Peoples Geography — Reclaiming space

Creating people's geographies

Neocons growling on Iran


Sandy Huffaker,

Recent Press Picks

* Seymour Hersch, The Redirection, New Yorker (25 Feb 2007):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

* John Amato, Seymour Hersh: Negroponte–Iran Contra—Funds–al Qaeda…Oh my!, Crooks and Liars (25 Feb)

* Chris Floyd, Bush Faction Arming AlQuafa to Thwart Iran, Empire Burlesque (26 Feb)

* Trita Parsi has a valuable site of Iran politics related article links

* Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack, The Times (25 Feb):

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

* Israel Insider staff, Report: Gulf states give Israel ok to use airspace for strikes against Iran, Israel Insider (25 Feb)

* Booby Traps Detonated by US Remote Controls, FarsNews (20 Feb)

* Ambassador Rasoul Movahedian, Iran is a force for peace, Guardian (22 Feb):

The latest salvo of rhetoric against Iran betrays a grand design to demonise the country and trigger a new adventurism in the highly sensitive Persian Gulf region. Again and again the “Iranian threat” is invoked as part of a neocon agenda to deepen US military involvement in the area. But its goal – to downgrade Iran’s role in the region – is both implausible and ill founded.Iran, by contrast, has demonstrated throughout its history a belief in constructive engagement in international relations, at the same time as holding firm to its right to retain its important regional role.

* Léonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, VoltaireNet (16 Feb 2007)

* Kristin Roberts, Any U.S. strike might not destroy Iran nuclear sites, Reuters (23 Feb)

* Ramzy Baroud, The Final Punch, Palestine Chronicle (22 Feb):

The configuration of the New Middle East — as envisaged by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the Israeli war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, most certainly has no place for more than one regional power broker, namely Israel.

* Hossein Derakhshan, Stop bullying Iran, The Guardian (23 Feb)

* Gary Leupp, AIPAC Demands “Action” On Iran, Counterpunch (24-5 Feb)

* U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran: report, Reuters (24 Feb):

Despite the Bush administration’s insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

* William H. McMichael, U.S. War with Iran would be Navy, Air Force show: Analysts, Defense News (21 Feb)

* Terence M. Gatt, Iranian Nuclear Ambitions and American Foreign Policy, ICH (22 Jan 2006)

4 comments on “Neocons growling on Iran

  1. Jack
    27 February, 2007

    Hi Ann!

    Are you saying that Iran has no ill intent at all and this is just all contrived by the West?

    Hope you are well!


  2. homeyra
    27 February, 2007

    Ill intent?
    Well, one country is already in quite a bad shape because of some “ill intent”.
    I am not sure if more destructions and other side effects of a war will be an ideal highway to “world peace and paradise”.
    For a more technical answer, here is a report:
    For some recent history, here is an interview:

  3. peoplesgeography
    27 February, 2007

    Hi Jack,

    Yes, there are Iranian fascist theocrats (theocons?) as much as there are American ones, and this is not to discount the myriad challenges and human rights issues in Iran. Nevertheless, its not Iran’s elite threatening to invade the US or any of its neighbours, not even Israel, contrary to propagated lies). So what’s the ill intent they have that could possibly justify a ghastly invasion and war?

    Much “intelligence” re Iran *is* demonstrably being contrived, yes. And not by the West, not even by the US, but by a small minority within the US administration who have been planning this war for quite a while.

    I’d be interested in your views and invite you to have a look at any previous posts, as well as the links Homeyra has featured.


  4. Jack
    28 February, 2007

    Hi Ann and Homey!

    I will read the links–although I tend to be a little reticent about this kind of information anymore. I have found that any blog that has “facts” in its title is automatically suspect (ha!), and it seems the first link is from people who have a singular perspective (interesting that this sounds like the same group of people who advocated sharp sanctions and violent revolution against apartheid in South Africa!–Ann, remind me later to tell you of an article I wrote in the 80s on this topic that set the education establishment on its ear:) ). I have only found two perspectives online–one puts Iran as an innocent victim, the other puts the U.S. as a champion of the free world. Both of those perspectives seem to be drawn down ideological lines, so who to believe? Are issues that simple-black and white? A person like myself finds himself dismissing either perspective simply because of the emotional noise surrounding the debate (which admittedly is probably the wrong attitude to take–because there may actually be some validity to either side of the argument).

    For example, I read recently that Iran was in recent violation of the the deadline imposed by the U.N. to halt uranium enrichment. Of course we all know that U.N. resolutions and deadlines mean nothing, but what puzzles me is that every left-leaner I know is a big fan of the U.N., and I wonder why they have not come out in condemnation of Iran for thumbing its nose at the left’s sacred cow:

    -Is it really because Iran is acting defiant towards the United States? Believe me, Ann, we have as many anti-American left in this country, and they routinely support anyone who engages in anti-U.S. rhetoric (Chavez, Castro–fascist dictators are often idolized by these spoiled children of American prosperity).

    -Is it because the left really does advocate violence and nuclear proliferation perpetrated by governments with questionable legitimacy–do they think that its just the U.S. who should disarm?

    -Is is because Iran engages in overt anti-Semitic rhetoric?

    -Is it that the left supports the U.N. and its “peaceful” aims only when it fits their ideological paradigm?

    (btw, the above questions are just rhetorical :) )

    You can see why I stay puzzled with the contemporary left. I pose the opposite questions on “conservative” blogs–and come away confused there also. I have largely maintained a position of neutrality on the Iraq war (my left friends wonder why I am so blind, just like my right friends do. ha!) and have become too jaded at this point in my life to make any real judgments concerning Iran and its desire to enrich weapons grade plutonium and the U.N. and U.S.’s interest in stopping them.

    I guess you can see where I’m coming from…

    Have a pleasant day, all!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Timely Reminders

"Those who crusade, not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes perceptibly worse than what it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself."
-- Aldous Huxley

"The only war that matters is the war against the imagination. All others are subsumed by it."
-- Diane DiPrima, "Rant", from Pieces of a Song.

"It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there"
-- William Carlos Williams, "Asphodel, That Greeny Flower"