I think Kessler quite possibly misinterpreted what Prince Saud said about China and its role in the whole diplomatic effort over Iran.
In the State Department transcript of Saud’s remarks (which is all I can find, since they don’t appear to have been covered by the Saudi Press Agency), a questioner asked this of him:

    there’s been a lot of talk about the role that Saudi Arabia could play by reassuring the Chinese that it will guarantee a reliable supply of oil in the event that there were some disruptions in the global oil supply. I wonder whether you have conveyed that message to the Chinese Government. And if you haven’t conveyed it, do you think it makes sense for Saudi Arabia to take that step?

And he replied,

    Saudi Arabia and its relations with China, of course, are a close relationship, and especially the economic sphere (inaudible) produces of oil that is exported to China. But it is not a matter of just Saudi Arabia and China; we have to come with a real plan to prevent the proliferation of atomic weapons in the region. This is why we put our proposal that the region be free, declared free of atomic weapons and weapons of mass destruction. We believe that is the right approach…
    I am sure the Chinese carry their responsibility as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations very seriously and they need no suggestion from Saudi Arabia to do what they ought to do according to their responsibility.

To me, this looks most like a polite brush-off to the whole idea– which was peddled by ‘Washington insiders’ quite heavily in the lead-up to Hillary’s trip– that strongarming China would be something Saudi Arabia could contribute to the anti-Iran campaign. Saud was quite right to note that China, “need[s] no suggestion from Saudi Arabia to do what they ought to do according to their responsibility.”
Kessler, however, interpreted Saud’s reply as signaling “impatience with China’s reluctance to embrace tough action against Tehran.” I’m not sure it was signaling that, at all.
I need to underline that the lousy, lazy, and Washington-bubble-bound way that Kessler and other MSM journos report on attitudes in the Arab world just feeds into the idea that one hears a lot here, namely that Iran’s Arab neighbors really “want” the U.S. to become assertive against Iran. (Also, that they really don’t give a damn about Palestine.)
It ain’t so. And a close reading of Prince Saud’s very polite comments, or of the interactions with the townterview participants in Qatar would clearly indicate that.
But Kessler and the rest of the MSM journos seem not to have learned anything from the history of the past years. They never heard a Washington war-drum that they didn’t want to help beat.

26 thoughts on “Hillary’s contortions on Iran

  1. Alexno

    Yeah, I found myself extremely puzzled by Clinton’s remark that Iran was a dictatorship. Or if it was really that Iran was moving towards a dictatorship, as you say. There didn’t seem to be any evidence offered as why that view should be correct.
    It was pretty bizarre, as you say, when placed alongside the states supported by the US, out and out autocracies.
    It seemed to me a pretty naive strike to get Gulf support for the attack on Iran.
    I would think the Gulf States would be more afraid of the attack itself than they are of Iran. Destabilised Gulf would mean a lot of Gulf Sheikhs losing their seats. And a lot of abandoned desert cities. That’s worse than a vaguely menacing Iran over the other side of the water.
    But I don’t suppose the White House advisors are bright enough to see that.

  2. JohnH

    The hypocrisy oozes out of every pore of Hillary’s body. Imagine criticizing Iran’s anti-democratic behavior in front of Arab tyrants. And asking Iran to “respect its people more on a daily basis.”
    If those were the principles Hillary was truly espousing, it would have scared those tyrants out of their wits. But they remain secure in the knowledge that Hillary has no intention of pursing a democratic agenda or of asking tyrants to treat their people better. They know better than anyone that Hillary’s only purpose was to score point with Western audiences oblivious to her hypocrisy.

  3. Jack

    Hillary is well on her way to becoming the worst Secretary of State in modern times. She treats the office as if she was still running for Senator from New York. Her incredible misstatements must constantly be explained and reinterpreted after she has shot off her mouth (remember her lavish praise of Netanyahu’s phony settlement freeze?) Is she really straying off the farm after finding out, as the Republicans, Lieberman, the Israelis, and the rest of the world found out, that Obama has no cajones? Or is she really projecting a Bush-like cowboy image as part of a plan to give Obama a chance to look like a reasonable, good guy in contrast? (While they are all really beating the war drums again)

  4. JohnH

    I don’t know, Hillary has a ways to go before she reaches the pinnacle of incompetence, like Condi. But if she stays on her present trajectory, she could yet surpass Condi’s abominable record of failure.

  5. Jack

    There is, a very interesting dissertation on the actual Obama nuclear policy, as opposed to the stated one, by Scott Ritter on the Truthdig website. He points out, by the way, that Iran is not in violation of the NPT (neither is Israel since they have refused to join) and I believe that the US, as represented by Secretary Clinton, finesses this by saying that Iran is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions (so is Israel, of course, but that is another issue).

  6. Don Bacon

    Iran? That’s only a starter.
    I see Qatar moving toward a military dictatorship.
    from the CIA World Factbook, Qatar:
    chief of state: Amir HAMAD bin Khalifa al-Thani (since 27 June 1995 when, as heir apparent, he ousted his father, Amir KHALIFA bin Hamad al-Thani, in a bloodless coup); Heir Apparent TAMIM bin Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, fourth son of the amir (selected Heir Apparent by the amir on 5 August 2003); note – Amir HAMAD also holds the positions of Minister of Defense and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
    and Saudi Arabia doesn’t look good (CIA Factbook):
    chief of state: King and Prime Minister ABDALLAH bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud (since 1 August 2005); Heir Apparent Crown Prince SULTAN bin Abd al- Aziz Al Saud (half brother of the monarch); note – the monarch is both the chief of state and head of government
    national elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary;
    Political parties and leaders: none
    Suffrage: 21 years of age; male
    **So how did Saudi Arabia earn a 7-6 ranking from Freedom House when it’s ruled by a dictator and half its people can’t vote in any elections? (Or operate a motor vehicle?)**
    and another US ally, the UAE, is no bed of roses either:
    Suffrage: none
    Political parties and leaders: none; political parties are not allowed
    Looks like Hillary Clinton’s US might have its hands full helping all these people with more military invasions.

  7. Don Bacon

    Iran ranks #3 in oil reserves and #2 in production, exports much of what it produces and is the fourth-largest crude oil exporter in the world. Chief destinations ranked: Japan, China, India (all three huge), South Korea, Italy, Spain, France, South Africa, Netherlands, & Greece.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
    In 2008, Iran was the world’s fourth largest producer and third largest consumer of natural gas. There is talk of pipelines to Pakistan and Europe.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/NaturalGas.html
    So US claims that Iran is “isolated” and “evil” fall on deaf ears not only in Asia but elsewhere. Iran’s civilian nuclear program has the full support of the 125 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), for example.

  8. bevin

    I think the underlying point of this campaign is to intimidate Russia and China and to drive a wedge into the burgeoning defensive pact between them.
    In such a campaign the extravagance and evident hypocrisy of Clinton’s transparently false claims convey an important message: ‘we are beyond the reach of reason and argument. And so are the yokels in our domestic constituencies.’
    Whether an attack on Iran is intended seems to me to be uncertain: the current campaign, if it suceeds in isolating Hezbollah, humbling China and tempting Russia into showing how clever and ruthless it is by deserting Iran, will have done a great deal.
    My view is that smashing Hezbollah is the US government’s primary objective. This is because, firstly, the Lebanese Resistance has provided an example of how to dampen Israeli aggression that is far more serious and potent than the nihilistic posings of the so called Al Qaeda.
    And secondly because it presents in the short term an existential threat to the entire jerry built structure of the US Arab allies. None of them could survive the spread of Hezbollah-like social and political organisations into their countries.
    The Arab world must be due to explode, the US fears that wehen it does so it will be a controlled explosion, marshalled and aimed at the tyrants it supports. It feels that it has the military power to suppress riots and terrorists, indeed it would welcome the opportunity to prove it, but the likes of Nasrallah make it shudder.
    Unfortunately this tedious brinkmanship is likely to last a long time and prevent the human race from getting to grips with the real problems which have to do with controlling growth, repairing the environment and doing away with capitalism. The world waits impatiently for the American people to do what only they can do: deal with an oligarchy rabid with greed and drunk with its own capacity for violence. Bring back the IWW!

  9. Michael Murry

    An article in the New York Times today (2/17/2010) entitled “Diplomatic Memo: Iran Policy Now More in Sync with Clinton’s Views” fairly reeks with glee over the notion that Secretary of State You-Know-Her has now forcibly brought her erstwhile (and easily browbeaten) boss, President Obama, around to her more belligerent views concerning America’s relations with Iran. One sentence from the article sums up (with unintended irony) the dreary prospects for American influence in a world that has learned to severely discount the lunatic ravings of America’s “high level” officialdom:
    “It is a measure of how much things have changed that Mr. Obama, who clashed repeatedly with Mrs. Clinton about how to deal with Iran during the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has assigned her to drum up international support for a package of United Nations sanctions against Iran.”
    The mention of sanctions (formerly known as “embargoes” or “acts of war”) espoused by a Clinton reminded me immediately of President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her notoriously glib quip dissmissing a half-million Iraqi children dead from eight years of sanctions-induced malnutrition: “We think the price was worth it.” Where does America get these inhuman monsters?
    Not that I harbor any unrealisitic hopes that America might reverse its now-precipitous decline into second-world status, but one can at least try to salvage some crumbs of poetic creativity from You-Know-Her’s pathetic, pathological perambulations. In other words:
    “It Takes a Pillage” (or, “Living Misery”)
    Another trip by You-Know-Her,
    Like Dubya’s Karen Hughes,
    Abroad to sell Israeli sand
    In desert interviews
    To monarchs of “democracy”
    Who find her rants old news.
    She thought that voting for a “war”
    That Dick and Dubya sold her
    Would make her look all-tough-and-stuff
    But only served to mold her
    Into a shrieking, shallow shill
    For Zionists who told her
    What she would say: when, where, and why,
    No matter the occasion.
    Her bullshit bile: “Let Muslims die!”
    Or, “Let’s have an invasion!”
    While ducking every question with
    A doublespeak evasion.
    This leaves no further room for doubt
    That travesty and terror
    Have triumphed in the U.S.A.,
    Where crass conceit and error
    Combine to export gifts from Greeks,
    With You-Know-Her the bearer.
    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2010
    The empire has struck out.

  10. Alexno

    Bevin
    I think that’s a little too complicated. Putting fear into Gulf States that an upcoming war is going to throw their fragile peace in the air is not a good way to get back at Hizbullah.
    The whole affair stinks of insensitivity to anything but the interests of AIPAC

  11. Don Bacon

    Regarding Bevin’s comment on the US smashing Hezbollah:
    Feb 12, BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) – Iraqi security forces backed by U.S. troops killed at least five people Friday in a raid on suspected members of what Washington calls an Iranian-backed terrorist group, the U.S. military said.
    The firefight with suspected members of Kata’ib Hizballah, a group that the U.S. State Department says has ties to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, occurred 265 km (165 miles) southeast of Baghdad in a village near the Iranian border, the U.S. military said. Twelve people were arrested, it said.
    —-
    Feb 12, BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi security forces arrested 22 of the Iraq’s Hezbollah Brigades fighters in a series of operation southeast of Baghdad far towards the border with Iran, a U.S. spokesman said on Friday.
    U.S. officials accuse Hezbollah Brigades of getting support from Iran to wage attacks against Iraqi and U.S forces so as to destabilize Iraq’s security.

  12. Don Bacon

    Michael,
    Aye and it’s a fine mornin’ (here in Mexico) when I can read one o’ yer fine poems, preceded with a minor verbal shot at our “easily browbeaten” president.

  13. Michael Murry

    Don,
    Thanks for your own contribution to this thread (and others) as well as your kind (if somewhat tongue-in-cheek) reaction to my latest attempt at polemic verse. I suppose that Helena set me off with her spot-on characterization of You-Know-Her’s latest comic contortions vis-a-vis Iran and its perfectly legitimate intentions to develop nuclear power production, if not legitimate nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for the truth of things, television news programs — both in America and on CNN International — have pretty much portrayed You-Know-Her’s latest diplomatic debacle as something of a well-received “success.” And as I said in quoting the New York Times article, much of America’s so-called “elite” now view You-Know-Her as having effectively bullied President Obama into knocking off his pretty, ineffectual speeches and “doing things her way.”
    At any rate, I’ve never had much use for You-Know-Her, going way back to her ham-handed bungling of National Health Care early in her husband’s first administration. Her subsequent attempts to re-image herself as an “all tough and stuff” chickenhawk shill for the Apartheid Zionist Entity caused me to loathe her all the more. And, of course, her craven and stupid vote to authorize Deputy Dubya’s stud-hamster vendetta against the toothless Saddam Hussein convinced me of her utter worthlessness to the Democratic Party and America.
    Consequently, in an attempt to chronicle in verse the snowballing debacle in Iraq from 1992 onward, I had occasion to write several poems expressing my disdain for You-Know-Her in all her mutating manifestations. Take the following one from 2006 as only one example — but feel free to substitute “boy” for “girl” if you find that appropriate given the fact that we can no longer differentiate You-Know-Her’s bogus bellicosity from that of her easily browbeaten “boss.” Hence, just for you, Don:
    “Buffaloed Girl”
    (somewhat after the traditional song of a similar name)
    Buffaloed girl, won’t you come out tonight?
    Bask in your fright; hide in plain sight.
    Buffaloed girl don’t you put up a fight;
    Just dance to the right with the goons!
    Buffaloed girl, don’t you burn any flags;
    Marry some fags; count body bags.
    Buffaloed girl, wrapped in riches not rags,
    Just keep raking in those doubloons!
    Buffaloed girl, send our troops to Iraq!
    Then leave them there! Don’t bring them back!
    Buffaloed girl, cover George Bush’s back,
    And scrape up a few more platoons!
    Buffaloed girl, just stay out of the fray.
    Keep your mouth shut! Keep making hay!
    Buffaloed girl, while the cat is away
    Just keep playing mice with buffoons.
    Buffaloed girl, don’t you hear the troops cry?
    Wounded for wrongs; dead for a lie.
    Buffaloed girl, look in everyone’s eye
    And then soil your own pantaloons.
    Buffaloed girl, under Lieberman’s wing,
    Saving his job, that’s the main thing.
    Buffaloed girl, you and Holy Joe sing
    The duet of right-wing spittoons.
    Buffaloed girl, rail at video games;
    Focus group that; spout the right frames.
    Buffaloed girl, don’t you name any names,
    Just save children from their cartoons.
    Buffaloed girl, take a “listening” tour;
    If you don’t know; if you’re not sure.
    Buffaloed girl, voters like their fake “pure”
    Like war debt that simply balloons.
    Buffaloed girl, when it counted you hid.
    Don’t try to lie. That’s what you did.
    Buffaloed girl, Dubya made you his kid
    When you bought the crap that he croons.
    Buffaloed girl, your irrelevance mounts,
    Even in small, measured amounts.
    If “it” takes a village, by all your accounts
    Then take “it” to Mars and its moons.
    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2006
    I hope you enjoy your mornings in Mexico, Don. I certainly do enjoy mine here in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, where real and affordable National Health Care has already saved my life — twice. I’d have died, in more ways than one, if I hadn’t gotten out of the sadly deteriorating United States of America.

  14. Salah

    Whatever US talking about Iran, looks in ME specially Gulf countries as new way showing the beast on their front doors and they should pay attentions to US makeup story.
    US/Iran relations are far more hidden and well demonstrated in Iraq how US gave Iraq to Iraq and then afterword the cry for Iraqis from Iran interfering inside Iraq as if US do not know, or do not capable to stop them, although US had brought the midwife pro-Iranians in power inside Ira with most Iraqi objections.
    Don Bacon ,
    Defending Iran case that’s fine but bringing this garbage of other countries here and in other places you posting is not just looking biased in same times very naïve which not can help your justifications in this matter, unless you had some Persian blood in your veins….

  15. Don Bacon

    Michael,
    It’s good to hear that you’re doing well. Yesterday I met a Canadian who has an American friend who moved to Canada for the medical care that was unavailable to him in the US.
    I was fortunate to spend two years living on Yangmingshan, just north of Taipei.
    I can’t help thinking that Hillary, as she bumbles her way through what she probably calls diplomacy, might have benefited, as I did, from an introduction to Chinese painting. Making the ink, settling the mind, and then focusing on each brush stroke knowing that it can never be corrected or covered up.

  16. hmmm

    The real contortions I see on Iran are the laughable feel good report put out by the end of the Bush administration indicating Iran had stopped its enrichment activities and the mole ElBaradei (nee Mohhhamed) claiming there was no evidence of weapons intent.
    The mask is off, Iran really want nuclear weapons and it is Obama’s plate to decide if he will be Carter letting the evil make irreversible progress or stop them. Like Kissinger said, we built our military to stop the Soviets, don’t tell me Iran is a match.

  17. Alexno

    What you mean, Hmmm, is that the US now has a tame head of the IAEA, and can call for any report it wants. I should think that report was written in Tel Aviv.

  18. Don Bacon

    hmmm,
    I don’t recall any report on Iran stopping enrichment activities. Where did you get that? And where is the evidence of weapons intent you refer to? What evidence do you have that Iran wants nukes?

  19. Don Bacon

    The ONLY function of the IAEA, according to the NPT treaty, is “for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” All other IAEA speculations and all other IAEA political activities related to illegal UNSC-mandated orders are extralegal.

  20. Michael Murry

    If I may inquire: what has the IAEA ever done to restrain the United States and its pet parasite, the Apartheid Zionist Entity, from (1) building all the nuclear power plants these two pariahs want and (2) stockpiling all the nuclear weapons they desire?
    Given the obvious answer: “Nothing,” it rather begs the question to ask what possible relevance the IAEA could have regarding whatever Iran — or any other country — wants to do in the areas of (1) nuclear power plant construction or (2) nuclear weapons. Iran has so far to date done more to comply with the IAEA than either the U.S.A. or the A.Z.E. So what business do the U.S.A. and the A.Z.E. have in criticizing Iran?
    In principle and in fact, every nation has just as much right to do for itself whatever the U.S.A. and the A.Z.E. do for themselves. (This includes, of course, “defensive” participation in the escalating plague of robot drone assasins deployed worldwide). Any claim otherwise amounts to nothing but self-serving hypocrisy and merits no consideration whatsoever.
    The Iranians can have nuclear weapons if the Pakistanis and the Indians can, to cite only two countries that the IAEA has failed to prevent obtaining or developing nuclear weapons. In principle and in fact, the U.S.A. and the A.Z.E., the two foremost practitioners of state-perpetrated WMD terrorism, have never yet attacked another nation in possession of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it only makes sense for as many sovereign nations as possible to obtain this deterrent against U.S.A./A.Z.E. terrorism in the hope that this might allow them to retain their sovereignty.
    Until the U.S.A. and the A.Z.E. allow the IAEA to oversee their own disarmament, no sane and rational government routinely denounced and threatened by these pathological partners — like, Iran — can rest assured of its own territorial integrity and sovereignty until it acquires as many nuclear weapons (and, now, robot drone assassins) as the world’s two most lawless perpetrators possess.
    Too bad that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has actually worked to prevent many needless wars for so many decades now. But there you have it. Self-restraint by the U.S.A. and the A.Z.E. (when tempted to attack nations and peoples without nuclear weapons) simply doesn’t pass the laugh test. The IAEA has failed. MAD has worked. Insane, yes. But there you have it.

  21. Salah

    “The Iranians can have nuclear weapons if the Pakistanis and the Indians can, to cite only two countries that the IAEA has failed to prevent obtaining or developing nuclear weapons.”
    Michael Murry, you missed the very arguable case rather than Pakistanis and the Indians.Israel has had nuclear weapons whatsoever any concerns were raised about her.
    Some telling that Israel is the only a democratic state in ME and they not can go to use them as other regimes in ME!!.
    In 1973 former Prime Minister Golda Meir ordered handful fighters to be loaded with nuclear weapons ready to drops bombs on Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo and other places? Very democratic state…

  22. Michael Murry

    Salah,
    With all due respect, you missed the point I made over and over again about the hypocritical possession of nuclear weapons stockpiles by the Apartheid Zionist Entity (or, A.Z.E., for short). I apologize if my personal choice of words caused any confusion on your part. I employ the accurate and descriptive term that I do (instead of the biblical misnomer that you and so many others choose to invoke) because I wish to communicate my own thoughts instead of those which the words of others might erroneously imply or connote should I naively and foolishly allow myself to repeat them.
    Since you obviously know well the current and historic plight of the Palestinian people (as well as millions of other invaded and occupied Muslim peoples) you should understand what “Apartheid” means. You should also know what “Zionist” means. And you should also know that my use of the word “Entity” instead of the word “nation” or “state” means that I do not accept the legitimacy implied by the name that Apartheid Zionists have chosen for themselves and the stolen Palestinian land upon which they now illegally squat.
    In recognition of this understanding, then, please pardon me for saying that I consider you ineffective in your criticisms of the A.Z.E. because Apartheid Zionists have got you mouthing their illegitimate claims every time you foolishly repeat the linguistic terminology that they have arrogated to themselves.
    For example, if you look up the word “semite” in any good English dictionary, you will find that the word means:
    “One of a group of peoples of Caucasian stock, now represented by the Jews and Arabs, but originally including the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, Phoenicians, etc.”
    My younger brother, a California high school English and history teacher, pointed this out to me several years ago. He also told me that whenever someone calls him an “anti-semite” for criticizing Apartheid Zionists (whether Jews or Fundamentalist Christians) he always replies: “On the contrary. I like Arabs.” When this predictably produces a confused, blank stare, my brother then explains to his confused interlocutor just what the definition of the word “semite” really means. I have adopted this technique of linguistic clarification myself. You ought to try it.
    Anyway, for Jews to arrogate the meaning of “semite” only to themselves constitutes linguistic hijacking. I refuse to acknowledge this implied de-humanization of the equally semitic Arab peoples. Jews persecuting Arabs constitutes “anti-semitism” every bit as much as anyone else persecuting Jews. And I use the word “Zionist” to differentiate those who have dispossessed the Palestinian Arab (i.e, “semitic”) peoples from “Jews” who have not done that nor support anyone else who does.
    Our choice of language matters. Apartheid Zionists know this. You should, too. I don’t mean to lecture you on this topic, but I suggest you get a copy of George Orwell’s famous essay “Politics and the English Language” (as well as his equally useful “Notes on Nationalism”). What he has to say about the deliberate misuse of language to confuse and disorient the unwarry can help us immensely in our efforts to think clearly in the face of propaganda designed purposefully by our “leaders” to deceive us.
    In short: Iran — as a legitimate nation/state — has every bit as much right to nuclear power and nuclear weapons as does the illegitimate figment the Apartheid Zionist Entity and its misguided imperial patron, the United States of America. Have I made my point clear?

  23. Don Bacon

    Michael,
    Please read my post. The IAEA is not some kind of super watchdog agency.
    The IAEA, according to the NPT that Iran signed, has no function except to verify that nuclear fuel is not diverted to nuclear weapons, which in the case of Iran they have continually done. NPT

  24. Michael Murry

    Don,
    Thanks for the reminder about the IAEA’s extremely limited function of only verifying “that nuclear fuel is not ‘diverted’ to nuclear weapons.” Nevertheless, it makes no difference whether one calls the IAEA a “super watchdog agency” or a “hapless, compliant poodle” if its sole function applies only to those nations that have actually signed the NPT and/or have any intention of abiding by the NPT’s restrictions, even if they have signed it. Obviously, any nation determined to develop nuclear weapons can simply not sign the NPT or can sign it and get around its provisions through simple, cynical Orwellian word-magic, to wit: “We never ‘diverted’ nuclear fuel to weaponry, we ‘developed’ nuclear fuel specifically for weaponry. So we never violated our signed agreement at all.”
    I have simply pointed out the obvious: namely, that any nation desiring nuclear weapons to forestall an attack upon itself by the U.S.A., the A.Z.E., or any other hostile nation, has little choice but to develop nuclear weapons. And the IAEA, no matter what one calls it, has proven ineffective at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
    One could argue, I suppose, that the IAEA proved effective in keeping Iraq from producing nuclear weapons, but in fact only a bombing attack by the A.Z.E. (one that blew up a nuclear reactor under development) prevented Iraq from developing nuclear power generation, whether or not Iraq even intended to “divert” any nuclear fuel to nuclear weapons — which someday it will no doubt do at its earliest opportunity to forestall another devastating invasion and occupation by the U.S.A. acting on behalf, if not the command, of the A.Z.E.
    More depressingly for the IAEA, even when its inspectors did their jobs and proved conclusively that Iraq had no nuclear “weapons of mass destruction,” the U.S.A. — acting on behalf of, if not at the command of, the A.Z.E. — not only ignored their professional work, but actively derided and undermined their work at every turn, throughout both the Clinton and Bush administrations. If a country with nuclear weapons wants to attack or invade another nation that doesn’t have such weapons, then, … well, you know what happens. As my fellow Vietnam Veteran, Daniel Ellsberg said so simply and truthfully many years ago: “The United States invaded Iraq for Oil, Israel, and domestic political considerations.” The IAEA, watchdog or poodle, proved nothing but an inconvenient obstacle, easily dispensed with on a whim.
    You know all this. But since this thread deals with the lies and hypocritical threats against a Muslim country coming from the mouth of our current lady Secretary of State speaking for another Democratic administration — and since I know you like poetry so much — please allow me to inflict upon you one of the many verse episodes of my epic monologue, Fernando Po, U.S.A. I think you will easily detect all the relevant references. Hence:
    “Boobie Official Mendacity.”
    The characters in government
    Will change from time to time
    As fashion colors change from green
    To slightly lemon-lime
    But lying never changes, like
    The meter of this rhyme
    The former Clinton government
    Once wanted to inflict
    The normal needless bombing on
    A country it had picked
    Because its petty potentate
    Our boots had never licked
    It seems that of the suspects whom
    We normally accuse
    One stood apart in infamy
    Thus him we would abuse
    Because he could not stop us so
    That made him great to use
    Inspectors roamed across his land
    Discovering not much
    Of mass-destructive weaponry,
    And gas, and germs, and such
    Thus did Saddam Hussein refuse
    To come through in the clutch
    So in frustration Bubba Bill
    Turned Madam Albright loose
    To use up some “diplomacy”
    Much like a hangman’s noose
    To threaten peace with war until
    War seemed our only ruse
    A decade’s worth of sanctions failed
    To bring the tyrant down
    But only starved his children which
    Caused few of us to frown
    If hungry Arab kids can’t swim
    We say: “Then let them drown”
    “We think the price is worth it,” said
    Ms Albright in her way
    Yet glib and airy phrases left
    No food upon the tray
    Just surly scorn for diplomats
    Who never have to pay
    But still those damned inspectors caused
    Our President to pout:
    To bomb might make them hostages
    Which could extend the bout
    To something more than half a round
    And not the hoped-for rout
    This Bubba Bill could not abide:
    So he asked the UN
    To have its people leave and tell
    Him where and how and when
    So he could blame their absence on
    Saddam and all his men
    To pull off this duplicity
    He needed lies to spout
    And so he took the muzzle off
    Of Madam Albright’s snout
    So she could lie and say Saddam
    Had forthwith “kicked them out”
    And so with the inspectors gone
    And nothing more to say
    The bomber pilots got to fly
    Three miles above harm’s way
    And blitz some helpless cities
    Just to earn their monthly pay
    Just so with Boobie Bumbler George
    Who also wanted in
    To knock about the whipping boy
    And all his clan and kin
    Yet once again inspectors proved
    An obstacle to spin
    They’d gone ahead and done their jobs
    And found no smoking gun
    Which vexed another President
    Who so much needed one
    To validate more lies and his
    Vendetta left undone
    “He tried to kill my daddy!” swore
    The vengeful Boobie Bush
    “I know because the CIA
    Has searched the Hindu Kush;
    And found out lots of stuff, so now
    I say shove comes to push”
    So Boobie George told the UN
    That its men hadn’t found
    What Boobie George and Dick and Don
    Knew lay somewhere around
    Someplace where only they could see
    On undiscovered ground
    And Boobie Condoleeza Rice
    And Colin Powell, too,
    Proved once again that Black folks lie
    Just like the White ones do
    Repeating what no one believed
    Exactly right on cue
    With summer coming on so soon
    And springtime cool so short
    The bombing had to start at once
    Lest hot weather abort
    Mad plans to land upon a ship
    Sent steaming back to port
    And so once more the snoops and hounds
    Packed up and left Iraq
    The UN wished to take no part
    In Bush’s planned attack
    Yet still the obvious and bald
    Required a little slack
    To cover for their rush to war
    The Bush Bunch needed spin
    They claimed they had no choice because
    They wanted so to win
    And bad Saddam had not allowed
    Inspectors to come in
    Thus here we have a sorry tale
    Of two groups sworn to tell
    No truth if they could help it
    And they could, so what the hell?
    And Boobies, anyway, had grown
    Accustomed to the smell
    Saddam Hussein had let a host
    Of spies stay at his inn
    But yet it didn’t change a thing
    Or mitigate his sin
    Bill lied about the “kicking out”
    And George the “letting in”
    The Presidents who work for us
    Decline to let us know
    The things we need to supervise
    Their fumbling tell-and-show
    So wars begin on schedule and
    The piles of bodies grow
    Bill Clinton swore one type of lie;
    George Bush another kind
    They both had lied so much that each
    Thought none would ever mind
    With Boobies all so fast asleep
    The bland could lead the blind
    If once their lips commence to move
    A lie we should suspect
    And if their lips should move again
    We should at once reflect
    That we can — in their moving lips —
    A naked lie detect
    Their lying we should not expect
    To bother them that much
    To make them tell the truth would be
    To rob them of their crutch
    If they could choose, they’d lie so that
    They wouldn’t loose their touch
    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2005

Comments are closed.