PerleDeDiamant

PerleDeDiamant

Israel, US and Iran: who is threatening who?

Israel, US and Iran: who is threatening who?

with one comment

A draft resolution proposing US support of an Israeli military attack on Iran written by Texan Republican Louie Gohmert began its initial rounds in US congress last week.  The resolution reiterates the usual fear mongering claims made by those who view the Islamic Republic's continued resistance to sacrificing its independence in the region as a threat, and expresses support for:

…the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

There is no specification as to what a "reasonable time" entails.

The resolution also states that:

…the United States does not want or seek war with Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons

Aptly timed with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) policy conference in Washington, DC, the resolution refers to the US's "special" relationship with Israel a number of times.

While it contends that

…the United States does not want or seek war with Iran

even that statement is finished with the following:

but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Keeping "all options open" is a line that continues to be used by US congressmen and women while they simultaneously insist that they prefer not to go to war with the country.  US Senator Lindsey Graham recently used it during his speech at AIPAC's annual dinner on Monday night when he assured a cheering audience that the US "congress has your back."  He was of course referring to his perceived "best friend in the world," Israel.  No speech endorsing war with Iran would be complete without using the word "holocaust," and in this case Graham used it to assure his audience that the US would do everything to prevent a second one from being brought upon the Israeli people.

I haven't seen all the speeches made by US representatives at AIPAC this year, but if there was an award handed out for best bootlicker, Graham is likely the number one contender.  See for yourself:

While the US continues to claim that they are extending a hand to the "Iranian people," or rather the pro-Western elements of the Iranian population (see this year's Nowruz message here), it also works on imposing "crippling sanctions" upon the country.  Certainly warmongering in favor of attacking Iran is nothing new in the context of a significantly pro-Israel US congress, but recent events clearly illustrate that the Obama administration is two-faced in its dealings with the country, something which the Iranian leadership is certainly aware of.

Ignoring for a moment the potential cost to human life and the negative environmental impacts (depending on the type of weapons used), a war with Iran (regardless of whether it was initiated by the US or Israel) would also ignite further chaos in the region.

Read about Iran in the Western news and you are practically guaranteed to see it referred to as a "threat."  But considering the reality of the events on the ground and the expedited rate at which they seem to be moving, who is really threatening who?



27/03/2010

A découvrir aussi


Inscrivez-vous au blog

Soyez prévenu par email des prochaines mises à jour

Rejoignez les 3 autres membres