Is Iran, by itself, a threat to the U.S and the West?
 

Was Romney right?

An interesting review of a debate featured in a new book ,The USA and The New World Order, which ties Iran into an anti-Israel and anti-Western sphere which includes Russia and its satellites as well as China and others:

Review and comments by Cliff Kincaid March 3, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

I got sort of lost here.

I'm sure you can find your way back. That was an opinion of the reviewer not of Carvallo in his debate with Dugin. Go ahead . . . be brave and find your way back to the thread and get into the meat of what Carvallo had to say.

In response to Netanyahu's speech, Obama, among other things, said that sanctions have not worked in forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons aspirations.

Yet, he seems to believe that sanctions, if the ante is constantly raised, would stop Russia's aggression in Ukraine. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the world views of Iran, Russia, and the Islamic Middle East, especially of the so called "radical" Islamists. There is this total disregard of the mindset of what Alexander Dugin calls Eurasia and Islamism. Our policies toward these "civilizations," as Dugin refers to them, approaches them as if they think about international relations in the same way the West does. And we don't recognize their expansionist desire to achieve a share of world power . . . even dominance.

We discount, publically, the relations they have formed with each other to form a different geopolitics than that which informs our "negotiations" with them. And, because we apparently trust that they will respond honestly to agreements we make with them, they can roll us and, if not openly but on the sly, do as they wish. So the relations and agreements they form with each other make them stronger against our sanctions and negotiations. And our insistence that they conform to our requests, "or else," further drives them into cooperation with each other, possibly creating a formidable opponent which is comprised of anti-Western "civilizations" that see us as a threat which must be defeated.

What is more disturbing is the growing influence in their leadership of a desire to have a decisive total war against us. Maybe Obama does understand that, and he is willing to let them have their way in hopes that they will leave us alone--that elusive "peace in our time."

The majority of Iranians do not hate America or Israel. It's a shame we didn't do more to help the people there form of democracy back in 2009 when they were trying so hard. Missed opportunities and poor or lack of decision making has really hurt this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I assume you personally did a door to door consensus?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I've been too busy with the charter 2 fish thread.
So I take it you believe different?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe there is no truely accurate statement and to make one in a formulated rebuttal is preposterous, but i figured i would give you the benefit just in case you had the oppertunity, and i would love to see the data.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe it's true from what I've read and listening to members of the opposition party . The relatively few in power are the problem. For us and for them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was pretty much my understanding also.

Is it pretty much your understanding also that back in 2009 "Missed opportunities and poor or lack of decision making has really hurt this country"?

If the majority of Iranians need our help to remove the mullah command and control of Iran, then the mullah's power obviously does not need the majority opinion. As is usually the case in international wars, it is not the people of the countries that is to be feared as much as their leadership.

I think this is the 1st time in months that I have read one of your posts. I think missed opportunities and poor decision making have hurt us there for many years prior to 2009.

Since your agreeing with Buckman, I asked about his assertion about 2009, not about many years before.

Another post I've read.

Did I agree with the whole post or did I quote only part of his statement? If you want info. about his assertion, why wouldn't you ask him? I wouldn't know what he was thinking.

What he was thinking was explicitly expressed by him. I didn't have to ask him.

Since you agreed with a part of his post, I wondered if you agreed with his whole post since he tied it all together. Since, as you explicitly say, you "think missed opportunities and poor decision making have hurt us there for many years prior to 2009." I wonder if you agree with Buckman that those missed opportunities and poor decisions also occurred in 2009.

So why would you post only your opinion of decisions and opportunities before 2009?

If I agreed with the whole post, wouldn't I have quoted the whole post?

You must be fun at parties:)

I've read that the religious demographic distribution in Iran is similar to the US actually in terms of conviction.

It always seems to be a shame when Obama didn't wave his magic want and make impossible situations perfect doesn't it?

The Green movement didn't have the momentum to really take shape. It's unfortunate but it's also reality. Don't ignore the history of the US meddling in Iranian affairs, we seem to have forgotten it but they haven't.

What is it with you and parties?

Nor have Russia or other "enemies" in the Middle East. If you had not got lost early in my post at the beginning of this thread, you would have seen that we haven't forgotten it, and that their "not forgetting," but even translating it into misrepresentation, is a unifying force for getting them together in opposition to us, to Israel, and to what is left of the "West." Obama's pretending to wave his magic want at the threat to us, while realizing that the "situation" is supposedly impossible, seems to be theater to appease them. With the realization that they will, with or without his approval, eventually have their way. I wouldn't be surprised, if he actually thinks that far ahead, that he sees their inevitable coalescence to be their own demise. After they have had their little anti-West party, they will see that they really don't agree with each other and will destroy one another in their own petty conflagrations. That will make it easier for the Progressive unification of the World. And the Greenies will have their place at the table.

Pretty ironic statement considering the rediculus deal being worked out by your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know anything about the deal?

I do but of course I'm a tad bit more cynical of it then I imagine you are . But I'm in good company .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So how would you make it better?

Caveat, must have a chance of succeeding.

I believe we have hand in this .
Congress is moving on stronger sactions . They are working
The deal is a win for Iran . Sanctions reduced and long term plans for a nuclear weapon granted. Is that what you mean by succeed?
He's kicking a very dangerous can down the road .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Succeed in what way and for whom? Success for us is maintaining, or getting back, our strength and freedom. What success for Iran would be, probably, is what they may well get from the "negotiations." Maybe something as paltry and potentially destructive, to them and the world, as getting nuclear weapons.

An addition to a start to "make it better" in the above post, the federal government should let private companies develop wind energy on their own and stop providing them public money (the unconstitutional picking winners and losers thing). And it should make the production of oil in the U.S. more profitable by lowering tax and unnecessary regulations. The anti-oil ban on federal lands should mostly be removed. There is no good reason, in the first place, that the federal government should own over 40% of the land in the U.S. The states would manage their own land better and more productively than the federal government does. The states even manage State parks better than the federal government manages National parks.

If we are in an economic and cultural war which threatens to break out into total war with enemies who mostly depend on oil for revenue, restricting our oil production makes them stronger. It has just been proven that releasing larger oil production here threatens the wealth, therefor the power, of our oil producing enemies.

Adding that to the above post recommendations would give us a bigger bargaining chip in the supposed "negotiations" we have with untrustworthy, unscrupulous, adversaries.

The other Green movement.

And then read this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2

Zakaria!?! really? You read that left wing hack.

Were supposed to believe that Iran was willing to be nice-nice, but Bush (yeah Bush did it) tried to scare it. So, instead of doing the right "practical" thing, it went bonkers and became an evil anti-American kookoo intent on nuclear annihilation of Israel. Really? It flipped from being "practical" to being insane? Just to spite Bush?

Why on earth was it necessary for Bush to scare such a nice little country which only wanted to do the right thing?

Oh yeah, it was a bit more complicated than that. It wasn't only Bush. There were the IAEA, Russia, EU, and others as well. But, of course, Bush controlled them all. God, his legacy grows. He scared ALL of them?

And, my gosh, 2005 was a long time ago. There were 10 years, six of them after Bush was gone, that it could have come to its senses. There were 10 years of continuous IAEA inspections where he was not in compliance and "Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000, accumulated more than 17,000 pounds of enriched uranium gas and ramped up construction of a heavy water reactor at Arak that could be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium."

Just to spite Bush!

If all it really, REALLY wanted was peaceful use of nuclear power and friendly relations with its neighbors, was that so difficult? Really? Was it necessary to go from a nice, practical, sensible, cooperative, little country to an insane ogre? Just to spite Bush?

It went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000, etc. just to spite Bush? It supports terrorism and vows to exterminate Israel just to spite Bush. Would it be that difficult to recognize Israel as a state with a right to exist?

If we are to believe that it doesn't want nuclear weapons, why would Zakaria be concerned with all the centrifuges and enriched uranium and heavy water? Hey, the wicked Bush is gone. What's the problem? Why are there negotiations?

And if by Bush trying to "scare" it, Iran erupted from being limited to 164 centrifuges, and being 10 years away from producing a bomb to only months of doing so, what's the point of negotiating an agreement that says if it refrains from making the bomb for another 10 years it would after that no longer be held to the agreement? What, if it has lied all along, would keep it from lying and getting the bomb now rather than another 10 years on top of the 10 years that it was sticking it, out of spite, to Bush? To spite Obama for 10 years?

Oh, yeah, Netanyahu was in never-never land. I wonder if Iran had for the past ten years been calling Zakaria something evil that needed to be exterminated, and had kept Hezbollah throwing bombs his way, and vowed that if he ever came within 10 miles of its borders, it would burn him to a crisp, would Zakaria feel comfortable to visit Iran if Obama got it to sign a paper that it would leave him alone?

Zakaria is a la-la left-wing Islam apologist hack. His writing is usually heavily slanted . . . and stupid.

That's it? Blame the messenger?

He doesn't claim Iran scaled their capacity to spite Bush, they did it because they had no reason not to. Had the deal been made it likely would have been different.

What about the facts in the story? How about Netenyahu's repeated claims of impending doom?