I marched through downtown Washington Saturday afternoon with the "#OccupyDC" folks. One of the most popular chants around me was: "How to end this deficit? End the wars, tax the rich!" Apparently the 99% in DC have no trouble talking about ending the wars and taxing the rich in the same breath. I hope that others will emulate them.
I take it as obvious that "end the wars" means not only that we should get all our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but that we shouldn't start a new war with Iran. Don't you? Surely a key lesson of the last ten years is that once a war is started, it can be incredibly difficult to end it. This is one of the reasons that the neocons love starting wars. Starting a war allows them to create a long-term structural change in the political terrain -- one that can long outlast their time in office -- sucking resources and focus from the productive, domestic economy that employs and nourishes the 99% to the military economy that makes the military contractors rich but creates few jobs in the U.S. compared to domestic private and public spending.
And another key lesson of the last ten years is this: if we want to stop wars in the future, we can't wait to act until the war advocates have all their ducks in a row. We have to "disrupt their plots," to borrow a phrase. Millions marched worldwide a month before the start of the Iraq war. As an expression of popular clamor for peace, it was great. But as a means of stopping the war, it was too late. The war train had already left the station.
Right now, the prospect of war with Iran may seem remote to the multitude. But try this little experiment: go to the web, and search on "Romney" and "Iran." "Key Romney Advisers Advocate War With Iran," notes Ben Armbruster at Think Progress. Then search on "Perry" and "Iran." Rick Perry is running as the "hawk internationalist," reaching out to such neocon "experts" as former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, a key architect of the Iraq war, reports Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy.
Imagine the world after January 2013, if Romney or Perry is president, neocons resume control of our foreign policy, and Republicans control the House. (Unfortunately, whether Democrats nominally control the Senate might not matter that much, given the propensity of so many Democratic senators to vote with the war party.) That would be similar to the political terrain at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration, before most of the neocons were purged from the Bush Administration and Democrats retook the House. In other words, it would produce political terrain similar to that which existed in the U.S. before the Iraq war.
Suppose that the Netanyahu government or something similar were still in power in Israel -- unfortunately, an extremely likely scenario. And then consider that the neocons would then have four years to line up ducks for their desired military confrontation with Iran. And then it could well be the peace movement standing alone against the well-resourced Netanyahu amen corner, with its agents controlling the executive branch and Congress and its privileged access to the nation's media megaphone. Do you want to see the end of that movie? I don't. We'd stand our ground as best we could, but the probability is high that the Netanyahu amen corner would roll over us like an Israeli occupation bulldozer.
If we want to prevent this outcome, we have to "disrupt the plot." How can we do this?
A key tool for disrupting the plot would be to achieve a diplomatic agreement with Iran now which moves Iran significantly further away from the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. Maybe you don't actually care that much, intrinsically, how close Iran is to developing the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. If so, it's not my job to make you care more. But know this: in the world of practical affairs in which we live at present, it doesn't matter that much how much you care. What matters most is that the closer Iran is perceived in Washington to be to developing the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon, the better conditions are for the neocons to jack up the confrontation between the US and Iran. Jacking up the confrontation with Iran would serve the interests of the 1% and hurt the interests of the 99%: it would produce more spending and focus on the military economy at the expense of the productive domestic economy that employs and nourishes the 99%. It would also increase the probability of a new war.
It's important to keep in mind that Iran also has its Mitt Romneys, its Rick Perrys, its Abraham Foxmans, and its Ileana Ros-Lehtinens: people who want to jack up the confrontation with the U.S. because it serves their political interests to do so. So we can't assume that the confrontation will not escalate, if there is no effective action to de-escalate it, even if the U.S. is not driving the escalation.
And you should also know this: there is a modest, feasible diplomatic proposal on the table right now that would have the effect of moving Iran further away from the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. By saying yes to this proposal, the Obama Administration -- which came into office, you may recall, on a promise of meaningful diplomatic engagement with Iran -- could disrupt the plot of the neocons.
The proposal is that the U.S. provide fuel for Iran's medical research reactor, in exchange for Iran agreeing to suspend the enrichment of uranium above the 5% level. This proposal would have the effect of significantly moving Iran further away from the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon.
In addition to de-escalating the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, this proposal would have a side benefit that may be of interest to some: it would guarantee the supply of medical isotopes for the treatment of 850,000 Iranian cancer patients. I realize that no-one ever lost an argument in Washington as a result of underestimating the concern of the nation's foreign policy establishment about whether human beings who happen to live in "enemy" countries live or die as a result of U.S. policy. But if you happen to be someone who cares about such things, that's an added benefit for you: 850,000 Iranian cancer patients, at least some of whom are completely innocent of any Iranian government policy, would have their access to treatment ensured.
This proposal has been endorsed by the Iran nuclear experts at the Federation of American Scientists, in an op-ed in the New York Times; and by the director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School, in an op-ed in the Washington Post. These "validator" endorsements strongly suggest that the implementation of this proposal is a moderate, feasible demand.
So, to those establishment media pundits who persist in claiming that the 99% protesters have no practical demands, I would like to have a word with you. I have a practical demand. Say yes to the Iran medical nuke deal.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
really? i expect to hear that all too often conspiracy theory on HPst…..but by proPal commentors…
but since you brought it up…can yu please provide one shred of real evidence of such.
thanks.
2. While the news - whatever the real truth behind it - certainly poisons the mood, to say the least, it doesn't change the fundamental logic of what I wrote here, and in fact strengthens it. A. The state of confrontation is dangerous. B. Either the problem can be solved with force, or it can't. If it can't, we need to de-escalate and have fewer problems. Note something else in the news: Israel and Hamas at long last have made a deal on prisoner exchange. If Israel can make a deal with Hamas, why can't we make a deal with Iran?
With today's news about Iran, it seems their plans are several steps ahead of your disruption plans. Mr Obama is completely powerless. The "system" will never allow him to do anything at all.
Nice proposal.
Chances of Iranian Supreme Leader endorsing it--zero.
Primary reason for the article-- an excuse to post more anti-American, anti-Israeli demagoguery.
"Ahmadinejad has repeated the offer often enough, and with confirmation from the foreign minister, that it must have the backing of the Iranian political elite, including Khamenei."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-edvaez30.html
GREAT!
The issue is solved.
There can be no better guarantee for safeguarding weapon grade nuclear material than the word of Ahmadinejad.
Especially since the good folks at Iran Project FAS suspect---but don't know if Supreme Leader and military junta -- the real rulers of Iran-- have endorsed the deal.
Perfect-- let's send them 50 kg of enriched uranium and even better..."without any preconditions."
Obviously, the "without precondition" is a non-started to any rational Western diplomat, but U.S. should send out diplomatic feelers to Ahmadineajd's superiors to see how genuine this offer is.
This statement is factually incorrect.
A more informed statement would have been that Ahmadinejad, a figure head politician in Iran, has made the proposal,
Not the same thing. Surely, we all understand that.
So with all these and much more, why should Iranians trust US? Why should they put their lives up on a US guarantee? Will the fuel supposedly to be supplied by US to Iran also be deliberately defective to permanently jam Iran's only medical reactor? Can Iran trust US on that? Can Iranians trust that in 10 years time if US economy got better then US would not get drunk once more and start attacking Iran. On many occasions US has threatened Iran with direct war using nukes. Do you think Iranians have forgotten? I think if any one of us is here for a long lasting peace we should support Iranian efforts to go nuclear and develop a deterrence for their country which has not attacked another nation since the battle of Karnal nearly 300 years ago. US by comparison can not go with a major aggressive war for more than a couple of years. We must encourage Iranians to go nuclear. US has never and will never dare to attack a nuclear nation. Be it Pakistan, Israel, Russia or even good old North Korea. US only attacks non-nuclear nations for no reason at all. Just a drunk moment of rage with some delusions is reason enough but fortunately not with nuclear armed nations. Lets hope Iranians will save us from war by going nuclear this winter testing a few devices. If they don't both Iran and US will suffer.
There is only one way to avert any chances of future war with Iran: Let Iran go nuclear. We all know that an Iran without a nuke is a sitting duck waiting for its time. This is the truth. US supported Saddam's invasion against Iran in the process killing almost a million Iranians. US even lent US navy to Saddam since he had no navy and in the process sank half of Iran's navy in the course of Iran-Iraq war. US also shot down an Iranian airliner flying inside Iran's airspace killing 290 civilians including over 60 children. Not too forget US support for a despotic dictator Shah and US operation Ajax. Today, Iranian scientists and their wives are being killed infront of their 4 year old daughters coming out of kindergarten. Faulty equipment is being deliberately supplied to Iranian industry to paralyze it. The human history's first cyber war attack has been against Iran. And on top of that Iran for the past 40 years has been having 10% share in Eurodif enrichment plant which supplies most of the nuclear fuel for Europe and despite Iran having legal right to get 10% enriched Uranium produced by that plant, and despite repeated Iranian demands in these 40 years, Iran has not yet received even a single gram.
Canada should be firing up a new reactor and providing these isotopes.
What idiocy that people willingly embrace nuclear technology for a regime that wants your annihilation.
Also, Romney and Perry are more ons. If and that's a big if, either one wins and actually become president, they'll learn very quickly from professionals that run US military and intelligence about how insane war with Iran would be.
No matter how often some independant group games out the results of such a war as a disaster for the US, or how often someone like me points out that Iran is a modern, industrialised country, not the third world one it was when they overthrew the Shah, and then had to deal with the US/EU sponsored attack by Saddam, it doesn't have the sort of impact on the American public that someone with a rank they've been trained to instantly respect saying the same sort of thing does.
To simplify, 6 independant think tanks with track records of accurate predictions, 60 pundits, 600 ordinary people, all saying something that does not conform to the prejudices of Americans has little impact. One 4 star general saying the same thing, does have an impact. Hopefully there are a few around who realise that their duty is to the American public, not the American politicians, and will be able to make their voices heard (a big challenge, as seen in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq) and so go on record and point out that despite having the forces available on paper, a country that strained its military almost to the breaking point dealing with two countries without industry, with armies that spent most of their time practicing suppressing popular uprisings, rather than practicing fighting off an invasion by a technologically advanced country, has no business even considering invading an industrialised, technologically advanced country with a military that practices basically nothing but fighting off invasions by technologically advanced militaries, including having plans in place to effectively overnight transition from a consumer economy to a war economy
Indeed, and that begins by countering a growing love-affair in some quarters with the MEK, PJAK, Jundallah, and other disgraced terrorist groups operating in Iran who view these groups as possible "bargaining chips" or even sources of "indigenous support" for a future invasion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-abdi/delisting-mek-iran_b_906164.html
Excellent baby step toward normalizing relation between US and Iran, fact of matter is 99% of Iran and US population do truly like each other as oppose to other states in Middle-East!
Obama advocates raising taxes on rich people and some Republicans criticize him for it, so it is obviously not true that Obama can't do anything that some Republicans might criticize.
Seriously do, you're right on the point that Presidential candidates do get neutered when they become the president and that is true for all un-dictatorial system of governance, nevertheless he's my president and I want him to succeed on implementing his just ideals and he do need help from masses by way of peaceful protests to diminish the undue powers of corporate lobbyists and the sold-out Congress!
Personally do, I'm optimistic about better relation between US and Iran in near a future, Obama second term in office will give him freedom to operate more independently and Iran will have a new president to complement Obama ideals since present one was elected to accommodate previous US president (read war), who knows! one might see the US president visiting his adversary Capital city regardless of US congress wishes, it happens in China during my time on this planet and observe how it turned out for better!
btw, I have a hip badge to give away to a hip person who can tell me how to publish micro-bio under a pen name in Huffington Post!