Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Tension rising in Middle East: Could Israel attack Iran and why?

Written by Hamid Alizadeh
Wednesday, 01 December 2010

On August 21 the Bushehr nuclear power plant was officially launched. This marked a new stage in Iran's disputed nuclear programme. In the days preceding this event, former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, was quoted around the world as saying: "Israel has days to strike Bushehr" and further "diplomatically" hinted, “If Israel was right to destroy the Osiraq reactor [Iraqi nuclear reactor bombed by Israel in 1981], is it right to allow this one to continue? You can’t have it both ways.”

[Note: The recent Wikileaks were released after this article was written but confirm the analysis in all important aspects.

Read the rest here



Larry Gambone said...

A very impressive article! Really nails down all the contradictions.

Frank Partisan said...

Larry G: Egypt is the country to watch.

There is a large pro-democracy movement, not mentioned in the media, that is secular and not tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are splits in the government related to the coming elections.

K. said...

"But now Iraq itself is beyond its control. Huge sectarian rifts have opened up and are widening."

This can't be true because of The Surge. It worked; everyone says so.

The Sentinel said...

I think I told you years ago that this was a certainty.

And it wont be Israel but the poodle US and UK.

And isn’t Bolton a Zionist? And a key architect of the unjustified violence against Iraq?

Frank Partisan said...

Citizen K: The refugees are still in Syria. Someone from Iraq told me they were mostly Shiite.

Sentinel: I don't see it happening. We've been arguing this for years.

The whole Middle East can explode.

Egypt is what to watch next year.

SecondComingOfBast said...

The only way there could possibly be a successful socialist movement in Egypt would involve that movement taking in the whole of North Africa. I'm talking about Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, in addition to Egypt. THAT might work, and in fact that is the only way it COULD work.

Iran is isolating itself and in fact already is isolated, aside from Syria and Lebanon.

There will never be a socialist entity centered around Egypt and Iran. And I know that's what you're getting at. This is a pipe dream.

I think the entomology of the phrase pipe dream is as follows-you stuff it in your pipe, light it up, smoke it, blow out the smoke, and once the smoke fades you are left with ashes.

The only good news about this silly idea is you're never going to even get that far with it.

Persians + Egyptians=Oil + Water=A BIG MESS!!

Frank Partisan said...

There is in Egypt a history of a socialist attempt. Nasser tried to join the Warsaw Pact, but was refused.

The Communist Party (Tudeh) was big at one time in Iran.

Even democracy would move the agenda ahead.

roman said...


It is true that democracy is a preliminary requirement for any kind of SERIOUS socialist political movement to be successful.
"One must be able to walk before one can run."
Since there are no real democracies and only theocracies, dictatorships and failed states in the nations discussed in this report, the desired goal of a social political utopia remains but a pipe dream.

Frank Partisan said...

Roman: From a socialist view, the most important countries in the Middle East are not Israel and Palestine, but Egypt and Iran. You can't even dream of socialism in a poor country.

SecondComingOfBast said...

You can't even dream of socialism in a poor country.

Because there is no incentive to create wealth in a socialist country, since private property is illegal or greatly restricted. Therefore you can't build a socialist country from the ground up in a poor nation, you have to find a developed nation with wealth and property to expropriate.

K. said...

I would think that the wealth would have to be concentrated in a few hands, that the distribution would have to widely viewed as inequitable and injurious, and that a critical mass of people would have to regard state-owned and -operated means of production and services as the best/only way of achieving redistribution.

SecondComingOfBast said...

That would be a critical mass of fools suffering the mass delusion that government is capable of acting fairly and equitably on behalf of the masses, and that they would not themselves be as capricious as the upper classes in a private ownership society. As long as they keep believing that, they don't have to concern themselves with the reality that they are being manipulated and abused with the full force of government power and misrule-misrule of the government, by the government, and for the government.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: You're not talking about socialism or government, based on Marx and Lenin. The socialism of Stalinism or various third world governments are false impressions of socialism. Real socialism is based on plenty and democratic government. The only purpose for the state is to abolish itself.

The no private property idea, is Stalinism. Only the commanding heights of industry need to be socialized.

K: State owned property, is easier to integrate into socialism. State owned property can be run for profit as well.