Category Archives: Iran

Romney: So Nice, So Wrong

Business, China, Democrats, Foreign Policy, Iran, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Trade

MSNBC was my first port of call, right after Mitt Romney completed his address to the 2012 Republican Convention. Romney’s sworn enemies would be the best gauges as to how well the speech resonated.

The cobra head at MSNBC—Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ed Schultz—all were remarkably mild in their reactions. Other than the hissing Chris Matthews, these people were partial to the man and his message.

O’Donnell: ‘It was an effective presentation’
Chuck Todd: ‘optimistic nostalgia’
Ed Schultz: a ‘pitch to women’
HuffPo: “Solid.” “Competent.” “Workmanlike.”
Chris Matthews, aka The Snake, was the only one to rightly condemn Romney’s “jingoistic language about war,” as “bad for the country.”

AND FOR THE WORLD!

Tomorrow these pundits will have returned to their default position. But, for now, they seemed to have finally seen that, while Romney’s political positions are horrid, he’s a lovely man. As incongruous as this may seem, it is nevertheless true.

I’ve seen enough of life to know a lovely man when I see one. Ann Romney, herself a delightful lady, is a lucky woman. Romney is a great provider, fabulously devoted to family and church, consistently generous and charitable to all those around him, and brilliant in all endeavors, academic and other.

Unlike those of Obama, Romney’s university transcripts will stand scrutiny.

Sadly, Romney is wrong on almost all issues of policy.

WRONG on China.
WRONG on Foreign policy.
WRONG on Iran.
WRONG on Russia.

So wrong about so much, yet such a lovely man. (And I did cheer, “Bain, Baby,” when he talked up free enterprise.)

“Repeal-and-replace statism” is what the Ryan-Romney ticket is about.

Onward to Iran!

Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Military, War, WMD

The following is from this week’s column, “Onward to Iran!”:

That acts of war and elections often coincide should come as no surprise. It’s unfortunate, but electability in fin de siècle America still hinges on projecting bully power around the world—an American leader has to aspire to “protect” borders and people not his own, and if they refuse his advances, he should be prepared to bomb them to kingdom come.

Having used the American military to particularly great political effect—the barefaced Barack Obama may be preparing to blast Iranians with something even “better” than the BLU-82, Bush’s weapon of choice.

Elections are not the only cause for war.

Perverse as this may seem, in its ongoing, reflexive efforts to maintain power and metastasize, the media-military-industrial-congressional complex can’t help but motivate for war.

Thus, out of the blue, in January of 2012, before things had heated up with Teheran, the Anglo-American press reported a military milepost. The Pentagon was working on a “13.6 ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP).” It “is the deepest penetrating ‘bunker buster’ currently in the U.S. arsenal,” swanked the DailyMail Online, “designed to take out fortifications built by Iran to hide their alleged nuclear weapons.”

Correlation is not causation, but the case for hitting Iranian installations has since hardened into dogma.

According to the MailOnline, the work on this big boy began because the Pentagon had “identified” a deficit in the US’s military capabilities: “officials believe [the current arsenal] is not capable of destroying Iran’s fortified underground facilities.”

Essentially, the premise for the MOP project was that American men and matériel should be capable of reaching all corners of the world.

Since the president’s reign of terror abroad began, the Iranian currency had lost 65 percent of its value. Or so boasted Fareed Zakaria, CNN’s inane, wishy-washy correspondent, who represents the media’s voice of moderation in the ramp-up to war with Iran.

Like all fixtures of mainstream media, the Zombie Zakaria has an appetite for destruction. …”

The complete column is “Onward to Iran!”

If you’d like to feature this column in or on your publication (paper pr pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

Support this writer’s work by clicking to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT and “Return To Reason” on WND.

Dagan Dishes On Iran

Intelligence, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Military

Meir Dagan is the “former chief of the Mossad, Israel’s equivalent of the CIA.” Other than the regime-change conceit he shared with 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl, the man is brilliant. (He can take his regime change nonsense and go jump in the lake, as far as I’m concerned, or send his own Shin-Bet boys to do the job.)

Below, courtesy of CBS News, are a few choice passages from the interview. Note how the man lacks America’s cultural insularity; he understands the region and its logic. What Dagan doesn’t get is that Israelis who use their influence on America’s treacherous leaders so as to send us into war are not our friends! More below.

“For nearly a decade buying more time was his job,” reports Lesley Stahl. “The Iranians say Dagan dispatched assassins, faulty equipment and computer viruses to sabotage their nuclear program. All the while, he was poring over the most secret dossiers about the Iranian regime, gaining insights and a surprising appreciation.”

It’s ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan’s expertise was, quote, “separating an Arab from his head.”

Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.

[Funny line: Dagan: What do they want? That I really would take seriously what the chief of police of Dubai is saying?]

Lesley Stahl: You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you’ve ever heard. That’s a direct quote.

Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.

Dagan: The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.

Stahl: Do you think Ahmadinejad is rational?

Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational.

Stahl: Do you think they’re rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this?

Dagan: No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions.

Stahl: Other people think they’re not going to really stop until they have this capability.

Dagan: They will have to pay dearly and all the consequences for it. And I think the Iranians, in this point in time, are going very careful in the project. They are not running in it.

…

Dagan: I heard very carefully what President Obama said. And he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state.

Stahl: So let me try to sum up what I think you’re now saying. And you’re saying, “Why should we do it? If we wait and they get the bomb, the Americans will do it.”

Dagan: The issue of Iran armed with a nuclear capability is not an Israeli problem; it’s an international problem.

Stahl: So wait and let us do it.

Dagan: If I prefer that somebody will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it.

[SNIP]

Dagan is a patriot; an Israeli patriot. Like the Iranians, he acts in the interests of his country. But America’s ruling elites are different: they are traitors to their own people. Our leadership is always ready to shed the blood of our brave men.

I blame American leaders first and foremost for forsaking their people for another.

For that, the Israelis cannot be blamed. They are, however, to blame for taking for granted that the American people are up for another war.

Long-time readers know me as a staunch supporter of Israel. However, if Israel is expecting the tired titan that is the US to do their battle for them—they will have lost this scribe’s support, for what it’s worth. It’ll be a sad day. I have been a friend to Israel because I believed in the country’s cause and dignity.

“The titan is tired. We Americans have our own tyrants to tackle. We no longer want to defend to the death borders not our own—be they in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, wherever. And we don’t need our friends looking to us to do so.” [From “The Titan Is Tired”]

On Iran, Israelis Disagree With America’s Neocon Crazies

America, Iran, Israel, Neoconservatism, War

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can” (March 26, 2003).

Fully forty four percent of a militarized and manipulated American population “stated they would support bombing Iran’s nuclear installations. A total of 70% also supported increasing economic sanctions.” To Israel’s great credit, Israeli popular opinion differs from that of Americans when it comes to a strike against the Islamic Republican of Iran. Via Brookings:

…a new poll shows, even though they are not fearful of Washington’s retribution if they go against U.S. advice. [Israelis] appear less influenced by the rhetoric of U.S. politicians competing for their embrace, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the Obama administration’s reluctance to support a military strike against Iran has apparently not affected their preference for Obama as the next president. In fact, their views seem to partly reflect the White House’s assessment of the consequences of war and the problems created by military action.
Only 19 percent of Israelis polled expressed support for an attack without U.S. backing, according to a poll I conducted — fielded by Israel’s Dahaf Institute Feb. 22-26 — while 42 percent endorsed a strike only if there is at least U.S. support, and 32 percent opposed an attack regardless.