[Marxism] The liberal assault on Iran

[Eli Stephens]

Links and formatting in the original:
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html#1729891909171315207

Joseph Cirincione, the former head of the Carnegie Endowment for International 
Peace (I should probably put a "sic" after that) and now the head of the equally 
peaceful sounding "Plowshares Fund," has been consistent on Iran. Twice in 2006 
(here and here), I wrote about his taking the "not if, but when" attitude toward 
Iran developing nuclear weapons. You might think the National Intelligence 
Estimate in late 2007 might have given him pause, but no, there he was on 
Democracy Now this morning, pushing the same line still, with statements like

     "The major nation in the world we’re concerned about at all is Iran with 
its civilian nuclear program that could be used for military purposes."

and

     "If we don’t stop Iran...then it’s almost inevitable that these stockpiles 
will spread."

Those were bad enough, albeit typical. But then he resorted to outright lying. 
Here's his explanation for why nations want nuclear weapons:

     Historically, the three major reasons are security, number one—that’s why 
we got them; we thought Hitler was developing a nuclear weapon, we wanted to 
offset that potential threat—the second is prestige—...But never underestimate 
the third: the role of domestic politics. You see that happening in Iran now, 
where President Ahmadinejad is using the nuclear issue to consolidate his 
otherwise shaky presidency.

His assertion that the U.S. developed nuclear weapons because we thought that 
Germany was developing them is dubious at best, but it's the last part that 
concerns me. The unwary listener wouldn't have a clue that, far from advocating 
nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad has been outspoken in his opposition to nuclear 
weapons, so implying he is trying to gain domestic political advantage from 
their development is just preposterous.

To her utter discredit, none of these statements were challenged by host Amy 
Goodman.

Perhaps the most preposterous thing Cirincione said, also unchallenged, was in 
this exchange:

     JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: Israel is the only country that refuses to acknowledge 
its nuclear status, nor does it deny it. Everyone else has sort of seen these 
weapons as a source of national pride and prestige.

     AMY GOODMAN: Why doesn’t Israel admit it?

     JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: It actually works out fairly well for US policy. They 
don’t want to acknowledge that they have nuclear weapons, because they don’t 
want other countries in the region to be under pressure to imitate or to match 
their nuclear stockpile.

     AMY GOODMAN: Like India and Pakistan?

     JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: Well, no, like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

Excuse me? Other countries aren't under any pressure to "imitate or match" 
Israel's nuclear weapons because Israel "officially denies it," even though the 
entire world knows that they not only have nuclear weapons but, more or less, 
how many? You must be kidding.

Why did I put the word "assault" in the title of this post? After all, neither 
Cirincione nor Goodman were advocating attacking Iran, or even imposing 
sanctions on them (though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Cirincione, or 
even Goodman, supports them). But this is precisely the role that liberals like 
Cirincione serve. Even while opposing the methods used to attack regimes the 
U.S. opposes, be it Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc., they lay the groundwork in the 
public mind by providing the justification for such attacks. After all, once you 
agree that "we" have to "stop them," you're only arguing about the most 
effective means of doing so.


_________________________________________________________________
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference.  Learn more.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause