Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

If Cheney has his way with Iran, then the Cheney, "blind" trusts, will still have a lot of contract work to do in Iran. They will be very busy rebuilding the oil infrastructure, that accidentely got damaged eliminating the nookliar threat.

TAT

Cheney and Romney links to Iran

Call me silly, but I can't help but feel that bombing Iran is still on the crazy bastards' agenda. Wouldn't it be better if these "blind" trusts rebuild our own infrastructure? They'd make as much money, and the only difference is that it would benefit our country by revitalizing the economy with much needed real jobs.

Joe

Let me respond to each point you have made, first that Cheney


AIPAC does not invite disinterested parties to speak at their conventions as they did when they invited Cheney who said ( Vice President's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference )


Even more and again at AIPAC conference Early withdrawal from Iraq disastrous for Israel


But please see bold red box with words Closest Ally and a picture of Cheney below.

Israel is always a consideration for neocons.


Shaul Mofaz stated "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession" just as Cheney stated in his AIPAC address. Seymour M. Hersh in Watching Lebanon promoted the idea that attacking Iran was a two part strategy, first to mitigate Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon which would prevent any retaliation once the US attacked Iran. A year ago that idea may have made more sense than now but the idea was Israeli protection. Further even Cheney has made the point by saying Iraq pullout would hurt Israel. From the Christian Science Monitor we have Iran is now danger No. 1



Finding sources which support my contention is a long list.

But there is a contrary view (and not just yours). In Gareth Porter's article Iran Nuclear Conflict Is About US Dominance he notes



Donnelly was a director for PNAC and was main author of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" to which many of our current and former administration appointees signed. Thus an argument can be made from a neocon perspective that the primary goal is American dominance in the ME. Primarily this is meant for security for our national interest in natural resources in the gulf region.

Suppose there was no oil in the ME. Would neocon thinkers consider maintaining a footprint in the ME? If the answer is yes then there can be no other conclusion than Israel is the reason for that consideration. How difficult is it to separate oil and Israel in a discussion of US involvement in the ME? I think it depends on focus of the particular issue but at no time can they be separated.



This is strange since it is only coincidental that our current allies are Sunnis. For instance Syria is mostly Sunni and not an ally. Iran is Shia and was an ally. Baer's insight is a non sequitur. The question is why does everyone promote the idea that Iran will gain regional dominance when they can't even get the idea off the ground.

First, Iran is not Arabic. How does one promote the idea of Pan-Arabism if one is not an Arab?

Second, Iran is Shia. How does a Shia gain power in Sunni lands?

So Iran won't be able to influence Arab thinking nor will they be able to influence political thinking. So there are a couple of possibilities left. Iran could invade Arab countries. Does anyone believe that? However, there are many web articles which outline a recurring motif that Iran (I believe this should more explicitly be Shia) is gaining influence in the gulf region. Mubarak talked about changing balance of Shia power referencing Iran and the Saudis fear the rising influence of Shias.

I am unable to discern the reason for fear of a rise in Shia influence if indeed there is one. (The Saudis use Iraq as a case in point since the Shias do have the power and it is supported by the US and those Shias have close relationship with Iran therefore the Saudis would consider that as a rise in Iranian influence). As we distill this complex mixture I think we see the perceived fear is not military or economic fear but religious fear. It is a fear that Shias may actually have some power.

Baer's statement can thus be rephrased as "The idea of [Shia] dominance in the Middle East, in his words, "scares the s***" out of our so-called "friends"". Can this get any stranger? Well yes it can. The US has as an ally SA which is Sunni, but supports a Shia government in Iraq which has close ties to Shia Iran, which SA perceives with fear.



Well almost. In a complex arms deal the US has agreed to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Israel and SA. Baer suggests Israel is not as concerned but as mentioned above Iran is considered their number one threat and now SA perceives the religious threat of increasing Shia power as a major threat. The Israelis now put into play two agents. The US as their primary guardian and o so serendipitously the SA are living in fear. SA now serves as additional protector for Israel quite by accident while from their perspective they are protecting themselves from Iran.

Even without Israel in the equation, politics in the ME is extraordinarily complex but for Baer to suggest Saudi fears are the paramount driving force rather than Israeli fears, is a serious understatement of reality. Neocon thinkers have a long history of supporting US dominance in the ME which had little to do with any other countries needs as long as they remained pro-American, except Israel.

The inaccuracies, half truths and outright lies in the article Tatuma posted a link to are too numerous to refute. But then when anything negative, whether true or not, about the Bush administration, V.P. Cheney's connection to Halliburton or a prominent Republican can be published you can be sure Tatuma will post it.

This is a standard tactic for some people to say the facts are inaccurate and quickly dismiss an article.

However if you could point out a few lies I would appreciate it. (I don't want to research a practice I know from work related experience goes on).

Addressing an article so full of obvious distortions and outright slander of great Americans like Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney and Sect. Donald Rumsfeld does nothing but lend legitimacy to the author and I shall not be drawn into any such activity.

It would be a full time job, just hitting the top 10%, but I appreciate your complement on my diligence.

I am curious and would appreciate you or someone pointing out the misstatements in that article.

And so you figured your response is legitimate?

If you wouldn't mind please point out just one glaring lie so I too may dismiss the author of such slanderous remarks.

Oh come on, rporter, we know better than that don't we? Look at the AIPAC Annual Convention list. It includes absolutely everybody who is absolutely anybody in the Beltway. They attract 3000 guests to the gathering for gunny sakes! Don't you just know they are the 3000 most influential people in the gubbmint? If for no other reason, 2999 people are interested in the AIPAC Copnvention because to not be interested is to sign your political death warrant - or as they say in the Beltway "Pull a McKinney".

The odd man out is Cheney.

Don't insult your intelligence by concluding that Mr. Cheney was invited because of the slightest interest, concern, or sympathy on Cheney's part. The man does not feel compassion, as has been amply demonstrated, he doesn't "worry" in the conventional sense of the word, because he considers himself (and he may very well be!) the most powerful human being alive, and his only "interest" is the furtherance of his personal power and control.

Don't insult your intelligence by assuming anything Mr. Cheney night have said at the convention was the least bit sincere or even in line with his personal feelings or beliefs. Hard enough to use a word with the root of "feel" in reference to Cheney, is it not? Cheney knows exactly how to say absolutely anything that instills fear and loathing in his minions, no matter where he is or whom he is speaking to.

And don't insult your intelligence by avoiding comparison between what Mr. Cheney said in his speech to AIPAC and what any other speaker, major or minor, swears from that podium. Compare, for example, to what Senator Hillary Clinton said to the Gathered Zionists. Or even our precious Barbara Boxer. Cheney's speech was all about drawing out the mythology of the Mongol Hoardes, the Roaring Infidels come to end civilization (by taking his oil away from him), and justfying his orchestration of the crusade against them.

His speech is not about Israel. It is about Cheney. Whereas everyone else who speaks at AIPAC is applauded for what they say about Israel, Cheney is applauded for what he says about Cheney.

Now if you're looking for the real money quote in the Cheney speech, here it is. This is Cheney in March of 2006 mind you, just after the landslide electoral victory of . . . Hamas!


Read his 2007 speech. It's exactly the same.

Richard B. Cheney could care less about Israel.