Yup, one thing that Trump has done is expose American foreign policy for what it is. An incompetent imperialist power. This really brings me back to my undergraduate days wrestling with the aftermath of the Vietnam war, like how could we be so stupid?
Great piece, Bob. I have been surprised at how many people who I feel should know better buy into anti-Iranian propaganda and you have offered some basics for countering the belief that Iran is the primary destabilizing force in the Middle East. I look forward to the more detailed argument if you choose to write it.
Well Bob, this article is a big reason I keep sending you money every month since about 2015 and reading your thinking. I just never have read or thought about the Iran/USA/Israel situation quite this way. Totally makes sense to me what you write. Then, you still have not convinced me that China is not a threat he says with a smile. You need to keep working on me with that one.
I'm afraid that if I convince you re China, you'll quit sending us money on grounds that you've now attained full enlightenment so there's no further value for us to add. So I'm holding back on that...
"Henry Kissinger’s ambivalence about the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was captured in this famous quote: “It’s a pity both sides can’t lose.”
Kissinger was here, as usual, a lying, heartless bastard, implying that two evil governments were equally distasteful to the United States, which, it is implied, actually minds when governments oppress their citizens. Give us a break The US began illegally embargoing and blockading Iran as soon as the Shah fell and encouraged its then-loyal client Saddam to attack them, green-lighting chemical weapons components for shipment to Iraq and supplying Iraq with vital battlefield intelligence throughout the war. A million Iranians were killed, and the US enthusiastically played its part, notwithstanding Kissinger's characteristic deceptiveness.
Apologies if you say all this later in your piece, Robert. Whenever I encounter one of Kissinger's lies (ie, whenever Kissinger is quoted), the reflex to denounce him is automatic.
What about Israel's literal destruction of a captive society after keeping them under a brutal blockade for 17 years, all the while calling them Amalek? You get your hackles up over rhetoric but not actual genocide?
What about when Israel sieged Beirut and shelled it in 1982 during its civil war? Then, later during Israeli occupation, Sharon enabled and facillitated the infiltration of Sabra and Shatila by right-wing radical Phalangists, all the while the IDF stood guard and lit flairs for the massacre of up to 3k civillians in a single night.
What about the use of white phosphorous in southern lebanon? Israel certainly should not be destroyed, but it needs to be reformed.
“The disappearance of Israel does not mean the disappearance of the Jewish people, because we have nothing against [Jews],” Khamenei said, speaking alongside senior Iranian officials at the so-called 33rd International Islamic Unity Conference.
One needs to read to the end of the article. It was sadly the case that Israel and Israelis had plenty to fear from Iran and its proxies, while the Iranians from the start declared themselves implacable enemies of Israel. Don't forget the Holocaust denial conference in Iran organisers by the then President Ahmadinejad. This of course doesn't justify starting this war. Preventative wars don't always go the way those who start them plan, especially in the long term.
Great piece, Bob. I wrote an op-ed for The Hill a few weeks back, debunking the myth that Iran is the greatest source of the Middle East's instability:
It seems naive to believe that Trump truly cares about any outcomes unless they affect him personally. Perhaps if he starts fearing that continuing along this path will be a huge stain on his legacy? That's assuming he cares about his legacy. Perhaps Bibi had promised him his coveted Gaza Riviera in exchange for help with this 'lawn mowing'? Nothing would surprise me at this stage. There must've been some kind of a quid pro quo, apart from Trump hoping to pull another Maduro and get a tick in the polls, which never sounded very likely.
Can you explain why you think the Iranian regime is interested in regional stability? (Given the existence of Israel in the region.)
It is not possible to address everything in one article, but this piece seems to neglect the concerns of the significant number of Iranians who support democracy and wish for the overthrow of the theocratic regime in Iran. What would you say to these Iranians?
Do you think NATO would be justified in attempting regime change in North Korea? (Let's assume that somehow it could be accomplished without any nukes going off and without the annihilation of Seoul by conventional weapons.)
Our efforts of regime change in Iran do not seem to be the same, morally speaking, as would be our efforts of regime change in a place like Greenland, or Canda. Iran is run by a terrorist regime that is guilty of atrocities against its own people and internationally. Yes, of course one could reasonably argue that the U.S. is guilty of the same. But that equivocation rings hollow to me because there are many important differences between the the U.S. government and the Iranian theocratic regime.
I agree with much of what you write, and would like to note that by allowing American bases on their territory did not make the Gulf states more secure; but the opposite. Similarly, Ukraine's acceptance of American weapons and military, especially after 2017, did not deter further Russian aggression as promised, but on the contrary provoked the invasion (which was the goal). Not only is America’s neocon foreign policy terribly expensive for the American taxpayer (estimates for this century are around 10 trillion), it is also terribly destabilising. In more ways than one.
Below two points I disagree:
You write “So long as Trump is president, it’s hard to say what America’s goal is”. What was the goal of America’s many previous wars in the region? Trump is worse in style, not substance. By exposing America’s aggressiveness to global public opinion, Trump may yet help create a more stable world.
What do you mean “what Russia lacks in number of violations, it makes up for in magnitude”? America’s wars of choice this century alone have killed over 4.5 million people. Not to mention the crime of crimes in Gaza, which was enabled by America. By comparison, how many civilians have been killed by Russia’s invasions this century? 20 thousand? 40 thousand? That’s 1% of America's toll.
Excellent, powerfully argued piece
Yup, one thing that Trump has done is expose American foreign policy for what it is. An incompetent imperialist power. This really brings me back to my undergraduate days wrestling with the aftermath of the Vietnam war, like how could we be so stupid?
Thank you for writing this article. For those paying close attention, this is 100% spot on.
I look forward to this next piece ….
>>> “And, also, isn’t Iran the “leading state sponsor of terrorism”?”
“Challenging those claims as thoroughly as they deserve to be challenged would take a whole ‘nother piece—and, who knows, maybe I’ll write it soon.”
Great piece, Bob. I have been surprised at how many people who I feel should know better buy into anti-Iranian propaganda and you have offered some basics for countering the belief that Iran is the primary destabilizing force in the Middle East. I look forward to the more detailed argument if you choose to write it.
Thanks Bob…that was needed and well said!
Well Bob, this article is a big reason I keep sending you money every month since about 2015 and reading your thinking. I just never have read or thought about the Iran/USA/Israel situation quite this way. Totally makes sense to me what you write. Then, you still have not convinced me that China is not a threat he says with a smile. You need to keep working on me with that one.
I'm afraid that if I convince you re China, you'll quit sending us money on grounds that you've now attained full enlightenment so there's no further value for us to add. So I'm holding back on that...
And a good reason I might stop.
"Henry Kissinger’s ambivalence about the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was captured in this famous quote: “It’s a pity both sides can’t lose.”
Kissinger was here, as usual, a lying, heartless bastard, implying that two evil governments were equally distasteful to the United States, which, it is implied, actually minds when governments oppress their citizens. Give us a break The US began illegally embargoing and blockading Iran as soon as the Shah fell and encouraged its then-loyal client Saddam to attack them, green-lighting chemical weapons components for shipment to Iraq and supplying Iraq with vital battlefield intelligence throughout the war. A million Iranians were killed, and the US enthusiastically played its part, notwithstanding Kissinger's characteristic deceptiveness.
Apologies if you say all this later in your piece, Robert. Whenever I encounter one of Kissinger's lies (ie, whenever Kissinger is quoted), the reflex to denounce him is automatic.
I do note later in the piece that the US backed Iraq in the war--but your indictment had more flesh and more flair than mine.
What about the Republic of Iran’s foundational objective to destroy the state of Israel?
I guess this is an important point that will have to change too to ensure success of any future stable security architecture…
What about Israel's literal destruction of a captive society after keeping them under a brutal blockade for 17 years, all the while calling them Amalek? You get your hackles up over rhetoric but not actual genocide?
What about when Israel sieged Beirut and shelled it in 1982 during its civil war? Then, later during Israeli occupation, Sharon enabled and facillitated the infiltration of Sabra and Shatila by right-wing radical Phalangists, all the while the IDF stood guard and lit flairs for the massacre of up to 3k civillians in a single night.
What about the use of white phosphorous in southern lebanon? Israel certainly should not be destroyed, but it needs to be reformed.
Did I sound as I was trying to defend Israel’s doings in the region? I wasn’t.
I was just trying to bring across what I believe is a valid point that was not addressed, but I consider crucial.
Do you think there's a distinction between ending Israel as a sovereign Jewish ethnostate and literally destroying Israel?
There's more evidence for one than the other in terms of Iranian policy. Can you guess which?
No sarcasm necessary to bring your points across -at least, to me.
Instead, it will be very useful if you could provide some of the mentioned evidences. (No sarcasm meant, really.)
“The disappearance of Israel does not mean the disappearance of the Jewish people, because we have nothing against [Jews],” Khamenei said, speaking alongside senior Iranian officials at the so-called 33rd International Islamic Unity Conference.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-when-iran-speaks-of-wiping-out-israel-it-refers-to-regime-not-jews/
You can choose not to believe him.
One needs to read to the end of the article. It was sadly the case that Israel and Israelis had plenty to fear from Iran and its proxies, while the Iranians from the start declared themselves implacable enemies of Israel. Don't forget the Holocaust denial conference in Iran organisers by the then President Ahmadinejad. This of course doesn't justify starting this war. Preventative wars don't always go the way those who start them plan, especially in the long term.
Great piece, Bob. I wrote an op-ed for The Hill a few weeks back, debunking the myth that Iran is the greatest source of the Middle East's instability:
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5759046-us-israel-iran-middle-east/
Excellent article!
Thanks!
It seems naive to believe that Trump truly cares about any outcomes unless they affect him personally. Perhaps if he starts fearing that continuing along this path will be a huge stain on his legacy? That's assuming he cares about his legacy. Perhaps Bibi had promised him his coveted Gaza Riviera in exchange for help with this 'lawn mowing'? Nothing would surprise me at this stage. There must've been some kind of a quid pro quo, apart from Trump hoping to pull another Maduro and get a tick in the polls, which never sounded very likely.
You skipped the part about wanting a nuclear weapon so they could annihilate Israel fulfilling their constitutionally required Mahdaviat doctrine.
Bob, that was a well-written piece, as always.
Can you explain why you think the Iranian regime is interested in regional stability? (Given the existence of Israel in the region.)
It is not possible to address everything in one article, but this piece seems to neglect the concerns of the significant number of Iranians who support democracy and wish for the overthrow of the theocratic regime in Iran. What would you say to these Iranians?
Do you think NATO would be justified in attempting regime change in North Korea? (Let's assume that somehow it could be accomplished without any nukes going off and without the annihilation of Seoul by conventional weapons.)
Our efforts of regime change in Iran do not seem to be the same, morally speaking, as would be our efforts of regime change in a place like Greenland, or Canda. Iran is run by a terrorist regime that is guilty of atrocities against its own people and internationally. Yes, of course one could reasonably argue that the U.S. is guilty of the same. But that equivocation rings hollow to me because there are many important differences between the the U.S. government and the Iranian theocratic regime.
I agree with much of what you write, and would like to note that by allowing American bases on their territory did not make the Gulf states more secure; but the opposite. Similarly, Ukraine's acceptance of American weapons and military, especially after 2017, did not deter further Russian aggression as promised, but on the contrary provoked the invasion (which was the goal). Not only is America’s neocon foreign policy terribly expensive for the American taxpayer (estimates for this century are around 10 trillion), it is also terribly destabilising. In more ways than one.
Below two points I disagree:
You write “So long as Trump is president, it’s hard to say what America’s goal is”. What was the goal of America’s many previous wars in the region? Trump is worse in style, not substance. By exposing America’s aggressiveness to global public opinion, Trump may yet help create a more stable world.
What do you mean “what Russia lacks in number of violations, it makes up for in magnitude”? America’s wars of choice this century alone have killed over 4.5 million people. Not to mention the crime of crimes in Gaza, which was enabled by America. By comparison, how many civilians have been killed by Russia’s invasions this century? 20 thousand? 40 thousand? That’s 1% of America's toll.
Ha, has anybody sent Ann Coulter this headline yet?
(What with her longstanding sensitivity to such displays of "affection" and all.)