Iran War Weekly | May 26, 2013

Per Frank Brodhead’s Iran War Weekly:

While huge majorities of the US public oppose war with Iran or US intervention in Syria, Congress and the mainstream US media have stepped up the pressure for a more aggressive stance on both fronts. With these factors in mind, we might ask whether President Obama’s speech this week at the National Defense University – in which he tried to dispose of liberal pressures on his policies re: drones, Guantanamo, and “the war on terror” – should be read as a move away from a confrontation in the Middle East, or as an attempt to secure his liberal base before more intense confrontations with Iran and Syria.

Following a series of generally unfruitful meetings regarding Iran’s nuclear program, further diplomacy is now on pause until after Iran’s presidential election, which will take place on June 14th. This week Iran’s Guardian Council disqualified the two presidential aspirants who might have challenged the policies of Iran’s Supreme Leader and the ruling conservative circles; but the fact that the candidate who has emerged as favored to win has been Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator may be significant in the future.

Towards Iran, the US Congress has now done everything but declare war. In the House this week, a committee reported out a bill that moved toward a full trade embargo – or economic war – against Iran; while by a vote of 99 to 0 the Senate passed a “sense of the Senate” resolution essentially endorsing any military action Israel might take against Iran, and calling on the Obama administration to support whatever Israel does.

Leading media outlets in the United States are also pushing hard for a more aggressive policy towards Iran, perhaps increasingly so. Several articles linked below illustrate this; the media’s spinning of the latest report by the UN’s IAEA on Iran’s nuclear program is a model of news-as-propaganda. One reason for this may be the greater salience of Hezbollah, generally viewed in “the West” as a proxy for Iran, in the fighting in Syria. While Hezbollah’s role in the fighting is largely confined to areas of importance to Hezbollah (the Lebanon-Syrian border) and Shi’ism (a shrine desecrated earlier by Opposition forces), Hezbollah’s historic conflict with Israel and its designation by the United States (and perhaps soon by the EU) as a “terrorist” organization have added a new element to the internationalization of Syria’s civil war. As this weekend’s news suggests, the war is well on its way to spilling over into Lebanon.

Once again I would like to thank those who you who have forwarded this newsletter or linked it on your sites. Please read the rest of this issue of Iran War Weekly at WarIsACrime.org. If you would like to receive the IWW mailings, please send an email to fbrodhead@aol.com.

10 thoughts on “Iran War Weekly | May 26, 2013”

    1. A war with Iran would disrupt our civilisation as we know it. It would undoubtedly spread across the Middle East and perhaps beyond. The result would be massive social and economic dislocation.

  1. Stupid humans killing eachother what kind of a spicies are we .the aliens must think where a bunch of nut bars bent on self destruction.we should just push the button and start over ,maybe next time we won't be such a bunch of dumb dumbs

    1. You are talking about crazy humans and you are talking about aliens and the elimination of mankind by the push of a button. HA!!

  2. So the country who just made marrying girls younger than 10 legal, you are going to defend? Nuke them now. No troops just nukes.

    1. What about the U.S. "allies" Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian jihadis etc.? I guess those are far more "enlightened" and "civilized" (!) than the Iranians, huh? Idiot fifth-rate neocon propagandist! (By the way – caught up in your psychotic rah-rah jingoism, you and others of your ilk may think that it's perfectly acceptable and personal consequence-free, to call for aggressive nuclear genocide of nations on the other side of the earth. Remember this, though: The leading German Nazis of the 1920s-1930s also probably thought themselves to be "untouchable", "unassailable" in their righteous "patriotism", "possessing the right to total impunity", etc. They probably were NOT foreseeing something like Nuremberg, a decade-and-a-half later. EVERYTHING you spew out is being recorded for future reference – don't forget that!)

Comments are closed.