Tag: aipac

Mar 13 2012

Iran, Israel and “The Bomb”

Cross posted from The Stars Hollow Gazette

President Obama assured influential leaders attending American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last week that the Unites States has Israel’s back fighting efforts made  to delegitimize the state. But how will America be positioned against Iran’s potential nuclear threat to Israel? The Up with Chris Hayes panel Rula Jebreal (@rulajebreal), contributing writer at Newsweek; Jeremy Ben-Ami (@jeremybenami), founder & president of J Street; Leila Hilal, Middle East analyst at the New America Foundation; and Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder & president of The Israel Project discuss the contentious relationship between Israel and Iran.

The discussion that took place on Up with Chris went a long way to dispelling some myths about Iran’s nuclear energy program and the rhetoric of its alleged quest for a nuclear weapon. Chris Hayes pointed out early that “the big contest” was over whether President Obama would say “nuclear Iran” or “the capability for a nuclear weapon” in his speech to AIPAC, he went with the later. That did not stop the panelists continued false equation with a “nuclear Iran” and an Iran with a nuclear weapon. There is gaping difference between the two. “Capability” has become the code word for “the bomb”. The reality is that capability can also mean peaceful uses for nuclear energy that includes electricity and medical research.

No one, not even Hayes, mentioned that the ruling Ayatollahs have condemned nuclear weapons, as well as, chemical/biological weapons, based on religious and moral grounds. Nor did anyone mention that Iran has signed the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not nor has Israel ever allowed inspection of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA and no one has dared demand it.

It was, however, good that Rula Jebreal the misstatements by Jennifer Mizrahi, founder of The Israel Project about Iran’s cooperation with inspections. Middle East analyst Leila Hilal and Mr. Hayes joined Ms. Jebeal had to correct her hyperbolic statements that the Iranians are “different” and not “rational actors” and stop her racist generalization of the Iranians. Ms. Hilal rightfully noted that there is conflation of Islamists saying that Hamas and the Iranians, because they’re Muslims, are going to act to attack Israel. In fact, it’s not Hamas or Iran but the Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Resistance that has been calling for Israel’s destruction and, however lightly, it was mentioned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become isolated from the ruling Ayatollahs and increasingly unpopular with Iranians.

It was Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder & president of J Street who made the best observation that the premise of Iran dropping an atomic bomb on Israel, then be wiped out itself, is ridiculous on its face. Yet, here we are with the President of the United States saying that while he wants diplomacy to work but still saying that he has “Israel’s back” and talking about “nuclear capabilty” while Benjamin Netanyahu continues to threaten bombing Iran and right wing US politicians demand it.

The discussion held by Chis Hayes was a step in the right direction to dispel myths and blatant lies and put the facts and reality on the table. The conversation still has a long way to go.

Mar 06 2012

Hurtling Towards a War with Iran

Cross posted from The Stars Hollow Gazette

In his annual speech to AIPAC, President Obama said:



“Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, carry a big stick. And as we do, rest assured that the Iranian government will know our resolve – that our coordination with Israel will continue.”

If there is “too much loose talk of war”, perhaps President Obama needs to stop threatening to start one with Iran. The only ones who are driving up the price of oil with loose talk are Obama and the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. The president needs to stop perpetuating lies that his own national security advisors have said are not true and of which there is no evidence:

“A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we have done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. It would embolden a regime that has brutalized its own people, and it would embolden Iran’s proxies, who have carried out terrorist attacks from the Levant to southwest Asia.”

Iran, like the United States signed and ratified the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

And this statement certainly doesn’t sound like Obama was backing away from banging the drum for a war:

“Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment,” he said. “I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

Just how legal an attack, or even the threat of one, on Iran would be is discussed on this article by Glenn Greenwald at Salon:

Regardless of how one wants to rationalize these threats of an offensive military attack – they’re necessary to persuade the Israelis not to attack, they’re necessary to gain leverage with Iran, etc. – the U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, explicitly prohibits not just a military attack on another nation, but also the issuance of threats of such an attack. From Chapter II, paragraph 4:

   All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Does this matter at all? Should we even pretend to care in any way what the U.N. Charter prohibits and whether the U.S. Government’s threats to attack Iran directly violate its core provisions? I’m not asking this simple question rhetorically but rather to hear the answer.

The UN was of little concern to George W. Bush; it’s no wonder it’s of little concern for Barack H. Obama

So what are Iran’s leaders saying? From Juan Cole:

“A week and a half ago, Khamenei gave a major foreign policy speech in which he said,

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.“

There is no evidence that Iran is trying to even develop a nuclear weapon. Getting into another war in the Middle East is not in the best interests of the US, Israel or the rest of the world.

Barack are you listening?

Jul 06 2008

The Iranian People Lose Again

This morning, July 5, 2008, the CASMII website posted this extraordinary essay by Michel Chossudovsky/Global Research:

Iran: War or Privatization: All Out War or “Economic Conquest”?

Another way of saying it:  Is Iran’s chance for democratic self-government gone the way of the overthrow of Mossadeqh, absent only a Roosevelt tossing money at thugs?

In broad strokes, Chossudovsky opens the multiple Russian dolls:  at first blush, it appears that Tehran’s agreement to sell off state owned assets to foreign investors might be the ruling regime’s bid to stave off an American-Israeli war and maintain power by placating the US-Israel-WTO-IMF cabal. Although Tehran does insist on Iranian ownership of at least 65% of any privitazed assets sold to foreign entities, shares are still at rock-bottom prices, a bell that cannot but cause voracious dogs like Carlyle Group to salivate to the point of drowning in their own drool.

But Chossudovsky keeps pulling wooden dolls out of the box:  H Con Res 362 signals that

Washington has no interest in the imposition of a privatization program on Iran, as an “alternative” to an all out war. In fact quite the opposite. There are indications that the Bush adminstration’s main objective is to stall the privatization program.

Rather than being applauded by Washington as a move in the right direction, Tehran’s privatization program coincides with the launching (May 2008) of a far-reaching resolution in the US Congress (H.CON. RES 362), calling for the imposition of Worldwide financial sanctions directed against Iran:

~~~~

Little bit of background: My interest in Iran took a turn toward alarm after I heard Patrick Clawson deliver a speech to an audience organized by the United Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh.  The flier advertising the speech shocked me:  a flame-colored mushroom cloud on a black field, with the block letters: Nuclear Iran: A Threat to Humanity jabbing off the page to spear readers.

Clawson’s talk was the kick-off event of UJF’s Iran Task Force, whose goal was to “inform Pittsburghers” of the threat Iran posed to the world; to support legislation working its way through the Pennsylvania State legislature that would permit divestment of Teachers’ and State Employees’ pension funds from corporations doing business with Iran; and to advocate for further divestment from Iran.

Although UJF’s Iran Task Force billed itself as an “interfaith alliance,” a list obtained from the Task Force’s administrator included these groups:

~American Israel Public Affairs Committee

~Anti-Defamation League

~Bnai Zion, Pittsburgh Region

~Community & Public Affairs Council of the United Jewish Federation

~Friends of Israel

~Greater Pittsburgh Rabbinic Association

~Hadassah, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

~Holocaust Center of the United Jewish Federation

~Pittsburgh Persian Gulf Initiative

~Pittsburgh Chapter American Jewish Committee

~Scholars for Peace in the Middle East*

~Zionist Organization of America, Pittsburgh District

To be fair, Clawson was introduced by an African American Christian pastor whose contact information was only a PO Box.

Otherwise, the definition of “interfaith” as applied to the list of sponsors of the Iran Task Force has a meaning I am not acquainted with.

The goal of UJF’s Iran Task Force is to encourage

Terror-Free investment options, offered by Wall Street’s best firms, {that} exclude foreign companies conducting business with Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria while ensuring high-yield returns.

Plagued by insufficient internal investment and technology, these rogue regimes rely on foreign companies to prop-up their struggling economies, thus allowing these governments to maintain business as usual – ignoring the welfare of their people and sponsoring global terrorism.  Investing Terror-Free allows all of us to say “not with my money.”

Inspired by similar campaigns that shut down South African apartheid…

The Pittsburgh Persian Gulf Initiative, invites exploration.  PPGI (which has since changed its name) is a brand new alliance established by persons affiliated with Greycourt & Co. Inc. whose mission is

Greycourt advises clients who range in size from approximately $25 million in investable assets to a number of Forbes 400 families.

 Hey, everybody’s gotta make a living.

Sidebar: * letter from Scholars for Peace: Jews created democracy or something; NO: quote Jefferson.

Gregory Friedman, chief investment officer for Greycourt, included this slide in a 2007 Powerpoint presentation for Greycourt:

Broader Opportunity Set…

Global Rank  Company Name  Country  Capitalization %

3 China Mobile Ltd.       HONG KONG         0.82%

5 Gazprom OAO             RUSSIA            0.79%

8 BP PLC                  UNITED KINGDOM    0.52%

10 Petroleo Brasileiro S/A BRAZIL            0.49%

11 Electricite de France   FRANCE            0.49%

12 Toyota Motor Corp.      JAPAN0            0.49%

13 Vodafone Group PLC      UNITED KINGDOM    0.48%

14 HSBC Holdings PLC       UNITED KINGDOM    0.47%

16 China Construction Bank Corp.CHINA        0.46%

18 Total S.A.              FRANCE            0.46%

Total Non-US Based in Top 20 Non-US          5.48%

Total US-based in Top 20 United States       6.30%

Here is a list of firms UJF Pittsburgh advises the Pennsylvania State Teachers’ Pension fund and the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Pension fund to divest:

Gazprom

Petrobras

Total SA

Royal Dutch Shell *

China in general,

The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran’s largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

and these Chinese corporations in particular:

China National Petroleum Corp.

China National Offshore Oil Corp.

China Petroleum & Chemical Corp.

* Royal Dutch Shell: According to research completed by Trita Parsi

On slide #19, Friedman advises:

Inefficiently traded markets offer ample opportunity for skillful managers to generate excess returns.

Watch out for potentially adverse legal systems, capital controls and insider control.

George Soros comment, __________

A new venture, PPGI kicked off its establishment by sponsoring a talk in Pittsburgh by author Azar Nafisi, whose controversial book, “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” was underwritten by the

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to Michel Chossodosky’s nested Russian dolls:

The largest foreign investors in Iran are China and Russia.

While US companies are notoriously absent from the list of foreign direct investors, Germany, Italy and Japan have significant investment interests in oil and gas, the petrochemical industry, power generation and construction as well as in banking. Together with China and Russia, they are the main beneficiaries of the privatization program.

One of the main objectives of the proposed economic sanctions under H. RES CON 362 is to prevent foreign companies (including those from the European Union and Japan) , from acquiring a greater stake in the Iranian economy under Tehran’s divestment program.

Other countries with major foreign investment interests in Iran include France, India, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland. Sweden’s Svedala Industri has major interests in Iran’s copper mines.

UJF’s divestment program includes thes Japanese, French, Indian, Norwegian, South Korean, Swedish, and Swiss firms:

INPEX: The Japanese market accounts for 22 percent of Iran’s oil exports which account for 85 percent of Japan’s total oil imports. The Tokyo-based INPEX, which is part-owned by the Japanese government, has billions of dollars invested in many Iranian oil projects including the Soroosh, Nowrooz and Azadegan oil fields.

Alcatel SA: French telecommunications giant Alcatel, has signed numerous multimillion dollar contracts deals with Iran as well as Sudan over the past five years. Alcatel supplies Iran with most of its telecommunications facilities, high-speed Internet service and communication devices and infrastructure for offshore oil and gas platforms.

ONGC: India’s Oil and Natural gas Company (ONGC) signed a $40 billion deal with Iran in 2005 to import millions of tons of liquid gas. ONGC is involved in many lucrative exploration projects in Iran and is on the verge of signing a deal in the South Pars oilfields valued at over $100 million.

Norsk Hydro: Norsk Hydro is Norway’s second largest energy company and is partially owned by the Norwegian government. Norsk Hydro has massive investments in Iranian oil projects including a $107 million contract signed with Iran last year.

Hyundai: South Korea’s Hyundai supports Iran by supplying it with energy-related construction and development help, manufacturing components and ship maintenance. Among its other mega-deals with Iran, Hyundai recently signed a $1 billion contract along with Daewoo to build oil tankers for the regime.

and

LG Engineering and Construction Co.: In 2002, South Korea’s LG Engineering and Construction Co. signed a $1.6 billion deal for a gas processing plant project in the South Pars gas fields. The company has a 45.3 stake in the deal that allows it to claim $700 million of the total project cost.

1.Neville Chamberlain: who will take the role of Chamberlain? see Legacy of Ashes

2. Clawson: Iran has no friends. PHOTO OF FLAGS. the problem, Iran has many friends, but most of them are not the US and Israel.  Iran is the beautiful, wealthy, eligible young person in town whose father guards her virtue with a shotgun and who remembers a slight and doesn’t invite those who have insulted him to the party.  And carrot cake is not on the menu.

3. Greycourt is a Carlyle Group wannabe. How does Carlyle operate?  see video: government information at the highest level, including making things happen in the absence of naturally occuring phenomenon — see Victorian Holocausts.

Is this moral?  in the world of Bob Kagan, yes. the curious morality of James Glassman.

America does not share that value system.

Dec 25 2007

. . . for the Jews? Christmas Eve Jewish Thread

(Cross posted at Kos)

As a liberal Jew (which most of us are!), nothing infuriates me more than the hijacking of “Jewish Opinion” by the organized, powerful Jewish Groups like AIPAC, the ADL, etc. American Jews suffer guilt by association because people like Podhoretz, Crystal, Goldberg et al., ad nauseum are perceived as speaking  for us when quite the contrary is the case.

Eric Alterman does a great job of summarizing this problem in a piece at The Nation, Bad for the Jews..  As he puts it:

“Rather, it’s that they think like enlightened liberals yet allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce their values to speak for them in the US political arena.

(More below, if you should only be so inclined.)

Eric describes the overwhelming (most likely more than any other ethnic group) Jewish opinion against the war/neocon program:

According to the American Jewish Committee’s 2007 survey of American Jewry, released December 11, a majority of Jews in this country oppose virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration/neocon agenda. Not only do they disapprove of the Administration’s handling of its “campaign against terrorism” (59-31 percent), they believe by a 67-to-27 margin that we should never have invaded Iraq. They are unimpressed by the “surge”–68 percent say it has either made no difference or made things worse, and by a 57-to-35 percent majority they oppose an attack on Iran, even if it was undertaken “to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons.”

Jews are also impressively sensible when it comes to Israel/Palestine, all things considered. Though barely more than a third think peace is likely anytime soon, and more than 80 percent believe the goal of the Muslim states is to destroy Israel, a 46-to-43 percent plurality continues to support the creation of a Palestinian state.

He concludes:

It’s long past time, however, for the mainstream media to recognize just how out of touch they are with the values of the American Jewish mainstream

The problem as I see it is that there is no counterbalancing organized group to oppose the AIPACs, and break through to not only the mainstream media, but more importantly, the Congress that is cowed, e.g., into voting for Kyl/Lieberman.  

The main reason for this may be that while the Neocon Jews are clear and unanimous, there is no comparable unity on the center and the left.  The Tikkun/Lerner faction is probably too far in the other direction for most Jews, and thus far, there’s no wide support for another alternative.

Anyway, Gut Yontif to all of our Christian brethren here.  We may be of different faiths, but most of us are dangerous secular progressives at heart.