“Iranologie”

Aan: de fracties en de -voorzitters van de Tweede Kamer. “Een les in “Iranologie”.

Of hoe laten we de leugenaars en bedriegers in de USA terecht in de kou staan en raken we niet betrokken bij machtsspelletjes van de wapenindustrie:
Pat Buchanan : How is America threatened by Iran?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

Stelt u de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken en van Defensie eens gerichte vragen en sla ze met een motie van wantrouwen om de oren als het antwoord niet relevant is. Toon eens één keer, dat u bent wie u zegt te zijn: “Vertegenwoordigers van het volk.”

Infantile Conservatism
How is America threatened by Iran?

By Pat Buchanan

February 27, 2013 “Information Clearing House” – Regularly now, The Washington Post, as always concerned with fairness and balance, runs a blog called “Right Turn: Jennifer Rubin’s Take From a Conservative Perspective.”

The blog tells us what the Post regards as conservatism.

On Monday, Rubin declared that America’s “greatest national security threat is Iran.” Do conservatives really believe this?

How is America, with thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, scores of warships in the Med, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, bombers and nuclear subs and land-based missiles able to strike and incinerate Iran within half an hour, threatened by Iran?

Iran has no missile that can reach us, no air force or navy that would survive the first days of war, no nuclear weapons, no bomb-grade uranium from which to build one. All of her nuclear facilities are under constant United Nations surveillance and inspection.

And if this Iran is the “greatest national security threat” faced by the world’s last superpower, why do Iran’s nearest neighbors — Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Pakistan — seem so unafraid of her?

Citing The Associated Press and Times of Israel, Rubin warns us that “Iran has picked 16 new locations for nuclear plants.”

How many nuclear plants does Iran have now? One, Bushehr.

Begun by the Germans under the shah, Bushehr was taken over by the Russians in 1995, but not completed for 16 years, until 2011. In their dreams, the Iranians, their economy sinking under U.S. and U.N. sanctions, are going to throw up 16 nuclear plants.

Twice Rubin describes our situation today as “scary.”

Remarkable. Our uncles and fathers turned the Empire of the Sun and Third Reich into cinders in four years, and this generation is all wee-weed up over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“For all intents and purposes, (Bibi) Netanyahu is now the West’s protector,” says Rubin. How so? Because Obama and Chuck Hagel seem to lack the testosterone “to execute a military strike on Iran.”

Yet, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Bibi first warned in 1992 that Iran was on course to get the bomb — in three to five years! And still no bomb.

And Bibi has since been prime minister twice. Why has our Lord Protector not manned up and dealt with Iran himself?

Answer: He wants us to do it — and us to take the consequences.

“With regard to Afghanistan, the president is pulling up stakes prematurely,” says Rubin.

As we are now in the 12th year of war in Afghanistan, and about to leave thousands of troops behind when we depart in 2014, what is she talking about?

“In Iraq, the absence of U.S. forces on the ground has ushered in a new round of sectarian violence and opened the door for Iran’s growing violence.”

Where to begin. Shia Iran has influence in Iraq because we invaded Iraq, dethroned Sunni Saddam, disbanded his Sunni-led army that had defeated Iran in an eight-year war and presided over the rise to power of the Iraqi Shia majority that now tilts to Iran.

Today’s Iraq is a direct consequence of our war, our invasion, our occupation. That’s our crowd in Baghdad, cozying up to Iran.

And the cost of that war to strip Iraq of weapons it did not have? Four thousand five hundred American dead, 35,000 wounded, $1 trillion and 100,000 Iraqi dead. Half a million widows and orphans. A centuries-old Christian community ravaged. And, yes, an Iraq tilting to Iran and descending into sectarian, civil and ethnic war. A disaster of epochal proportions.

But that disaster was not the doing of Barack Obama, but of people of the same semi-hysterical mindset as Ms. Rubin.

She writes that for the rest of Obama’s term, we “are going to have to rely on France, Israel, our superb (albeit underfunded) military and plain old luck to prevent national security catastrophes.”

Is she serious?

Is French Prime Minister Francois Hollande really one of the four pillars of U.S national security now? Is Israel our security blanket, or is it maybe the other way around? And if America spends as much on defense as all other nations combined, and is sheltered behind the world’s largest oceans, why should we Americans be as frightened as Rubin appears to be?

Undeniably we face challenges. A debt-deficit crisis that could sink our economy. Al-Qaida in the Maghreb, Africa, Arabia, Iraq and Syria. North Korea’s nukes. A clash between China and Japan that drags us in. An unstable Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

But does Iran, a Shia island in a Sunni sea, a Persian-dominated land where half the population is non-Persian, a country whose major exports, once we get past fossil fuels, are pistachio nuts, carpets and caviar, really pose the greatest national security threat to the world’s greatest nation?

We outlasted the evil empire of Lenin and Stalin that held captive a billion people for 45 years of Cold War, and we are frightened by a rickety theocracy ruled by an old ayatollah?

Rubin’s blog may be the Post’s idea of conservatism. Ronald Reagan wouldn’t recognize it.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com .

This article was originally posted at Creators Syndicate

Scroll down to add / read comments
Pat Buchanan : How is America threatened by Iran?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

Advertisements

About hansdekoning

In februari 2011 73jaar. Ex-rijksambtenaar, houdt van katten en bonsai. Is door COPD en MD niet meer in staat die hobbies full time te beoefenen en heeft moeite met scherpstellen en dus lezen. Schrijft maatschappij-kritische blogs en stoort zich daarbij aan toestanden over de hele wereld. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “Iranologie”

  1. joost tibosch sr says:

    We weten nog wat gebalde vuisten en opgestoken rechterarmen te weeg hebben gebracht in onze wereld. Zelfs als we ons redelijk zeker kunnen voelen en onze handen rustig open aan kunnen bieden, schijnen we iedere keer weer te vergeten om toch maar geen vuisten te ballen. Omdat dat zo lekker aanvoelt? Als we ons zelf moeten verdedigen, moet dat slim en met ons koppie erbij gebeuren, en zeker niet met woedend gebalde vuisten!

    • hansdekoning says:

      In Iran ballen ze ook vuisten, maar dan – mijns inziens – uit zelfverdediging, dwz verdediging tegen de voortdurende haatzaaierij vanuit Israel en de Verenigde Staten. En waarom? Omdat ze niets meer over de Iraanse olie te zeggen hebben.

      • timmerark says:

        Dus het kleine Israel is de vijand van Iran? De aanstichter? Vreemd wereldbeeld, maar het is mooi dat dit, het uiten, hier kan. Helaas niet in Iran. Of blijft deze reactie niet staan?

  2. Arjan Fernhout says:

    Misschien heb ik je het boek al eerder aanbevolen, maar hoe alles begonnen is staat te lezen in hdst 14. “Trading Enemies” van het boek “Threacherous Alliance” dat online te lezen is:

    Some Israelis say that Israel needs an existential threat. It could be a country, like Iran; an ideology, like Islamic fundamentalism; or at other times it could be a tactic—terrorism.“You have to recognize that we Israelis need an existential threat. It is part of the way we view the world. If we can find more than one, that would be preferable, but we will settle for one,” an Israeli Iran expert explained to me. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in the Jewish experience. After centuries of persecution, a Holocaust that almost wiped out the entire Jewish population in Europe, and fifty years of statehood punctuated by frequent wars, such thinking is understandable.
    When facing an existential threat, countries tend to work from worst-case scenarios. Everything that happens is then judged against that worse-case scenario.“When you are always prepared for the worst, you can pass off subpar performances as the best thing that ever happened,” the Iran expert
    joked. Many officials in the Israeli Ministry of Defense, however, see great dangers with this emphasis on worst-case scenarios. But few express their criticisms openly.

    [Shlomo] Brom is an exception. “In many cases, you can see how [planning for worst-case scenarios] leads to self-fulfilling prophecies. That is my debate with many Israelis,” he told me in his small, spartan office at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. “It’s much easier to give worst-case scenarios. It usually serves the personal interest of the planner. Because if you are giving the worst-case prophecy, then when it is not realized, everyone is happy. No one remembers it. But when it is realized, you can always say, ‘I told you so.’” He laughed as he said this, but I got the feeling that his levelheadedness had not been popular at the Israel Defense Forces. He had been
    part of the Israeli intelligence apparatus when it systematically overestimated, and at times exaggerated, Iran’s nuclear capabilities.“Remember,”he said mockingly, “the Iranians are always five to seven years from the bomb. Time passes but they’re always five to seven years from the bomb.” The Rabin-Peres campaign against Iran was initially as controversial in Israel as it was in the United States. The Israeli military sharply rejected the assessment of Israel’s political leadership. The Israeli head of military intelligence, Gen. Uri Saguy, stated publicly that Iran wasn’t a threat because its military program was aimed at its immediate neighbors and not at Israel.
    “To be sure, this country calls for a holy war against us, but its armament policy isn’t tied to us, and would be the same even if we did not exist,” Saguy told reporters. Saguy received public backing from Gen. Ehud Barak, the Israeli chief of staff who went on to become prime minister. The real threat to Israel was Iraq, Barak argued. Focusing on Iran at a time when it couldn’t pose a threat to Israel was counterproductive. “We should, therefore, not create a climate of hysteria by setting ourselves up as Iran’s main target,” Barak declared. In spite of Iraq’s defeat, many in the Israeli military continued to worry about Saddam’s chemical and nuclear weapons program.“Iran wasn’t an immediate threat. Iran was never an immediate threat. Iraq was, however,” Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak explained. Israeli academics and security experts were equally critical. Israel Shahak pointed out that the Labor government depicted Iran as a threat at the height of Iran’s weakness.“Let me observe that when (as plenty of other evidence shows) Israel after the Gulf War decided
    that Iran was its enemy number one, the latter was still exhausted after the lengthy war with Iraq and hadn’t yet begun its nuclearization,” he wrote. Shai Feldman of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies wrote that Israel’s need for a new “boogey man” lay behind the exaggeration of Iran’s military power. Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Raymond Hinnebusch argued that Peres and Rabin turned Iran into a modern day Golem—a mythical figure of fear and loathing in Israeli folklore. The Israeli leadership had applied a “political-strategic concept” that failed to distinguish between Iranian rhetoric and the reality of Iran’s defensive military needs, wrote Ehud Sprinzak of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Others outside government pointed out that Iran’s strategy was defensive, and that its armed forces served as a deterrent. “At the most [Iran] projects threats to reply to other threats, but not threats in the meaning of initiating one and offensive aims at
    other countries, including Israel,” Ephraim Kam of the Jaffee Center said.

    But Rabin and Peres’s sudden campaign against Iran made political and strategic sense for Israel, the Labor Party believed, precisely because it went hand in hand with Israel’s efforts to make peace with its immediate Arab neighbors and to reinvigorate its strategic relationship with Washington.
    Even though Iran was not a credible threat at the time, its relative rise in power after Iraq’s defeat could make it one in the future. Israel could not face down both a rising Iran and a vengeful Arab pact at the same time. Of the two, Iran was more likely to be a challenge, so Israel should use the opportunity to make peace with the Arabs before Iran actually did become a threat. The window of opportunity to follow this course would exist only for another seven years, Rabin predicted in 1992. “Let’s do a deal [with the Arabs] before the Iranians come with whatever the Iranians will come with. Create a situation that doesn’t allow the Iranians room to intervene,” Rabin reasoned, according to Ehud Yaari of Israeli television’s Channel 2. The Arabs themselves would be more inclined to finally make peace with Israel if they felt more threatened by Iran’s fundamentalist government than by Israel’s nuclear arsenal and occupation of Palestinian territory. Though
    Arab-Persian divisions were not as strong as Israel’s quarrel with the Arabs, pro-Western Arab governments could be receptive to the argument, the Labor Party reasoned. After all, the Arabs’ Iraqi buffer against Iran had been crushed. In the new geopolitical map of the region, the Arabs and the Israelis had “a common threat in Iran and fundamentalism,” according to U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross. The Labor leadership believed that Arab fears of Iran should be used as leverage to get them to put aside their demand for Israel to quit the Palestinian territories. The idea that the Arabs would make peace with Israel only if they were faced with an even greater threat was not new. In the early 1980s, when Washington was adamant about defeating Khomeini’s Iran, the Reagan administration had unsuccessfully sought to sell the idea to a reluctant Likud government. The aim was to achieve a “strategic consensus” between Israel and its “moderate” Arab neighbors. “The holy grail of U.S. policy in the region has always been to get the Arabs to forget about the Arab-Israeli conflict and to focus instead on some other threat,” noted former National Security Council member Sick.
    Unlike the Likud government, the Labor Party embraced the idea unreservedly. Peres called Iran the greatest threat to the Arabs and argued that Saudi Arabia’s unprecedented arming spree was rooted in Arab fears of Shia Iran—not Arab fears of Israel. “The clouds that hang on the skies of the
    Middle East are fundamentalist clouds and not Israeli ones,” Peres told a gathering in Milan in November 1993. To lure the Arabs to Israel’s side, Peres argued that Saudi Arabia could receive Israeli assistance against Iran via the Red Sea. A few years later, while on a groundbreaking trip to
    Qatar in the Persian Gulf, Peres told reporters that “the Arab countries are aware that Iran, violence and extremism are the enemies of both Israel and the Arabbs. Iran constitutes a direct threat and is the main enemy of development and progress, not only to Israel, but also to the Arab world.” The
    Labor Party stressed the Iranian threat to the Arabs even more passionately in private discussions with Arab officials. But Israel’s potential Arab peace partners were not the only ones who
    needed convincing. For decades Israelis had viewed the Arabs as their mortal enemies. More than two generations of Israeli children had grown up learning that Yasser Arafat and the PLO were terrorists who sought the destruction of the Jewish State. Five years of the Intifada did not soften this view. Even though most Israelis yearned for peace, convincing the public that Arafat and the Palestinians were no longer terrorists but partners for peace was a monumental task. Just as Labor had done with the Arab states, it needed to present the threat of a more ominous danger looming on the horizon to convince a skeptical Israeli public to accept this dramatic strategic shift. “Rabin played the Iranian threat more than it was deserved in order to sell the peace process,” noted Efraim Inbar of the conservative Begin-Sadat Center in Jerusalem. Rabin asked rhetorically what the real
    threat to Israel was—the weak Palestinians or the rising Iranians? “We need to reach a peace agreement before the Iranians have a nuclear missile capability that could reshape the balance of power in the region,” he told Israeli voters. The heightening of fears regarding Iran “served a political purpose,”said Indyk. “It sent the signal that the threat is no longer the Palestinians or the Arabs, therefore we need to make peace with the inner circle.” Iran became “a convenient argument” in the Israeli domestic discourse, used by the Labor Party to induce Israeli public opinion to favor bold steps for peace with the neighboring Arabs.“[For instance], if you want to argue for a quick deal with Syria, [then] you say that ‘because Iran is so and so, we need to de-link Syria from Iran,’” Yaari explained. Perhaps most importantly, the alarmism over Iran reinforced the message that Washington needed Israel. The strategic significance Israel had enjoyed during the Cold
    War could be regained through the common threat of Iran and Islamic fundamentalism—instead of being a friendly bulwark against Soviet expansionism, Israel would now be a friendly bulwark against Iran’s regional ambitions in a unipolar world. “There was a feeling in Israel that because of the end of the Cold War, relations with the U.S. were cooling and we needed some new glue for the alliance,” Inbar said. “And the new glue…was radical Islam. And Iran was radical Islam.”

    http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/461121/1985411883/name/Yale%20University%20Press%20Treacherous%20Alliance%20The%20Secret%20Dealings

    Diplomaat/schrijver Trita Parsi ligt t.a.v. zijn observaties onder vuur van een warmonger als Daniël Pipes – overigens een sponsor van Geert Wilders – door smeercampagnes net zoals Chuck Hagel onder vuur lag door volslagen corrupte Congress-leden omdat deze een iets afwijkende mening heeft i.c. Israël en Iran. Alles wordt uit de kast gehaald om de geopoltieke hoax intact te houden. Hier geanalyseerd op een site van joodse intellectuelen:
    Daniel Pipes wants to take down Iranian-American group so he can get a war
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/daniel-iranian-american.html

    • hansdekoning says:

      Vreemde zaak Arjan: ik publiceerde – geloof het of niet – mijn commentaar op dat van Joost Tibosch nog voordat ik het jouwe las. Beiden hebben één ding gemeen: wij zijn in Israel niet geliefd en kunnen er maar beter niet heen gaan.

  3. hansdekoning says:

    Het “kleine Israel” heeft over de hele wereld nogal invloedRIKE supporters, die niets zullen nalaten om te zorgen, dat Israelische standpunten algemeen aanvaard worden als de stem vamn de rede.
    Het gekke is, dat n.a.w. juist in Israel het uiten van DEZE mening niet echt gewaardeerd wordt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s