In a perilous spiral of assassinations, threats and counter-threats, the leaders of Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran keep ratcheting the tension. What is most alarming about the situation, is that the principle players and their advisors are engaged in an incredibly dangerous three-way game of blind man's buff.
None of them expresses a real understanding of the others: of their motives, their concerns, nor their likely reactions. That's true even with Israel and the United States: though the U.S. risks being sucked into any conflict between Israel and Iran, the Obama administration is currently forced to guess what its supposed Israeli allies are planning.
What would America or Israel -- or any country -- do if five of its scientists were assassinated by an enemy power? How would they react if, at the same time, the mightiest country on the planet dispatched its forces towards their borders even as it tightened a blockade to garrote their economy?
Would they kowtow to the demand that they terminate any activities related to the research or development of nuclear weapons (which, of course, both Israel and the U.S. possess) -- or lash out in violent reprisal?
A lot of people with important sounding titles pontificate on what lies ahead, but who are they kidding? It's like we're watching kids playing around with vials of highly volatile chemicals. No one's sure when an explosion will come, nor how calamitous might be the chain reactions it ignites.
What makes the situation even more perilous is the fact that the leaders of the three countries involved -- Israel, Iran and the U.S. -- are all challenged by strident enemies in their own countries. Since this current dispute plays front and center, every move they make is automatically the target of virulent homegrown -- and often woefully ignorant -- opponents.
In other words, if the leaders and their advisors were more secure on their respective thrones, they might all be able to follow a much cooler, more rational course. They might even be able to sit down and negotiate.
Worse, is the likelihood that the principle actors, their advisors, intelligence agencies and domestic critics, don't really comprehend what the others are up to -- where they are coming from and what they want to achieve.
If it's not blind man's buff, it's shadow boxing -- sparring with caricatures: In this corner, the deceitful bearded mullahs in Tehran obsessed with obtaining nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel and establish a new Caliphate. In that corner, the grasping imperialists in Washington, who for decades have used the CIA and American military to put down movements of national liberation, sustain the Zionist State of Israel and the corrupt oil-rich Arab dictators.
Those caricatures become so deeply embedded that even the supposedly objective intelligence agencies of each of the combatants -- not to mention the mainstream media -- tend to censor, edit out, or shy away from information that runs counter to official "truth".
I had a personal run-in with this phenomenon in 1980 when I was a producer at 60 Minutes covering the ongoing revolution in Iran during the hostage crisis.
Travelling back and forward between Tehran, New York and Washington, I was struck by the total inability of Americans -- even at the highest level -- to understand the emotions and history that drove the hatred of all things American that had exploded in Iran with the fall of the Shah.
Just up West 57th street from CBS News, for instance, was a huge billboard with the diabolical image of Khomeini glowering down on New York.
I suggested we do a report to give Americans a better idea of what was driving Iran's revolutionaries and their violent feelings against the United States.
Though certainly encouraged by radical elements in Tehran, that hatred was fueled by real facts: the shameful history of U.S. intervention in Iran, from the CIA's organizing a coup to oust the democratically elected nationalist leader Mohamed Mossadegh in 1953 to America's subsequent backing of the Shah of Iran.
That support included the closest of relations between the CIA and the Shah's infamous secret police, the SAVAK, notorious for torture and brutality. In the future, of course, SAVAK's brutality would pale beside the horrific prisons and savage repression of Khomeini and the regimes to follow.
To give an idea of America's relations with the Shah and SAVAK, I stitched together a tough report with Mike Wallace based on a series of interviews in New York and Washington. "You'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb and a presidential candidate not to know there was torture going on in Iran under the Shah," Jesse Leaf, a former C.I.A. analyst told us.
"We knew what was happening and we did nothing about it and I was told not to do anything about it. By definition, an enemy of the Shah was an enemy of the CIA. We were friends. This was a very close relationship between the United States and Iran."
Another former CIA officer, Richard Cottam, also condemned the U.S. and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for turning a blind eye to the excesses of the Shah, and refusing to have any contact with the opposition groups.
"What you seemed to be saying, Professor Cottam," Mike Wallace interjected, "is that when the question 'Who lost Iran?' is finally asked, Henry Kissinger is at the top of your culprit's list."
"I think Henry Kissinger's idea of diplomacy in this sense is... is intolerable," replied Cottam.
We also reported on some of the classified U.S. government documents divulged by the Iranians who had taken over the American Embassy. Those documents showed that American diplomats based in Tehran had warned Washington months earlier of the threat of a possible hostage taking -- particularly if the U.S. allowed the despised Shah to come to America for medical treatment, as the U.S. ultimately did. Those warnings had been completely ignored by Washington.
In return for releasing the hostages, what the Iranian government of President Bani-Sadr was demanding was a pledge by the U.S. not to interfere in the future affairs of Iran and an agreement not to block their efforts to get back the Shah and the wealth of Iran he embezzled.
They also wanted an admission by the U.S. of past wrongs. In light of that past, we asked, were those demands so outrageous?
In the context of America's superheated passions at the time, however, even posing that question was considered outrageous.
Over the next few days, as we were preparing the report, we received calls from many Washington officials concerned about the broadcast. This was capped by President Jimmy
Carter himself called Bill Leonard, thepPresident of CBS News, to try to convince him not to broadcast the report. It would, he said, undermine U.S. negotiations with Iran at a very delicate time.
To his credit, Bill Leonard refused to back down. The only thing he requested was to change the title of our report from "Should the U.S. Apologize?" to a more neutral "The Iran file."
When questioned by Leonard, we argued that it was difficult to understand how our report could upset the hostage negotiations. We were not revealing any secrets to Iran. The Iranians already knew well the role of the U.S. in their own history. The people we were informing were 20 million Americans--who didn't understand what was really roiling Iran.
And still don't.
Follow Barry Lando on Twitter: www.twitter.com/barrylando
Check the interview with Mr Ahmadinejad for which he got an Emmy.. where as usual..speech distortion and convenient sniping were done to mislead the American public..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
Israel is also much more complicated issue than we pretend. While I do not believe that Iran is trying to act as humanitarians saving the Palestinian people, we do ignore the fact that Israel is not the glorious nation of love and peace that we pretend. Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world and a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons and they choose to collectively. Native people were forced from their homes based on the concept that their was a "chosen people" superior to them. The complexities of this could fill novels, but pretending that it is black and white displays our ignorance as Americans.
For the record, I do not believe America is an evil nation that is always on the wrong of things. I am just scared of where we are heading because rather than educate ourselves and use critical thinking many in this nation choose to follow the patriotic, "rosy jingoistic" view in which we only need to support the country. You seem rather smart, you would agree with much of that-right?
Yes, the world and the Middle East would probably be better off if Iran didn't get the bomb. Any peaceful means necessary should be used to prevent it from happening. But if you think that it's worth sacrificing the lives of American servicemen or the world oil-market then you're off your rocker.
Trying to "reason with" extreme ideologies & criminal regimes is not a new idea. Before WW2, some tried to "reason" or "negotiate" with Hitler. Countries and peoples were sacrificed "to preserve peace". But peace was not preserved; Hitler could not be appeased by offering him a big chunk of Czechoslovakia. All that "pacifism" resulted only in a longer, bloodier war.
Extreme, criminal ideologies (Nazism, Communism, Islamism) can't be "appeased". They can't be "understood" or "negotiated away". They need to be opposed and eliminated. Hopefully BEFORE they gain the capability to do immense damage.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/10793-twitterers-paid-to-spread-israeli-propaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html
'To all intents and purposes the internet is a theatre in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we must be active in that theatre, otherwise we will lose,” said Ilan Shturman, who is responsible for the project.
“Our people will not say: ‘Hello, I am from the hasbara department of the Israeli foreign ministry and I want to tell you the following.’ Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis,” he said. “They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the foreign ministry developed.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/07/21/israel-s-internet-war/
The reality is that the right-wing Americans (who are both Democrats and Republicans, it's time to stop pretending that the Democrats are any less right-wing at this point) who want war with Iran cannot be appeased. They cannot be negotiated with. Nothing Iran does will ever satisfy them. No military budget will ever be enough for them. American exceptionalism is an extremist, violent criminal ideology, no different than nazism or any of the others. They need to be opposed and eliminated, hopefully before they do even more damage than they have already done.
The hatred arises not from Israel's actions but from Israel's mere existence. Ahmadinejad, speaking at a conference called The World Without Zionism, stated
"Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognises the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
How do you reason with that?
The 2009 presidential election was marred by severe irregularities, and many claim Ahmadinejad's reelection was rigged.
In addition, the president of Iran really is not the one in power, the mullahs are. They decide domestic and foreign policy, all under the control of the Supreme Leader, which in essence is a lifetime "appointment."
Was life better under the Shah? Hard to say, though the thousands of Christians and Jews who left after the Shah was toppled would argue that life certainly was better for non-Muslims before the country was taken over by the mullahs.
And secondly, Iran has the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel, living relatively unmolested.
Iran's Jewish population is around 25,000, down from the approximately 125,000 who lived there thirty-plus years ago. The ones who remain do so under varying degrees of restrictions on how they practice their religion, where they may live, what jobs they may have, and whether or not they may leave the country. Essentially, they are "unmolested" as long as they remain good little dhimmis, are careful not to express any positive thoughts about the US or Israel, and don't try to emigrate or help anyone else to do so.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
(Official US State Department report):
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/168264.htm
This was capped by President Jimmy
Carter himself called Bill Leonard, thepPresident of CBS News, to try to convince him not to broadcast the report.
As in "finish or complete, as with some decisive action; "he capped off the meeting with a radical proposal" "
Such a creative and brave strategy would totally disarm the "hawks." Isn't it worth it, in order to dramatically lower tensions and foster peace?
Whereas if Israel ends its blockade of gaza, the thousands of rockets hitting Sderot and Ashkelon will look like a picnic by comparison to what hamas would unleash on Israel next.
See the difference?
What bothers me is that this particular state of denial - in which our leaders are viewed to be blameless due to their specious claims of "not knowing" - has infected the reasoning ability of the majority of Americans. This infection stops the general population from seeking to know WHY.
The CIA has always had an antipathy towards Israel.
The truth in this can be seen in their support of Assad and his mur.der of thousands of his own citizens. Governments start wars, not a country's people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4