War on Iran

[BClark]

But it's not like the US backs up tankers and steals the oil. (Although the local governments may arguably be stealing it from their own people.) The US and other countries just want to pay good money to buy it.

Hah. Wow. You see these two situations as being much more distinct than I do. Paying despots for oil they've stolen from their nation is a crucial act of enablement, and said theft could not happen without it.

So the US doesn't steal it. They just want to buy it on the cheap from the despots who steal it from their own people. Nothing wrong with that, eh?

The effects of this pattern are obvious, it's called a "resource curse." It's the case in Nigeria and much of the Middle East, and was the case in Venezuela before Chavez: a country rich in resources that does next to nothing for its poor majority despite being so resource-rich. This is one of the most fundamentally inexcusable situations that pervades in the third world; it's one of the most crucial causes of the stark inequality of the Global South, seeing as how a great many countries of the South are actually very rich in resources.

In all cases, some third world US-client state, run by a tiny, hoarding elite class, pillages a country's rich natural resources for cheap foreign consumption, and shares next to nothing with the people of that country -- in the case of the US-backed ancien regime of Venezuela, they were able to do this despite the oil industry being nominally "nationalized." The end result is that, with key US enablement, the foreigners who buy the oil (for consumption in their home country) make more from trading it than the countries who produce it, and what little is left for the countries producing it is just hoarded by the local elites.

And the crucial foreign enablement is pretty easily excused in your book, it seems? It's trade, it's the "open" market, so it's easily justified?

For years Iran denied nuclear development of any kind at all. When the evidence became overwhelming their response was to admit nuclear development, but to deny it was towards nuclear weapons. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons then throwing open all doors to inspectors should be a simple thing to do. The world waits.

why should they? open to whom? last time I checked Iran is an independent country to which was proven nothing of these allegations.

Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency and thus is bound by the treaties of membership. This includes non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and being open to inspection.

And there is a war crime court in the world and the us is not accepting it and it's existence. Tit for tat I guess.

exactly. once the US is ready to pay the damages demanded at the hague after the ruling concerning US sponsorship for the contra terrorists (Nicaragua vs US, ICJ case in 84, where the ICJ found the US guilty of unlawful use of force against a sovereign nation -- a non-aggressive, peaceful sovereign nation as it turns out), once the US is willing to extradite the terrorists it protects from *repeated* extradition requests (the cuban exile CIA-asset luis posada carriles, the haitian CIA-asset death squad leader emmanuel constant), then the US might be in a position to preach such notions of "international law" to others such as iran. until then, the US is just another "rogue state" itself and this kind of posturing only makes it look egregiously hypocritical.

and let's keep in mind, that Nicaragua ruling was an ICJ ruling concerning actual violence that had been done by the CIA and their clients (mostly against unarmed civilians for that matter), while the present-day iran issue only concerns the potential for violence in the future (a potential of a much-contested probability -- even in israel there are government officials highly skeptical of notions that there is a WMD program underway in iran).

[galanter]

Iran hasn't threatened anyone.

Iran has done more than threaten Israel, although they've done that too.

They support the crushing despots in Syria, they arm Hizbollah and in coordination with Syria have made a basket case out of Lebanon inciting ethnic mistrust and assassinating any leader that appears to be gaining democratic support, they arm and fund insurgency in Iraq, and actively undermine any attempts to create a two state solution, preferring to continue Palestinian suffering over "risking" peace with Israel.

[galanter]

But it's not like the US backs up tankers and steals the oil. (Although the local governments may arguably be stealing it from their own people.) The US and other countries just want to pay good money to buy it.

Hah. Wow. You see these two situations as being much more distinct than I do. Paying despots for oil they've stolen from their nation is a crucial act of enablement, and said theft could not happen without it.

So the US doesn't steal it. They just want to buy it on the cheap from the despots who steal it from their own people. Nothing wrong with that, eh?

You seem to have lost track of the thread here. I'm not arguing in favor of buying it from despots, and I'm not arguing in favor of stealing it from anyone. I'm arguing in favor of buying it from the people at a fair price. That's not theft.

When the US went in to remove Saddam the accusation was that it was all "about oil."
But if that had been true as simply stated the easiest thing in the world would have been to support Saddam and get cheap oil exactly as you describe. But the US didn't do that. We deposed Saddam with the best case scenario hoped for being the people of Iraq benefiting from their natural resources by selling them to the US and other countries at a fair price.

Should the US take an action in Iran, and I hope it never comes to that, we will hear the same thing. "It's all about oil." But again the easiest thing in the world would be for the US to support the Mullahs (like Russia tends to) and buy cheap oil.

If it was "all about oil" the US would drop support for Israel like a hot rock because they have no oil at all. We would become BFFs with the Mullahs. But the US hasn't done that either.

[brisket]

And the Americans train and fund saboteurs and assassins within Iran itself. Is it surprising they're paranoid?

the Syrian govt. is no more repressive than the Saudis, yet they're suddenly toxic. and fair enough, because shooting at your own people is a vile thing to do. Their corrupt style of govt. has been the norm in the Middle East for a long time and the US has never had any problem dealing with such governments (until it looks like they might be on the way out...)

Looking at the Middle East as a whole, if the powers-that-be actually gave a toss about meaningful democracy they'd start by pressuring Saudi Arabia, a police state whose rulers leverage their massive cash to prop up minority-Sunni governments elsewhere (and which exports the greatest number of bona-fide Muslim terrorists.) for some very mysterious, completely-non-oil-related reason the Saudis are friends of democracy while Iran with its cosmopolitan population is an existential threat.

anyway, this is of tangential relevance because the whole idea of pre-emptive war is staggeringly stupid and evil anyway.

[galanter]

I have no great respect for the empowered Saudis. Their domino will eventually fall too.

[brisket]

yeah, and for now-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/20/us-usa-saudi-arms-idUSTRE69J4ML20101020

$60bn of weaponry to the Saudis in one sale.
If there's a Saudi Spring, it will be far worse than what's happened in Tunisia, Egypt or Syria. of course it has to happen eventually, but... when?
It would be very interesting to see how it would be covered by the news if it began today - whether 'the Saudi government' would become the 'Saudi regime' overnight, like in Syria, or if there are different rules for 'friends'.

[Andrew.]

I have the G-man blocked, but boy it's nice there's others around to counter his tired State Department propaganda.

[matthew]

Iran hasn't threatened anyone.

Iran has done more than threaten Israel, although they've done that too.

They support the crushing despots in Syria, they arm Hizbollah and in coordination with Syria have made a basket case out of Lebanon inciting ethnic mistrust and assassinating any leader that appears to be gaining democratic support, they arm and fund insurgency in Iraq, and actively undermine any attempts to create a two state solution, preferring to continue Palestinian suffering over "risking" peace with Israel.

I can't believe you're buying this sort of rhetoric still, Phil. For an intelligent, informed person such as yourself, it's really astonishing.

Let's get down to nuts and bolts.

The reason The State of Israel is threatened is because:

1) It exists.

2) Its existence is illegitimate in that it displaced people who had a legitimate claim on their own land.

3) The United States perpetuates its existence.

A great deal of militant, fundamentalist Islamicism is a coincidence and predictable outcome of such oppression.

[galanter]

Iran hasn't threatened anyone.

Iran has done more than threaten Israel, although they've done that too.

They support the crushing despots in Syria, they arm Hizbollah and in coordination with Syria have made a basket case out of Lebanon inciting ethnic mistrust and assassinating any leader that appears to be gaining democratic support, they arm and fund insurgency in Iraq, and actively undermine any attempts to create a two state solution, preferring to continue Palestinian suffering over "risking" peace with Israel.

I can't believe you're buying this sort of rhetoric still, Phil. For an intelligent, informed person such as yourself, it's really astonishing.

There is rhetoric and then there are facts. Is it not true that Iran supports Syria? Is it not true that they arm Hizbollah? Is it not true that they contribute to keeping Lebanon on its knees? Is it not true that Iran supports the kind of suicide terrorism that appears like clockwork in Israel whenever peace threatens to break out?

Let's get down to nuts and bolts.

The reason The State of Israel is threatened is because:

1) It exists.

2) Its existence is illegitimate in that it displaced people who had a legitimate claim on their own land.

3) The United States perpetuates its existence.

A great deal of militant, fundamentalist Islamicism is a coincidence and predictable outcome of such oppression.

1) So the way to remove threats to Israel is to remove Israel?

2) If you think that international law matters, and if you take seriously (say) UN resolutions condemning Israel, then you should also take seriously the creation of Israel by the UN.

Israel exists by and because of international law. It was done in the context of the withdrawal of British rule, the defeat of Nazi Germany and their Arab allies, 6 million Jews (40% of the *current worldwide Jewish population*) dead as the primary target of Nazi genocide aided by non-Germans across Europe, and millions more displaced without a willing destination.

Countries that wage aggressive wars and then lose should not be rewarded by granting them do-overs. Perhaps Israel wouldn't exist as it does if some Arab leaders hadn't embraced the Nazi movement and their shared anti-Jewish racism. Perhaps Israel would still be behind the '68 borders if Arab states hadn't mounted wars of extermination against Israel.

As for displaced people, it happened in both directions, and to this day Arabs in Israel are greater in number and treated better than Jews in surrounding Arab states.

I'm sorry if these old facts of history are boring. The truth is often boring.

3) There are about 280 million Arabs in the region and about 6.7 million Jews in Israel.

Given the traditional defending force advantage of 3:1, and assuming every Israeli can be counted as a defender, a second holocaust wiping out every Jew in Israel could come at the cost of about 20.1 million Arabs, or about only 7% of the current Arab population. In reality it would be half or less than that.

If Israel has turned into a tough little state it's because from day one the surrounding Arab states have conspired to kill it. If Israel has become a nuclear power it's because doing so actually stabilizes the region. Iran becoming a nuclear power does the opposite.

[matthew]

Iran hasn't threatened anyone.

Iran has done more than threaten Israel, although they've done that too.

They support the crushing despots in Syria, they arm Hizbollah and in coordination with Syria have made a basket case out of Lebanon inciting ethnic mistrust and assassinating any leader that appears to be gaining democratic support, they arm and fund insurgency in Iraq, and actively undermine any attempts to create a two state solution, preferring to continue Palestinian suffering over "risking" peace with Israel.

I can't believe you're buying this sort of rhetoric still, Phil. For an intelligent, informed person such as yourself, it's really astonishing.

There is rhetoric and then there are facts. Is it not true that Iran supports Syria? Is it not true that they arm Hizbollah? Is it not true that they contribute to keeping Lebanon on its knees? Is it not true that Iran supports the kind of suicide terrorism that appears like clockwork in Israel whenever peace threatens to break out?

Let's get down to nuts and bolts.

The reason The State of Israel is threatened is because:

1) It exists.

2) Its existence is illegitimate in that it displaced people who had a legitimate claim on their own land.

3) The United States perpetuates its existence.

A great deal of militant, fundamentalist Islamicism is a coincidence and predictable outcome of such oppression.

1) So the way to remove threats to Israel is to remove Israel?

2) If you think that international law matters, and if you take seriously (say) UN resolutions condemning Israel, then you should also take seriously the creation of Israel by the UN.

Israel exists by and because of international law. It was done in the context of the withdrawal of British rule, the defeat of Nazi Germany and their Arab allies, 6 million Jews (40% of the *current worldwide Jewish population*) dead as the primary target of Nazi genocide aided by non-Germans across Europe, and millions more displaced without a willing destination.

Countries that wage aggressive wars and then lose should not be rewarded by granting them do-overs. Perhaps Israel wouldn't exist as it does if some Arab leaders hadn't embraced the Nazi movement and their shared anti-Jewish racism. Perhaps Israel would still be behind the '68 borders if Arab states hadn't mounted wars of extermination against Israel.

As for displaced people, it happened in both directions, and to this day Arabs in Israel are greater in number and treated better than Jews in surrounding Arab states.

I'm sorry if these old facts of history are boring. The truth is often boring.

3) There are about 280 million Arabs in the region and about 6.7 million Jews in Israel.

Given the traditional defending force advantage of 3:1, and assuming every Israeli can be counted as a defender, a second holocaust wiping out every Jew in Israel could come at the cost of about 20.1 million Arabs, or about only 7% of the current Arab population. In reality it would be half or less than that.

If Israel has turned into a tough little state it's because from day one the surrounding Arab states have conspired to kill it. If Israel has become a nuclear power it's because doing so actually stabilizes the region. Iran becoming a nuclear power does the opposite.

Finally.....whew......the Jewish-Zionist-neocon-intellectual reveals himself completely...with holocaust references and all! Finally.....

I don't give a rat's ass about your hypothetical holocausts, your nebulous nuclear arms strategies, the United Nations' attempt to create a nation-state out of thin air...indeed create one at all, or any of the rest of your post-British Empire rationalizations. The establishment of Israel was an act of theft from Arabs who had legitimate claim to the land which was taken from them, and that's why the Arab world as a whole is pissed about it and has gone over the top to retaliate against this injustice.

The Arab world isn't so much a group of nations as much as an amalgamation of chiefdoms and kinship which doesn't recognize "nationhood" the way the western world does. The relationship between a Saudi, an Iraqi and and Jordanian isn't akin to such between, say, an American, a Canadian and a Brit. And unlike the the Jewish settler in the kibbutz built over bulldozed homes of Palestinians, they have legitimate claim to their lands and understandably get pissed when a fellow Arab (and Muslim) gets robbed.

No one's saying that terrorists are justified killing innocent people. No one's saying that Islam doesn't contribute to the outright violence....it certainly does....but those radical Muslims are a very small percentage of the total Muslim world. You never hear about the average, everyday Muslim who does his or thing and doesn't make a big deal of it, just as you never hear about the average everyday Christian in the USA who doesn't tow the blaring evangelical and fundamentalist lines and just lives his or her life.

All I'm trying to say is that I can understand where the anger comes from. It's because of serious injustice inflicted, not religion differences...and that anger is not going to go away until something radical happens with the State of Israel and her relations with certain other nations...first and foremost the USA. That said, as long as wealthy, Jewish-influenced nations like the USA continue to perpetuate and support the existence of Israel, there will NEVER be real peace in the Middle East. I guarantee that. Unequivocally.

[Andrew.]

Ex-Israeli spy boss attacks Netanyahu and Barak over Iran
PM and defence chief not fit to lead Israel and are misleading the public over Iran, warns former Shin Bet boss Yuval Diskin

Israel's former security chief has censured the country's "messianic" political leadership for talking up the prospects of a military stike on Iran's nuclear programme.

In unusually candid comments set to ratchet up tensions over Iran at the top of Israel's political establishment, Yuval Diskin, who retired as head of the internal intelligence agency Shin Bet last year, said he had "no faith" in the abilities of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, to conduct a war.

The pair, who are the foremost advocates of military action against Iran's nuclear programme, were "not fit to hold the steering wheel of power", Diskin told a meeting on Friday night.

"My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war," he said.

"I don't believe in either the prime minister or the defence minister. I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings. Believe me, I have observed them from up close ... They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off.

"They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won't have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap ... yahu-barak

[BClark]

When the US went in to remove Saddam the accusation was that it was all "about oil."
But if that had been true as simply stated the easiest thing in the world would have been to support Saddam and get cheap oil exactly as you describe. But the US didn't do that. We deposed Saddam with the best case scenario hoped for being the people of Iraq benefiting from their natural resources by selling them to the US and other countries at a fair price.

(emphasis mine)
ha. so you bought that line? we bombed iraq, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of their population, for the benefit of said population? there's a modern rehashing of the "white man's burden" if i ever heard one.

anyways, your strategy of "the easiest thing in the world to do" is a hypothetical conjecture that was evidently not seen as "the easiest thing in the world to do" by the heads of halliburton et al (the military campaign's biggest supporters, and recipients of the lucrative no-bid contracts that resulted from the campaign's success). they preferred more direct control. saddam was too unpredictable to make into a client -- he was a client of ours for a long time, as we were his paymaster during his worst crimes (in the 80s), but during the kuwait crisis he suddenly proved too mercurial to keep as a proxy.

Should the US take an action in Iran, and I hope it never comes to that, we will hear the same thing. "It's all about oil." But again the easiest thing in the world would be for the US to support the Mullahs (like Russia tends to) and buy cheap oil.

we do that in almost every other part of the middle east, except iran. saudi arabia being the most obvious example. but iran has a streak of being resistant to us and therefore we can't easily take them on as clients (as we briefly tried to in the early campaign against iraq, which saw iran as tacit collaborators), so we have to show the world what we're prepared to do when the oil-rich orientals won't bow to us.

it also has something to do with the fact that iran, being so anti-israel and also so anti-democratic, is too easy a target for us to not make an example out of. it provides a golden opportunity for us to proclaim our purported love for "democracy" that curiously never seems to have graced such places as pakistan, saudi arabia, or pre-arab-spring egypt for that matter.

as for your hope that you "hope it never comes to that [the bombing of iran]," i'm at least glad you cleared that up. i have no respect for an authoritarian government such as iran's and i'm sure that if you and i were to list all the things about their government that disgust each of us, our lists would contain many points in common. but frankly a lot of what you say in this thread reads like apologia for military campaigns against iran (and the one that was waged against iraq).

If it was "all about oil" the US would drop support for Israel like a hot rock because they have no oil at all.

i'm going to let the oversimplification in that statement speak for itself.

as a brief comment, US planners long ago deemed the middle east a "stupendous source of strategic power" for its natural resources, and to have a country like israel* there as a military proxy (i need not recite the hundreds of millions in military aid israel receives from us, our single largest recipient) is certainly connected to the oil. you say we wouldn't support israel if we were all about oil (of which israel has none), while the obvious fact is that we wouldn't be such staunch supporters of israeli militarism if we didn't care about the oil resources nearby or thought the owners of that oil didn't need to be constantly intimidated by the US-israeli military nexus (two nuclear powers, one of them the foremost military power in the world).

if you think that is far fetched, then frankly you're much too trusting of US objectives -- trusting despite the US government's own admitted concern (see quote of post-WWII US planners above) for controlling the resources of the middle east**.

it's a simple equation, oil resources in the middle east necessitates a military proxy very close nearby. the fact that said military proxy (israel) has no oil of its own doesn't mean they aren't useful to us. the only way they would not be useful to us is if they weren't so close to folks who did have oil.

* by a "country like israel" i mean a country developed enough to have engineers to further the military project, a country wealthy enough to invest its own money in arms (in addition to the military aid already received from the US), a country whose government is hawkishly committed to militarism and willing to beef up its military by requiring compulsory service of its citizens, a country that doesn't hesitate to carry out assassinations as we do, and perhaps most importantly, a country full of european descendants.

** - as to the details of this control, it's a somewhat trivial side issue that we don't actually consume most of this middle eastern oil ourselves. we prefer for our companies to be awarded no-bid contracts in the wake of our invasions, so that our companies can then sell that oil to europeans et al. the oil *we* consume is mostly derived from countries in our hemisphere, including canada and mexico (two consistent allies) and venezuela, but our oil policies in this hemisphere are no less revealing as to our true motives. in venezuela, the world's most oil-rich country, the USA's enormous concern for buying that oil from a friendly seller has prompted US action ranging from the state department's NED supplying millions to venezuelan elections (a flagrant violation of venezuelan democratic sovereignty, the kind the US would never tolerate from another country in our own internal affairs), the Bush admin's Otto Reich collaborating with a nearly successful coup attempt by elites against the majority-elected Chavez, the US's use of a coup-installed government in haiti to undermine Venezuelan petro-diplomacy in the "PetroCaribe" scandal, and a ceaseless war of words from the state department that is consistently evangelized in the most crude (and often racist) terms by our own corporate media -- the claims of their journalistic independence and "free-thinking" notwithstanding. all of this is no petty amount of focus or resources spent. to think that we don't expect a return on that investment, via favorable terms of oil access, would be naive.

[galanter]

If the creation of Israel was an "act of theft" it was an "act of theft" by the UN not the not yet existing Israel. It was an "act of theft" in the aftermath of WWII where Germany was similarly broken into pieces, and a piece of the middle east taken away from their Nazi collaborators to create a sanctuary for what little remained of the Jewish people.

(See this account of one of the Arab leaders to better understand the context of the creation of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini )

What drives the deadlock in the middle east now is primarily the continuation of this same racist hatred. To disagree with this is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the middle east.

Even if one assumes that Israel is also driven primarily by racism rather than a simple survival instinct, racist disputes are not solved by everyone choosing a race and then cheering them on as if they were at a cockfight.

What is needed is a third position; a position that insists that two states, side-by-side, with each side vowing non-violence towards the other, is the only priority; a position that is impatient with any act by either side that is directly or indirectly in any other direction.

[losthighway]

I feel like the Israel argument has been reduced to polarities in America.

I was at a party once talking to this Saudi kid (there can be a bias there), he was talking about how Israel had a right to exist and it was best defined in their original legal foundation (the 1947 partition plan). He was of the opinion that countless Muslims in the area would be satisfied, even thrilled to settle the issue with Israel sticking to its original borders.

I had dinner with my friend and her husband (both secular Jews). He did the "go to Israel for free" trip (sorry folks I can't recall the name of the program), that Israel offers up to young American Jews. He was highly skeptical of Israeli imperialism, he just went to see what he could see. The interesting point he had was how many young liberal Israelis he met who thought that Israel had no business crowding the contested zones. People don't imagine citizens of that country opposing its actions, but apparently they are a vocal minority.

As for Iran I can't imagine any sane person arguing for war with Iran. I also can't imagine any sane person defending the Iranian government.

[Andrew.]

The level of military presence in a region is a big deal. That's why there's lots of US forces some places and not others. The point is that the Iranian regime has every right to feel threatened by the American military presence in the region.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

U.S. Amasses Stealth-Jet Armada Near Iran

The U.S. Air Force is quietly assembling the world’s most powerful air-to-air fighting team at bases near Iran. Stealthy F-22 Raptors on their first front-line deployment have joined a potent mix of active-duty and Air National Guard F-15 Eagles, including some fitted with the latest advanced radars. The Raptor-Eagle team has been honing special tactics for clearing the air of Iranian fighters in the event of war.

The fighters join a growing naval armada that includes Navy carriers, submarines, cruisers and destroyers plus patrol boats and minesweepers enhanced with the latest close-in weaponry.

It’s been years since the Air Force has maintained a significant dogfighting presence in the Middle East. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq Boeing-made F-15Cs flew air patrols from Saudi Arabia, but the Iraqi air force put up no resistance and the Eagle squadrons soon departed. For the next nine years Air Force deployments to the Middle East were handled by ground-attack planes such as A-10s, F-16s and twin-seat F-15E Strike Eagles.[...]

One thing to look for is the presence in the Middle East of one of the Air Force’s handful of bizjets and Global Hawk drones fitted with the Northrop Grumman Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, or Bacon. The F-22, once envisioned as a solitary hunter, was designed without the radio data-links that are standard on F-15s and many other jets. Instead, the Raptor has its own unique link that is incompatible with the Eagle. Bacon helps translate the radio signals so the two jet types can swap information. With a Bacon plane nearby, F-22s and F-15s can silently exchange data — for example, stealthy Raptors spotting targets for the Eagles.

It’s the methods above that the U.S. dogfighting armada would likely use to wipe out the antiquated but determined Iranian air force if the unthinkable occurred and fighting broke out. The warplanes are in place. The pilots are ready. Hopefully they won’t be needed.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04 ... near-iran/

[Andrew.]

So a grand total of 11 Congresspeople (weird word) voted against AIPAC's "Bomb Iran" resolution. Oooo, those wascally Republicans.

[Andrew.]

Obama's soft-pedaling war on Iran b/c he thinks actually putting the brakes on it -- which he has the power to do -- would hurt his poll numbers. Good ole American pragmatism.

The most undercovered story in Washington is how President Obama, under the influence of election-year politics, is letting America drift toward war with Iran. This story is the unseen but ominous backdrop to next week's Moscow round of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

The basic story line, pretty well known inside the beltway, is simple: There are things Obama could do to greatly increase the chances of a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, but he seems to have decided that doing them would bring political blowback that would reduce his chances of re-election.

The good news is that Obama's calculation may be wrong. The blowback he fears--largely from Bibi Netanyahu, AIPAC, and other "pro-Israel" voices--is probably less forbidding than he assumes. And the political upside of successful statesmanship may be greater than he realizes.

But suppose Obama's right about the politics. It's still a little scandalous that he's imperiling peace and America's security in order to increase his chances of re-election by 1.5 percent, or whatever the imagined number is. And it's even more scandalous how unscandalous this is, how people throughout the Washington establishment--in government, in NGOs, in journalism--are so inured to the corruption of policy by politics that almost nobody bothers to complain about it even when it could lead to war.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... an/258433/

Meanwhile fresh EU sanctions have kicked in, and as Iran gets cozier with Russia and China, Pepe Escobar sees higher oil prices for Europe and the beginning of the end of petro-dollar hegemony.

The Obama administration has to make a real decision; it's either the "roll over and die" school of diplomacy, or real negotiations. Treating Iran like a pariah will only lead to a blunder equaling the Bush administration's - whose Shock and Awe ended up with a Baghdad closely aligned with Tehran (while the US didn't even become "the new OPEC", as savant warmonger Paul Wolfowitz would have it).

But this will pale compared to Iran, Russia and China trading energy in other currencies (as they are already doing); the beginning of the end of the petrodollar as the pillar of global energy politics, and thus of American hegemony. Time for the Iran cracking gang to go back to school.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG07Ak03.html

[Gramsci]

Everyone.

It's not going to happen so chillax.

[Cranius]

The financial bomb has been dropped on Iran:

The Atlantic: How Does a Currency Drop 60% in 8 Days? Just Ask Iran

Iran's currency has collapsed in two ways -- gradually and then suddenly. Iran is very much in the sudden phase right now. It took 24,600 rials to buy one dollar on September 24. It took 39,000 rials to buy one dollar on October 2. That's good for a 59 percent drop in just a week. This kind of currency cliff-diving is basically a bank run on the rial -- a bank run U.S.-led sanctions set off.

Starting in December, we've threatened to blacklist any financial institution that deals with the Iranian central bank -- in other words, force banks to choose between doing business with us and with them. The Iranian central bank is the middleman for its oil sales, so a ban on it is effectively a ban on buying oil from Iran. Now, these sanctions haven't cut Iran off from the world completely -- it has resorted to back room barter deals -- but they have cut Iran off from foreign exchange. Iran can't earn dollars if it can't sell oil -- at least not for cash. And that has sent the rial tumbling down.

This inflation will wreak havoc in Iranian society, since it attacks the poorest.

Expect social breakdown, expect civil war.

EDIT: Just to add, clashes have already broken out in central Tehran, whilst the leadership are in complete denial that this is a consequence of sanctions.

[Cranius]

Iranian riot police clash with demonstrators in Tehran over Rial collapse

Iranian riot police clashed with demonstrators in Tehran over Rial collapse. This after Iranian police launched a campaign on Wednesday to arrest illegal money changers in Iran, in an attempt to halt the recent dramatic slide in the value of Iran’s currency which has been said to be a result of the economic sanctions.

The crackdown prompted official exchange bureaus to shut their doors, a licensed money changer in Tehran’s Ferdowsi neighborhood told AFP.

The Iranian rial plunged more than 7 percent in open-market trade on Monday to a record low against the U.S. dollar, traders and currency-tracking websites said, meaning the currency has lost about a quarter of its value in the past week.

The rial traded at 32,250 per dollar on Monday, compared to about 29,720 on Sunday, currency-tracking website Mazanex said; an Iranian foreign exchange trader in Dubai confirmed the drop.

The currency was trading at 24,600 last Monday, according to currency-tracking site Mesghal.

The freefall suggests Western economic sanctions against Iran, imposed over its disputed nuclear programme, are doing increasingly severe damage to the economy and that the country's reserves of hard currency may be running dangerously low.