The Iranian Threat (article by Noam Chomsky)

ZCommunications

The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 ...of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

leave it to a world-renowned linguist to thoroughly study govt documents and pick out the most important parts. just this one quote implies that the very act of us threatening hostilities to deter iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is, technically, against security council policy. which makes sense, as the threat of aggression, especially violence, will make them feel more insecure and feel a more urgent need (as if they didnt already, as 3 of their neighbors have these weapons) to defend themselves. of course, our idea of aggression is different than other countries in the sense that aggression can only happen TO us:

In 1955 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff defined several types of “aggression,” including “Aggression other than armed, i.e., political warfare, or subversion.” For example, an internal uprising against a US-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way. The usage is also common in scholarship and political commentary, and makes sense on the prevailing assumption that We Own the World.

"subversion" i.e "not doing as one is told" i.e. "refusing to hand over your lunch money." never forget either that foreign policy will creep back home:

The model for democracy in the Muslim world, despite serious flaws, is Turkey, which has relatively free elections, and has also been subject to harsh criticism in the US. The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95% of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.

we condemn democracy that is against our interest. we cry for freedumb when we arent supported by all to do as we please. our policies, from whom we praise to whom we bomb, are completely built around keeping control of our war-zones to perpetuate these wars, even if our foolish hot-headed ways of doing things turn other countries against us, or even drive economic benefits into the hands of others. even ron paul made an argument recently (can be viewed on youtube) that sanctions against iran could possibly cut us off from super-powers in the east like china and russia. and even though oil is not something we should be fighting wars over, its an undeniable part of our every day lives. we may be shooting ourselves in the foot in future oil developments:

There is no indication that other countries in the region favor US sanctions any more than Turkey does. On Iran’s opposite border, for example, Pakistan and Iran, meeting in Turkey, recently signed an agreement for a new pipeline. Even more worrisome for the US is that the pipeline might extend to India. The 2008 US treaty with India supporting its nuclear programs – and indirectly its nuclear weapons programs -- was intended to stop India from joining the pipeline, according to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia adviser to the United States Institute of Peace, expressing a common interpretation. India and Pakistan are two of the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the third being Israel. All have developed nuclear weapons with US support, and still do.

and, of course, the icing on the cake, we dont REALLY want to solve the nuclear problem in the middle east, because that would imply that isreal play nice:

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons; or anyone. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a NFWZ in the Middle East. The issue arose (again) at the NPT conference at United Nations headquarters in early May 2010. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the US, at the 1995 review conference on the NPT. Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted – and has given no hint of allowing such provisions to apply to itself. The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT, specifically Washington, to release information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.” Obama’s technique of evasion is to adopt Israel’s position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.

sometimes its dangerous to have friends. these countries cannot solve their problems unless we sign off on it. why?
israel will come crying to daddy, and daddy has a lot of bombs.

excellent article, if you have the time and patience to hack through all the info. hes not as sensationalist as most commentators, screaming of future wars and impending doom, but he paints an extremely accurate and informative picture on our foreign policy.

im gonna be bummed when this man passes away.

I love Noam Chomsky.

He really does understand what is going on in the world. I'm surprised he doesn't have more influence or isn't running the UN or something.

We need people like this to be our leaders and our elected officials.

I will also miss this person terribly when they leave this life.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


i couldnt agree with you more. the fact that men like this have extremely low media support (when was the last time he was on tv?) is proof that are leaders are just playing a game.

chomsky for prez!

Nice find. I don't know what else to say but that I appreciate clear and logical thinkers who can set agendas and emotions aside and analyze things objectively. We need more people like this being heard.

I really enjoy reading anything that Noam Chomsky has to say - he really knows his stuff. Anyone who want to know some more about this should have a gander at my thread, Obama DOCTRINE: Congress Just Declared Preemptive WAR on Iran, it contains a video of Ron Paul (another I think talks a lot of sense) who explains how the US are asking for trouble with regard to Iran.

I think the US are looking for any excuse to start trouble in that region. There is also an article about the US's recent exploits with N.Korea, another country they seem to take pleasure in provoking.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


to be president, you have to be democrat or republican first. do you think any of these people will have him, or vote for him to be their candidate for president. president of the democrats of the united states is a more accurate title than president of the united states. there should only be one political party and it should be called america. obama works first for the people who got him there and if he wants to still be president he has to follow the orders of the main powers of the democratic party that hold his re-election in their hand.

thanks for this post. i appreciate it because it's something i'd unlikely find had you not pointed out, so thanks. i know it's just me, but in a world where gb is given an hour a night and noam chomsky is relatively unknown is a world i'm okay with having given up on a long time ago.

[edit on Jun 29, 2010 by Hadrian]

But like one of the commenters on the linked-to site, I'm a little puzzled by this:

Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the US must take major steps towards reinforcing US control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not succeed. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine.

Anybody have an analysis?

reply to post by Hadrian


i think the idea is that the threat posed to the US by not controlling resources is far greater than a nuclear threat from one of these nations. if they have nukes, im pretty sure they arent ICBMs, so they are only a threat to each other.
hell, they start a full-blown nuclear war, im sure our war-profiteers would find a way to make money off it.

edit to add "reply to"

[edit on 29-6-2010 by mooseinhisglory]

Originally posted by mooseinhisglory

The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95% of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.

we condemn democracy that is against our interest. we cry for freedumb when we arent supported by all to do as we please.

Just remember, that when you say the word "our" and "we" that our leaders disdain for listening to voters extends to the citizens of the US, we are not exempt from this. This policy of insisting that democratic leaders ignore their public was perfected on us, we are not exempt from it. We are some of the least free people in the world, if you consider whether or not we have a voice in politics. They blatantly and scornfully disregard our wishes, we are their ideal "democracy." One in which we do as we are told, do not question, and listen to the Masters.

Good thread. I am glad to see someone bringing Chomsky into the fray. He is one of the most informed, and truthful, commentators on world politics you can find.



[edit on 29-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


i completely agree 100% with you. foreign policies always come back home. or is it the other way around...

a more depressing "chicken or the egg" scenario lol

i guess noam chomsky is too smart for the flamers to try and construct an argument against him.
not even one dissenting opinion. testament to his genius.

There is no nuclear problem in the Middle East ... there's an access to oil problem.

reply to post by area6


the nuclear problem is certainly there, its just more diplomatic. there are countries there that have them, and some that dont, and it causes tensions.

reply to post by mooseinhisglory


I agree with it being a diplomatic problem - certainly nothing to warrant invasion though - it just sounds good to (read as "scares the hell out of") the average Joe when played through the MSM.

reply to post by area6


indeed. kinda sad how we war-monger for tv ratings, eh?

The contrived oil scarcity and the global warming hoax to reduce consumption because of "greenhouse gases" may be a suitable guise AKA "cover story" AKA "shore story" for a coming rapid shift to a little ice age. of course if they have even a limited nuclear exchange in industrialized cities... the amount of carbon soot caused by the burning of plastics (compare quanity of plastics versus 1945 Nagasaki) - will result in a worldwide nuclear winter scenario.

Even the oil spill, may be related, as a preemptive strike, a desperate one, to reduce evaporation in gulf waters to WARM the earth in preparation for a limited nuclear exchange.

Whatever country controls the most oil will fare a bit better with warm alive citizens instead of frozen starved ones

[edit on 29-6-2010 by seataka]

Rubbish. Its an excuse for isreal to continue its agenda of genocide and crimes against humanity unhindered with help from the psycotics in dizzy city. Along with the u.s to use/test all the weapons its got.
Western arrogance and bloodlust in action. the u.s and isreal are a bigger threat to the world than iran ever will be.