Antiwar.com Blog

Behzad Yaghmaian, discusses the history of American regime change in Iran, the tyranny of the American puppet, the Shah Pahlavi and his brutal SAVAK, the tyranny of the Ayatollahs who took his place, why American “help” hurts reformers and fears that if Bush bombs them the repercussions for millions of people all over the world will be disastrous.

MP3 here. (35:19)

Behzad Yaghmaian is the author of Embracing the Infidel: Stories of Muslim Migrants on the Journey West and Social Change in Iran: An Eyewitness Account of Dissent, Defiance, and New Movements for Rights. He is a professor of political economy at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Professor Butler Shaffer says government is an unnecessary evil.

MP3 here.

From the view of a “modern social historian and philosopher,” Professor Shaffer has written numerous books and articles on social theory, business and labor law, and has spoken on these topics before a variety of academic and special interest forums. In his book, Calculated chaos: Institutional threats to peace and human survival, he explores the theory that “institutions are the principle means by which conflict is produced and managed in society.” He considers how leaders of industry influenced the creation of the New Deal’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 in his book, In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition: 1918-1938. Professor Shaffer has also been interviewed on these subjects on network television, cable and radio.

Following graduation from law school, Professor Shaffer was a labor relations consultant to the Midwest Employees Council in Lincoln, Nebraska, and went on to establish a private law practice in Omaha. He subsequently joined the firm of Nelson, Harding, Marchetti, Leonard & Tate, and then began a career in academia at the University of Nebraska College of Business Administration where he taught courses in business and law. Professor Shaffer has been a member of the Southwestern faculty since 1977. In 2002, he was named as the Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law in recognition of his outstanding contributions to legal education and scholarship.

Brian Doherty is out hawking his new book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the American Libertarian Movement. He’ll be reading from it, talking about it, signing it etc. at Cody’s in Berkeley this Sunday, April 15, at 4 pm. That’s 4 in the afternoon, at 1730 Fourth Street, Berkeley, CA. that’s the one on 4th street. Whole show should take at most an hour and a half—30 min talking, 30 min questions, typical.

Brian will also be on KGO-810 AM Monday from 3-4 in the afternoon.

Here‘s my review of the book, and more coverage of the discussion.

Update: Here is the mp3 audio (32:02) of his appearance on the Pete Wilson show on KGO.

Writing on the Reason magazine website, neocon Michael Young bemoans the lack of an American equivalent of Le Canard Enchaine:

“You have to wonder why a similar national publication doesn’t exist in the U.S. The popularity of The Onion, or the fact that a magazine like Spy managed to have considerable influence during the 1980s, suggest that Americans aren’t all that satire-resistant.”

That’s strange: I thought Reason was a satirical magazine. After all, here is a “libertarian” periodical that publishes Young’s warmongering screeds, takes a “neutral” position on Iraq — and George W. Bush’s project of world conquest“liberation” — while contenting itself with calls for the legalization of methamphetamine and an unabashedly nerdy obsession with “The Simpsons.” Mass murder is “debatable,” from this “libertarian” viewpoint: what isn’t debatable is putting heroin in school vending machines to let the free market work its magic. Now, that’s got to be satire. But not in a good way …

What a great headline!

Via Matt Yglesias, here’s John Edwards’ position on the withdrawal-from-Iraq question:

When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period. But we’re also being honest. If John Edwards is president, we’re not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London , Riyadh , and Tokyo . And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we’re going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all? Finally, it’s also Senator Edwards’ position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region – for example, existing bases like Kuwait , naval presence in the Persian Gulf , and so forth. I hope this helps explain Senator Edwards’ position.

Shorter version: When we say complete withdrawal, we mean something else entirely.

Since we’re building the largest embassy ever — anywhere — in Iraq, one can only wonder how many thousands it will take to “protect” it. In any case, won’t that make for a rather inviting target? Aside from which, how many thousands more will it take to protect the humanitarian workers? Add to that the many more who will be right next door in Kuwait and Qatar, ready to re-invade in order to prevent the chaos we created from spreading.

I disagree with Yglesias — who doesn’t find anything too objectionable in Edwards’ formulation – in that I don’t think we need a force in the region to deal with “contingencies.” If the oil  companies want to protect their investment, then let them hire a private security firm: they’re rich enough to deal with their own “contingencies.” Why is it necessary for a libertarian to explain this to a self-described “progressive”?

What is needed is a candidate who will break, not just with Bush-ism, but with interventionism. It isn’t a matter of who will bring in the best “team,” as Yglesias puts it, but who will bring in a new foreign policy paradigm.