As if that weren't disturbing enough, the Times accepts at face value the neocons' anti-Iran propaganda points:
Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.We've yet to see any proof for the allegations that Iran has armed the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency. Hamas receives money from Iran -- and from Saudi Arabia and other Arab interests. Neocon propaganda always leaves the Saudi connection unstated. Quite a few journalists believe that Hamas has also received support (at least in earlier times) from Israel, which wanted Hamas to act as a counterforce to the PLO.
I would remind readers that Larisa Alexandrovna has uncovered evidence that the administration is getting what it is pleased to call "intelligence" on Iran from sources like the terror group MEK, not from our own CIA.
In other words, the international neocon networks are cooking up intel again.
4 comments:
With the current news of an apparent "West Bank first" scheme designed to effectively cede control of Gaza to Hamas, it makes one wonder if there are underpinnings to the Iraq end-game here. The U.S. administration, which claims Hamas is receiving aid from Iran, could use their "takeover" of Gaza as further justification to hold Iran accountable for "evil doings" in the Middle East.
Kind of like the apparent resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, something that the U.S. also finds it convenient to lay at the feet of the Iranians. And much the same as Iran's alleged work to arm the "insurgents" in Iraq. Wouldn't surprise me if this is more likely the work of back-channel black ops organizations trying to gin up justification for an all-out attack on Iran. And something tells me there's a little triumvirate consisting of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia that is more than willing to stoke the fire. Stranger things have happened.
I take it for granted that Iran is aiding Iraqi militias, as well as Hamas. But so what? Funding guerrilla and terrorist groups has been a US foreign policy for many decades. Probably Russia didn't appreciate us arming the Taliban when Russian troops were trying to occupy Afghanistan. How did the legitimate Nicaraguan gov't like it when we funded the Contras? How does the Arab world feel about our supplying Israel with nuclear weapons?
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Very true, unirealist. And the U.S. support for the MEK terrorist group in Iran would fall into the same category. As I've often lamented, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Does one think that the Brits of the 1700s viewed the American revolutionaries as anything but the terrorists of their day? Our forefathers' "terrorism" laid the groundwork for a nation. Was such "terrorism" a good thing? Perhaps. My ancestors at the time were living in Great Britain. Perhaps they viewed the colonists' reign of terror as not such a good thing.
Our current administration would have us all believe that terrorism began on 9/11/01. It marked the birth of the GWOT...the global war on terrorism. I hate to disappoint them, but terrorism has been around forever. Or have they conveniently forgotten the likes of the IRA, the Red Brigades, etc.? And that's just RECENT history.
The GWOT is a redd herring designed to cultivate the neo-con/PNAC agenda, which is "American Global Leadership", as laid out by the PNAC statement of principles. 9/11/01 was simply an enabler of that agenda. The "catalyzing event", if you will.
Our government may call out the likes of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. But, quite frankly, so is the United States. It's time we get off our god damned high horse and look in the proverbial mirror. We may not particularly like what we see.
Good perspective, drewl. And let's not forget that during our 1776 Revolution, France provided the American "terrorists" with aid, which I'm sure royally pissed off England.
Parenthetically, even when the American Revolution began, only a THIRD of colonists supported our war of independence. Everyone else was either a "royalist" or thought the differences could be worked out peacefully.
Post a Comment