A week late, but the mainstream media has finally learnt (not least through my telling them) that it was the Mossad link that was really worrying Whitehall about Fox.
And I have an article in the Mail on Sunday.
The Indie on Sunday story of a Fox-Israel plot against Iran is a great deal more credible than Obama’s announcement of a plot by Iranian used car salesmen to employ the Canadian Mounties to assassinate Justin Timberlake outside the Won-Ton Chinese restaurant in Champaign-Urbana (I may have got some of the details of Obama’s fantasy wrong, but what’s the difference?)
It is now absolutely essential that Matthew Gould. British Ambassador to Israel, answers the questions I have put to him.
Need I go on again about 1953 and the active overthrow by MI6/CIA of the democratically elected liberal regime in Iran in favour of an repressive absolute monarchy actively and vigorously supported for several decades by the USA/UK? All for oil and gas. And we know where that led…
“but Iran and Iraq were/are not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Nor did/do either of them have any possibility of becoming like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in terms of power, threat to the world, etc.”
I can agree that different circumstances require different reactions but I wouldn’t like to explain this nicety to a Kurd who was gassed by Saddam or a Kuwaiti when his country was invaded, or the Marsh Arabs who were the victims of genocide. So would the message be that you can torture, commit genocide, invade neighbouring countries, abuse any human rights until you are big enough to threaten the world as a whole??
Of course the West has been hypocritical in its respect of its actions and has interfered when it shouldn’t have – and sometimes it may do the right thing for the wrong reasons – but that doesn’t mean that intervention is wrong in all cases. And being a citizen in one of those western countries and a member of the human race – I’m afraid I have a responsibility to arge for when and when I think my country should act. You on the other hand do not seem to have anything like a principled approach as to when it is and isn’t right for Western countries to intervene. I have no problem in saying that the removal of Mossadeq and his replacement with the Shah was completely wrong – there was no human rights argument for that intervention – just as it was wrong for Ahmedjinabad to rig the election and abuse and torture those who oppose him. And no I don’t think that military action to depose him would be right in the current circumstances – but I do think that some pretty serious steps should be taken to stop Iran being able to develop nuclear weapons.
The other point you miss is that your lack of clearl thinking as to when intervention is appropriate – also means that you are not doing much serious thinking as to the form that intervention should take and the role of international bodies in taking that intervention. If this were to be sorted out then the need for military intervention and the inevitable damage that results could be reduced.
Suhayl
As a further thought – we are obviously playing out what is a long standing polemic between the anti-imperialist and anti totalitarian left, and while you may wish to associate me with bedfellows who I still disagree with many if not most things – perhaps you should look at history of your own side. Not only do you end up with bedfellows such as Stalin, Mao, AAhmedjinabad and Saddam – but a fair amount of your number either ending up agreeing with everything that their bedfellow says or even worse losing the ability to dissent when it is too late. My recommendation is to read some Orwell – who had a pretty good understanding of how to prioritise between anti imperialism and anti totalitarianism.
Yes, I agree with you, Stephen wrt the international bodies and intervention, etc. I also think that Saddam, for example could never have become so regionally powerful (for a time) without overt support from the West, Russia and others. So one ‘error’ compounds another – but they are not really errors though, are they?
.
Orwell was an interesting case. As I mentioned on another thread, he ended up spying for MI6 and ratting on communists – though it was understandable because of his bad experiences in Spain where the Stalinists crushed the rest of the Left (and so contributed towards the Fascist victory) and because he saw the dangers of totalitarianism of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ as being the prime dangers in the 1930s (which they were).
.
I didn’t argue for no action at all. Just for consistency – if one supports secularism and democracy/liberation and control of natural resources, self-determination on the basis that mutual trade will ultimately be better than economic rape, then let’s do that. But right now, it’s the rule of the robber barons. If you take action on Iran with whatever, then also take equivalent action wrt Israel and Saudi Arabia (for example). But we all know that that won;t happen, don’t we?
.
I accept the danger of psycho bedfellows and do not think we should have such bedfellows at all – same danger applies on both ‘sides’, no? Saudi kings, beheaders, choppers, misogynists, and Iranian mullahs, hangers of gay people and children. Psychos, all. But one lot are in bed with our dear Prince Andrew and our wonderful (Lab-Lib-Con) governments. Perhaps one day, they’ll switch places or it’ll be a threesome! I’m sure Mr Werrity and his equivalents are under the bed (as it were).
.
Bottom Line: The elites in the West are not interested in what you or I are interested in, Stephen, they just want more and more and more. Greed is the driver. Everything they do is premised on that.
So from my point-of-view at least, the key here is not about ‘do something’ or ‘do nothing’, it’s about the policy underlying it all because it is that which results in the deformations to which I alluded.
.
Afghanistan, from 1979 onwards, is a prime example. Now, when the USSR invaded to support/ stabilise the Saur Revolution and ensure its people got into power within the Communist movement (there were different factions), what did the West do? Did they support secular democratic movements? No. They helped (with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to create Sunni Islamism as a deeply retrograde military-political force across the region. They strengthened general Zia ul Haq in Pakistan to the point where he and his cohorts and allies were able fundamentally to change that society for the worse (and it wasn’t good to begin with). This was not a mistake; this was a very deliberate policy. It was implemenetd because it was in the interests of the MIC of the USA in the Cold War context. It was in direct opposition to human rights.
.
This is not an isolated example, it is the norm. You must be aware of many other examples. The Friedman doctrine – first implemented as an entire model in Pinochet’s Chile – has been rolled out across the globe. This forms the bedrock of imperial policy, it concerns the deployment of economic and political rape of ‘Third World’ countries, the use of torture, etc. and is nearly always in direct contravention of human rights. If you’re anywhere on the Left (as opposed to Blair’s fictitious ‘Left’), you must know all of this, Stephen.
Anyway, always good to discourse with you, Stephen.
Here’s an interesting article (and he’s written another book, or at least a monograph) on the subject, by Rory Stewart. Now, whatever one’s views of Mr Stewart’s role/work (one is aware of the info. which Craig provided some time ago), and while acknowledging that (as with ‘Paddy’ Ashdown – who is mentioned favourably in this article and who of course admitted he once was an SIS officer) Stewart will be coming from a particular viewpoint, nonetheless, he is very experienced. His material is worth reading, firstly because he is a good writer (as is Kissinger, actually) and secondly because he strikes me as being an excellent tactician. I would suggest that to some extent, this applies regardless of one’s own political views.
.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n07/rory-stewart/here-we-go-again
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/libya-intervention-rory-stewart
Here’s an interesting article (and he’s written another book, or at least a monograph) on the subject, by Rory Stewart. Now, whatever one’s views of Mr Stewart’s role/work (one is aware of the info. which Craig provided some time ago), and while acknowledging that (as with ‘Paddy’ Ashdown – who is mentioned favourably in this article and who of course admitted he once was an SIS officer) Stewart will be coming from a particular viewpoint, nonetheless, he is very experienced. His material is worth reading, firstly because he is a good writer (as is Kissinger, actually) and secondly because he strikes me as being an excellent tactician. I would suggest that to some extent, this applies regardless of one’s own political views.
.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n07/rory-stewart/here-we-go-again
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/libya-intervention-rory-stewart
Here’s an interesting article (and he’s written another book, or at least a monograph) on the subject, by Rory Stewart. Now, whatever one’s views of Mr Stewart’s role/work (one is aware of the info. which Craig provided some time ago), and while acknowledging that (as with ‘Paddy’ Ashdown – who is mentioned favourably in this article and who of course admitted he once was an SIS officer) Stewart will be coming from a particular type of imperialist viewpoint, nonetheless, from the academic point-of-view, it is instructive to read his work. His material is worth reading, firstly because he is a good writer (as is Kissinger, actually) and secondly because he strikes me as being an excellent tactician. I would suggest that to some extent, this applies regardless of one’s own political views. Indded, as an anti-imperialist (and anti-totalitarian), it behoves one to ‘know thine enemy’ (as it were).
.
Usual prefixes.
.
lrb.co.uk/v33/n07/rory-stewart/here-we-go-again
guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/libya-intervention-rory-stewart
washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/can-intervention-work-by-rory-stewart-and-gerald-knaus/2011/07/26/gIQAZPx9wJ_story.html
Why has this appeared theree times, above? Glitch! Please feel free, dear Mods, to delete two versions within the post for tidiness sake and as an anti-migraine measure! I also took out the http and www prfixes, yet there they are, back in again!
Of course I know all of this – but I would dispute your account as to why the Soviets invaded, they were not supporting a revolution in Afghanistan but stepping in to prevent the pretty awful and corrupt regime that was about to be kicked out – and the Russians were never popular with any of the Afghan population wherever they subsequently stood. But obviously the West made many mistakes subsequently – and as you note particularly in Pakistan where they didn’t pay much attention to human rights and/or corruption. If you look at it in pure economic terms as you tend to) – it is difficult to say that could have ever been the main driver of Western policy. I thing ignorance and allowing the right wing nut jobs free reign
As for the Friedman doctrine – I think you will find that it is now pretty discredited in the West (a part from a few Thatcherite diehards who are sentimentally attached to it – including possibly Craig from time to time on the few occaisions when he mentions economics) – and it certainly is in Chile which is now run by social democrats.
I’m not saying that the West doesn’t do stupid things driven by perverse economic political and ideological views that are held by some from time to time – but that is a partial picture – there are sucessful humanitarian interventions, and the one thing that we have is that these views can be corrected by pressure from democratic electorates. Weren’t some lessons learned from Iraq with regard to Libya and the Arab Spring? Aren’t their Western politicians who realise that Palestinians have some legitimate grievances against the Israelis that have to be addressed? Isn’t it recognised by most sensible politicians that a differnt approach is required to Iran than was applied to Iraq. I’m afraid the deterministic Marxist Military Industry Complex model of my student days just doesn’t stand up to much examination (and yes I do remember reading Baran’s book on economic development and I also have a lot of good things to say about Tony Blair). And how do you explain the differnt attitudes among different West imperialists – or how it is now the Chinese who seem to specialising in a different kind of economic rape of the 3rd world. I’m afraid life just isn’t so simple as to be bolied down into a simple model of imperialism. And then there are all these other currents going on – religion, tribalism, historical antagonism’s etc. Isn’t placing all your faith on a single model of economic development/ theory of imperialism just really trying to replace the simple theory of the right wing ideologues with a simple theory of your own?
And even if the West does something wrong (and it clearly has in many cases) – I’m not sure that is an argument against subsequent interference, it might even be an argument that it should interfere to put right the wrong. Some might say that the roots of Naziism were in the Versailles and other settlements after World War I – so did getting those wrong mean that the West shouldn’t intervene against Hitler.
Hitler, again. Hitler died in 1945. Why do you constantly try to link all US/NATO actions back to the scare figure of Adolf Hitler and 1930s appeasement? Many small-to-medium-sized countries which become the foci of US/NATO attention try to ‘appease’ the USA right now because there is no countervailing superpower any more and because they don’t want to be “bombed back into the Stone Age”! AS for Marx – I am not a Marxist, I do not place all my thoughts in one theory (if that is what you say Marxists do, which is not accurate, actually); I am not a determinist. I am not an immature student, either, Stephen. What makes you think I am saying all Western politicians are bad? I just posted links to Rory Stewart’s work, for goodness sake (though maybe that wasn’t visible to you till now, as it went via the Mods). And tell me what the UK electorate has achieved recently vis a vis stopping their leaders going to war? Zilch. All the main parties are signed up to the same thing. There are differences among elites in relation to how best to govern empire. Latin America is freeing itself, it was not ‘granted freedom’ by the West! The West is having to a deal with Latin America – that is what has led to the rise of social democratic govts there. Struggle is what achieved this. The United Fruit Co. would still be running a serf empire had it not been for Latin Americans struggling. What has been learned thru’ the Arab Spring – how best to subvert and co-opt popular struggles and how best to continue to collude with oppression. It’s not a question of learning; it is a question of policy and strategic goals. And neoliberalism is the dominant doctrine exported aggressively by the West – that is partly what these wars are about. Friedman and his economic/CIA torture manual are very much alive and kicking. The CIA actions in Iraq wrt torture are the same as those used in Chile by the Pinochet regime at the behest of the CIA. Everything ‘bad’ the West does is a “mistake”, according to your theory. Of course the world is complex. But when the USA/UK does something wrong, you seem to ascribe error, rather than policy. Mistakes are made, of course, but so many mistakes? And so consistently? No, the expansion of the European empires in C19th was not a mistake, nor is the current neocolonial phase a mistake. I you agree with it, fine. But don’t try and say, ‘Oh well, we meant well.’. No-one buys that any more, Stephen. After all that’s happened, and in light of Craig Murray’s ongoing whistel-blowing revelations, plus all the other info. that’s leaked out, or been exposed, how can you still be trying to sell it?
Please see “Provoking a Path to Persia: The Saban Center’s prescient paper on war with Iran” at the above website.
Ah! The spambots – a veritable invasion! They’re back – and they’re just the same! Wipe ’em off the face of the blog! Bye-bye, spambotties!