Uri Avnery makes some biting comments on US beligerency vis-a-vis Iran.
“It is not very flattering to be paraded like a Rottweiler on a leash, whose master threatens to let him loose on his enemies. But this is our situation now. Vice President Dick Cheney threatened a few weeks ago that if Iran continues to develop its nuclear capabilities, Israel might attack her.”
“This week, President George Bush repeated this threat. If he were the leader of Israel, he declared, he would have been feeling threatened by Iran. He reminded those who are a little slow that the United States has undertaken to defend Israel if there is a threat to its security. All this adds up to a clear warning: if Iran does not submit to the orders of the US (and, perhaps, even if it does) Israel will attack it with American help, much as it attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor some 24 years ago.”
Here’s [an edited version of] what I wrote on the subject a few days ago in No War Blog.
I read this in Thursday’s Daily News:
“Iran and Syria ratcheted up the rhetoric yesterday, vowing to form ‘a united front’ amid pressure on Damascus over the death of Lebanon’s ex-prime minister.”
“The Bush administration all but laughed off the saber-rattling, even as relations took a dive when the U.S. pulled its ambassador from Syria on Tuesday to protest the assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri, a day earlier.”
I’ll get back to Harari in a moment. But take this bit from the AP:
“Bush said Thursday the United States would support Israel ‘if her security is threatened.’”
“Israel has warned that it may consider a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. The United States accuses Iran of having a secret program to make nuclear weapons; Iran insists its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.”
“‘If I was the leader of Israel and I’d listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well,’” Bush said.”
Bush’s statement above is the most explicit one ever made by a US President which exposes that Israel has become 100% a US surrogate in the region, and not a sovereign and independent country (which a) was not always the case, certainly not before ’67 and b) completely undermines the basis of Zionist ideology).
But let’s take a closer look at reality. It is the U.S., not Iran, that is pathetically saber rattling. The US army is bogged down in Iraq and doesn’t have the manpower or financial resources to pose any realistic threat to Iran. Unlike 1981, when most of Saddam’s neighbors, particularly Syria, were secretly thrilled by Israel’s attack, this time is far different. Syria, unlike Saddam, has working missles pointed at every corner of Israel. An Israeli attack on Iran, besides being a logistic nightmare even with covert US support, can be countered by serious retaliation by Syria. This is precisely the message behind the Syria-Iran alliance.
So in fact, Iran and Syria can be openly belligerent against the United States precisely because they aren’t afraid that either Israel or the US has serious military options.
Moreover, Iran is reaping the whirlwind in Iraq. I don’t think the Iranian government in their wildest dreams believed they would live to see the day of Saddam defeated and an Islamic Shi’ite government put into place by none other than the Great Satan. Even better, from their perspective, the US is bleeding soldiers, pissing away gallons of money, and is militarily incapacitated. From the Iranian perspective, this is probably better than the 70 virgins of paradise.
One side point, re: Harari. Harari’s death was totally not in Syria’s interest, and so unlikely done by Syria. Harari’s bombing death was more akin to a Mafiosi hit, precisely because that’s exactly who Harrari was. But the US is using this as a limp excuse to attack Syria. I almost burst out laughing the other day when the US State Department spokesman, essentially stated the following: “Syrian occupation of Lebanon is justified by the argument that it is needed to bring stability to Lebanon. The bombing death of Harari shows that there is no real security in Lebanon. Hence Syria should withdraw.”
I couldn’t believe he actually said that! Use the following key:
the US = Syria Lebanon = Iraq of Harari = that occur daily
and substitute in the above sentance:
“The US occupation of Iraq is justified by the argument that it is needed to bring stability to Iraq. The bombing deaths that occur daily shows that there is no real security in Iraq. Hence the US should withdraw.”
Sometimes US hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.