The Growing Hate

By the title one might surmise that this post is about the tensions between races or religions or whatever else us humans attempt to hate……well if so….you would be mistaken.

I have been writing and attempt to teach people about war and its complexities and in that time I have also been an antiwar activist and because I have been such I have hated those we call “Neocons”….or if you prefer “warmongers”….or if you would like a more political correct title….”hawks”……

Since 9/11 it has been out of fashion to hate these people because they are keeping us “safe” from another attack by taking the fight to the terrorists. Since those days slowly but slowly the US has expanded its reach with war all in the name of fighting terrorists…..this overreach was sold to the people by the MSM with their constant drumming of propaganda….

But I can glad announce that the “old days” seem to be returning (at least for others…… for I never stopped hating)…..the public is starting to wake up to the reach of the M-IC and the propaganda of the MSM……

American Conservative has published an article titled “Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around?”, an excerpt from a book by Fox’s Tucker Carlson, which documents neoconservative thought leaders Max Boot and Bill Kristol’s consistent track record of supporting spectacularly awful US war policies. Carlson goes over the many, many acts of military interventionism which have been pushed for by these two legendary failmeisters, documents what they predicted would happen as the result of that interventionism (freedom, democracy and prosperity) and what actually ended up happening instead (needless death, terrorism and chaos), and marvels at how they both somehow remain in positions of high esteem with high-profile, high-paying jobs.

The article was shared today on Twitter by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who commented that Carlson “offers a devastating critique [of] interventionism and shows how much of the foreign policy establishment has failed the American people. There is an emerging, left right coalition of common sense for a foreign policy of restraint.”

 
I am an old fart but it is good to see a trend developing to maybe check the expansion of our many many wars.
 
We can only hope.
Advertisements

That “Axis Of Evil”

We all know the original “axis of evil” from GW Bush after 9/11…..or do we?

Refresher…..

Okay you are caught up……

We have a new “axis of evil” and it is all around this mash-up the US is having with Venezuela…..not sure?

https://lobotero.com/2019/02/11/venezuela-some-things-never-change/

https://lobotero.com/2019/01/30/dammit-venezuela/

Again you are pretty much caught up with the mash-up…..

Now the new “axis of evil”………Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams….the warmongering neocons that are handling the Venezuela situation…..

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on countries to “pick a side” on Venezuela, urging them to back opposition leader Juan Guaido in a Saturday speech at the UN Security Council in New York.

“Now, it is time for every other nation to pick a side. No more delays, no more games. Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem,” Pompeo told the Security Council.

Russia accused Washington of plotting a coup attempt and had tried to stop the meeting requested by the United States. “Venezuela does not represent a threat to peace and security. If anything does represent a threat to peace, it is the shameless and aggressive action of the United States and their allies aimed at the ouster of the legitimately elected president of Venezuela,” Russia’s UN ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, told the UN Council.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/26/trumps-axis-evil-pompeo-bolton-abrams

Recently Pompeo tried to include all the neocon “hit list” into the conversation on Venezuela……..

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made several statements that raised eyebrows, such as claiming that Cuba had invaded Venezuela and “taken control” of the Venezuela’s “security apparatus” and that U.S. sanctions illegally imposed on Venezuela “aren’t aimed at the Venezuelan people.”

However, the most surprising claim Pompeo made in the interview was that Hezbollah and Iran were “active” in Venezuela, presenting a national security “risk for America.”

After accusing China, Cuba and Russia of interfering with U.S. efforts to install U.S.-funded opposition figure Juan Guaidó and oust current Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Pompeo made the following assertion:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pompeo-attempts-to-link-iran-hezbollah-to-crisis-in-venezuela/5668244

Then there is NatSec adviser Bolton……

If there is any proof that Trump picks people that compliment his stupidity it will be his adviser Bolton…..he has done what most neocons do…..thumps his chest like a sex crazed primate……this time it is Iran.

President Donald Trump’s national security adviser has issued a direct threat to Iran’s supreme leader on the 40th anniversary of his country’s Islamic Revolution.

John Bolton was featured Monday in an ominous video posted to the White House’s official Twitter account. The video was posted as a “message to the Ayatollah of Iran,” Ali Khamenei, who the United States has targeted with a new social media campaign entitled “#40YearsofFailure” in reference to the decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 uprising that ousted a West-backed monarchy and installed a Shiite Muslim clerical leadership.

“What a 40 years its been, tyrannizing its own people and terrorizing the world, Iran continues to seek nuclear weapons to intimidate peaceful people all around the globe and ballistic missiles to use as delivery systems,” Bolton said in the roughly one-minute clip. “Iran under the ayatollahs remains the central banker of international terrorism and its conventional military forces are all over the Middle East, in Yemen, Iraq and Syria.

https://www.newsweek.com/bolton-iran-ayatollah-many-years-trump-anniversary-1327159

Seems he is similar to his boss….speaks through his ass without thought or knowledge.

False Bravado has NO place in international relations…..accuracy anf facts are the best weapons.

BTW the Islamic State of Iran is 40 years old……

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/02/08/the-islamic-state-of-iran-at-40/

To be honest this link is a neocon propaganda site take that for what it is worth.

Remember the non-existent WMDs in Iraq?  Or 1954 an excuse for the regime change in Guatemala was the presence of Soviet guns……well that is tried and true the technique…..

While insisting that US military intervention against Venezuela remains on the table, Senate Armed Services Committee chief Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has also claimed on Tuesday that the US would be obliged to intervene if Russia were to move weapons to Venezuela.

“We’d have to, not go to war, but use force,” Inhofe told reporters. This claim appears not to be an actual obligation, but part of the idea of the Monroe Doctrine that the US generally does intervene against other countries getting involved in the entire Western Hemisphere.

And while Inhofe doesn’t appear to want to rule out attacking Venezuela just unilaterally, as the administration is hoping to impose regime change there, it is clear he views the war even more favorably if it can somehow be turned into a proxy war against Russia.

(antiwar.com)

Now let’s look at why.

After decades of rhetoric why does the US want to overthrow an elected government?

Since 1998, the United States of America has tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela. What threatened the government of the United States since then was the Bolivarian dynamic set in motion by the election of Hugo Chávez as president of Venezuela that year. Chávez won the elections with a mandate from Venezuela’s workers and poor to overhaul the country to tend to their long-neglected needs.

Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, had enriched the U.S.-based oil companies and its own oligarchy. Venezuela’s key oil minister in the early 1960s (and architect of OPEC—the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso rightly called oil the “devil’s excrement.” It promised so much and delivered so little. Chávez arrived as the embodiment of popular hope. He threatened the oil companies and the oligarchy, which is why the United States tried to overthrow him.

The first attempt at a coup came in 2002, when the United States egged on the military and the oligarchy to overthrow Chávez. They failed. He was supremely popular, the Chavista base eager for change that would improve their lives. They had no faith in the United States or the oligarchy, both of whom had suffocated them for the past century.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/12/why-does-united-states-america-want-overthrow-government-venezuela

The American people need to ask why is this so damn important to the Neocons…….just why is it that the US cannot tolerate a leader that does not agree with them?  And who elected the US to speak for the people of Venezuela?

Say Good-Bye To The Shah

I have to go to the doctor this morning so I leave (for now) with a history lesson (was that an eye roll?)

40 years on and the US is still slobbering to return to the days of the Shah…but the Fall……

the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, we published an articleexplaining what the revolution can teach us about the economic and political problems facing Iran now. Today, I’d like to focus on the geopolitical implications of the revolution that saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was a formidable time for the country, but the existing geopolitics of the region remained largely intact.

Most observers didn’t expect the shah to fall, although many claimed afterward that they had predicted it. The shah, who was essentially installed by the United States and Britain, was used as a bulwark of the American containment strategy. He unseated democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who the U.S. feared was aligned with the Soviets, and helped to block Soviet access to the Persian Gulf. He claimed to be the heir to the Iranian monarchy, but in reality, he sat on the throne because of a coup staged in 1925 by his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi, a military officer who himself had no connections to the long line of Persian monarchs.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi enjoyed immense wealth but left his people profoundly unsatisfied, both economically and spiritually. Emulating Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, his father had sought a secular, militarist and authoritarian path to modernization. Iran’s merchant class didn’t care much about the modernization plans and demanded a cut of the country’s wealth. The shah appeared indifferent to their plight.

Khomeini did not. He bound up the grievances of the merchants and the peasants with the tenets of Shiite Islam. While sitting in exile in Paris, he sent copies of his sermons and speeches in which he laid out how the shah had betrayed Islam and stolen the wealth of the nation through his lavish and lascivious lifestyle. Experts dismissed him and the growing dissatisfaction, believing that discontent was a constant reality in Iran and that the shah could contain it.

From the American point of view, the shah was a great comfort. In 1973, OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, had cut off oil shipments to the United States and parts of Europe. At the time, the Saudis were involved in the Arab-Israeli War and sought to outflank Soviet-sponsored Arab movements, especially Palestinian ones. The Soviets had supported coups in Iraq and Syria and backed paramilitary groups from both countries that were formally designed to confront Israel but were actually far more focused on Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia could be destabilized and the flow of oil interrupted, the Soviets thought, the position of the United States and Western Europe would be vastly weakened.

But the Saudis beat the Soviets to the punch by imposing an oil embargo themselves, undercutting Soviet attempts to make it appear that Saudi Arabia was an American puppet. The price of oil soared, creating a global recession. For the United States, the embargo was a mixture of pain and pleasure. On one hand, it caused massive economic disruption. On the other, it was Saudi Arabia, not a Soviet-linked Palestinian group, presiding over an Arab renaissance.

Iran, an enemy of Saudi Arabia, continued to ship oil to the West and made a lot of money in the process, which it largely spent on defense. There was serious talk of Iran becoming a regional hegemon and a nuclear power. The U.S. didn’t vigorously object to any of this. Given the global oil shortage, even after the embargo had ended, the United States had two overriding interests: to contain the Soviet Union and its apparent proxy, Iraq, and to ensure access to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. intelligence worked closely with SAVAK, the shah’s intelligence service. The agency became Washington’s chief source of information on Iran – but SAVAK didn’t transmit any warning about the uprising to the U.S., either because it didn’t want to or because it didn’t anticipate the level of the unrest. Moreover, the United States’ other intelligence sources in Iran were part of the elite – the higher the sources, the greater the knowledge they can share, or so the U.S. believed. The problem, however, was that the elites were profiting from their ties to the regime and so were unlikely to reveal evidence of its demise until it was too late.

More important, it’s not easy to find sources who know when uprisings will occur and how they will turn out. The last people to know the shah was going to fall were those in the powerful classes, on whom the U.S. relied for intelligence. The idea that an extreme Shiite leader, sitting in exile in Paris, could manage an uprising against the man who could have brought the country to regional hegemony ran counter to all notions of power and continuity in Washington. President Jimmy Carter went out of his way to show his support for the shah almost to the end. It was inconceivable that the powerful would not remain powerful, or that a trained army could not defeat a rabble of protesters.

Those outside the government were equally deluded. Human rights groups loathed the shah for torturing and murdering his people. They made the same mistake that similar groups often make: believing that if a vile government is overthrown, what replaces it will be better. To appease his dissenters, Khomeini appointed a moderate, Mehdi Bazargan, as prime minister. But Bazargan’s liberal positions came into conflict with those of the radical Shiites who controlled the revolution, and his government fell.

The U.S. learned two lessons from this experience. First, you can’t rely solely on official intelligence sources to figure out what’s happening on the ground. Sometimes, the most valuable piece of intel is the reality staring you in the face. Second, geopolitics can be shifted but not obliterated. Iran under an Islamic regime was as hostile to Iraq and the Saudis and ambivalent toward the Kurds as it was under a secular one. Some things changed (Iran became hostile toward the United States), but other things stayed the same (its tensions with the Soviets continued). And as hostile as the U.S.-Iran relationship became, the U.S. continued to help supply Iran with weapons (hence the Iran-Contra affair). Geopolitically, regime change doesn’t alter as much as you might expect.

I’m still surprised at the failure of truly intelligent men and women in and out of government to understand that the shah was about to fall. In the 1980s, many of us were equally unable to grasp that the Soviets were hanging on for dear life. What is so obvious in retrospect was shrouded in the moment. But it shouldn’t have been. It was there for all to see, but recognizing it required looking behind the appearance of power and breaking the habit of believing that things always stay the same. The fall of the shah meant many things, but the failure to foresee his demise was ultimately about a lack of imagination and the inability to grasp that what was true yesterday might not be true tomorrow.

Your history lesson is complete…….and now a Neocon assessment of Iran…..

Forr almost two years, before President Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria in December 2018, the Trump administration pursued an Iran policy based on the use of all instruments of national power to stop Tehran from engaging in a wide array of aggressive and malign behaviors that defy global norms. In his May 21, 2018 speech, “A New Iran Strategy,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Iran to end verifiably its nuclear weapons and advanced ballistic missile programs, cease its support for terrorism and the destabilization of foreign governments, release all hostages, and halt its aggression against Israel and other U.S. allies.1

To achieve these objectives, the administration designed a strategy to pressure the regime – diplomatically, economically, and militarily. To that end, the administration walked away from the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated the comprehensive sanctions that had forced Iran to the negotiating table in 2013. The focal point of U.S. strategy was to intensify the Iranian regime’s ongoing liquidity crisis, which threatened to cripple its economy as a whole. The secretary of state also insisted the U.S. “will advocate tirelessly for the Iranian people,” who endure grave human rights violations and pervasive corruption. The Trump administration made it clear that it did not seek regime change, but would take advantage of the Islamic Republic’s deficit of legitimacy. In short, the U.S. purported to implement a policy of maximum pressure.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/01/31/midterm-assessment-iran/

According to the Neocons we should fear Iran…….but they prefer bullsh*t to facts…..

Watch For That Inflection Point

CoS Bolton is going around the world drumming yup support for a possible trip to Iran (by trip I mean some sort of military action)…..

Bolton is what Bolton always does….protects Israel over the interests of this country.

Hiss newest con job on the world is about the possibility of an attack by Iran….and he has gone viral with the warmongers….

Here’s the dire warning National Security Advisor John Bolton brought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Jan. 6: “We have little doubt that Iran’s leadership is still strategically committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons.”

I have found zero evidence to support Bolton’s claim. It is unclear who “we” means, but it certainly does not include the American intelligence community. They have found exactly the opposite.

While it is currently trendy to fact-check Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, allow me to suggest that it matters more — a lot more —when  statements made by the national security advisor are untrue. This four-Pinocchio claim is a true whopper and has serious national security implications.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/01/boltons-big-iran-con/154109/

Time for all of us to start looking for that “Tonkin Moment” that will start a war with Iran over some minor incident that can be used to gin up support to the attacks.

It will not be difficult since the US and NATO pretty much have Iran surrounded….just look at the map…..

Related image

Even Pentagon officials are fearing the language of Bolton…..

Having spent decades advocating a US attack on Iran, John Bolton’s position as National Security Adviser is allowing him to push the idea hard with President Trump. For those less enamored of that war, including Pentagon leadership, there is mounting concern that Bolton might provoke such a war.

So when Bolton came to the Pentagon asking them for military options for attacking Iran, nominally in retaliation for a Shi’ite Iraqi militia firing mortar shells in Baghdad, they were reticent.

The options they delivered were reportedly very limited. They involved little more than a show of force with limited airstrikes against some random Iranian military site. This was far short of what Bolton wanted, but former Defense Secretary James Mattis argued that even this was a bad idea, and no attack has happened yet.

But the National Security Council are still saying the attack plans are being considered, and Mattis is no longer around to argue against it. This potentially would allow Bolton to push for the symbolic attack and hope it escalates into more, or to push the Mattis-less Pentagon for even bigger plans for more ambitious wars.

(antiwar.com)

Like I keep saying….watch for that one small incident that can be used to turn this from a war or words to a war of bullets and missiles.

Why would I say this?  Pompeo has trotted through the Middle East beat the drums of war…..

The United States’ international windbag, Secretary of Defense (read: War) Mike Pompeo has been acting the imperial blowhard throughout the Middle East. With his boss busy denying that he’s a Russian agent, watching advisors and cabinet members come and go with dizzying alacrity, and dodging porn-star accusations, Pompeo is trotting through the Middle East, sounding war drums.

It seems that Iran, which has long been in the crosshairs of U.S. gunboat ‘diplomacy’, remains firmly targeted. In Cairo, Pompeo promised a “…campaign to stop Iran’s malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world”.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/18/pompeo-the-u-s-and-iran/

But say that there is a short limited war with Iran?  If interested check it out.

https://lobotero.com/2015/04/16/a-really-bad-idea-a-limited-war-with-iran-the-national-interest/

For those that want to know what went wrong and the US and Iran were at each other’s throats……all this animosity began with the hostage situation from the 1970s……if one would like to see how all this manure began then the national archives can help…..

The Iran Hostage Crisis was a major international crisis caused by the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and its employees by revolutionary Iranian students, who then held the Embassy employees as hostages, in direct violation of international law. The revolutionary government of Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, supported the hostage undertaking. The crisis ended with the release of the hostages after a captivity of 444 days, from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981.

https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/iran-hostage-crisis

In closing….a “what if”……https://lobotero.com/2017/05/31/iran-a-what-if/

 

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, (Pause) Bomb Iran

I can hear the late senator John McCain singing that song during the 2008 presidential election…..it is the mantra of the Neocons and their masters the Israelis for decades. Since 1979 the Israelis have preyed on the US neocon hatred for what the Iranians did to the US in that year.

SO when the news came out the Bolton had asked for plans for an attack on Iran made none of us old farts surprised…it it old hat to Neocon behavior…..

The attack—three mortar shells launched into Baghdad’s diplomatic sector by Iranian militants—injured no one, but the Wall Street Journal is now reporting that it “triggered unusual alarm” inside the Trump administration. National Security Adviser John Bolton responded by asking the Pentagon to draw up plans to attack Iran, a request so unusual and a response considered so outsize by many senior administration officials that it “definitely rattled people,” one such official tells the Journal. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.” An NSC rep says it simply “coordinates policy and provides the president with options to anticipate and respond to a variety of threats.” Bolton has long advocated regime change in Tehran, notes the Journal, and penned a 2015 New York Times op-ed with the headline, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”
I have been writing about this news for decades,….ever so oftewn the Neocons, when in control, throw a story like this one out there for the MSM to feed on for awhile……https://lobotero.com/2018/07/31/bomb-bomb-iran/

Iran: Your History Lesson

This is my small attempt at FYI on the Iranian situation…..the short videos will make it easier than reading a long dissertation on the US-Iran relations……

Last week I posted on the new Iran policy…….https://lobotero.com/2018/11/08/iran-here-we-go-again/

Some Americans hate Iran……but why?  Is it a religious thing?  Is it a ethnic thing?  Or just because of ignorance?

The later makes more sense.

Most can only think in terms of 1979……there is so much more to be considered……let’s begin with generalities……

Right now with all the situations in the world the one that could be the most dangerous for the US…..there is a Middle East Cold War in the region and the US is a major player…..but let’s look at this situation….

 

The US and Iran have not always been adversaries……

We have all known we have a problem with Iran……but where did ll that begin?  For Americans it began in 1979….for Iranians it began in 1953……

But why do the Saudis hate the Iranians?

History can lead the way out of sticky situations….that is if we choose to walk away from stupid policies.

The US and Iran should return to the days of cooperation…..

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed!

Please answer me this……do these videos help in the understanding of the situation?

Closing Thought–08Nov18

Does anyone these days remember the “Axis Of Evil”?  No?  In 2002 it was Iran, Iraq and North Korea….and later that year under-secretary of state John Bolton added Libya, Cuba and Syria……well not much has changed since Bolton took over the reins of State as SecState……he now has his version of the “Axis” and he had to find a word to differentiate his from GW Bush’s….how does “troika” sound (side note…is that not a Russian word?  Interesting choice of words.)?

Since he could not include North Korea because Our Dear Supreme Leader has made nice nice with their dictator and we have invaded and occupied Iraq….what was he to do…..and then he hit upon a region that has been largely forgotten since the 1980’s…….Central and South America…..

More than 16 years after arguing that George W. Bush should add Cuba, Syria, and Libya to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in the “Axis of Evil,” John Bolton has coined a new term. In a policy speech at a conference in Miami, the national security adviser dubbed Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela the “Troika of Tyranny” in the western hemisphere, the Hill reports. “In Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, we see the perils of poisonous ideologies left unchecked, and the dangers of domination and suppression,” Bolton said. He referred to the leaders of the three countries as the “Three Stooges of socialism,” who are “true believers, but they worship a false god.”

Bolton jabbed at the previous administration’s policies, saying the Trump administration is concerned with “sanctions, not selfies.” “Under this administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores in this hemisphere,” said Bolton. “We will not reward firing squads, torturers, and murderers.” He praised the election of right-wing leaders in Latin America, including Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Bolton announced new sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba, including a ban on American citizens trading in Venezuelan gold, and said Nicaragua would “feel the full weight of America’s robust sanctions” until it allows free and fair elections to take place, the Guardian reports. (A source says President Trump discussed an invasion of Venezuela last year.)

What a grand imagination from the “Walrus” ………

For further reading…..

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/john-bolton-takes-latin-american-troika-of-tyranny-to-task

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/07/the-troika-of-tyranny-the-imperialist-project-in-latin-america-and-its-epigones/

Ain’t it grand?

(What happened to Russia-gate?)