The conflict with Iran is framed as a conflict over nuclear proliferation. So important is it, we are told, that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, that we could risk war and death and suffering and trillions of dollars to prevent it.
But the story gets bizarre after we find out that U.S. intelligence has repeatedly concluded with high confidence that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has demonstrated no intention to do so. Even the supposedly controversial IAEA report found that there was no evidence Iran had enriched uranium beyond the 20 percent threshold and in fact no evidence that Iran had diverted any nuclear material for a clandestine weapons program.
So why the aggressive posture towards Iran? Why have we heaped the harshest set of economic sanctions in the world on Iran – which Columbia University Professor Gary Sick has called “an act of war”? Why do we have Iran militarily encircled with military bases and client states? Why have we supported Israeli proxy terrorism on Iranian soil? Why is it that not a week goes by without an explicit threat of preventive attack on Iran? It can’t be for the nuclear weapons program: it doesn’t exist.
In the years following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which brought the current rulers to power, the framing of the conflict with Iran was quite different. It’s true, U.S. and Israeli officials have been falsely claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb is right around the corner since the early 1980s. But the conflict was framed more with the Islamist movement and the possibility that it might spread across the region, changing the governments throughout the Middle East.
In a secret memo written in 1982 to the National Security Council, this framing was recognized. But it was taken an important step further.
The memo goes on to explain that any interruption in the flow of oil “if prolonged for months, would result in a fall in world-wide economic output comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s in the U.S.” It says “whoever is in control of the Gulf’s” oil, “is in a position to have a very large political as well as economic influence in the world.” Iran’s war with Iraq at the time raised concerns in Washington that a possible Iranian victory could lead it to “exert influence” over Iraq and Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia. “We may soon be faced with a situation,” the memo continues, “in which a significant portion of the oil supplies to the West are heavily influenced by Iran or by political forces hostile to the West or by forces unable or uninterested in maintaining the flow of oil.”
Power and influence in the Middle East, and thus the world, was of primary interest in 1982. The same was true in 1954, as a Top Secret National Security Council briefing explained, “the Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.” And the same is true now.
The aggressive postures, military encirclement, and constant threats of attack make much more sense when framed in the terms actually employed by those who craft our foreign policy, instead of the politicians’ pretext of nuclear weapons proliferation, which is fabricated in the case of Iran, as best we know. Iran is a would-be powerhouse in the region, that must be subdued. Hegemony is ours, not Iran’s or anybody else’s. “Blood for Oil” has become a trite framework for thinking about U.S. policy towards the Middle East; it is dismissed out of hand as not useful for the analysis. Less useful, even, than an imaginary nuclear weapons program.
It all boils down to one thing after all is said and done. MONEY. Our soldiers are dying and being maimed for stinking money. It makes me sick.
I think one element of the "concern" here, albeit it not the only 'concern', or even necessarily a controlling one, is similar to a situation where a man beats his son while his son is growing up. When his son gets older, goes through puberty, matures and gets bigger, the man may start to worry about potential payback simply for all the #@$% he did to his son when he was small and couldn't fight back—things that are in the past and cannot be changed, even if what was done in the past is regretted. This isn't a perfect, or even necessarily a "good", analogy for Israel/Iran/US relations; however, I think the general underlying "concern" does factor into the calculus here to a certain degree, and has some merit in the sense such a "concern" isn't out of hand "irrational"—putting aside all of the moral and "justice" questions which may be associated with such a 'situation'.
Unlike Israel, oil companies have not been lobbying for "regime change" in Iran. Unlike Israel, oil companies have a history of working amicably with Muslim countries. Unlike Israel, oil companies have not occupied Arab territory. Unlike Israel, oil companies were not insisting upon taking out Saddam Hussein and bringing democracy to Iraq. Glaser is ignoring the most troublesome part of the picture.
What is the The Real Threat From Iran > please share the complete information, I want to know more..I am very very curious to know this.
I heard that thing news.According to this, this is the biggest threat from Iran.Most of the people suffers from this situation.Please save those person who had affected.
C?n s?t giàn ph?i qu?n áo
Không gian ch?t h?p khi?n nhi?u h? gia ?ình ph?i b?ng kho?n lo l?ng khi s?p x?p không gian nhà ? m?t cách h?p lý. gian phoi do
?ây c?ng là n?i lo chung c?a nhi?u ng??i trong cu?c s?ng hi?n ??i, ??c bi?t là nh?ng ai sinh s?ng trong các ?ô th?. Không ch? mang l?i ti?n ích, các s?n ph?m nh? gian phoi qu?n áo thông minh hay t? âm t??ng còn ?em l?i s? thông thoáng cho không gian gia ?ình b?n và ph?n nào tô ?i?m c?n nhà c?a b?n. V?i nhi?u ng??i Vi?t Nam, giàn ph?i thông minh còn khá xa l? nh?ng v?i nh?ng n??c phát tri?n nh? các n??c ? B?c M? và ?ông Âu thì s?n ph?m này ?ã tr? nên quen thu?c và ???c r?t nhi?u ng??i s? d?ng. giàn ph?i thông minh&
Nh? nghiên c?u và t?n d?ng các công ngh? hi?n ??i, giàn ph?i ?? thông minh ?ã ???c ra ??i sao cho v?a hi?n ??i, v?a ti?n l?i nh?ng v?n g?n gàng và d? s? d?ng. giàn ph?i thông minh
?u ?i?m b?c nh?t c?a giàn ph?i ?? thông minh là ti?t ki?m không gian, ?i?u mà m?i gia ?ình trong cu?c s?ng càng ngày càng ?ông ?úc, nhà c?a càng thu h?p l?i ?ang r?t c?n. gian phoi
Nói v? ?? ti?n d?ng thì không ai có th? ph? nh?n r?ng giàn ph?i thông minh là s?n ph?m c?n nh?t cho m?i gia ?ình hi?n nay. Không nh?ng ti?t ki?m ???c không gian s?ng, giàn ph?i còn giúp m?i ng??i thoát kh?i d? b?n lòng v? m?t m? qu?n áo ? ??ng không có ch? thông thoáng ?? ph?i móc. giàn ph?i ??
Dân s? th? gi?i hi?n nay ?ang t?ng v?i t?c ?? nhanh và còn ti?p t?c t?ng trong nh?ng n?m s?p t?i. Chính vì v?y, c?nh ??t ch?t ng??i ?ông ?ang ngày càng tr? nên ph? bi?n, ??c bi?t là t?i các n??c ?ang phát tri?n và phát tri?n. Trong s? ?ó, t?p trung nhi?u nh?t ? các thành ph? hay khu v?c có ?i?u ki?n thu?n l?i cho kinh t? phát tri?n. Di?n tích sinh ho?t c?a ng??i dân b? thu h?p. giàn ph?i
Không ít ng??i ph?i s?ng trong nh?ng c?n h? ch?t nít và bé tí. M?i ho?t ??ng ?? duy trì cu?c s?ng bình th??ng c?ng c?n ph?i s?p x?p không gian sao cho h?p lý và hi?u qu?.
tinh d?u d?a
Tr??c th?c tr?ng nh? hi?n nay, giàn ph?i qu?n áo thông minh ???c thi?t k? và ra ??i ?? giúp khách hàng ti?t ki?m không gian sinh s?ng sao cho phù h?p nh?t. ?ây c?ng là m?t ch?n l?a nh?m gi?i quy?t không gian ph?i qu?n áo trong gia ?ình ?ang ???c ?ông ??o khách hàng tin dùng. gian phoi
I think the general underlying "concern" does factor into the calculus here to a certain degree, and has some merit in the sense such a "concern" isn't out of hand "irrational"
Unlike Israel, oil companies were not insisting upon taking out Saddam Hussein and bringing democracy to Iraq. Glaser is ignoring the most troublesome part of the picture.
Brendan Rodgers
You can go here h??ng d?n cá ?? bóng ?á to read far more about Liverpool’s latest step backwards and last week’s Winners and Losers for a more thorough assessment of my thoughts on Rodgers. Things have simply got that little bit worse.
Since the away victory ty le keo da banh at Swansea on March 16, Liverpool have won five of their 18 matches in all competitions. Five of those games were against teams we could broadly describe as top-four rivals (Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea), with a return of just two points.
Demands for patience are valid when a manager is taking a team forward, but at a slower rate than many may like. They are not valid when a manager is taking a team backwards after more than three years in charge. Therein lies the decision that Liverpool will soon be forced to make should things fail to ti le keo da bong improve.
After seven points from their opening three matches Liverpool have taken one from the last three and are 13th in the table, seven adrift of leaders Manchester City.
It may have been premature for Norwich fans to sing ‘Getting sacked in the morning’ to Brendan Rodgers but there is no doubt the Reds boss is coming under increasing scrutiny.
Sturridge’s return, having not appeared kèo bóng ?á tr?c tuy?n since April 8 after hip surgery, was supposed to provide some relief from that but he will take time to rediscover his old self, although an hour’s play will have helped.
But it was his fellow striker Ings who cách ch?i cá ?? bóng ?á injected some much-needed dynamism into an attack which had scored just three times in five previous league matches.