iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Allison Kilkenny

Allison Kilkenny

Posted: August 14, 2010 10:21 AM

The War Against Iran Begins

What's Your Reaction:

Jeffrey Goldberg's recently published "Time to murder the filthy Persians" musings completely skip over the parts where he perviously made the opposite claim (bombing the Iraqis actually catalyzed Saddam's nuclear ambitions,) and the fact that the official US intelligence community's position mirrors the statements made by the NIE in 2007: there is no proof Iran is building nuclear weapons (energy facilities for civilian purposes, yes, vaporizing weaponry, no,) and Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003.

Clearly, the US's concern isn't disarmament because no one has said a peep about the Middle East's worst kept secret: Israel has stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Nor does the US seem overly concerned about bringing stability to the region, since the government just announced plans to sell $30 billion-worth of F-15s to Saudi Arabia, Israel's adversary, while the US simultaneously continues to ship Israel billions in aid and weaponry.

If Goldberg's irresponsible myth-building sounds familiar, it's because this is exact the same "journalmalism" technique utilized in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Thousands of miles from Tehran, Goldberg offers his calculations with the detached indifference of a serial killer as if bombing suspected nuclear facilities won't result in civilian casualties -- no matter how "smart" we think our bombs are. It's difficult to believe that just a few months ago, armchair activists in America (including some of the same talking heads now pimping war), were celebrating the Green Revolution. If the US bombs and invades Iran, those moderates will forever be lost to understandable and deserved anti-US sentiment.

Despite the overwhelming contradicting evidence, yesterday the Treasury Department released new regulations that "effectively bar foreign banks from doing business in dollars if they engage in transactions with anyone suspected of involvement in Iran's nuclear or missile programs. The entities include Iran's Revolutionary Guards," which is a branch of Iran's military.

The statement is shaped so broadly (does "nuclear program" mean the energy facilities for civilian purposes?) that this wide-ranging sanction could potentially affect individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism, which is usually how those sanction thingies AKA "collective punishment" work. If a hospital treats a member of the IRG, does that mean that hospital is aiding Iran's nuclear ambitions? That sort of slippery slope reasoning is one of many reasons sanctions frequently miss the target and inevitably slip into collective punishment territory.

Financial sanctions is one side to the War on Terror (or whatever shiny new name President Obama is calling it these days), and it is usually used as a preface to greater military action. When it comes time to debate "to bomb, or not to bomb?" politicians will sigh, hold up their hands, and say, "Well, the sanctions didn't work, so what other option do we have?" setting aside the facts that the US knew of no actual nuclear weapons before they assigned sanctions that were so broadly defined literally anyone could be labeled a terrorist.

In The Price Of Fear, author Ibrahim Warde builds a copious, and damning, indictment of the U.S government's financial War on Terror since 9/11. Warde dismantles the long-held theory that it is possible to extinguish terrorism by cutting off funding, since the nature of terrorism inherently means operations cost very little cash, which terrorists can access through a limitless number of channels. In the meantime, Warde argues, innocent parties like certain Muslim charities -- oftentimes the only lifelines to resource-challenged communities -- become suspects and victims of sanctions. Ironically (and tragically,) when those communities lose their limited resources, they are all the more likely to grow resentful of the US and turn to extremism.

For example, the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, didn't need tons of funding to execute their crudely drawn plans. The only reason those attacks were thwarted wasn't because of the fat budget of Homeland Security, but because of their own ineptitude.

Furthermore, harsh sanctions will never completely obliterate the risk of a terrorist attack. In the words of Jonathan Randal, author of Osama: The Making of a Terrorist, financial sanctions "nab few bad guys, ruin many innocents, freeze little hot money and vastly complicate worldwide banking for the greater glory of a burgeoning American bureaucracy."

However, financial sanctions do successfully bolster the US case for invasion and occupation. This is step one in the "Time to murder the filthy Persians" plan laid out by famous warhawk Jeffrey Goldberg, but also now parroted by the Very Serious Persons in Washington who seem hellbent on leading the country into yet another pointless, immoral, illegal, tremendously wasteful, and permanent conflict.

Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com

 

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

 
 
  • Comments
  • 77
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
12:38 PM on 08/16/2010
GOOD MORNING!!! MY FELLOW HOMO SAPIENS WHICH MEANS THE SPECIES WHO IS WISE.
Obama has not only continued Bushes aggressive polices around the planet, he has been excalating them; thousands of airstrikes in Yemen and Pakistan, he has sent secret terrorist thug squads into 12 countries; General Petraus is RAH-RAHING!! all over the place about how successful his pet counterinsurgency strategy is working - the facts reveal he is lying!!!
Turkey has been raising hell against Israel's slaughtering of 9 Turkey citizens on those humanitarian ships and has also voted against sanctions against Iran. Obama says he will cut off millions in aid to Turkey if they don't shutup about Israel's war crimes and start supporting sanctions against Iran. There is no doubt that Obama and his Administration is working for AIPAC and these divided loyalties really STINK!!! and it is a stupid, incrediably counterproductive foreign policy to favor Israel over the other Arab/Muslim nations and has always proven to be extremely harmful to the best interests of the American people.
01:54 AM on 08/16/2010
What a great article. What this article fails to address is that there are too many ding-dongs in this nation of ours, and that's why this stuff works. That's why the deficit grows. That's why banks rob us blind then get bailed out and give themselves bonuses from the bailout money. Did anyone notice any outrage from the great american public? NO! instead they waited patiently behind their foreclosed banks to get their FDIC ensured money. Instead they walked out of their home when a piece of paper told them to do so. Instead they have sat behing unemployment lines and food stamp lines for over 40 weeks. Instead they watched their children starve. That is our population. If someone asked me 10 years ago, "what do you think the american people would do if the nation went to two wars and the deficit shot up to 13 trillion dollars and the unemployment reached to 14% in some states?" I would have thought there would be a revolution. I was wrong. These people give a new defenition to deep sleep.
12:18 PM on 08/16/2010
A very good post. Hopefully it will never come to revoulution.

F&F
11:42 PM on 08/15/2010
"When it comes time to debate "to bomb, or not to bomb?" politicians will sigh, hold up their hands, and say, "Well, the sanctions didn't work, so what other option do we have?" setting aside the facts that the US knew of no actual nuclear weapons before they assigned sanctions that were so broadly defined literally anyone could be labeled a terrorist."

'Who you gonna call?'

Why, the military, of course.

'What kind of solutions will you get?'

Why, military solutions, of course.

'Who are the insane ones here?'

We are.
We keep electing the same people over and over and over while expecting different results!
01:45 AM on 08/16/2010
I could not have said it better Johnsopinion!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alimostofi
Astrologer, Commentator
06:15 PM on 08/15/2010
The Iranian people have been at war with Khomeinists, and the Khomeinists have tried to wipe out Iranian culture ever since 1979. The Khomeinists changed the name, the national anthem and many street names in Iran, and the flag. But this has brought a spiritual revival of Iranian culture. No one calls his child Mohammad. So there is a war going on already in Iran. The war is with this Trojan horse that the French flew in 1979. But this virus has been contained, and every Iranian know who they are and what they are up to. The end is nigh.
01:56 AM on 08/16/2010
Even if you are right, and you are often wrong, that is an INTERNAL WAR. That is a matter for the Iranian people to resolve. To use that to advocate for war, as you often do, is beyond immoral.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alimostofi
Astrologer, Commentator
02:35 AM on 08/16/2010
The non-violent movement is peaceful and has prevented further destruction of Iran and is winning.
11:51 AM on 08/16/2010
Any sort of conflict with Iran would be pure lunacy. The middle east is already far too unstable and to seek war with Iran could lead to deaths of millions of innocent people.

As an American I hope our government has learned the errors of it's ways and seeks peace over war as a future policy. It's my hope that the American people will reject any notions of war in a manner Washington can't ignore. Hopefully the people of Iran and all of the middle east will do the same.

It's my belief regardless of what Washington or other governments say that the people of all nations simply wish to go about their business, raise their families and live their lives in peace.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
05:58 PM on 08/15/2010
If these people think that attacking Iran will get the Iranian people on our side, they must be lunatics.
06:46 PM on 08/15/2010
They are creating their own reality. :-(
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raker
04:57 PM on 08/15/2010
I think maybe we're in the Middle East fighting Saudi Arabia's battles. In return, oil, and security for Israel—for now.

If there is an attack on Iran, which may be necessary for all I know, the whole world should be in on it. No more George Bush cowboy stuff.
11:55 AM on 08/16/2010
Unless Iran directly attacks the US we should NEVER enter into any war to protect Israel or any other middle east nation. We must also NEVER allow any nation to force us into a conflict with Iran.
02:57 PM on 08/15/2010
I think everyone is missing the real point here. This has nothing to do with Nukes or Regime change or loosing or winning a war. This has to do with preventing Iran from becoming fully secular.
Iran since WW-I has tried hard to be independent and become industrial. You can not look at what has happened in the past few years, you need to go back all the way to 1900s.

A secular Iran is bad news for the west and Israel's long term expansionism. If Iran becomes secular that idea will spread to the entire middle east.

Imagine UAE instead of building empty sky scrapers they had build a few more refineries or hospitals or build some factories to produce electricity. Instead the entire southern Persian gulf countries are having rolling blackouts.

Bushehr power plant went it comes up can not only feed entire southern Iran it can also feed Kuwait and other countries.
12:10 PM on 08/16/2010
I disagree with you. We as a civilzation must learn to get along with others regardless of their beliefs or there is no hope for the human race. We can no longer try to impose our beliefs on others. How many thousands of years have people killed in the name of God or religion? As a member of the human race I say enough is enough.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RRK70
01:56 PM on 08/15/2010
War with Iran will mean a huge spike in oil prices. A rise in oil prices will quash any chance of an economic recovery. Like our situation with China, direct action against Iran would mean economic disaster domestically. I am hoping that the US is rational enough to understand what is in it's own best interest.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:50 PM on 08/15/2010
High gas prices is not going to be the main problem. 40% of global oil export will be taken off the table that would effectively shut down Japan and pacific rim, and severely effect global transportation and manufacturing.
12:00 PM on 08/16/2010
If we go to war with Iran and the conflict escalates oil will be the least of our problems.
Have we not learned that unless we are directly attacked that war is NEVER the answer?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
12:59 PM on 08/15/2010
Against Iraq i really didn't get a sense that Iraq could count on anyone helping them against the United States, perhaps every one didn't care for Saddam Hussien but Iran is different, i believe if things happen in Iran there could be a distinct possibility a few mis calculations could be over looked, and the out come much deferent then expected.
11:34 AM on 08/15/2010
Is this a ZIONIST site? It sure acts like one! You need to mention that on this blog so we would not waist our time on this site. It is clear that we are not allowed to criticize the Zionists here! It is proven to us over and over that we are being censored here.

Regards.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivadas
01:35 PM on 08/15/2010
Do you have a comment that is on-topic?
02:01 AM on 08/16/2010
that is often true, particularly with the so-called Persian bloggers with AIPAC connections. Censorship is rampant. But the website has become more balanced in the past months. I think the site should monitor and sanction those Bloggers who censor senselessly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rgateman
10:41 AM on 08/15/2010
Well Iran would make it a trifecta for losers since we already lost Iraq and Afghanistan also too. Sadly Iran is armed and has a trained army where the other 2 had zilch or close to it. My vote is to let Israel go it alone on this one and cut off welfare to them to pay for our withdrawal from Veitraqistan.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
01:00 PM on 08/15/2010
I agree only this Iran business could turn much more intense and even the winner will lose!
02:05 AM on 08/16/2010
Den1953

excellent point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BillyClub
09:49 AM on 08/15/2010
Suggestion: If the U.S. does goes to war with Iran, then send all the Neocons, War Hawks and Warmongers in first! Let Jeffrey Goldberg and his ilk lead the charge. You go, Jeffrey!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
01:02 PM on 08/15/2010
Fanned and i will tell you this much you will know when the Iran situation gets worse just watch for those ads on TV where the kids crawl under their desks, or the little girl plucking that daisey!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bbsnews
Rabidly anti-censorship...
12:06 AM on 08/16/2010
Heh heh. Gallows humor from someone who remembers. I am convinced there is going to be a huge problem when these folks realize what would happen the day after, the week after, and beyond after an insane attack on Iran.

This time it will so affect the American people that it will drive this country to the very brink of crisis the likes we have never faced before.

And all so Israel can continue in it's quest for Eretz Israel, and the United States can have control of the last bits of the planet's oil.

If we don't change in the US ourselves and stop supporting this insanity as a country, we are going to fully own the consequences as well as the unintended consequences.

No matter how much the neocons believe the US does not have to answer to anybody.
07:18 AM on 08/15/2010
Now is the time to start voicing opposition to the next war of choice in the Middle East. Please consider joining the Peace Bloc page on Votingbloc.org to let your elected officials know that you will not vote for them in the next election if they support a military attack on Iran. You can learn more here:

http://www.votingbloc.org/Peace_Bloc.php
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
05:54 AM on 08/15/2010
The neocons got their way (perhaps things aren't moving as rapidly as they'd like, but war with Iran is unquestionably on their to-do list)...and anyone who thought the Obama administration would pursue a different agenda was sorely mistaken.
03:54 AM on 08/15/2010
Iran is no Iraq. It is four times the size with over three times the population, with a large military and mountainous terrain prohibitive of invasion. US war games for 15 years have led to precluding the war option. At the least, Iran could respond by blocking over 40 percent of global oil exports by sinking tankers from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with their fast and low flying, very effective Noor anti-ship missiles launched from facilities concealed in their mountainous coastline along the entire northern side of the Persian Gulf. This would throw Western economies into turmoil, to say nothing of Russia and China which will act to protect their vital interests in Iran.
Israel has long outlived even the illusion of usefulness to the US, and if they persist in this insanity as expected it could well spell the end of our "special relationship" as US military brass have been hinting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rgateman
10:55 AM on 08/15/2010
x2
07:30 AM on 08/16/2010
Agreed, Supporting Isreali air strikes against Iran, or performing our own, would seriously damage us diplomatically in the East. Invading it would be an unmitigated disaster.