Current Article

The Iran Crisis: Positive Signs?

By SusanUnPC on November 4, 2007 at 3:34 PM in Iran

First, to be sure everyone sees this: McClatchy’s top story today is “Experts: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

Despite President Bush’s claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger “World War III,” experts in and out of government say there’s no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program. » read more

Swoop, an interesting analytical site, and Fouad Ajami see signs that there will not be an attack on Iran. Let’s hope. First, Swoop’s weekly analysis (which I get via e-mail subscription): “Iran: Sanctions Success Eases War Pressures.”

Then there were Prof. Fouad Ajami’s remarks on Lou Dobb’s weekly show aired Saturday. I’ve posted his remarks in full below, but here’s a key statement he made, as well as his belief that we have no business taking on Iran and that sanctions will not work: “We’re not ready to take them on. We’re not ready to fight them. And I think this is the question — the — Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Iran’s power are a question for the next president and the next administration.:

From CNN Transcripts, November 3, 2007:

DOBBS: Record-high crude oil prices may help Iran withstand new U.S. economic sanctions. Professor Fouad Ajami is one of the world’s leading authorities on Middle East and Islam. He’s professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University and author of the very important book “The Foreigner’s Gift.”

Professor Ajami doesn’t believe these new sanctions will work.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FOUAD AJAMI, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: We’ve had sanctions against Iran, like you said, for 20 years now. These sanctions have been in place. And the behavior of the Iranian regime has not changed. And you said it at the top. When you have $93 a barrel of oil, here is the second most important producer, Iran, in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. They have lots of money. They have lots of running room. They have lots of customers for their oil. And I don’t think these sanctions will bite.

One thing about these sanctions, Lou — and that’s the fundamental question — are they a prelude to war or are they a substitute for war?

That’s really the question of the hour.

DOBBS: You are …

AJAMI: And …

DOBBS: … you are possessed of the greatest insight I know in the Middle East.

AJAMI: Thank you.

DOBBS: Which is it?

AJAMI: I think they are a substitute for war. This is the way that the Bush administration …

DOBBS: May you be right.

AJAMI: May I be right. And I think we’ll see. You know, you’ve — I’ve been a repeated visitor to your show. I have come back and …

DOBBS: I hope you always will.

AJAMI: …well, I think — I think they are a substitute for war. I think the Bush administration doesn’t have the political cover. It doesn’t have the time. It doesn’t have the consensus at home and the consensus abroad for a war against Iran.

One thing that Admiral Michael Mullen, our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said is that we are already at war in two Muslim countries, meaning Iraq and Afghanistan.

DOBBS: Yes.

AJAMI: We can’t add a third.

DOBBS: A remarkable word of caution coming from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Some people thinking going, perhaps, too, far, but, nonetheless, offering an assessment that most people, at least, believe to be candid and honest.

President Bush said the world needs to stop Iran.

AJAMI: Yes.

DOBBS: Let’s listen to what the head of the I — the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, had to say.

MOHAMED EL-BARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR GENERAL: There’s clearly a question of distrust between Iran and most of the international community — at least the West, the U.S. in particular. And to build confidence — you will not be able to do that through just exchanging rhetoric. You need to go and create the conditions to go to the negotiating table.

My fear, that if we continue to escalate from both sides, that we will end up into oppressiveness. We will end up into an abyss.

DOBBS: You were talking about a substitute for war. And, obviously, El-Baradei is thinking back to 2003 …

AJAMI: Yes. DOBBS: … in which there was an overstatement on the part of this government.

AJAMI: Yes.

DOBBS: Your thoughts.

AJAMI: If you liked Boutros Boutros-Ghali of the United Nations before and Kofi Annan, you’ll love Mohamed El-Baradei. This is a congenital anti-American man. And he was — he still has his job because, at the end, at the crucial moment, the Bush administration blinked. They want him out of there.

This man has not been terribly reliable. This man hasn’t really read Iran very well. So I wouldn’t want to use him as a witness.

DOBBS: But he read Iraq very well and he declared there were no weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, for whatever reason you may argue, he was proved — or not proved — wrong, but, others would argue proved right.

AJAMI: Yes. I grant you this — because, in fact, you’re right. I mean that’s why the ghost of Iraq stalks this encounter with Iran and the Iranians. I mean let’s look at the basics. This Iranian revolution is now three decades old, practically. And it’s always managed to go to the brink and then step back. We’re not ready to take them on. We’re not ready to fight them. And I think this is the question — the — Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Iran’s power are a question for the next president and the next administration.

DOBBS: You think we have that long, at least?

AJAMI: We have that long. I think — I think that …

DOBBS: What is not clear how long we have on the issue of Turkey and the Kurds. And with 60,000 troops massed on that border, with bombing already taking place in Northern Iraq, so the Turkish aircraft — what is the prospect?

AJAMI: I’m not a big fan of the Turkish position. And I was with you a while ago and we went into that. I think the problem of Turkey with the Kurds is not in Iraqi Kurdistan. It’s not in Northern Iraq. The problem is in Turkey itself. The problem is for Turkish nationalism to accept Kurdish nationalism and to accept a kind of multiethnic society within Turkey.

DOBBS: Just a little thing to do for a nation …

AJAMI: And it — that’s right.

DOBBS: …that is no longer easily described as led by a secular government.

AJAMI: Very — it’s very difficult. The Turks have — both under secular governments and under this new Islam government — they have a problem accepting the multiplicity of Turkey. And they have a problem understanding that it’s not about Iraqi Kurdistan, it’s about Turkey itself.

DOBBS: Professor Fouad Ajami, thank you for being here.

http://doublequotes.wordpress.com/ Charles Cameron (hipbone)

Hi:

Despite President Bush’s claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger “World War III,” experts in and out of government say there’s no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

I can’t vouch for the theological accuracy of the following, since it seems entirely possible (not to say likely) to me that there may be more than one theological reading in this matter, but I was interested to read [evangelical Christian scholar] Dr. Anthony McRoy’s comment in a paper presented at a Tehran conference on Mahdism:

It is at this point we should note that Shi‘ite theology recognises two distinctions in military jihad, with a qualification on the authority to call to military action: ‘There are two types of jihad: ibtida’i (to be begun by Muslims) and defa’i (defensive). In the view of Shi’ite jurisprudence, ibteda’i jihad can only take shape under the direction of the Holy Prophet or one of the twelve immaculate and perfect Imams, otherwise it is forbidden.’ This is essential to recognise in the present context of concern about Iran’s purported ‘nuclear ambitions’. Whatever the truth may be, it is irrelevant to Western independence and security, even if Iran amassed a nuclear arsenal twice the size of that of the USA. Iran, as the Islamic Republic, could not employ those weapons to conquer America — until the Mahdi returns and orders such. At best, Iran could only (theologically speaking) employ them if attacked by American nuclear bombs — i.e. in defensive jihad. Only the Twelfth Imam as the Mahdi can give the order for offensive jihad.

Anthony McRoy, The Mahdi, the Messiah, the Antichrist: Justice And Sacred Violence.

The question, I suppose, is whether any lieutenant of the Mahdi would be in a position to speak for him in this matter. I would be very interested to hear any comments from theologically informed readers of this blog.
barkleyg

“First, to be sure everyone sees this: McClatchy’s top story today is “Experts: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program.””

So, when has reality ever before stopped our boy King from doing something stupid?

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

To be sure, that would have no effect on him, but I decided to pop that into the beginning of the post just so that all of you can see it.

But, that Ajami is against a strike, and doesn’t think it’s going to happen, is meaningful to me since he’s friendly to the administration. And Swoop’s analyses are quite good — didn’t quote them in the piece but linked to their summary of the latest insider views on Iran.

Neil

Val Plame believes Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. I believe her. All the more, I believe bombing Iran to destroy their progress is not the way to solve the problem.
http://www.food4humanity.org hoosierhoops

thanks for the post Susan..
I’m so glad you are feeling better..Expect to be in your area soon to visit my awesome crazy little sister that races speed boats soon..We will be cruising in her Yacht up to Canada for a few days.
( yes bud light is a good sponsor ) If possible..I will invite you and yours to join us for dinner in Seattle prior to departure..I hope it can work out for everyone and relationships between likeminded folks can be cultivated between our families. We have deep roots in your area. My Mother is from milton-freewater and years ago was a world class womens golfer..she taught all us kids sports..
She is a women that taught her children sportsmanship, compassion, competitiveness, winning and how to really play..or race in my sis’s case..
( at her age she still plays golf in the 80′s range..she’s sick in golf..and very few men that aren’t pro can beat her..including us kids ) sick, just sick. She embarrasses the hoopster on the course…
Well enough of the open thread stuff.. I really like your postings and if possible our families will meet up. We wish you best.

So friday afternoon our Son in Iraq IM’d us on the computer..
So here is the updates…
Jordan got shot at 3 times..He didn’t know where the shot’s came from so he ran like hell..At least our Marine son is smart..run forrest run!!
He told us Thursday his squad found 4 dead iraqis civilians..2 were beheaded..
I really wish he had never joined the Marines.
i can’t say i have a favorite son..I have 4 boys and 2 girls..Dustin is the biggest kid at 6’4 and 250 lbs..but jordan is the toughest kid you’ll ever know and won the state wrestling championship in 2003.
When he gets out of the military he wants to be a cop. ( just like his uncle)
Just to make this conversation interesting..My wife is watching the show Cops on the TV..I can hear it from here..Susan..my wife is my rock..We have 6 kids and she has raised them in the best way..People talk about america and it’s values..my wife has raised 6 beautiful children and has does everything..i mean everything to instill in them values and strength that very few women could.. I could never do what she has done..She is our hero.. the hoopster stands in awe of her….
I know i am rambling..but what the hay? It’s sunday night..the colts lost..the party has gone home..I’m i’m all alone in the library ( The Den..)
It’s time for the hoopster to go to bed.. I wish you all a good night..
I will email you when i arrive in your area…Susan I will give you my cell phone number..But because this is the internet be careful and be safe..Trust no one and confirm everything.
Best wshes susan…

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

Looking for your e-mail. It’s 99% certain I cannot travel to Seattle, sadly. The orthopedic surgeon’s office called and wants me to come there for a check-up the first week of December, and I’m wondering how I can possibly do that. It’s a long 3-hour drive each way, and across the ferry. I can’t drive yet, and there’s no way in hell I can get in my small car anyway without dislocating one of my new hips. (And I think I’m going to have to sell that car because it’s too difficult to get into, and I sure wish I had one of you men nearby to help me with that!)

However, if you’re going to Canada, there may be a way we can meet. E-mail me and we can get into the details.

At the very least, we can chat on the phone! And I can give you instructions to visit my daughter’s business, which makes for a fascinating tour — the last manufacturing plant in the U.S. for computer bags and more (they’ll NEVER send their manufacturing over to China, as all of their competitors have done). And they’re right by the gorgeous Mariners and Seahawks stadia, as well as Starbuck’s international headquarters and more fascinating sightseeing stuff. If you e-mail me, I’ll give you her contact info too.

justsomeone

hoosierhoops, here’s wishing Jordan a speedy & full recovery.

Shirin

A recovery from what? It doesn’t sound like anything actually happened to him.

Hoopster says “I really wish he had never joined the Marines.”

I do too, and I am sorry he is part of what is going on in Iraq. I hope he will get out of that situation unharmed, and without doing too much harm by his presence in Iraq, and get to become a cop as he wishes.

Mamas don’t let your babies grow up to be soldiers, or marines, or anyone else whose purpose is to kill and destroy.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

More from Frank Rich:

Yet 2002 history may not literally repeat itself. Mr. Cheney doesn’t necessarily rule in the post-Rumsfeld second Bush term. There are saner military minds afoot now: the defense secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen, the Central Command chief William Fallon. They know that a clean, surgical military strike at Iran could precipitate even more blowback than our “cakewalk” in Iraq. The Economist tallied up the risks of a potential Shock and Awe II this summer: “Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organize terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s oil windpipe.”

Then there’s the really bad news. Much as Iraq distracted America from the war against Al Qaeda, so a strike on Iran could ignite Pakistan, Al Qaeda’s thriving base and the actual central front of the war on terror. As Joe Biden said Tuesday night, if we attack Iran to stop it from obtaining a few kilograms of highly enriched uranium, we risk facilitating the fall of the teetering Musharraf government and the unleashing of Pakistan’s already good-to-go nuclear arsenal on Israel and India.

A full-scale regional war, chaos in the oil market, an overstretched American military pushed past the brink — all to take down a little thug like Ahmadinejad (who isn’t even Iran’s primary leader) and a state, however truculent, whose defense budget is less than 1 percent of America’s? Call me a Pollyanna, but I don’t think even the Bush administration can be this crazy. …

READ ALL.
Pingback: Experts: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program. « Rochester Liberal
Math_Mage

At the same time, the facts McClatchy mentions are that Iran has lied again and again about its capabilities, and that it’s still lying. Furthermore, from that very article:
“‘There is no smoking-gun proof of work on a nuclear weapon, but there is enough evidence that points in that direction,’ said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation controls.”

So what’s he got that all those experts from the title of the article missed? Oh, and what about all the other evidence McClatchy cites in its article? And how trustworthy is the claim of Iran that they’re not looking to make a nuclear weapon, given their string of lies? Yet McClatchy adds all that up to find out that there’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Very strange.
ybnormal

The questions being asked about Iran these days:
-Is Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapon technology?
-And if so, what should the U.S. do to stop Iran?

I really think we’re asking the wrong questions. The fundamental question is, why would Iran even WANT nuclear weapon technology? Considering everyone else who has them, starting with the U.S., I think if I was the Ayatola in Iran, I probably would in fact want nuclear weapon technology.

The U.S. won’t face this question head on, because to do so, we would have to face ourselves. It’s easier to just pretend we wouldn’t be irresponsible. – Sidebar – note: psychologists say that when people are asked to rate their own morality level, a majority will answer that they are more moral than the majority of others. Ponder that mathematical impossibility for a moment, then read on.

Here’s another basic illogical flaw. If it actually did make sense to use military means to stop Iran from getting nukes, even before there’s evidence they have them, wouldn’t it make even more sense to use military means to take nukes away from those who already do have them?

Let’s start with the Isreali government, the world’s biggest nuclear liar. In this sense, Israel is arguably worse than Iran, so why not bomb Israel? Then move on to China, Russia and the U.K. Of course, regular bombs won’t be enough for these three, so we’ll have to use real nukes in the bombing. I don’t remember off the top of my head if France is nuclear armed, but since they have nuclear power plants, let’s be extra safe and bomb them too; and finish off India and Pakistan just to be thorough.

Then after the world is a smoldering radioactive toilet from all the bombing, we’ll realize there’s still one threat remaining; US which is spelled U.S. So to keep our moral directive consistent, we’ll have no choice left but to bomb ourselves.
Yogi-one

Just want to point out:

While it COULD BE true that Iran WOULD LIKE – someday – to have a nuclear bomb, that fact remains:

that is not a justifiable pretense to declare war on them.

Cheney and Bush are insane enough to do it anyway. They literally don’t care about the consequences.

They may put our highest ranking generals in the unprecedented position of disobeying an order to deploy for war because they believe it to be insane.

Practically speaking, let’s have a little straight talk here:

Iran doesn’t have nukes. Period. End of debate over whether Iran has nukes. They don’t have them. Get it? That is the truth. As it stands now, they don’t have them.

What would they do if they had one? They can’t fire it all the way over here, so it would be useless to attack the USA.

So the USA is in no danger of a nuclear attack from Iran because 1. they don’t have them (please remember that salient fact). and 2. they couldn’t shoot us with it if they did.

Therefore, Iran is not a dire threat to the USA. Therefore, there’s no reason to attack them, let alone start a war with them.

It’s a war crime to attack another country without provocation, and against international law. Also, killing large numbers of civilians, unprovoked, is a crime against humanity.

So, anyway, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend Iran had a nuke right now. What the heck would they do with it? They can’t shoot us.

Well, you might say, they will shoot it at Israel.

OK. So now, Iran has one nuke, and they shoot it at Israel. How do you think Israel will respond?

They’d respond by making the city of Teheran a very large, toxic smoldering crater.

I would venture to speculate that this is a point that is not lost on the Ayatollah.

You know where this logic is going, of course….

The whole Iran nuke thing is a COVER. A smoke bomb.

What’s important about Iran isn’t that it (doesn’t) have nukes.

It’s that they are sitting on top of the world third largest oil resources, after Saudi Arabia and Iraq. And they are standing between us and the Caspian Sea resources.

And we want that oil. They have oil, we want it, and we have a gun we can point at their heads. If they don’t give it up, there are very powerful people here, in the White house to be exact, that are perfectly guilt-free about blowing their head off to get the damn oil.

That’s what this is about.

It’s about time some more intelligent people (who actually have a moral compass) intervened and took the guns away from the psychopathic oil addicts.

That would be our job, the work of the American people.

Shirin

Well, said, Yogi-one. And I detect a hint of well justified desperation in your statement.

You are right that Iran would not use its one nuclear weapon against Israel for the simple reason that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons to use against Iran. However, it is also true that Iran is not interested in attack Israel, with nuclear weapons, or with anything else. Iran is not interested, in fact, in attacking anyone.

There is nothing whatsoever in Iran’s history or its present to lead one to consider it a threat to peace and world security. Iran has no history of aggression.

As for Iran’s supposed leadership role as a state supporter of international terrorism, if they are the foremost leader in this field, then someone please show me what you’ve got beyond their support for Lebanon’s Hezbullah, which is really a home-grown national liberation group with a limited local agenda, and its alleged support for Hamas, also a national liberation group with a limited local agenda that unlike Hezbullah has actually used terrorism as a tactic. Allegations that Iran supports real international terrorist groups such as Al Qa`eda are approximately as risible as were the allegations that Saddam and bin Laden were best buddies.

Iran has every right in the world, and perfectly rational reasons to develop nuclear power. After all, their revenues from oil exports have decreased due to domestic demand for oil as a source of energy. By producing nuclear energy for domestic use they could greatly decrease domestic use of oil, thus increasing revenue from its export, and at the same time decreasing pollution of their air. Seems reasonable to me. AND, looking toward the future, they will be well prepared when the oil runs out, and will not only be able to manage their own energy needs, but by that time could very well export energy, thus keeping their economy healthy.

But of course, you are right in that the real issue is not whether Iran is trying to get “The Bomb”, or in fact whether Iran is the greatest state supporter of terrorism.

ybnormal

On another subject, only slightly off topic, I watched CBS’ Sixty Minutes this evening, with the segment about mr. Curveball.

While much of the info has been previously reported (except for his real name, and some footage of him at a wedding), I think this was over-all a good report that America should pay attention to, because of the concise way that it puts the whole picture together.

So now that a MSM outlet has told all of America that the White House knew well before attacking Iran that Curveball’s story was bogus, but they went ahead and attacked anyway…..

Can someone explain to me one more time, instead of impeaching POTUS and VPOTUS and executing them for international war crimes against humanity, why is it, one more time please, that impeachment is off the table?

ybnormal

correction;
white house knew well before attacking Iraq (not Iran) that Cureball’s story was bogus

Yogi-one

oops, please remove the redundant comment!
Shirin

As for Fu’ad `Ajami, I am ever so happy that he is opposed to attacking Iran, but come on! As “one of the world’s leading authorities on Middle East and Islam” he makes a good media hack and neocon apologist. It is no surprise that he is not taken seriously by the majority of Middle East and Islamic scholars

And as for his “very important book”, it does nothing of greater importance than reveal his deep psychological need to be accepted by the white man as a fellow bearer of the white man’s burden of civilizing the Arabs. It shows him clearly for the sickening self-hating sycophant that he is.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

All true. But since he is such an administration sycophant and neocon, that he thinks the attack would be terribly unwise and won’t happen are what I found reassuring.

And, to give the man his due, he is an expert. Just one with whom we do not agree. (Yes, Lou Dobb’s lavish remarks were so silly, and unnecessary.)

HOWEVER: I always listen to such people because, even if I disagree with most of their opinions, they do have knowledge and I can always glean something useful from them. I.e., it’s unwise to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when listening to such purported experts, and “kneejerk” dismiss all that they say.

Bottom-line: It never harms me to listen to Ajami, etc. I can filter through what they say. And, no matter what, such interviews stimulate thinking. We need to be open-minded and listen to ALL sides.

GSD

I stopped listening to Fuc*wad Ajami the day that he said Scooter Libby was the moral equivalent of a “combat soldier” left behind enemy lines.

He must personally receive reach-arounds from Bill Kristol at the AEI.

Hack, lackey, dupe and stooge. Those are his good points.

-GSD

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

See my reply to Shirin just above.

ybnormal

The Iran Crisis: Positive Signs?

Well, it’s a glass half-empty news day for me.

McClatchy says that experts say there’s no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program; along with reporting caveats, that there’s signs of Iranian interest in uranium enrichment which may or may not enable nuclear weapons development.

If there was real news, it would be evidence that the Bush WH suddenly has respect for real evidence from real experts. Where’s the evidence of Bush’s or Cheney’s new-found respect for the opinions of experts? Everything I hear them they say about Iran amounts to using skepticism as a basis for presumption of guilt.

Meanwhile, Ajami makes an underwhelming argument that the U.S. won’t attack Iran because Bush doesn’t have enough time, and because it’s probably not a real good idea. While that may be how Ajami would deal with it if he were president, he offer’s nothing in the Dobbs CNN interview about why Bush/Cheney should be expected to share that view.
Brenda Stewart

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

a great article from esquire mag. well worth your reading it and then you decide what is happening around us and what and who is making things happen.–as if we didn’t already know.
Sandy

Oh, we know. We know, Brenda. But thanks for this link. Interesting, informative article!
Thinker

Thanks for the post Susan, but I disagree with Mr Ajami [not because he is a "western appogist", Shirin].

Personally I am not a great fan of Islam. It is a nasty oppressive religion like Judaeism. Mohammed had his chance but chose to ignor the Bishop. The reason I disagree, Susan, is not about oil, not about nuclear weapon development (for sheesh sake the nukes are virtually in the hands of the ‘towel heads’ in Pakistan – no offense meant to those suffering from the flu!). This is squarely about the PLAN.

A significant part of the plan is the behaviour of the loney right wingers “in power”, but they were aided and abetted by the left wing in this relay style dictatorship you call the United States Administration where one nasty passes the batton to the next nasty. It seems to me, that unless Bush is going to be shown to be an idiot, that Iran won’t just might happen, but sure as shit will happen and boobs, sorry ‘white appologists’ like Mr Ajami call talk until they are blue in the face about virtues and it will not make one iota of difference to the outcome.

Ok, ok, I know…..Bush has already been shown to be an idiot, continually. I don’t mean it in that way. I am talking about the churling power brokers who still take Bush seriously, hang off every word and happily gush waffle as justification for everything unreasonable that was already decided. We are reaching the point where the question, the Yes Minister question, “Do the people mean anything?” needs to be asked.

Whose side is everyone on?

Shirin

Thinker, the ill-informed bigotry you have displayed is extremely disappointing, especially for someone who apparently prides himself on his thinking ability. You have, in any case, proven that you are no Islamic scholar, and it doesn’t sound like you know a whole lot about Judaism either, but my knowledge of Judaism is pretty thin, so I will leave that determination to someone with deeper knowledge of that subject than I possess.

And by the way, my objection to Fu’ad `Ajami is not that he is a “western apologist”. My objection to him is that he is one of the worst possible combinations for a scholar – an intellectual lightweight driven by ideology and an overwhelming need to deny who he is. He has never produced an original insight on anything Middle Eastern or Islamic, and in any case his completely outmoded and widely discredited orientalist ideology puts him very far from reality virtually all the time. Most western-born-and-educated Middle East and Islamic scholars have far better and more intuitive insight than he does.

Fu’ad `Ajami is almost universally poorly regarded in the field of Middle East scholarship. Perhaps only his mentor, Bernard Lewis, exceeds him in that regard, but at least Bernard Lewis was a pretty respectable historian once upon a time.

Susan says `Ajami is an expert, and I suppose technically she is correct, but how can someone be consistently so very wrong and still legitimately be considered an expert?

Kathleen

Wish Lou Dobbs would stop having him on the program as the “middle east Expert”. Why not Flynt Leverett?

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0124middleeast_leverett.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html

http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/pbs_interviews_flynt_leverett_on_iran_and_iraq

Shirin

PS I am very easy going when it comes to politically incorrect speech, depending on the intention. Your reference to “towel heads in Pakistan” was offensive, not to mention ignorant – ignorant because Pakistanis do not wear head cloths.

I am truly disappointed to hear this kind of ignorant, bigoted speech from you.

Kathleen

ditto

http://www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com Richard Steven Hack

Ajami is totally wrong when he says this:

“I think they are a substitute for war. I think the Bush administration doesn’t have the political cover. It doesn’t have the time. It doesn’t have the consensus at home and the consensus abroad for a war against Iran.”

This is a guy who hasn’t learned that Bush and Cheney DO NOT CARE about any of that. They really did not have any of that for Iraq and it did not stop them. Cheney has explicitly said that even if Congress denies him authority to attack Iran, “That will not stop us.”

This is a sucker’s bet that Bush and Cheney will not attack Iran.

People simply refuse to admit that Bush and Cheney are power seekers and war profiteers who will start wars purely for the purpose of seizing the oil and for hegemony in the ME. Nothing Iran actually does or does not do is relevant to that motivation.

It’s that simple.

The only reason we are not at war with Iran NOW appears to be the push back from the Pentagon, and the flimsiness and lack of evidence of the excuses for the war. But those things can be gotten around. Cheney is pushing for Israel to start the war if nothing else. The massive $30 billion arms bribe to Israel is entirely about that, as is the $20 billion bribe to Saudi Arabia to lie down under it.

Cheney said a few months ago that he wanted at least 40% of the public to support the Iran war. Well, the recent poll indicates that 52% of the public support it – at least when the false question is asked about invading Iran to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon – which isn’t the actual situation at all. The majority of the public oppose war with Iran under the current circumstances. But if you ask them about nukes, of course they support it. This is yet another attempt to gin up support for war.

The notion that all this is just to “scare Iran” into diplomacy is nonsense. It’s no more that than Bush’s attempts to do “diplomacy” with Iraq in 2002 and 2003.

There is a very serious intention to start a war with Iran and people need to take that dead seriously. as well.

Kathleen

I read some poll over a year ago that said 70% of Americans believed that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The repetition of the false claims worked once…they know they can do it again especially with people like Strobe Talbott repeating the rhetoric

Kathleen

I saw that Lou Dobbs program and was knocked over when Ajami made that statement about Elbaradei

AJAMI: “If you liked Boutros Boutros-Ghali of the United Nations before and Kofi Annan, you’ll love Mohamed El-Baradei. This is a congenital anti-American man. And he was — he still has his job because, at the end, at the crucial moment, the Bush administration blinked. They want him out of there.”

Ajami clearly has a very serious agenda that aligns with the radical neo-cons that lied this nation into Iraq based on a pack of lies.

We cannot rest on this issue. The cakewalk ‘zealots” have not backed down for one second. They have been filling the airwaves with unsubstantiated claims about Iran for a solid four years. They started hammering hard immediately after the invasion of Iraq. Reuel Marc Gerecht, Woolsey, Bolton, Micheal Ledeen, Cheney , Ari Fleisher were everywhere in the MSM repeating these unsubstantiated claims. During this time the Iaea director Elbaradei kept asking for the inflammatory rhetoric to stop. The radicals took the words of Iranian President Ahmadinejad about Israel and misinterpreted them and then continuously repeated them and continued and continue to attempt to turn up the heat on Iran.

Check out what Aipac is up to. For the last four years half of their website has consistently been devoted to turning up the heat on Iran. The zealots have not backed off their full court press

AIPAC Briefs Hill Staffers on NIE
U.S. Capitol Building

AIPAC Policy and Government Affairs Directors Brad Gordon and Marvin Feuer recently briefed congressional staff about the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and its potential impact on continuing efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. They highlighted the report’s findings that Iran has made significant progress in its ability to enrich uranium and that Tehran is susceptible to international pressure, suggesting that a strong international effort to sanction Iran could have an impact on the regime’s nuclear calculations. As part of the discussion, congressional staffers asked questions about the state of Iran’s missile capabilities and the status of U.S. and Israeli missile defense capabilities against the Iranian threat.

http://www.aipac.org/index.asp
Kathleen

Always sad to say not much in the MSM about what is taking place in the Gaza right now…but is also true of the so called “progressive” blogosphere. Went around to Crooks and liars, Think Progress, Daily Kos, Salon, Firedoglake, BradBlog, etc etc. Nothing nothing at all. Just like the week that Bush was in Israel…nothing in the “progressive” blogosphere.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/945731.html

The issue that dare not speak it’s name in the debates in the MSM and in the progressive blogosphere.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=309

Cee

The lives of Palestinians aren’t worth anything. Why else could Israel get away with slaughtering 35 people in TWO DAYS?

Kathleen

The so called “progressive” blogosphere is stone cold quiet. This critical issue has been shut down for serious discussion on most of these blogs.

Kathleen

We also need to keep in mind that “no” evidence did not stop this group of zealots before.

Able to get on the Diane Rehm show yesterday to ask that question about the lack of evidence and Strobe Talbott went on and on about what a threat Iran continues to be. I was also able to get in a question about Senator Clintons yes vote on the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Strobe was really pushing the Iran continues to be a very serious threat card.

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/01/16.php#19101

11:00Strobe Talbott: “The Great Experiment” (Simon & Schuster)

Guest host: Susan Page

Former Deputy Secretary of State discusses America’s role on the world stage, how presidents conduct foreign policy and their impact on the global community. He also looks at challenges facing President Bush as he enters his final year in office and what might be in store for his successor.
Guests

Strobe Talbott, author and former deputy Secretary of State

Let’s also keep in mind that Scott Ritter and others also question whether there ever was a Nuclear weapons program in Iran before 2003

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080115_scott_ritters_iran_101_primer/

Shirin

One of the things Scott brought out in his talk this week was that the NIE on Iran contains a dangerous, and unsupported implication that Iran actually HAD a nuclear program prior to 2003. Scott and I talked about that briefly afterward because that was the first thing that struck me when I heard about the NIE. There is no real evidence at all that they have ever had a nuclear weapons program.

Kathleen

Scott was right before the invasion. I am reading Scott’s “Target Iran” right now

Shirin

The first time I met Scott I had quite a chip on my shoulder because of his role as a weapons inspector in Iraq. It did not take long before I began to have respect for him and his knowledge and integrity. I found he added a very important dimension to the argument for ending the sanctions in that as long as the sanctions were in place, there would be no inspections. Since then, while I do disagree with him on some things, I find his general knowledge and understanding of Iraq is exceptional, and while we see things from a different perspective, for the most part we are both headed in the same direction.

Kathleen

If you listen to Strobe you almost hear the same rhetoric out of his mouth as what comes out of the zealots mouths. You should hear this guy repeating the unsubstantiated claims
Although he does support diplomacy with Iran…and more sanctions..Why Sanctions? What has Iran done?

Kathleen

The facts sure are not keeping Aipac from pushing for more aggressive action towards Iran

AIPAC Briefs Hill Staffers on NIE
U.S. Capitol Building

AIPAC Policy and Government Affairs Directors Brad Gordon and Marvin Feuer recently briefed congressional staff about the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and its potential impact on continuing efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. They highlighted the report’s findings that Iran has made significant progress in its ability to enrich uranium and that Tehran is susceptible to international pressure, suggesting that a strong international effort to sanction Iran could have an impact on the regime’s nuclear calculations. As part of the discussion, congressional staffers asked questions about the state of Iran’s missile capabilities and the status of U.S. and Israeli missile defense capabilities against the Iranian threat.
Jerusalem Post Editor Addresses AIPAC Audiences

Award-winning journalist and author David Horovitz recently traveled across the United States to discuss recent Middle East news with AIPAC audiences. Horovitz, The Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief, gave AIPAC Club members an inside analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian meeting in Annapolis, Maryland. As one of the few journalists to witness closed-door sessions in Annapolis, Horovitz shared his eyewitness account of the gathering and answered questions on a wide range of topics. While in Washington, Horovitz briefed an audience of 40 Congressional staffers and headlined a bipartisan dinner welcoming 22 top-level political consultants. In addition to sharing his impressions of the Annapolis meeting, he also highlighted the urgency of the Iran threat, stressing that the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium and could eventually develop a nuclear weapon at will.

Hell over the past four years half of Aipac’s website is focused on more aggression towards Iran
http://www.aipac.org/

Can anyone explain the sanctions to me? Why do we have sanctions against Iran?
Kathleen

Paul Craig Roberts on Bush’s trip in the Middle east
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19097.htm

Kathleen

this is worth reading

http://volkswagen-naples-florida.hondalocke.cn/lakeforest-mall-gaithersburg-md-rental-car.html Georghios

interesting
http://www.machenprimaryschool.co.uk Maria Dillard

unhabituate comtism zilla tritoxide otus thecoglossate unactinic odel
Village of Steeleville
http://www.oasis-hotel.gr