iran
5 Mar 2009
Iran Is The Key To Peace
Ex-CIA operative Robert Baer says that if the US wants stability it must work with Iran and help Israel be more realistic. He spoke with newmatilda.com's Rod McGuinness
Former CIA case officer Robert Baer says that it took him 15 years in the Middle East to "begin to decode it". In his latest book The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower, Baer declares it is time to re-think Iran, and the West must stop treating Tehran like a Cold War-style enemy.When I spoke with Baer in Sydney last Friday, he made the point that our current policies toward Iran set us on course for far greater problems in the future. In Baer's view, perpetuating popular Western misconceptions of Iran — from being an Islamofascist state or a medieval throwback, to a country consumed with an irrational hatred of the West — does great harm to the search for stability in the Middle East.
Baer acknowledges that the apocalyptic, Holocaust-denying rhetoric of their President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hasn't helped, but above all else, Baer believes Iran wants acknowledgement and legitimacy.
It should be stated that Robert Baer is not an Iranian apologist. He clearly views Iran with caution and pays a lot of attention to the dangers he sees there. Iran has a history of state-sponsored terrorism, including the killing of 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983. As a US intelligence operative Baer would himself have been a potential target for Iran throughout the 1980s and 90s.
Still, the West's misunderstanding of Iran within the US government, defence circles and foreign policy think tanks, clearly frustrates him. "They are not a fascist state. They let me in — an ex-CIA guy who used to deal for many years with the Iranian opposition. They understood I was not a threat or still a spy or anyone that could do any damage. [By contrast] I cannot go up to [Osama] bin Laden's cave and wander around. Or Saudi Arabia — I can't go to Saudi Arabia because of my Saudi book." (In 2003, Baer published Sleeping with the Devil, How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude. It was later adapted for the film, Syriana.)
In expressing his frustration with the conduct of US foreign policy discussions, Baer says, "Iraq was reduced to WMDs, and it's the same with Iran. They are reduced to a nuclear threat." The ongoing speculation of a nuclear weapons program, according to Baer, "is just flat wrong". He added, "They want to survive, and for them to take a nuclear weapon and test it, it would be an act of suicide. Even if the Israeli's didn't hit them, the sanctions and embargoes would destroy the country. They are not going to do it." Yet, as he outlines in The Devil We Know, US foreign policy is clearly fixated on this worst-case scenario of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Baer sees very real (non-nuclear) threats from Iran, believes that it is vital that some consideration is given to identifying the motivations behind those threats. So what does Iran want? Baer believes it is essentially access to more oil and a Shia-controlled Mecca.
In just two weeks, the 2003 Iraq invasion achieved what Iran wasted eight years and millions of lives trying to do fighting the US-backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The world's most powerful army destroyed Iraq's T-72 tanks and scattered Saddam's remaining defences. With a Shia majority population, it was only a matter of time before Iran's proxies were filling the power vacuum and controlling Iraq. For the initial years, it did so through waves of violence. Then Iran turned down the level of violence, giving US forces the chance to claim "the surge" a success and slowly extricate themselves.
For Iran, this annexation means they now — by proxy — control much of Iraq's internal affairs. Most importantly, Iran now controls Iraqi oil supplies and Baer believes that by 2015, when full oil production in Iraq is achieved, Iran will control more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and have even more clout through OPEC than it already does.
For the US (and world) economy, this points to the possibility of oil prices going beyond $200 per barrel, possibly $300. As Baer points out, suddenly the price of everything they buy increases massively. The Devil We Know presents a very clear case that our oil dependency and lack of alternative energy sources are causing enormous problems independent of the threats of climate change, arguing that the West's economic reliance on oil is politically unsustainable.
In this context, it becomes clearer that the US should be motivated towards cooling things down in its relationship with Iran and moving towards détente. While this might seem far-fetched in the current climate, Baer says we need to look for its precedent in the US-China relationship and the inroads made under president Nixon. More functional relations between the two opposed superpowers have brought enormous benefits and stability for both since 1972.
In coming to the negotiating table, Baer believes that the Iranians will be willing to bargain over the shape of their nuclear program, but they see nothing to be gained by undoing the expansion Iran has achieved in the region.
Baer says, "I can see why they would want [a nuclear weapon] eventually because Saddam should have had one ... In essence they want one but I think they are going to time it a lot better. The Iranians are really, really smart, sophisticated people. I've seen the backside of their diplomatic negotiations and talks and I would say they are infinitely more sophisticated than their American counterparts. I have seen them comment [on US military engagements], places we shouldn't have been, what's happening in the United States — and their analysis was as good as the New York Times and the Washington Post."
Iran's influence in the region can be understood through the example of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He had studied at the Shia seminary in the Baqaa Valley in eastern Lebanon, and like many Lebanese Shia from the south, Nasrallah initially accepted the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. But something changed and by early in 1983 he had joined Hezbelloh. He agreed to the draconian rules of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: keep Iran's hand hidden at all costs; never discuss anything important on the phone; deal in cash; use the name Islamic Jihad Organization for attacks against the West.
Although Nasrallah was not a follower of Ayatollah Khomeini and was instead influenced by the rival Da'wa Party, he became a clandestine operative — a terrorist for Iran. As a proxy for Iran, Nasrallah-led Hezbollah defeated the Israeli army in 2006. The IDF, armed with the most sophisticated and advanced technology, was forced into retreat, unable to decisively overcome Hezbollah's tactics of guerrilla street fighting. It is alleged that even today, Israeli intelligence is unable to identify Hezbollah's field officers and they are the only "army" known to use fibre optics — which are impossible to intercept — for their telephone communications.
Asked what he thought of Nasrallah, Baer stated, "The man is brilliant. He was a soldier who figured out: I need an army. I don't need to kidnap Americans, I don't need to blow up airplanes, I need an army. So he got an army. Then he realised he doesn't need to go to war with Israel: I need a country. So you have this alliance between Nasrallah and the Iranians which has just worked out brilliantly."
Nasrallah assumed leadership of Hezbelloh in 1992, following the assassination of Abbas al-Musawi. Today Nasrallah lives in a non-descript two bedroom Beirut apartment building and continues to practice his devout faith. He is seen as a hero throughout the Arab world, Sunni and Shia — and also, critically, as a leader of a political movement, not a terrorist organisation. Nasrallah learnt, during the Lebanese civil war, how to establish order and control in the midst of chaos. This was a lesson which the Revolutionary Guards' proxies in Iraq were to apply to great effect.
After the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran conducted a relentless terrorist campaign throughout the Middle East and Europe. However in Baer's view, Iran has more recently been stepping back from using terrorism for geopolitical return.
Iran has pragmatically positioned itself to influence the entire Middle East. Overcoming their outsider status as Persians, traditional enemies of Arabs, Iran has repeated its successful alliance with Nasrallah throughout the Arab world, in non-descript operations and projects — not only through terrorist activities but many welfare projects such as the Iranian hospitals in places like Dubai and Egypt, looking after prisoners upon their release from Israeli jails, and religious indoctrination.
It is partly through these activities, Baer says, that Iran has become, "a superpower by proxy, it is a superpower in the sense that it has this incredible deterrence capability. We can't ever fix Iraq like we wanted to. Our superpower has its limitations. What they do is that they learn, and we don't learn."
While the US-backed Gulf Arabs display their ridiculous wealth — with their luxury yachts, gambling in the world's casinos or buying airborne palaces, President Ahmadinejad presents an Iran which appears almost socialist, offering welfare and respite. The Iranian mullah may command significant wealth, but it is hidden behind closed doors. This apparent self-discipline commands respect from Palestinians. Why else do Sunni Palestinians identify Shia Iran as the only nation that will stand up for them? (Palestinians are the only Arab population of whom a majority — 58 per cent — support Iran's development of a nuclear bomb.)
Baer says that, "For Iran [the strategy] is empire by proxy, and [it is] relatively cost-free. The amount of money they spend on defence is really nothing. When they pull their tanks out, it's really for show. They have created a poor man's superpower army and an astute ability to respond to a potential attack. That is what is most important. You can bomb [their] bases, you can even invade Iran and they probably won't be able to stop you but the hurt just begins after that. You don't want to do it."
To better explain the importance of the Iranian (non-nuclear) threat, Baer describes some of the country's conventional offensive capabilities. They include: Iran's ability to launch missiles in the Strait of Hormuz (currently hidden in caves, undetectable by the US or Israel), crippling the world's major oil supply in three minutes. And Iran's distribution of C-4 explosives (often in non-descript products such as cans of realistic-looking "olives") sent — it is suspected — for many years to contacts throughout Europe, who are essentially Iranian proxies with European passports, ready at any moment to respond to Tehran.
Predictably, Baer identifies Palestine as an impediment to any possible engagement with Iran. He argues, "[the] US needs to do something about the Palestinians. A two-state solution and [the implementation of UN] Resolution 242. Give up part of Jerusalem. Project a policy of [implementing all] UN Resolutions... not just ones against Muslims. Iranian anger against the US is that basic. Come down on Israel for its nuclear weapons; come down on Israel for Gaza. With the closure of the settlements, a lot of their anger would be removed.
"But it's that basic: a sense of unfairness from the West. They are saying: 'They've got all these sanctions, Iranian companies are going to be sanctioned — well what about the Israelis' nuclear weapon?' And you say, 'Well, the Israelis aren't really violent'. They aren't violent to the US? Well they attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 and almost sunk it, killing 34 crew. There is a Judeo-Christian bias in the way we look at the Middle East. And what the Iranians are saying is, 'Well we have a Muslim bias and we're going to see who wins'."
President Obama recently appointed Dennis Ross as a special advisor on the Middle East to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. I asked Baer what he made of the appointment. "Not the ideal guy," was his reply. "[Obama] should pluck some academic. But Obama is worried about Israel. There is an emotional attachment to Israel in the US. It's not just Hollywood or Israeli public affairs. Americans live in the back of their minds with the Holocaust and their ideas of what is this shining city on a hill. What Obama is saying is, 'I really can't cope with a huge change in the Middle East. Forcing Tel Aviv to close down the settlements, I don't really have the political capital, I don't have the people that understand it'. So he goes back to the Clinton group in a huge way."
I had read previously of Baer's distaste of lobby groups that influence US foreign policy, and asked him to expand on that. "Look at New York City," he replied, "look at the major newspapers. They have a Zionist agenda. They do. I'm not Jewish. I'm not anything. I don't care about the Israelis. And I'm not anti-Semitic. It's just a fact. I suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget it." (I should add, his agent also told him not to write a book about Iran — because no one would read it.)
Baer continued, "You can't talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. If you go to the Israelis — I've said to them — 'Why are all the people in Gaza so glum?' The Israeli's say, 'If you lived in a prison, so would you.'" He adds that, "they have very good reasons for having that prison, but we can't even talk about it. They tell you things you will never hear in the United States."
I asked Baer for his reply to the proposition that Israel should be allowed to defend itself, and he responded, "We are actually harming the Israelis. If you keep postponing some sort of accommodation with their neighbours, you are going to have 500 or 600 million people on your border, all with rockets and no one is going to be able to help you."
Again he sees the US policy as unsustainable — essentially the US defending its "interests" throughout the Middle East at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. "The more the US puts in money and diplomatic backing, the worse they are making it for the Israelis. What we are talking about is a dream of American Zionists, which is something different from what the Israelis need or want. We are interfering in their politics, to their ultimate detriment."
For the Arab world, an Iranian superpower is equally threatening. In The Devil We Know, Baer outlines steps which could potentially accommodate Iran and maintain regional stability — and the steady flow of oil, "if it is done responsibly. If there is a certain de-fanging of Iran, where you are leaving in place the [US Navy] Fifth Fleet and implement resolution 242. I think the Arabs would be happy [then]. To simply give the Palestinians a state.
"The Gulf Arabs are really afraid that the US will run out of steam and give up. They hope that there will be fortresses that will protect them from Iran. They are terrified of Iran. They consider the Iranians a superpower. China and Russia aren't going to invade them — it's Iran."
The Devil We Know highlights the complexity of this feared Iran. Baer sees President Ahmadinejad largely as a figurehead, without any real power. He adds that the Iranian Minister for Oil (for example) may not in fact exert any real power. Instead, real decisions are made by Ayatollah Khamenei and faceless bureaucrats among the cadres of Revolutionary Guards. Iranians don't keep records of meetings or decision making — why implicate yourself at a later date?
As Baer says, "Iran has been the third rail of international relations. You know, it helped (US President) Carter lose his presidency and almost took Reagan down." During more recent US administrations, Russia and China have both reached out to Iran, providing weapons and commerce. To Iran, there is bafflement as to how the US chooses its allies: the Saudis (excessive wealth and corruption), Israel (no oil), Afghanistan and Pakistan (corrupt and both impossible to govern as a single nation state).
Perhaps it is time for the new US Administration to pursue a different course and re-think Iran.
Robert Baer's book The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower is published by Scribe.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
interesting
Will you pick up a book by Paul McGeough which is the story of how Bibi the nutcase tried to have Khalid Mishal assassinated?
6. This is what that old leftie CIA agent Michael Scheuer had to say
“Paul McGeough’s Kill Khalid masterfully examines the Palestine-Israel war at the micro and macro levels. His detailed analysis of Israel’s attempt to MURDER Hamas chief Khalid Mishal is unlikely to be surpassed, but more important is his evaluation of the attack’s lasting consequences on Israel-Palestine affairs.
Here is McGeough’s key contribution: he provides an irrefutable picture of the zero-sum game that is the Israel-Palestine war.
He shows Fatah’s terminal, bone deep corruption and feckless leaders: the arrogant ignorance of US and Western Diplomats and the fool’s role they play in Palestinian and Israeli hands, the growth of Mishal’s political and Hamas’s military power which is obscured by wishful western thinking and Fatah’s slow death: and Israel’s implacable intent to destroy Palestine by whatever means necessary: starvation, steadily expanding settlements (73,000 new homes just announced by the way), military force, andor assassinations.
Above all McGeough illuminates the west’s bankrupt belief that the war is about democracy, nationalism or humanitarian issues. Kill Khalid indelibly proves that the war is about religion and power, and that it will not end until one or the other is the last man standing."
Scheuer is not completely correct because it is clear the Palestinians have no weapons beyond those accidently supplied by the US, but I would advise anyone who wants to know more of the reality of the region get hold of Paul’s brilliant book.
Then ponder this - the big, great, dreadful terrorist Mishal has never been to Gaza and never fired any weapons.
It is truly the saddest book in it’s indictment of the Palestinians hopelessness inflicted on them by US jews who have never been to Palestine and think that Israel is like the Leon Uris fairytale.
It needs to also be remembered that for 2,000 years there was a country called Palestine so if there needs to be a last man standing it is surely the rightful owners of the land and not the jews who imported themselves.
I asked a well known jewish activist this week why he thought he had the right to simply displace Palestinians and he told me I was rude and should be more "modest".
He is an American who didn’t bother about the occupation for 24 years before deciding it wasn’t that nice.
A pretty good precis of the situation. Amazingly, most of us seem to be able to see what is going on, and what can be done, given the will; except for the, as is said, ‘stars-in- their-eyes Yanks’ who, I would say Obama included, just do not have the will to even try and buck the Zionist lobbies in the US. The great pity of the situation is that no matter how enlightened the rest of us are, it is the Clinton camp, put in there by Obama, who will make the bloody mess. I got utterly nauseated last night watching TV with Clinton being kissed a few times on the cheek (I think he was trying for the mouth, actually) by that dirty old man, the Pres. of israel. And Clinton had stars in her eyes, and appeared to be absolutely enjoying herself being showered by hugs and kisses from a rapid succession of these murderers, child killers, thugs, liars, racists…words fail me! By appointing her to the job of Sec. of State, Obama threw in the Middle East towel, and acknowledged that he was not going to be able, whether he wanted to or not, to change the situation there. We are all going to suffer the consequences.
And I agree with the assessment of Iran. Maybe, just maybe, Obama will be allowed to open up dialogue there, but if he tries to continue the line that Iran is the bogey man supplying arms to Gaza, he will come a cropper. Can someone please tell me just what arms? They were certainly not evident when the israelis attacked. And how the Hell anyone could smuggle them in there, beyond the Kalashnikov or AK47 or two. They would have to come via Egypt, and as Egypt has been killing, jailing, disappearing the members of the Brotherhood for years, and they are best friends with Hamas, no way would Egypt allow any such thing. Besides, getting anything through those tunnels would be difficult for anything over a couple of metres long. If the Hamas people had had a few Stinger type weapons, the israelis would maybe have had a real fight on their hands. Add in a few anti-tank rockets, and Hey, man! But they were not there! And the israelis KNEW they were not there. Dazza.
I’m a bit concerned by this:
"Iran has a history of state-sponsored terrorism, including the killing of 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983."
As far as I was aware, this sort of speculation is still exactly that: speculation. The bombings were tied to hezbollah (in context, during the Israeli war on Lebanon), and from there about as meaningfully tied to the state of Iran as all recent US speculation of Hezbollah/Syrian ‘sponsoring’ by Iran (or, to put it from a different angle, as Iran’s assertions that the US is operating terrorist organisations in Iran - dismissed outright as irrelevancies/fantasy by much of the mainstream).
Just because it is accepted mainstream thinking, it doesn’t make it correct. Rather, it is useful to think of it as part of a wider propaganda appeal against Iran itself, which, of course, the CIA are a part of.
"With a Shia majority population, it was only a matter of time before Iran’s proxies were filling the power vacuum and controlling Iraq. For the initial years, it did so through waves of violence. Then Iran turned down the level of violence, giving US forces the chance to claim "the surge" a success and slowly extricate themselves."
Again, more speculation, very accepting of mainstream thinking (fed by CIA thinking, no doubt), but without any tangible evidence bar weapons parts to suggest it has any basis in reality. In fact, much of the hard evidence of early surges of violence in Iraq suggest direct US involvement (cases like Falluja are good examples). It’s a direct effect of a war of aggression, noted by law makers since at least ther end of WWII (the reason why the act stands as the supreme international war crime).
It’s also useful to ask what Iran would get from an unstable Iraq vs what the US was able to achieve with the same (ie, Iraqis fighting iraqis meant that, like the English in India, the US was able to achieve its personal objectives with a less concerted anti-occupation resistance fighting against them).
Since it’s written as part of the article, and not specifically part of Baer’s thinking, I’m more than a little surprised to hear it coming from Rod.
cheers, Derek
Must agree with Baer that Obama’s choice of Clinton and Ross isn’t going to achieve much progress in bringing peace to the Middle East. But the problem goes beyond individual office-holders to the US political system which, like that in UK or Australia, is in a state of immobilism, especially in foreign policy. The main parties diverge little as regards perceptions of national interest and foreign policy.
The same view of US/Wests strategic interests that motivated the neocon war "to reshape the ME" prevail today. US dependence on oil, the declining deterrent power of Israel, the political shakiness of the so-called moderate Arabs in face of political massification via medium of Islam etc. Given the wasted 8 years of Bush presidency a complex of intractable crises have hit at once.
carter also came in as a Washington outsider who promised change and a moral foreign policy after the twin national moral crises of watergate and the American defeat in Vietnam. Under pressure from Khomeini’s revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he effectively applied the Monroe doctrine to the Persian Gulf region. He has gone down in US history books as a loser.
However pure his intentions, I suspect that Obama may go the way of Carter—overwhelmed by US reactionaries and Fox news.
Baer’s book is certainly a departure in the right direction and worth reading. i think his view of an imperial Iran is far fetched.
Derek, thanks for your questions.
Are you contesting Iran has been involved in terrorist activities or Iran’s role in the specific event at the marine barracks in Beirut?
On Iraq, I disagree. There is significant evidence - not just of weapons linked to Iran - from many sources, not just US agencies.
Will respond in more detail if you can clarify your initial query.
Thanks
Rod
Managing Editor
newmatilda.com
I would guess that if you have built up a ‘bogey-man’, you have got to use ‘him’. Iran has been a US ‘bogey-man’ for a damned long time, for reasons long lost in history, but mainly because the Yanks hate being bested in anything, and certainly after a few thousand years, the Iranians (Persians) know more than a little about open and secret diplomacy. The Yanks have generally come out the losers, and they hate it. There are a lot of Yanks who still do not want anything to do with Vietnam, other than to happily watch it disappear into the ocean.
As for the Marines killed in Beirut, I do not think that that has ever been really properly accredited, but certainly Iran has copped most of the blame, through, again, Hizbollah. Maybe!
But I think I have to agree with Derek on the interference in Iraq bit. So many times the Yanks have said that they have evidence of this interference, and produce some bits of munitions, but really, this proves nothing. This stuff would be available to the CIA just about anywhere they choose to look around the insides of Iran, where they are running covert warfare. The CIA are also backing Kurdish groups who are also running dirty sorties into Iran, and they could pick this stuff up for them. And what other ‘agencies’ are there? I would imagine that all activities in that area are controlled by the Yanks. I know that the Australian SAS were involved back some years ago in the area, but I do not think they are still in there, they are doing their dying in Afghanistan now. No, the Yanks have a lot of ‘gold’ invested in blaming the Iranians for everything, pretty much at the behest of the israelis. Bush/Cheyney and the Jews wanted Iran destroyed, and the Jews still do. We will see if the Obama administration makes any real changes. Dealing with the israelis for the Obama administration will be like dealing with rabid dogs, knowing that at any time the israelis could and possibly still will cause a very long lasting and horrendous conflagration in the ME, which will being the whole world to it’s collective knees. I do not believe that there is enough intelligence and commonsense in the israeli leadership to do anything else, and they are driven by absolutely insane religious fanaticism, something that the World does not seem to want to acknowledge. Now THERE is a good case for Regime Change!
Mr. Baer still bears the mind-set of Americans from inception, what you can not understand and control, deride and destroy. All those years in the CIA has tainted him. How could one expect otherwise. The CIA have admitted that they have very little understanding of Arabs. I think one could easily add Iranians (Persians) to that. He does bring light to some of the Bush era mistakes, but he can not be though of as the ‘final voice’. There are quite a few Ex-CIA operatives now speaking out, sometimes appearing to want to ‘cover their asses’, and their stories do not always agree, and are sometimes very self-serving. Or America-serving! Dazza.
"""Iran has a history of state-sponsored terrorism, including the killing of 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983.""
My issue with this statement is not so much linking them with the Beirut attack, but the irrelevance of it.
Is there a nation state that HASN’T engaged in state terrorism? Except perhaps Bhutan/Kiribati?
Was the killing of 241 US marines (who were essentially an occupying force) really anymore abhorrent or "terroristic" than the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the US?
The 290 dead (including 66 children) were all civilians on board a regularly scheduled civilian passenger airline traveling a regular civilian corridor.
They were blown out of the sky by the USS Vincennes equipped with highly sophisticated radar, two other US ships in the area correctly identified it as a civilian plane and even if the insanely implausible explanation given by the Americans WAS true, they still had no right to shoot down craft over IRANIAN airspace.
I suspect the "state sponsor of terrorism" line came from the author and not Baer who is well aware that the word terrorism is essentially meaningless
""Bush/Cheyney and the Jews wanted Iran destroyed, and the Jews still do.""
Jewish does not equal Israeli nor Zionist. There are many Jews who actively oppose even the creation of Israel (generally the fundier end of the scale) and many many progressive Jews both inside and outside Israel that have no such desire.
Unfortunately successive Israeli fascists have attempted to make Jewish and Israeli synonymous because it helps with their pathetic "any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic" wailing but progressive SHOULD NOT HELP THEM IN THIS
When we mean Zionist, we should say so, when we mean Israeli we should say so and when we mean Jewish we should say so. They are different things
""Mr. Baer still bears the mind-set of Americans from inception, what you can not understand and control, deride and destroy. All those years in the CIA has tainted him. How could one expect otherwise.""
I think you need to read some of Baer’s writings - you couldn’t be more wrong or even read the article above which makes it patently clear that Baer does not buy into the destroy Iran argument or the propaganda behind it.
I suspect after spending most of his career in the middle east he understands it rather better than most commentators here. While folks might not think being "embedded" in a nation means one understands it but it does give one a much better perspective than sitting half way round the world tapping on a keyboard.
I see no evidence (either in his writings nor in person) to suggest he holds a "control or kill" mentality at all.
I agree Iran is the key to peace in the Middle East, as they accumulate more and more oil reserves and arm more and more armed proxies like Hexbullah and Hamas to fight the Zionists.
There seems no doubt Iran is attempting to control as much of the Middle East as possible and if they want to make Mecca Shi’ite, then even non-Shi’ite Sunni Muslims are not safe in the Middle East anymore.
The US has paid far too much attention to Sunni Saudi Arabia, which has such draconian laws, is totally hypocritical and has a superficial relationship based solely on crude oil. This relationship should definitely change.
However, your informant Baer has only lived in the ME for 15 years and if none of the people who have been living there for ALL of their lives still can’t resolve the problem of Israel/Palestine, he certainly won’t.
US are far more ‘interested’ in the Middle East than having mere stability (= peace), they have deep-rooted religious afiliations through their Jewish and Christian citizens, millions of who are absolutely committed to Zionism. Baer may not care, but who cares about what he thinks anyway!
Iran is more than a nuclear threat to the US, it has directly threatened Israel and wouldl probably invade Saudi Arabia soon, now that they control Iraq, if it wasn’t for the US.
Yes Obama has to consider a change in ME policy direction and that is to keep an even closer watch on the newly forming Persian Empire in the Middle East, that will continue to harass and threaten all non-Shi’ite (especially Zionist) groups in the region.
And he must insist on the formation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank, with Jerusalem as the ‘carrot’ to be capitol of both states, only offered when the Israelis and the Palestinians both lay down their arms and promise to peacefully share their heritage and cultural roots common of all.
a hex on all your bullah denise! What countries in the middle-east have invaded anyone recently? Other than Israel (who are constantly on the expansion) you have to go back nearly twenty years to when the US backed Sadaam regime in Iraq got out of control and invaded Kuwait. Can’t remember when the persian Empire was last on the grow but if we are going to go down that track let’s take out Italy for trying to revive the roman empire.
Thanks Rod,
"Are you contesting Iran has been involved in terrorist activities or Iran’s role in the specific event at the marine barracks in Beirut?
On Iraq, I disagree. There is significant evidence - not just of weapons linked to Iran - from many sources, not just US agencies."
Iran has, like all states, been involved in terrorist activity. The events at the marine barracks in Beirut firstly can not be seen as terrorist activity in the same context as, for example, a bomb on a bus targetting civilians might be. If war is comfortably brought by Americans to civilians in perhaps 30+ countries since and during WWII, then a targetted attack on *soldier* (not civilians) during a war backed by the US (via Israel) can hardly be seen as a terrorist act.
However, this defends the hezbollah position.
Here is what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
"The U.S. also accuses him of responsibility for devastating double suicide truck-bomb attacks on U.S. Marine and French paratrooper barracks in Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 Marines and 58 paratroopers, as well as a prior attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63, a particularly serious blow because of a meeting there of CIA officials at the time.
The Financial Times has, however, attributed the attack on the Marine barracks to Islamic Jihad, not Hizbollah. Fawaz Gerges, one of the leading scholars on the jihadi movements and on Lebanon, has written that responsibility was taken by an "unknown group called Islamic Jihad." A voice speaking in classical Arabic called for all Americans to leave Lebanon or face death. It has been claimed that Moughniyeh was the head of Islamic Jihad at the time, but to my knowledge, evidence is sparse.
The opinion of the world has not been sampled on the subject, but it is possible that there might be some hesitancy about calling an attack on a military base in a foreign country a "terrorist attack," particularly when U.S. and French forces were carrying out heavy naval bombardments and air strikes in Lebanon, and shortly after the U.S. provided decisive support for the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which killed some 20,000 people and devastated the south, while leaving much of Beirut in ruins. It was finally called off by President Reagan when international protest became too intense to ignore after the Sabra-Shatila massacres."
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/16669
So either Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, and in the context of war in which the US was fighting.
As for Iraq, I would say the issue here is not the activity itself, but how people have been beguiled by US propaganda into mistaking evidence of Iranian involvement into evidence of *Iran’s* involvement. For example, there are currently, in Iraq, many mercenaries operating up and down the country. Most from countries already sponsoring the terrorism there (ie, US, UK, Australia, et al), but many from other countries. We wouldn’t (I would hope) presume that because of the existence of, for example (and this is unlikely, I would guess) Cuban mercenaries in Iraq, Cuba therefore supports terrorist activity in Iraq. We would think; there are some Cubans out there who are very nasty individuals. Or, to use the Australian example of Hicks[?]. The US didn’t accuse Australia of cohorting with OBL, but rather Australia (just like Iran) said: he is a terrorist - we agree - take him, and do what you will with him.
"Although Iranian agents have trained, financed, and funneled arms to a number of extremist Islamic groups, U.S. charges of direct Iranian responsibility for specific terrorist acts against Israeli or American targets remain dubious. For example, Washington exerted enormous pressure on the Saudi government to implicate Iran in the 1996 terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers in Dharan, which killed 19 U.S. soldiers, even though Saudi investigators found no such link. Iran has challenged the United States to present evidence in an international judicial forum to prove its allegations, but Washington has refused. Many now believe this terrorist attack may have been one of the first strikes by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.
U.S. State Department investigations reveal that Iranian support for terrorism emanates almost exclusively from the Revolutionary Guards and the Intelligence services, both of which are beyond the control of Iran’s president and legislature.
Furthermore, most acts of international terrorism clearly linked to Teheran have been directed at exiled Iranian dissidents, not against the United States. Iran’s immediate post-revolutionary zeal to export its ideology was short-lived, as internal problems and outside threats deflected the attention of its leadership. In addition, Iranians are culturally and religiously distinct from the Sunni Arabs who dominate most of the Middle East. The hierarchical structure of the Shiite Islam practiced in Iran limits the revolution’s appeal as a model for other Middle Eastern states.
There is little evidence to support Washington’s warnings of aggressive Iranian designs in the Persian Gulf, either. Iran has not threatened-nor does it have any reason for provoking-a confrontation over sea lanes, as several U.S. analysts have feared. Iran is at least as reliant as its Arab neighbors on unrestricted navigation, so if it closed the Straits of Hormuz, Iran would be primarily hurting itself. With few pipelines servicing its southern oil fields, Iran is far more dependent on tanker shipping than any other country on the Persian Gulf coast."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/US_Iran_hegemony.ht…
(Stephen Zunes, znet)
The evidence (that I am aware of, and evidently, that Zunes is aware of) suggests that the US would *love* to have something concrete on Iran, and that many of its operatives no doubt *believe* Iran is heavily into sponsoring terrorism, but the facts don’t seem to support this, not concretely, as they do for the US, the UK, etc.
The evidence is in Iran’s track record. Terrorists tend to want power when they support other nation’s revolutionaries to attempt to overthrow governments. For the US, this has meant money, contracts, puppet govts dotted around the world, doing the bidding of the US. Baer should be well aware of this. This is terrorism (rather than revolution, or the ‘spreading of democracy’), because the benefactors are the sponsors, not the recipients.
Iran hasn’t invaded another country for well over (I think, from memory) a couple of hundred years, hasn’t installed any puppet dictators anywhere else but Iran. For the US, on the other hand, its almost a weekly affair. Invasion/war *is* terrorism. So who do we believe when the known terrorist tells us that the assumed terrorist is a terrorist? Well, in this case, we still, unbelievably, side with the terrorist. Such is the strength of propaganda…
cheers, Derek
""There seems no doubt Iran is attempting to control as much of the Middle East as possible and if they want to make Mecca Shi’ite, then even non-Shi’ite Sunni Muslims are not safe in the Middle East anymore.""
Yes the 90% of Muslims who are Sunni have so much to fear from Shiite’s who share the remaining 10% with the Sufi’s and heterodox branches
Baer never claimed to be able to solve anything but personally I care far more about his informed opinion than that of someone who actually thinks there’s a snowballs chance in hell of Mecca being overrun by Shiites.
He may not "know everything" but he know far more than most western commentators who’s closest association with the middle east is occasionally buying a kebab
Hi Derek
I appreciate where you are coming from but a few quick points:
Troops stationed at a barracks at 6.20am and (one would suspect) likely to be unarmed. Yes, suicide bombers are used as an act of war on targets but I don’t have any problem calling this an act of terrorism.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to declare Hezbelloh’s actions as acts of war (ie not terrorism) and then go on and on about the ‘terrorist’ activities of Israel and the US. I don’t think any of them are up for best behaviour prizes - it’s all essentially acts of terror. They weren’t doing these things out on some wide plained battlefield, these was dense urban neighbourhoods and it’s unimaginable what it must have been like for civilians.
As I referred to in the article, Iran’s alleged instructions were to declare any actions those of the Islamic Jihad Organisation.
There is strong evidence that Imad Mughniyah was directly involved in a number of the Beirut attacks (US embassy, Marine barracks and the Israeli barracks). Mughniyah was one of Hezbelloh’s most active fighters and has been linked to a long list of terrorist acts. Not just military targets - the Kuwaiti Airlines highjacking is expanded on in The Devil We Know and is a good example of Iran’s involvement.
Why do the families of suicide bombers of Hezbelloh have the Ayotollah’s picture displayed in their living rooms? Why do parents of suicide bombers talk about their children going off with the Revolutionary Guards for training? And if not Iran, who has been funding Hezbelloh?
With regard to Iraq since 2003, and your previous post ie Fallujuh. Of course the appalling action of the US forces in Fallujah resulted in a surge in violence. What Iran was able to ‘get’ was watch US forces immersed in a country descending into chaos. Literally stand by, watch and wait.
When Moqtada al-Sadr sought refuge from US troops, where did he go? Iran. If Iran wasn’t playing an active role with insurgents, again like Lebanon, where were the armaments coming from? I think it’s important to acknowledge that a level of certainty may be difficult but also a level of trustworthiness - for Iran or the USA is extremely difficult.
There have been many statements and examples of terrorist events where Iran has been suspected of involvement. Often their official response would be- "We know nothing of this, what can we do to assist?"
As the years ticked over and the American public grew more and more dismayed at the cost, loss of life and general mayhem, Iran knew the political will to ‘stay the course’ would diminish. Iran doesn’t view these things in political four year cycles.
There is a strong element of Persian pride and they know their history. They understand it may be 20, 30 years or more before these things change. Iran is willing to wait. Of course the US is not. With the US exit, Iran has been able to commence control - look at the voting record of the Iraqi parliament.
Also on your statement "Iran hasn’t invaded another country for well over (I think, from memory) a couple of hundred years, hasn’t installed any puppet dictators anywhere else but Iran"
They certainly tried to invade Iraq: 1980 to ‘88 and if you want a good example of a puppet, al-Maliki is a good place to start.
Finally - read the book! I think you’d appreciate it’s depth and I don’t believe Baer has any interest in enriching US propaganda. I did intend to ask Baer a question on Chomsky as he (Baer) has an interesting view on the US being stuck, still fighting World War II and Middle East borders through Persian eyes (instead of Western eyes) but he was reading Nabokov, we got distracted and ran out of time!
Thanks
Rod
Managing Editor
newmatilda.com
"Troops stationed at a barracks at 6.20am and (one would suspect) likely to be unarmed. Yes, suicide bombers are used as an act of war on targets but I don’t have any problem calling this an act of terrorism."
As opposed to US airforce (and Israeli airforce) dropping bombs on civilians (never armed) and fighters alike (sometimes armed, sometimes not), *in their own country*?
"I don’t think it’s reasonable to declare Hezbelloh’s actions as acts of war (ie not terrorism) and then go on and on about the ‘terrorist’ activities of Israel and the US."
I wouldn’t call them acts of war, but acts of *resistance*. When a country operates outside of its own jurisdiction by indiscriminate bombing (civilians areas), it is terrorism. When an occupied people resist that occupation/terrorism/bombing campaign, it is not terrorism (not according to old international laws of war, which seem to suggest any means of resistance is acceptable for an occupied people). The context is very, very important, and the statement above is the kind of thing I’m used to reading as responses from BBC news staff (that isn’t really a compliment…)
"They weren’t doing these things out on some wide plained battlefield, these was dense urban neighbourhoods and it’s unimaginable what it must have been like for civilians."
Exactly, and like in 2006, the main perpetrators (in fact, the only perpetrators when you use the more accurate context of resistance regarding hezbollah) were Israel, the US, and I think the french. Resistance, in an occupied country, takes what it can use. Once the international supreme crime has been committed (the act of aggression against another state) all bets are off. Turn it around to Australia; if Indonesia invaded, and destroyed Australia’s military, would it be deemed acceptable to fight the Indonesian military via guerilla tactics (all that would be left)? Yes or no. If no, once the occupier has destroyed the military, all people of all nations must submit willingly. If yes, the same applies in places like Lebanon.
"As I referred to in the article, Iran’s alleged instructions were to declare any actions those of the Islamic Jihad Organisation.
There is strong evidence that Imad Mughniyah was directly involved in a number of the Beirut attacks (US embassy, Marine barracks and the Israeli barracks). Mughniyah was one of Hezbelloh’s most active fighters and has been linked to a long list of terrorist acts. "
And yet, no tangible link to Iran - just hearsay. Following that, as I said, of course Iran has been involved in state terrorism (what country hasn’t). Just that these example are few and far between, do not incontrovertibly include Lebanon or Iraq, and as Zunes said, just about any proved related to Iran hunting down Iranian dissidents outside of Iran, rather than supporting a broadening of Iranian power, as is commonly suggested re Iraq/Syria/Lebanon.
"And if not Iran, who has been funding Hezbelloh?"
According to Hezbollah, the people of Lebanon - for whom Hezbollah is far more than a guerilla resistance/terrorist organisation. Like Hamas, they provide schools, medics and many other services to communities across the south of Lebanon neglected by Lebanon’s corrupt government. I, of course, don’t know for certain, but this seems far more plausible than a direct Iranian influence.
"When Moqtada al-Sadr sought refuge from US troops, where did he go? Iran. If Iran wasn’t playing an active role with insurgents, again like Lebanon, where were the armaments coming from? I think it’s important to acknowledge that a level of certainty may be difficult but also a level of trustworthiness - for Iran or the USA is extremely difficult."
The word, as I see it here, should be *resistance* not ‘insurgent’. An insurgent takes part in armed rebellion against the constituted authority. The US was never the ‘constituted authority’ in Iraq, and, after the joke of a constitution was instituted by the US’ puppet Iraqi govt, I think the thread of seriousness that one might take up to suggest that the new govt was a ‘constituted authority’ was fairly tenuous. So again, let’s be clear; those resisting the occupation in Iraq were not doing so wrongly, they were resisting a violent occupation by a lawless terrorist state (the US), from whom we get our information that Iran was ‘interfering’. Can you not see how laughable it is that we would entertain thinkers from such realms for a level of legitimacy in this debate?
But anyway, you ask if not Iran, where were the armaments coming from? Over the years, there have been numerous stories on the wire of lost weapons/stolen armaments etc across Iraq.
Here is the very first story I found, by googling ‘lost armament iraq’.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407177
In just about any country in the world, the number of weapons available for public consumption is so great and so varied that I would hazard a guess in landlocked Iraq it would not be difficult getting appropriate armament from any direction (most likely without the knowledge of any authorities). But in Iraq, thanks to US incompetence (or perhaps the opposite), the weapons were available and unaccounted for. Add to that the fact that in any given part of Iraq, there would have been plenty of Iraqis with the recent knowledge of bomb construction (thanks to a decade of war under Saddam Hussein) and you’re not really pushing any boundaries of credibility to assume that everything Iraqies needed for resistance against the US occupiers was right at their fingertips. Iran doesn’t want an unstable Iraq any more than the UK wanted an unstable NI. The problems feed over. For the US, on the other hand, once it became apparent that there was a strong resistance, instability was exactly what they needed. Cui bono (as I said, think colonial India).
"1980 to ‘88"
Sorry Rod, wrong direction. Iran repelled the Iraqi attack (with a crippling loss of life). They didn’t instigate it. The invasion, the war between Iraq and Iran was begun by Iraq, when Iraq attacked on sep 22 1980, by attempting to destroy Iran’s airforce, and then immediately following, mouting a massive ground attack. It is not an invasion when he military repells an attack by entering the other nation’s borders.
Al-maliki is certainly a puppet, but I believe you’ll find him to be a *US* puppet.
cheers, Derek
Excellent stuff, Derek, I agree with you 100%.
And as for MissnOmar, I do agree that I should not have lumped all Jews in the one parcel, however, it is hard not to, when ALL the Zionist Lobbies, the world over, are so absolutely, so non-critically PRO-ISRAEL, PRO-ZIONIST. And they are the voices that we hear. They are the ones who jump so hard and so quickly on the slightest criticism of what the israelis do. Sure, there are a few jewish voices crying in the wilderness, jumped on even harder by the Zionist lobbies, such as Antony Lowenstein and others, but where is their backing? Where are all these Jews (other than some on these pages) who disagree with the israeli madness? We in Australia have a few Jewish Billionaires, and without exception, as far as I can see, they are ardent supporters of israel, and what it is doing, no matter what!
Just one who raised his/her voice against the insanity of the leaderships of israel would be wonderful! But we all know it is not going to happen!
Anyway, this was an article about Iran.
Whoever gets elected to the Iranian Legislature is really immaterial, it is the bunch, in the thousands, of the Religious Mullahs, based in Qom, headed by the Ayatollah and the power group around him, that control everything. And will probably continue to do so. They are generally old men, and the population of Iran now is mostly young people, under 30, so perhaps, just perhaps, in about 30-40 years, the ruling group may change their ideas and methods. This will depend so much on how the West, particularly the USA, treats with them. By them, I mean the whole population. While the Mullahs can still call out the millions to protest the ‘Great Satan’, there is little chance. If the talks can begin, the blockades on everything be lifted, even a little at a time, it will get harder for the old Mullahs to call out that support, and their power will wither.
But if they continue to be ‘backed against a wall’, the whole world seemingly out to get them, treated as the source of all Evil, as GWBush did, as the Zionists do, there is no chance.
Over to you, Obama! You are going to have to curb your tongue, (so supportive of the Zionists) and curb the acid tongue of your Secretary of State, a rabid Zionist supporter, to even start to do anything. And you may have to start with abolishing the present Propaganda Dept., because it is still stuck in Bush/Cheyney days, still stacked with Zionist neo-cons. Dazza.
Hi Dazza,
You asked, of Lowenstein and others, "where is their backing?"
In small solidarity groups, like btselem, jewish voice for peace, and many other such organisations. Perhaps it’s better to think of the whole situation from our perspective. What we *see* around us (our politicians and media) might make an outsider think that this is the way we all think (and there’s no denying, in many cases, we may be right, that the majority do support one or another horrible, genocidal policy, but that’s via the subtle deployment of complex western propaganda more than anything else, I think), but that would be an insult to you, me, missnomar, etc.
The same, of course, stands for Jewish leaders, both in and out of Israel. They don’t necessarily stand for the average Jew any more than Rudd, or Brown, or Obama stands for the average Australian, Brit, American. The critical issue is not Zionism, but elitism, in the case of Israel, manifested *as* Zionism (just as the Crusades, both of times gone by and Bush’s invasion into Iraq, were our own manifestation).
So they (Lowenstein, et al) have support, but they have *honourable* support, not elitist support or blind conformist ‘Zionist’ support from the same type of people that, in the Australian context, might have supported Howard’s conceptualisation of detention centres in the early days.
What is heartening to me is that during the recent violence against the people of Gaza, there were many Jewish people who marched in London in support and solidarity for Gazans. The Jewish diaspora is, I believe, growing bolder in a positive way against the elitist lies fed them from the state of Israel. Add to that the increase in serious opposition to the same elites in Israel itself, and the future for Palestine looks a little more positive than it did, say, ten years ago.
cheers, Derek
Most importantly, Iran now controls Iraqi oil supplies and Baer believes that by 2015, when full oil production in Iraq is achieved, Iran will control more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and have even more clout through OPEC than it already does.
For the US (and world) economy, this points to the possibility of oil prices going beyond $200 per barrel, possibly $300. As Baer points out, suddenly the price of everything they buy increases massively.
Does Baer have some method to come to the $200, possibly $300 per barrel figure?
This figure is doubtless a key constraint OR pivot to all the affairs of the region?
…by 2015?
Is Baer aware that coal is liquefied to petroleum at less than a marginal cost of USD $40 per barrel, at 2007/8 costs, and that the US has the world’s largest coal reserve and resource? And this measure of that ‘largest’ is largest by far!
Estimates of US coal resource = aprox 200/300 odd years at current US oil consumption? So it goes …
Err … and marginal production cost should equal market price i.t.o. economics 101¿ [Plus a gratuitous gob of government rendered externality tax if you care.]
Why does a sustainable oil price five to seven times that seem acceptable to Baer?
Is it no coincidence that the current oil price drop has been cushioned at roughly that amount ? dunno4sure¿
Derek, I would love to believe you on this one, but I can not. Sure, there are a few Jewish peaceniks in israel and worldwide. But, in this last israeli election, the greater majority of people, feeling hate and racism in their hearts, voted en masse for Right Wing and Extremist Religious Parties. Even israeli Media reports that the peace movement is utterly disorganised (regularly harassed by people and organisations that do not agree with them) and has lost a great deal of the support they had. Extremist Propaganda, put out relentlessly by the Government and the IDF, gets full coverage, people trying to get some dialogue and peace get less and less coverage. In the USA, some small groupings speak out in low voices, because, as has been said, the US populace still believe in ‘fairy stories’. When I was growing up, we were all fed with daily stories of the wonderful ‘kibbutzen’ who were fighting the good fight against the nasty Arabs. The Zionist propaganda machine has always been ‘up front’ and proactive. It only grew on me slowly over the years that there were lots of nasty snakes in Paradise, and most of this was, indeed, bulls..t! Way back then, I also somewhat believed in ‘fairy stories’. But unlike the US population, our Media, controlled as it is by Big Money, did sometimes come out with truth, and we gleaned the facts of what was really happening. In the USA, this information has been ruthlessly suppressed, even the latest Gaza manifestation of israeli War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity had little coverage in the Mass Media, but some did come through on the web, and was seen and read. But such is the American fascination with Fundamentalist Christian and Jewish Religious matters, and after so many years of ‘bad mouthing’ Arabs/Iranians, they much prefer to ignore anything that upsets their deeply held convictions. It would take many years of counter-propaganda to reverse this, and I doubt that anyone would try. It has been said that the Zionists ruthlessly control the Media, and ensure that only their point of view is ever put forward, but at the same time, the Arabs, with all their Oil Money, seem loath to put any of it to use in countering the incredibly efficient Zionist machine, instead spending it in bucket-loads on incredibly gross buildings in the Emirates. (Or they were, it has slowed down a bit now!)
Until such time as the ‘other side’ is able to put forward their own point of view equally with the Zionists, we are stuck with gross imbalance.
Some of the British Universities (and perhaps some others) want to boycott contact with Zionist entities, and they have been pilloried ruthlessly for their temerity. Since Gaza, this movement has gathered some pace, but it is still small bikkies.
Some businesses in Europe have made some effort at boycotting israeli business, but it is so small as to be almost unnoticeable, even after Gaza.
I read the US web version of Al Jazeera Magazine, and find it very informative (and accurate). But the Bush government tried their best to destroy this source, even to the extent of shooting at and killing their journalists in Baghdad. Al Jazeera TV is still banned in most Western countries, including Australia. Australia (Elmer Rudd) is not going upset the Zionist lobbies here, and I doubt that Obama will do much in the USA either. The Land of the Free is only free to those that toe the line. In the ME, Governments supported by the USA are trying continuously to have Al Zazeera shut down, because accurate information is dangerous to the dictators frame of mind. And possibly to their long term health!
In Australia, we can read Al Jazeera on line at the moment, but Rudd’s /Conroy’s Internet Censorship Laws would eventually phase out all information sources that did not toe the Governments line. And believe me, Rudd has all the makings of a very Right Wing Dictator. He is also a Religious Nutter, and is very unlikely to look favourably on any criticism of israel and Zionism.
No, I can not see any light at the end of this tunnel. Dazza.
Some very interesting and pertinent comment by one Antony Lerman, former Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, written in The Independent.
.
To some extent, makes your point, Dereklane. Dazza.
Hmmm. How does one make links here? Dazza.
Hmmm. How does one make links here?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/must-
jews-always-see-themselves-as-victims-1639277.html Dazza.
I will try another one. This is a comment made by one Ari Avnery, an israeli Jew, writing in Aljazeeera. com, would you believe, with his own grave misgivings on the israeli leadership and actions.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Remember_Ophira_.html
Also reading the ‘comments’ under articles written in Aljazeera, an increasing number of Americans, in the US, with criticism of the blind backing of the USA for israel, mentioning Gaza, and the increasing cost of supporting israel from American taxpayers. There may be hope yet, if Obama can pick up on this criticism, and alter his ME policies accordingly. H.Clinton may have to resign yet, or be sacked, unless she can change her attitudes. Interesting times! Dazza.
Great point about the Iran Air Flight 655 MissnOmar.
I was watching a documentary about it not long ago, absolutely sickening. Im pretty sure the naval officers responsible were also awarded medals after the tragedy also. Another example of how the US’s mistakes are so effortlessly swept under the carpet and forgotten.
Sorry for the delayed reply, briefly:
I understand why you apply the term 'resistance' to Hezbelloh, but they were not the national defence force of Lebanon and they did not represent everyone who suffered under the invasion and occupation of Israel. I think the use of the term insurgency and terrorist is appropriate. Locals were kidnapped and murdered too [edit] by Hezbollah.
At a later date, Hezbollah (like Hamas) provided services to the local population but schools and medical facilities were not one of their major activities in the early 80's. As you say, Hezbollah had a major role in southern Lebanon from the early 80s and right through the civil war but again, where would the money to fund these civil services have come from?
Hezbelloh has made a significant transition - under Nasrallah - from a militia to a political movement, and legitimacy.
Similarly with Iraq. Weapons used against the US forces could be traced back to the former Iraqi army or Iran but you can't maintain an insurgency just with weapons. Surely it requires significant funding and again, where would that funding come from?
I do strongly recommend you read the book and then make a judgment. Not to dismiss your views but to understand the context which Baer believes Iran's 'anti-colonial' strategy has been carried out in places like Lebanon and Iraq.
And finally, I do think the examples cited where families of suicide bombers have pictures of Khomeini in their living rooms is a curious one. Why would a Sunni family in Lebanon do this?
Cheers Rod
Managing Editor newmatilda.com
Hi Rod,
Let’s work backwards:
"I do think the examples cited where families of suicide bombers have pictures of Khomeini in their living rooms is a curious one. Why would a Sunni family in Lebanon do this?"
Firstly, Hezbollah is a shia organisation, as far as I am aware. But let’s assume I have a picture of che guevara on my living room wall. Is this incontrovertible evidence of, or would it even suggest that I have real political ties to either Fidel Castro or guevara’s form of terrorism (as you might label it)? Well, of course not. Identifying with a political or religious figure is something people around the world do and pay homage to via portraits/photos. It’s neither here nor there, and seems to me to be scaremongering of the basest level.
"Hezbelloh has made a significant transition - under Nasrallah - from a militia to a political movement, and legitimacy."
Most, if not all political movements begin with acts of violence or terrorism. It’s unfortunate, but true.
"Similarly with Iraq. Weapons used against the US forces could be traced back to the former Iraqi army or Iran but you can’t maintain an insurgency just with weapons. Surely it requires significant funding and again, where would that funding come from?"
You’ve conflated two separate issues. Lebanon (in the 1980s) could have been considered insurgency for Hezbollah (though only via very broad channels of reasoning, since Israel and the US were busy killing the Lebanese while the Lebanese govt sat on their hands). Their main priority as I understand it then was getting rid of the occupation, not the govt.
Iraq on the other hand is full of Iraqi *resistance*, not insurgents. Before the Iraqi govt was instituted by the US (and after the US had removed the original regime - grossly illegal under international law, and an act of terrorism), there was no government to usurp. Afterwards, it was a puppet govt, not legitimate. They were, and are, the resistance, as I would be if Australia was invaded tomorrow and I came home to fight the invasion.
Why does it require ‘more than weapons’? This might only be true if we were talking about an outside engineered fight. You seem to be using your own argument to prove your argument (in other words, it’s circular). If it is/was indeed a resistance force, it requires only local organisation - people fighting *for their lives*. There you need only the will, and the weapons.
"Hezbollah (like Hamas) provided services to the local population but schools and medical facilities were not one of their major activities in the early 80’s "
No, in the early 80s, when they began existence, it was as a direct result of the invasion, in other words, they came together to *resist* the occupation. They had little money, or weapons. Instead, they used guerilla tactics, and ingenuity (via car bombs, mainly) to counter the advanced military tactics of the US, Israel, and France. Later, with more funding (from the people they fought for, when the Lebanese military failed those same people abysmally), their weapons became more advanced, and more discriminating.
The unwillingness of western media to acknowledge the fact that, during an invasion, people will invariably stand up and die for their countries is both unbelievable, and hard-headed. All we need do is think, for a second, like we were occupied. Walk a mile in another man’s shoes, as Finch said in TKAM. That’s what starts these movements, not state funding from nation’s wishing to sow dissent.
The western driven movements (like the Taliban, for example) are driven hard and fast, to excessive violence and against the will of the people by CIA funding. Also, that funding is invariably given to groups wishing for real insurgency, often for very negative reasons. They tend to want killers, not revolutionaries. In the examples of organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah, the rise is more fluid and people based, because *that* is from where (most likely) their funding comes. In both cases, legitimacy has risen not (like the Taliban or Israel) by taking over government, but by attempting to work within its constraints.
Again, using an ex CIA agent, no matter how critical he is, to gauge how the middle east works, is like learning about a particular culture by looking through pyschopathy-tinted glasses. You will get *a view* (some of which may even be right) but you won’t get a sensible or rounded view.
cheers, Derek
Perhaps a more distanced analogy (better for understanding) might be if we wished to learn about ‘pub culture’ via a reformed alcoholic. All the underlying possibilities of corruption will be examined and dwelt upon. Some will be real, and provable, many won’t (because not everyone is an alcoholic, and there are many ‘draws’ to pub culture, only one of which is the actual alcohol/ inebriation). What you will get is a very one-sided view on how it works based on that alcoholic’s predisposition to negative behavioural interactions within that culture. As I said, there’ll be some hits, but there’ll be also be a lot of misses.
Where the [ex] CIA stick to providing hard evidence, they’re often quite useful. Once they start speculating, they’re far too compromised to do it usefully.
cheers, Derek