‘In my opinion, the country is gearing for a strike on Iran. The only way for the Iranians to prevent it would be for them to abandon their aspirations for acquiring nuclear weapons.’
That could be a false choice, but we’ll have to wait and see. The comments are worth a read. It might be important to identify what both an Obama administration and any other other administration would face: an internally divided, often corrupt Iran (green revolution, Ahmadinejad’s authoritarian populism, the ayatollah and a religious theocracy, and a mostly oil and gas export economy) which is almost impossible to trust/deal with diplomatically. Its nuclear program probably cannot be stopped without some form of combat or sabotage, and the U.S cannot really let Iran go nuclear (least of all because of Israel).
Fukuyama had a piece in the Guardian from 01/30/2007 distancing himself (I don’t really advocate the Statism he’s been pursuing more openly since) from neo-conservativism (and the Bush handling of Iraq) that makes some good points.
Related On This Site: From Reflections Of A Rational Republican: ‘Are Airstrikes Imminent In Iran?’…
Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest: ‘Iran: Keeping The World’s Oddest Couple Together’…Materialsim and Leftism Paul Berman On Bloggingheads: The Left Can Criticize Iran
If Israel accepts the rocket attacks and border inrusions from its Arab and Islamic neighbors as a necessary cost of human life and property for the ultimate reward of buying more time in the stopping of Iran from getting nuclear weapons, then yes they will attach and the Spring may very well be the launch timing.
The US, under this current administration, is again involved in counterproductive and contradictory foreign policy. Sec. Panetta is publicly urging Israel to not attack under any circumstances while stating that the Americans will ‘leave nothing off the table’ in our goal of preventing Iran from getting the bomb.
This administration, as much as they purport to the contrary, consider Israel a nagging stepchild that they must continually protect from being bullied all the while keeping Israel from standing up for itself.
Fair points. Israel can’t accept a nuclear Iran.
This administration’s goal with the Muslim world is to somehow define freedom so that a plurality of Muslims can identify with it (it is a Western conception, further left than many Americans and myself are generally comfortable with). Instead of aggressive intervention to protect our interests and spread democracy (neoconservatism), it promotes human rights, coalition building around these rights and ideals which are presumed to be universal, and then perhaps minimal action taken upon them (Libya, Bin Laden are acceptable Iraq and Afghanistan are not and must be drawn down)
But Muslim freedom is bound up in weak economies, authoritarian regimes, in an Islam without separation of church and state where the existence of God is non-negotiable, in poorer, tribal societies with an often a huge pool of anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Western sentiment.
Neither the neocon nor Obama doctrines seem to be sufficient here.
The double standard of expecting Iran to accept a nuclear Israel while demanding that Iran not arm itself with nuclear weapons. Is not the act of a rational mind but the act of a bully seeking to dominate others weaker than themselves.
The current state of Israel was itself founded on terrorism and should have never been reinstated by the United Nations after the British were driven out by the Zionist movement. While the former state of Israel was, after all, destroyed by the Romans after they intentionally divorced the Father Above by putting to death their long awaited Messiah. “His blood be on us and our children!” they shouted and so it has been ever since.
Nor have I ever read in the Bible that the Father Above had made US of A his avenging angel.
So, in the name of fairness (or moral equivalence) you’re willing to support the Iranian regime (theocratic, abusive to many of its own people, repressive, warmongering with its neighbors) above that of Israel, which is a functioning, democratic, relatively free society much like our own (with no shortage of injustice, of course).
That’s near lunacy…and you’ll have to do much better than Naomi Klein.
Be careful who you get into bed with.
You should take your own advice.
Friedman’s economic theories always lead to corporate fascism and have been brutally implemented in Chile, Russia and China against the will of the common people; while these sames govt’s suppressed the democratic movements that got in their way. Indeed Friedman’s economic theories and political oppression always go hand in hand with each other.
Not only that but the neo-conservatives at the CIA arranged the assassinations of the preceding heads of state in Iraq, Iran and South America. The US govt. supported Pinochet, the Shah of Iran and Sadam thus bringing on ourselves the very troubles we are facing the Middle east today.
So as far as morality is concerned: As a neo- conservative fascist your hands are not only dirty but dripping with the blood of innocents.
So we are back to the ‘dripping of blood’ argument. My question David is: do we walk away from the Middle East or do we run? And once ‘secure’ (if we ever will be again) within our borders, how long do we have waiting for our enemies (regardless of the source of their intentions) to destroy us?
No other country on Earth has been threatened with annihilation like Israel. Countless times from Iran. Surely David Green does not suggest a comparison between Israel and Iran on the use of that nuclear power. Perhaps we need another photo of the writing on the side of the recently displayed Iran missles that reads “Death To Israel.” The real question is – does the US/Israel wait for Iran to develop both the warhead and the delivery system and wait for it to attack Israel or do they act in unison to deny that proability. Noone seems to want to discuss treaties and the potential of honoring them, certainly dangerous concepts that have only been a part of American history since the country’s founding.
George Washington warned about becoming involved in entangling alliances. The simple fact is this as long as American citizens are going to allow our govt. to interfere in the business of other nations {especially by murdering heads of state then installing a puppet} then we have to expect to get a bloody nose every now and then. However if the US of A will learn to mind its own business there would be absolutely no reason for anyone else to attack us.
No one likes a bully and as long as America is going to act like a bully don’t be surprised when others don’t like and oppose us any way they can.
Goodness, I”d better wash my hands then and make sure Naomi Klein sees me do it (for only you and Klein can be morally right, apparently). Perhaps you don’t know what neo-conservatism is beyond that book of hers. Samuel Huntington grew up an FDR liberal. Francis Fukuyama was heavily influenced by Hegel via Kojeve. William Kristol formulated the old “liberal mugged by reality” line. Neoconservatism, to some degree, is a conservatism born of greater closeness to liberalism, and a breakaway from it (and some of its dismal failures and its tendencies toward fascism). Neoconservatives support free markets and greater individual freedom than some conservatives might be comfortable with. This is why they’re attacked by die-hard liberals.
China was a former communist regime. See Mao and the cultural revolution. One party, ideological, nearly totalitarian control. MIllions dead. People claiming to support the “will” of the people starved or squeezed out millions who didn’t fit their plans. Freer markets were nowhere to be found until a few decades ago. Now it’s a bit of a free for all at times and industrializing rapidly with an old, rigid, communist structure still there. More freedom, much more opportunity, and much less political repression (but still plenty).
The Soviet Union-Large, poor, agrarian, czarist Russia goes Communist after the revolution. Stalin eventually gets to power and more millions are dead. Many people live in fear, with a low quality of life for most of the 20th century. The Cold War drags on and peters out. Not free markets. Not at all. Some reforms but still authoritarian and paranoid.
Chile-Friedman gave a series of lectures and wrote a letter to Pinochet, in the name of getting a more free economy which would probably undermine PInochet himself. He criticized the regime, and wanted slower reforms and people to be involved. This hardly merits Klein’s claims..
Please, man, read other books. Most of her empirical claims don’t hold up at all. She got one idea and ran with it (Milton Friedman is morally bad (or amoral) for promoting his ideas in countries with horrid political repression…Klein’s poorly argued beliefs are morally good).
It’s truly pathetic.
What’s truly pathetic are conservatives like yourself who cloak themselves with pretty words like freedom and patriotism yet support corporate fascism and the brutal repression of the will of the people. I’ve watched conservatism steady march towards the financial destruction of the US of A and until I read Kline’s book I had no idea just far conservatives would go in betraying their fellow citizens with their destructive policies.
Whether one calls it neo-liberalism, neo-conservistism or any other name corporate fascism is still fascism and the individual who claims otherwise {like yourself} is to put it bluntly a liar.
No matter how successful you are in deceiving yourself and others with the false cloak of righteous; the results of the economic theories you espouse will always expose you and your confederates as the agents of the very evil you accuse those who dare to disagree with you of being.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
It’s good to know you know what the “will of the people” is, and that folks like Klein can help you decide who your enemies are.
Discerning the will of the people isn’t all that difficult when the powers that be have to resort to brutal oppression in order to suppress those protesting the financial destructive policies forced upon them by their leaders.
Well, back to Iran and what this administration is doing about it
And to repeating the mistakes of the past of which conservatives are masters.
Not really sure that they ‘know how’ to do anything about it. The only so-called hawk in the administration is Hillary Clinton and she just came back from the UN with tail between her legs on the Syria vote where Russia and China showed us to be the ‘paper tiger’ we are under Pres. Obama. Again today we hear public admonishments from the administration that Israel ‘not take unilateral action.’ Probably the safest route for this administration (with his left base) is sabotage. I am amazed that there are still isolationists in todays American populace.
What America needs to do is live up to its stated principles as a Democratic Republic; instead of bankrupting itself by throwing its weight around the world like an evil empire and mind it’s own business for a change. Of course that would entail downsizing the federal government while concentrating our military on defending our own borders instead of bullying weaker nations. Something which conservatives refuse to do each and every time they are elected into office.
Well, just what those principles are is up for debate. We probably don’t agree. I think you’d go a lot further without denigrating people who disagree, assigning your enemies blame and also skipping the “evil” and “blood on your hands” rhetoric, whatever your beliefs.
You also seem to be advocating for isolationism, which I don’t think is ever feasible long term. I personally don’t find the Republican house and Senate members rhetoric on Iran very reassuring (and some action may be necessary and wise), nor the neo-conservatives, and least of all Obama’s foreign policy. All have limits.
I hope we don’t see too strong a recoil after Obama’s tenure, whenever that may be.
To put it simply the words I write are a mirror reflecting the image conservatives put out with their policies yet choose to ignore. I have never been one to say what one wants to hear but choose to say what one needs to hear and I always call a spade a spade. Today’s conservatism resembles an irrational religious cult far more then it does a reasonable political theory. While the average individual who espouses it has more in common with a cult member whose limited intellect has been brainwashed into voting against his own best interests.
That said America has enough problems of its own to deal with and simply doesn’t have the resources to meddle in the business of other nations. The day that conservatives truly begin to live up to their ideals and stop spending my hard earned money {stolen from me thru taxes} on ill conceived foreign adventures. Is that day that I will reevaluate my position.
.