Shall We Have Another War...This Time, Iran?

No one did much thinking in early 2003; everyone was "in shock," you see. That excuse cannot be used this time. So...has the U.S. public learned anything in the interim?

Explaining Afghanistan

Is the U.S. really in Afghanistan to help the Afghanis? Is this a pipeline war rather than a "war on terror?"

Yemen: More Resistance

Given how well it worked in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, why not Yemen?

Changing Irrational Regimes

A security threat surely does exist in the Mideast, but neither war nor regime change in Iran alone will resolve the situation. The solution is regime change in both Iran and Israel.

Ex-Mossad chief Dagan, diehard advocate of violence as the method of choice to defeat Israel’s antagonists but nevertheless sufficiently “rational” to choose methods short of full-scale military aggression, differs profoundly from Netanyahu clique politicians. “Rational,” everyone now suddenly seems to agree, is a term that applies to the Iranian regime: i.e., not suicidal, not similar to (say) extremist end-of-days Protestant fundamentalists who believe not only that the world is coming to an end but that we should rush to embrace that end or to analogous extremist end-of-days Twelver Shi’a with the same beliefs (by some accounts including Ahmadinejad).

Attacking Iran now is “the stupidest idea” Meir Dagan has “ever heard” [Meir Dagan on 60 Minutes.]

Dagan, too, despite his penchant for violence, appears rational. If an enemy is rational and not a clear and present danger of disaster, war cannot be justified. Militarily insignificant Iran with its cautious foreign policy still presents a challenge to Israeli foreign policy and its current ruling elite– to its pretensions of exceptionalism, to its claims of the exclusive right to determine which arms all other states in the region may possess. But Iran presents no clear or present danger of disaster to the Israeli state or society.

Netanyahu carefully confuses this distinction for very good personal reasons, which brings us to the question of whether or not Netanyahu is rational in risking, if not begging for, war by constantly harping on the alleged “existential threat” that a future nuclear Iran would pose. The fact is that all nuclear states pose existential threats to everyone else. That is the shadow under which mankind has survived for the last half century. But only the current ruling clique in Tel Aviv raves about it in a manner that sounds…irrational.

Rationality for political leaders needs to be judged on two levels – what is rational for the leader and what is rational for the society. Simply, from a personal perspective, risking war to maintain his career has an element of rationality for Netanyahu – the U.S. might do it for him and might get away with it and even if it does not, Iran might cave, and in any case the U.S. is almost certain to open even wider the spigot of arms. From the perspective of the Israeli people, who presumably want to live in good economic conditions and in the absence of falling missiles and, by the way, in a democracy, Netanyahu’s behavior is, in contrast, hard to define as rational: he is risking everything in the absence of a clear and present danger but mostly he is putting at risk his society’s safety for the sake of his career.

Does that remind anyone of Ahmadinejad? It should, for he gains the same benefits by whipping up war. This similarity of irresponsible politicians on both sides waving the bloody flag of war for personal profit suggests a solution to the whole problem, and, interestingly, Mr. Dagan gets it half right in remarks reportedly made to 60 Minutes referring to regime change in Iran as preferable to an Israeli attack.

But regime change in Iran would, by itself, solve nothing. First, it would not stop the theoretical possibility that one day Iran might choose to weaponize its nuclear technology. Iran under any regime other than a completely submissive colonial lackey administration (in today’s world, an untenable long-term solution), would still want nuclear knowledge and a prominent regional position for Iran. It would still face its own existential threat from Israeli nukes, not to mention Pakistani and Indian and U.S. and Chinese and Russian and French and British nukes (and the theoretical possibility of future Saudi nukes). It would still challenge Israel pretensions to military dominance of the Mideast by its very existence as an independent and much larger state, thus making the Israeli threat a very real one. Thus, second, regime change in Iran would not eliminate the theoretical future threat to the region of Iranian nukes, nor would it eliminate the current very real threat to the region of Israeli nukes.

Nukes don’t kill people; politicians do. The danger in the Mideast is posed less by the weapons than by the propensity of certain politicians, certain regimes, and certain elite forces to use weapons (from nuclear ambiguity to economic sanctions to murder to nukes) in pursuit of political goals. The solution is regime change in both countries. Militarily imposed regime change in either country would, I concur with Dagan, almost surely be a disaster, but Obama in a second term could find worse goals than using the power of the presidency to promote regional political conditions such that the people of Iran and Israel each voluntarily reach the conclusion that it is in their own interests to tell the irresponsible politicians endangering them to take a hike.

Giving a Fix to an Addict

Reports of giving offensive weapons of mass destruction to the Netanyahu gang sound like buying off the neighborhood junkie with a free fix. The next U.S. president better come into office with a plan of pure magic.

The best TV news program available in the U.S. today, Democracy Now, says that Obama has "reportedly" offered Israel offensive weapons of mass destruction to delay a war of aggression against Iran, i.e., a new and more powerful fix for a buddy who is already a junkie and on the verge of "going rogue." Given that Obama wants to help Israel, defensive arms and/or an even more solid security wall around Israel than the U.S. already provides might have been in order, but to offer to increase the ability of a potential aggressor to commit aggression in return for a promise that the potential aggressor will delay ever so slightly his commission of the sin would constitute a betrayal of presidential responsibility for protecting U.S. national security, not to mention being a very nasty thing to do to one's addict-buddy. A friend would offer Israel an option other than the madness of launching an uncontrollable war against a vastly larger adversary rather than further whetting the appetites of a regime already committed to solving its foreign policy and domestic policy problems through violence.

Even the infamous hardline former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, keeps warning against the Netanyahu regime's promotion of war as the answer, most recently calling the idea "stupid." One wonders how well he will sleep if the regime he recently left and now distrusts becomes convinced that it finally has the ability to deal the Iranians a "final solution."

Democracy Now indicated the news might not be true. One can only hope, but this is exactly the self-defeating policy Washington has been pursuing for a generation, and the U.S. "Israel problem" just keeps getting worse and worse. If the report is true, Obama may get reelected, since no presidential-quality opposition is yet visible on the horizon, but if he does, then how will he control Israel the next time?

Understanding the U.S. Conflict with Iran

It seems only reasonable that anyone advocating a war of aggression against Iran, a country that is not attacking us, provide answers to the following basic questions:

1.) Would War Against Iran Help?

2.) Can Current U.S. Policy Toward Iran Succeed?

3.) Does Current U.S. Policy Make Theoretical Sense?

4.) Is Israel Really on Our Side?

5.) Is Iran Being Isolated?

6.) Who Is to Blame?

The answers are not soundbites, nor would you believe me if I gave the answers as soundbites, because the truth is not what you think. See the "Iran" page for brief answers, and then consider contacting your elected representatives.

Corporate Subversion of Democracy

You elected those politicians to represent you. Are they, or are they perhaps colluding to enrich themselves by creating a corporate state or, even worse, a fascist state? One of the best clues to this shadowy operation is government facilitation of corporate corruption.

No one, and certainly no government, is perfect, so "perfection"--e.g., the absence of corruption in government--may be a nice ideal but is hardly a realistic standard for daily performance. Therefore, it is perhaps a bit unfair to condemn a government for exhibiting corruption. A more realistic standard for daily performance would be this:

Does the government facilitate or combat corruption in its own ranks and among the broader corporate elite?

That standard is one that separates good governance, i.e., government for the people, from bad governance, i.e., government for the elite. That standard also directly addresses the more particular issue of whether or not a government is moving toward corporatism, i.e., the enrichment of corporate elites at the expense of the society as a whole. That standard also exposes rising fascism, a particularly pernicious form of corporatism.


In this context, consider the recent remarks of muckraking journalist Matt Taibi about Bank of America:

This gigantic financial institution is the ultimate symbol of a new kind of corruption at the highest levels of American society: a tendency to marry the near-limitless power of the federal government with increasingly concentrated, increasingly unaccountable private financial interests....
Conservatives should be outraged by Bank of America because it is perhaps the biggest welfare dependent in American history, with the $45 billion in bailout money and the $118 billion in state guarantees it’s received since 2008 representing just the crest of a veritable mountain of federal bailout support, most of it doled out by the Obama administration.

Liberals should also be outraged. The goal of liberalism is to take care of those who need it, not to feed obese welfare queens. As a liberal, I can testify that government bailouts of rich, corrupt banks violates the ideals of liberals; conservatives can speak to their own values.


Taibi explains:

Conservatives believe that a commitment to free market principles and limited government will lead us out of our economic troubles, but Bank of America represents the opposite dynamic: a company that is kept protected from the judgments of the free market, and forces the state to expand to take on its debts.

Feeding the greed of "too big to fail" corporate welfare queens has become a major financial drain on the U.S. economy; the unemployed and those defrauded out of their mortgages are paying for this. Beyond the financial cost to society of corrupt corporations lies the specter of corporatist or outright fascist subversion of democracy. If the citizens are so generous that they choose to provide welfare to billionaire CEOs, so be it. My concern is far more with the political implications. To put it briefly, the more the regime becomes the financial partner of corrupt corporate leaders, the greater will be their tendency to collude to undermine citizen oversight of their misbehavior, which will inevitably lead to a police state, i.e., a corporatist dictatorship.


It is important to note that the issue of whether or not the government is colluding with the corporate elite to defraud society is a separate issue from government creation of healthy conditions for business. Smoothly running, productive corporations can be useful social tools as long as the government understands that its purpose is to protect the larger interests of society. The string of economic crises (S&L, Latin defaults, Asian tiger collapse, Long-Term Capital Management's collapse) culminating (so far) in the 2008 Financial Crisis--all caused by out-of-control corporate greed facilitated by complicit regulators--does not prove that capitalism is an unacceptable form of government; it does, however, pretty conclusively prove that capitalism in the absence of strict government regulation backed up by energetic popular oversight is suicidal. 


Now every human with a brain can see that capitalism is a very hot torch; without great care, it will burn you, but socialism--albeit better in theory as, by definition, a system to protect "society" rather than "capital"--has its own problems, which are perhaps best described in Solzhenitsyn's brilliant chapter "The Law As a Child" in Gulag Archipelago, where the collapse of Soviet socialism into communist dictatorship in the absence of a rule of law that would provide regulation over government) is exposed. The fundamental issue is not "capitalism vs. socialism" but whether or not the population has the education, commitment, and capability to keep watch over the elite.


If (a big condition) the citizenry is sufficiently awake to defend itself, the standard approach of a government trying to establish a corporatist dictatorship is to whip up national security fears, wave the bloody flag, and terrify the population into bowing down before a "great leader" who promises to "protect" them. That is the point at which corporatism transforms into fascism, and one of the clearest initial clues that this process has been launched by an elitist regime is government facilitation of corporate corruption.
___________________
Corruption:
"Corruption!" is an easy charge to make; is it fair?

• Bank overdraft scam: BoA settled a court case accusing it of running a bank overdraft scam for $400 million. That may well have been a tiny portion of the total amount stolen from depositors, but even for BoA, $400M would presumably constitute a line item in their budget. Would they have paid such a fine if they were innocent?
• Mortgage fraud: Three years after the "2008 Financial Attack on the One Percent," the Federal Government is finally bringing legal charges against BoA for mortgage fraud. BoA has already paid a cool $22M to avoid complicity for defrauding...soldiers!!! That is called "corporate patriotism." (Corporations, you recall, are now "persons," so one should presume that they could be expected to be patriotic just like the rest of us "persons," but of course personhood for corporations only pertains at their convenience.)
• Selling elections. Even the Supreme Court, last defense of the Constitution, has joined the game, twisting the Constitution in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling to allow corporations to buy elections. When campaign time on TV is made free and passed out fairly, then we will know that the government is protecting democracy rather than promoting a corporate state.

Slippery Slope to Fascism?

Fascism in America? The most disturbing evidence of all is the refusal of major party candidates to address Ron Paul's charge.

The most significant statement to be made in this pathetic U.S. campaign season of brainless, superficial soundbites should constitute the core of the debate until election day:

Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen. [Ron Paul as quoted by CBS News.]

With bailouts of billionaires, oil wars by leaders who oversee multi-billion-dollar sole source contracts to the companies they previously headed, laws supported by both “parties” that are steadily chipping away at Constitutional protections, a Supreme Court that magically transforms corporations into people, the careful avoidance of criminal action against corrupt corporate leaders for poisoning the environment or wrecking the economy, and a foreign policy based on military force, Representative Paul has a strong prima facia case that the U.S. is sliding down the slippery slope toward corporate control at the expense of civil liberties and democracy in combination with militarism rather than protection of society as the purpose of the state. That combination essentially constitutes the definition of fascism.

If there is a counter-argument to this prima facia case that the U.S. is slipping toward fascism, then the candidates who give credence to that counter-argument should make it. This charge is central to all we believe in. Silence = agreement.
________________________
Readings:


1) Attacking the Constitution -
Illegal Wiretaps

2) Military Rule Vs. Rule of Law - 
Military Custody for Terrorists


3) Definition of Fascism -
Fascism Checklist

The Magnes Zionist: Let Iran Go Nuclear, Ribono shel Olam

The Magnes Zionist: Let Iran Go Nuclear, Ribono shel Olam

This post by an Israeli and self-described Zionist cuts through the flood of propaganda, ignorance, and willful self-delusion on the subject of attacking Iran with a degree of clarity and moral vision almost unknown in U.S. commentary.


The author concludes:

The Jews I know seem to be divided between those who support sanctions and those who support military action. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd. I support neither. The drums of war have started again, and the madness should be stopped now. If either Israel (or its proxy, the US) attacks Iran, it will be difficult for any moral person to defend the right of such a rogue state to exist.

Have we reached the point where we can no longer safely avoid the conclusion that there exists a state so powerful and so vengeful and so lacking in self-control and so contemptuous of the rights of others that the defense of our own national security compels us to disarm that state? In short, can the U.S. any longer afford to permit the state of Israel to exist?

Don't Even Think about It!

Some things are best left unsaid. On the other hand, the best lie is the one you don't even need to tell because everyone already believes it.

Let there exist a country with no nuclear weapons but with pretensions to independence and a level of in-your-face amour-propre that is simply off the map. Clearly, I am making this up, because no country lacking nuclear weapons could possibly have pretensions of anything. Said imaginary country has no colonies and no serious military forces outside its own borders (a few trainers perhaps excepted). It is by all standard measures not a player. Yet...it plays. That, obviously, violates the rules. It shall be bombed. No other option exists.

Let there exist another country, very tiny, insignificant in every way, except that this one does have nuclear weapons. It even has its own personal superpower lackey, which it publicly shames and ridicules on a regular basis. This country also has pretensions to independence and a level of in-your-face amour-propre that...well, if one were allowed to think about it, it would be unthinkable, but fortunately for said tiny country, thinking about it is not allowed. It receives a blank check from its superpower lackey, on the back of which is the express statement: "Thinking about the actions of the recepient or the implications of this check is not allowed." Case closed. This country has a colony, about which one is not permitted to think; in fact, one is not even permitted to call it a colony. In truth, the country is itself a colony, albeit independent, since composed entirely of foreigners who stole the land they live on, but their Indians are nearly gone, so one is no longer permitted to call them colonials. This country also regularly invades its neighbors, where it focuses on bombing concrete. Such invasions are perfectly legal because they occur only after the neighbors violate arbitrarily imposed rules unilaterally defined by this country such as performing unauthorized self-defense. The details really require no discussion, because the whole topic is not allowed to be thought about, and there really is no purpose in discussing something you cannot think about. This country shall, with the support of its lackey as needed, conduct the bombing.

If you have a problem with this, you're a racist. Believe me, it is better if you just don't think about it.