Who’s Threatening Whom?

21 Comment(s)

1. Great point.

   Speedmaster | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

2. And of course, for telling the truth, Mr. Higgs will be branded a traitor by neo-cons and other statist parasites.

   J Cortez | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

3. What are we theatening them with? Ipods? McDonald’s stands? Foreign imports? Civil Liberties?

   → Is Iran’s Behavior Destabilizing The Region? [edited]

   Politicians, academics and journalists throughout the Arab world are Increasingly vocal regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its hostility toward the West.

   Yousef al-Otaiba is UAE Ambassador to the US. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion ... there will be consequences [of an attack on Iran]. There will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force [US or Israel] attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”

   “Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran? Yes, we cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at to maintain the security of the UAE.”

   Andrew_M_Garland | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

4. Iran could get nukes and I will still be more afraid of the cop in my rear view mirror.

   daddysteve | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

5. “What are we theatening them with? Ipods? McDonald’s stands? Foreign imports? Civil Liberties?”

   This statement doesn’t bother taking into account any history.

   Consider if, over the course of five or six decades, China did the following:

   -Overthrow the US government and install a dictator that for years tortured and spied on people which only could be stopped via a violent revolution. (Compare to Operation Ajax, and the Shah)

   -Instigate a war between the US and Canadian governments over a portion of Alaska, while supplying Canada with financial aid, weapons, and the necessary chemical ingredients to commit crimes against humanity. (Compare to Iraq/Iran War)

   -Engaged in wide scale trade sanctions, making it harder for local markets to provide important commodities necessary for life within the country. (See US trade sanctions)

   -Regularly positioned submarines, air craft carriers, and battleships around neighboring seas and trade routes. (Compare to anytime within the past 35 years)

   -Invaded Canada and then set up dozens of large military bases. (Compare to Iraq)

   -Invaded Mexico and then set up dozens of military bases. (Compare to Afghanistan)

   -Occasionally threatened war in speeches well covered by international media. (Compare to various statements made by presidents current and past)

   How would the US government act under those circumstances? They would be violently opposed to any further foreign interventions and distrustful of any interaction.

   No, the Iranians aren’t saints by any means, but to treat them as if they’re being irrational without cause disregards reality.

   “Politicians, academics and journalists throughout the Arab world are Increasingly vocal regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its hostility toward the West.”

   Why is this so? I think the fact that many of the countries there have a large US military presence and are receiving billions in financial aid from the US government has much to do with that.

   Of course, they aren’t perfect puppets as they chafe under the yoke to complain from time to time– but they are largely influenced and controlled by the US government. And hence, make statements that mirror US policy positions.

   J Cortez | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

6. I am more interested in current realities than past history.

   You present interesting analogies, but I would prefer to consider the actual events and the reasons surrounding them. I don’t think I have your detailed knowledge of US – Iranian history. But, your analogies do not do much to tell me what you are specifically talking about.

   If we are going to construct current foreign relations based on past events, then what should we do now with the Japanese?

   I would be happy to learn that the states bordering Iran, who are afraid of Iran’s intentions, are all US puppets. But, I don’t believe this at the moment.

   Andrew_M_Garland | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

7. AM Garland

   Yes Iran is the boggieman and we can’t let the boogieman get nukes. Oh lordy Lordy.

   It’s interesting that Iran is a signor of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, done under the Shah, But neither Pakistan, India and Israel are, but not a problem with them getting nukes under the table.

   Maybe the US should just give Iran billions of dollars then maybe we could forget about their nukes also.

   Mike G | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

8. Why do we care if they have nukes? They have no way of hitting us with them. And even if they did have ICBMs, the majority of the nuclear weapons loaded onto ICBMs that the US doesn’t own are pointed at us, so what difference does one more hostile nation make? The argument against nuclear proliferation is fundamentally the same as the argument for gun control.

   Isaac Skipworth | Oct 1, 2010 | Reply

9. @Andrew: we’re threatening them with the American Empire, as we have been for over 30 years; hence J Cortez’s excellent history lesson; your “current realities” are predicated on “past history”, as is much of their contemporary hostility toward us.

   I don’t believe Mr. Higgs’ map was intended to imply that Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al. are “U.S. puppets”, but rather to indicate how Iran might feel intimidated by US presence in the region.

   John Taylor | Oct 2, 2010 | Reply

10. Reality check: Iran is not a nuclear threat.

    Ryan | Oct 2, 2010 | Reply

11. “You present interesting analogies, but I would prefer to consider the actual events and the reasons surrounding them.”

    The reasons surrounding them are the history of US government interference in that country and region.

    “But, your analogies do not do much to tell me what you are specifically talking about.”

    Then you need to read some books.

    “If we are going to construct current foreign relations based on past events, then what should we do now with the Japanese?”

    The US government, as all governments, largely construct current foreign relations based on past events.

    The Japanese should be left alone. No more military bases on their soil. Practically all Japanese see the war as a mistake, even with the generation that fought it largely deceased, the memory remains. It is unlikely the another genocidal war would start, especially when everybody is busy engaging in peaceful trade.

    “I would be happy to learn that the states bordering Iran, who are afraid of Iran’s intentions, are all US puppets. But, I don’t believe this at the moment.”

    Of course you don’t believe it for a moment I mean, why would you bother considering an alternative point of view differing form yours? Especially when, as you have admitted, you don’t know the history of the region?

    J Cortez | Oct 2, 2010 | Reply

12. To J Cortez,

    You have an interesting style. First, you present analogies to present your case. But, although analogies are suggestive, they don’t offer any information about specifics.

    You say I would agree with you if only I wasn’t ignorant, and I should read a few books.

    You say that Iran has ample reason to be angry at the US for actions 50 years ago. Then, you point out correctly that the US should not be an enemy of Japan for its actions 70 years ago.

    I presented one piece of information, the views of the UAE ambassodor. Your response is merely your (anonymous) claim that they are our puppets, and (I suppose) they would say anything, even that they would tolerate a war. Further, you confirm that you believe they ALL are our puppets.

    You don’t deign to present any information other than your opinion. Who do you expect to convince that way?

    What do you think is the motive for the US being an enemy of Iran, surrounding it with bases and threatening military action? What is our imperial objective?

    Andrew_M_Garland | Oct 2, 2010 | Reply

13. Well, first of all, there seems to be a confusion here between collectives and individuals. Only individuals can threaten. And only individuals can be threatened.

    Now, let’s us consider the position of your average Iranian (not the Ahmadinejad or the other power brokers). Who is threatening women with death for adultery? Or threatening to gun down peaceful protesters? Why, it’s other Iranians. As an Iranian what are individual Americans threatening me with? Possibly, a war in which I might end up dead but probably won’t. If I’m an Iranian soldier this is pretty bad but, hey, if other Iranians hadn’t threatened me with death or something similarly unpleasant would I be even wearing the uniform? Probably not. (I am assuming here that the Iranian Army is a conscript army. Hmm, would it be better if they were volunteers? I suspect not.)

    And if individual Americans did invade Iran I would guess the chances would be that the Islamic regime would be overthrown permanently and those people who are currently threatening me would stop threatening me pronto.

    As an average Iranian I would have to say, to answer the original question, that it’s other Iranians who are doing the threatening and I could probably live with whatever threats Americans are making. Hey, even if I end up dead I think it would probably be a price worth paying if it meant that other Iranians could live free (or at least freer). Hey, going back to 1978 would be a start.

    Patrick Crozier | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply

14. Mr. Garland,

    At first, I was a little angry about your casual dismissal of the importance of history as it pertains to foreign policy. But then I remembered that I was in a similar place many years ago. When I was 9, I remember watching the Iran hostage crisis unfold on our TV screen, seeing the US flag being burned on what seemed like nightly basis. I recall asking ‘Why do they hate us so much?’ The answer I received was a mix of ‘they’re just crazy’ and ‘they hate us because we’re free.’ Those answers would inform my thinking for many years to come.

    Only in the past few years did I learn that we had overthrown a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. That this repressive new government of the Shah was supported by us for the next 25 years. I was always told that the Shah was our ‘friend’ and if he was our friend, he had to be ‘good,’ right? Not so much.

    If I had known of this coup and subsequent support for a dictatorial regime back in 1979, the revolution and the hostage situation would have made much more sense.

    Many years later we can see how our intervention continues to (dare I say) ‘destabilize’ the region. We supported Saddam Hussein in the very bloody Iran/Iraq War. We accidentally shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing ~300 civilians. We routinely discuss attacking Iran, even though they have not attacked us, nor has Iran/Persia invaded anyone for practically all of the US’s existence. Can we say as much?

    You ask ‘What do you think is the motive for the US being an enemy of Iran, surrounding it with bases and threatening military action? What is our imperial objective?’ That is a good question. Why don’t you ask those who mindlessly support that policy?

    Peace be with you.

    Cfountain72 | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply

15. Mr. Garland,

    Going a step further, I would even argue that we SHOULDN’T have to be concerned with the particulars of Persian history, unless we’re just academically curious. If we chose not to intervene in the inner workings of the nations in this (or any other) region, we wouldn’t even have to concern ourselves with Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions.’ Even if they had nuclear weapons (it’s not clear they are even working on them), we would be on peaceful terms with them, and not scared that we might be a target. (Notice that our allies in Europe and the rest of the world do not share our alarmist view of what is happening in Iran.)

    However, there are those within (and without) our government for whom any pretext for attacking Iran is justified (e.g. Sen. Lieberman, Sen. L. Graham, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, etc.). If we look back at our ‘history’ (that word again) we will find these same briefcase warriors helped get us in the disastrous quagmire that is Iraq.

    ps. The comparison between Japan and Iran is specious at best. Did Iran attack a US Navy base while I wasn’t looking? Iran’s current military capabilities would be hard pressed to fight off an attack from 1940′s Japan!

    Cfountain72 | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply

16. The picture is worth many words, including our comments. Israel wants us to wage war with Iran, and likely has the clout with the Congress and Adminisration to bring it about.

    ralph | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply

17. To Andrew_M_Garland,

    Re: Japan

    From 1910-1945, the Japanese government murdered millions of people and committed horrific war crimes. While I think Roosevelt desired war and tricked the Japanese into firing the first shot— without question, the Japanese government of that era brought forth its own demise with it’s naked aggression.

    It invaded Korea, China, Thailand, the Phillipines, Russia, French Indochina (Vietnam,) Malaysia, Burma, and the Dutch East Indies. The Japanese government annexed over 2.5 million miles of territory all while killing millions and extracting any resources to be found. The number of deaths is hard to quantify. Some historians have the number at 6 million, others at 10 million. Of all, China suffered the most.

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. But considering the level of death and destruction of the previous years, understandably, no one cared to argue the point because everyone wanted it over.

    As I said before, practically all Japanese believe the militarism of the past and the war it lead to was a mistake. And so we have the current situation which has evolved over a period of decades. Peace, a large capital market, excellent consumer goods, standards of high standards of living and relative stability (although all of this is tempered by their rampant Keynesianism.) That– To a japanese as much to an american, is much more preferable to the alternative.

    Re: Iran

    In a previous post, I said the Iranian government weren’t a bunch of saints. Not by any means. There are lots of problems there. But with that said, most of the time, they are only responding to aggression via a foreign entity.

    Ask yourself the question: Did the Iranians go on a bloody rampage, annex millions of miles, and commit genocide on the scale of Imperial Japan? And does their non-war with the US government require surrounding it with warships, aircraft carriers and military bases?

    The answer is no. In fact, the only violence they engaged in were in response to attacks which were initiated by a foreign aggressor. Please understand that there is no defense for some of their responses— however, recognize the motives. Understanding the motive behind a murder is not to condone it.

    In 1953, the US government overthrew an elected official, Mossadegh. They installed the Shah who consolidated power under his secret police, the SAVAK. The Shah had western cultural sensibilities, which greatly offended many of the people there. That, along with the fact he was a dictator that sometimes used police state tactics, stewed for about 26 years until the Iranian revolution of 1979.

    From 1979 on, when Iran became largely independent from US government influence, there was near constant and active interference. In 1980, a dictator known as Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. Over the next 8 years, approx 1.5 million people died on both sides. During this time, the US government gave assistance to Iraq in the form of billions in agricultural credits, money, weapons, diplomatic support, support from NATO, and chemicals that were used in crimes against humanity. Why support Iraq, a dictatorial police state? Because at the time, they were anti-Iran and would play ball with US government interests.

    Throughout all of this, the US government was routinely making statements that were antagonistic and militaristic. The only time I can remember anything different was when secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright,actually publicly apologized for the continued interventions. (While that was decent, I still consider Albright a horrible person. Anyone that says the deaths of a million of Iraqi children under the trade embargo was “worth it” is evil.)

    The motive of the US government to be an enemy of Iran is directly related to the oil there. Most large oil companies don’t give a damn about free markets, if they did, they wouldn’t be lobbying for subsidies, tax credits, and/or occupying oil rich lands. By externalizing the much of the costs of oil procurement via US government action, they can add to their bottom line. Oil money is worth trillions a year.

    Keep in mind, big oil isn’t the only lobby that doesn’t mind foreign adventurism. The US government spends a trillion dollars a year on military contractors who very much desire that money. Keep in mind, they too don’t give a damn about free markets as their entire method of profit is derived from government largesse. So you have some large lobbys that stand to make trillions off the carnage.

    I keep hearing on some talking heads who have never even been over there worried about weapons and yet I hear the exact opposite from weapon inspectors that have actually been in country. It’s senseless.

    I don’t want Iran to get WMDs. But then again, I don’t want the US government or anybody else to have them either. Many people miss this point. These weapons serve no real military purpose, their sole purpose is terror. They are so powerful that their use ensures civilian death on a massive scale, not to mention the ecological effects. Try to use them on a city, and you essentially affect an area that could reach a thousand square miles.

    So, what is the situation today?

    Sadly, today, the US government has essentially copied the foreign policy of Hitler. Pre-emptive war is now not seen as evil and wrong. The barriers to foreign interventionism have been so reduced that it is second nature to go to war or be at war. Trillions of dollars and unknown amounts of manpower have been wasted trying to catch maybe a couple thousand thugs living in caves and turning various governments into potential enemies. This is not an intelligent nor proportional response. Current policy has already morally bankrupted the US government, and in time, will bankrupt the US government financially.

    Bastiat was right in his day as he is now. Trade fosters peace. Tough talk, economic sanctions, military bases, invasions and occupations of countries don’t do well in creating goodwill, furthering higher standards of living, and creating peace. Sanctions in particular have been shown to always fail. What needs to be done is the opposite of what is happening now.

    J Cortez | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply

18. Mr. Crozier,

    There is certainly some confusion. 

    “Only individuals can threaten. And only individuals can be threatened.”

    Huh? Tell that to the Nazi’s who threatened the Jews. Or the Klan who threatened American Blacks. Yes, there are usually individual leaders involved, but without the group dynamic, they would die as powerless outcasts. 

    “As an Iranian what are individual Americans threatening me with? Possibly, a war in which I might end up dead but probably won’t. If I’m an Iranian soldier this is pretty bad but, hey, if other Iranians hadn’t threatened me with death or something similarly unpleasant would I be even wearing the uniform? Probably not.”

    Huh? What is this meandering logic about? Are you seriously rationalizing that the typical Iranian wants to be invaded, since they “probably won’t” be killed?! By this logic, we shouldn’t be concerned with 9/11, since, you know, most of us weren’t killed anyway.

    “And if individual Americans did invade Iran I would guess the chances would be that the Islamic regime would be overthrown permanently and those people who are currently threatening me would stop threatening me pronto.”

    Yes, sure. And Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk that would only cost about $40B. We know how that worked out. 

    I think some Americans have this Wizard of Oz notion of foreign nations. Somehow, we’ll just pour water on the leader, he’ll melt and all the people will live happily ever after.

    Let me introduce you to the ‘rally around the flag’ concept. Remember, right after 9/11 how practically everyone in the US set their political differences behind them to support the President? Most people around the world will respond to attacks on their nation by supporting their leader, even if they may not be fans of his.

    “Hey, even if I end up dead I think it would probably be a price worth paying if it meant that other Iranians could live free (or at least freer).”

    Wow. The hubris of this comment defies moral thought. How generous of you to decide on behalf of the ‘average Iranian’ that their life is expendable for a purpose you deem worthwhile.

    Maybe one day the FBI determines there is a terrorist cell in a home in your neighborhood. They decide that, rather than waste time trying to find the actual house, let’s just bomb the whole neighborhood. After all, even if you and your family end up dead, it’s worth it so other Americans can be free (or at least freer.)

    Maybe they do want more freedom. Maybe not. Either way, that us for THEM to decide, not a nation on the other side of the world. If they deem freedom to be worth fighting for, let them revolt, just as they did 30+ years ago.

    Peace be with you.

    Cfountain72 | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply

19. Wow! A picture IS worth a thousand words!

    Steve Hill | Oct 5, 2010 | Reply

20. Well said, Mr. Higgs!

    Luke Allen McManamon | Oct 5, 2010 | Reply

21. Thank you.

    E Dobbs | Oct 7, 2010 | Reply

1 Trackback(s)

1. Oct 4, 2010: from Tweets that mention Who’s Threatening Whom? | The Beacon -- Topsy.com

Post a Comment