Will Iran be the 9/11 of this election?

0

Still trying to get caught up on the news. Seymour Hersch, in the New Yorker, reports newly uncovered information about the Presidential Finding1 to sponsor covert activities in Iran. Because of secrecy, the Finding actually occurred at about the time of and in direct contradiction to the National Intelligence Estimate that discounted the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Andrew Cockburn2 made a brief report in Counter Punch in early May. [He makes a not entirely whimsical quip about Harvard Fellow3 Robert Rubin’s efforts to keep Citigroup afloat amid the subprime mortgage debacle, by borrowing yet more billions from Abu Dhabi [Wikipedia logo].

Most of the people of the world, including the U.S. Joint Chiefs think invading Iran is a bad idea. But you have Dick Cheney, arguably diminished in power, but is he still a big enough tail to wag the American dog? He still seems to be able to wag the Bush. What if Israeli hardliners launch a pre-emptive attack knowing they can’t win a war by themselves. Will this smaller tail try to wag the Cheney tail in a direction it already wants to go.

The folks at Middle East Strategy at Harvard, more specifically, Chuck Freilich, seem to think the consequences of invading Iran would be small.4 Sounds a lot like the runup to Iraq – flowers and chocolates, it’ll pay for itself, shock and awe will eliminate resistance. How’s that worked out? Chuck Freilich, by the way, was Israel’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Foreign Affairs. So there’s that ‘vested interest’ thing again. It’s not about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. For Israeli hardliners it’s about losing, some years from now, the nuclear monopoly in the region. For Bush-Cheney-Haliburton it’s about control of oil.

I hope to tell you about Bradford Little, highly eccentric but correct. Who’s “entitled” to nuclear weapons?

a) Iran.

b)Israel.

c)United States of America.

d)All of the above.

e)None of the above.

f)Nobody anywhere.

It’s (f). I will show all work, but it will be necessary to attach additional sheets.

1Yet another way of dunning Congress for money, but because National Security is involved only a handful of “select” Congresspersons need to know the details.

2I’m slowly coming to appreciate the Cockburn clan. I did, like everybody in my generation, read Alexander when he wrote with James Ridgeway in the Village Voice. Just recently, I discovered that Harvard’s Legal Left has it’s very own member of the clan. My only hope is that the Federalists don’t squeeze the rainbow out of her.

3There are Harvard Fellows and there are Harvard Fellows. There are Junior Fellows who are top shelf post docs. There are faculty members who are Senior Fellows. But a Fellow, is a member of The Corporation. Rubin was the Fellow who lent the rest of the Fellows the subprime President recently departed.

4Not known for dovishness, former National Security Advisor Zbignew Brezinski in testimony before Congress [English with French subtitles] disagrees with Freilich’s assessment.

previous:
And the seasons they go round and round*
next:
Asymmetric Information and the Cost of Labor vs. Management

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.