Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Iran Watch, part 1

A new series of blogposts on the hawkish rhetoric surrounding the Islamic Republic and its nuclear programme.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 22 February 2012 14:09

Back in November, I wrote the following paragraph at the start of my weekly column in the magazine:

It has become an annual event in international affairs: the "Iran crisis". Belligerent politicians and febrile commentators refer to the "drumbeat of war", the "ticking clock" and how "all options are on the table". My own, oft-repeated favourite is "the window of opportunity" - to thwart Iran's nuclear programme through military means - "is closing".

But, as each week goes by, I can't help but feel as if this year the afore-mentioned "Iran crisis" is different - more urgent, more imminent, more serious. Others I speak to - in the inter-connected worlds of politics, the media, intelligence and security, business and economics, both on and off the record - seem to agree.

I'm worried. In fact, I'm very worried. I can't help it. I keep asking myself and my colleagues: are we sleepwalking into another catastrophic, bloody, illegal and unjustifiable conflict in the Middle East? The Iraq war was the most traumatising, divisive, frustrating and, perhaps, formative political event of my adult life. And the realisation that a growing number of politicians and pundits in the west, and in Israel, are now seriously considering military action against Iran, on spurious "WMD" grounds, is deeply depressing. I feel like we've gone back in time and I have to keep pitching myself everytime I come across a hawkish individual fear-mongering, on air or in print, about the "threat" from a "nuclear" Iran (e.g.have a listen to my brief debate with neocon hawk Douglas Murray on Five Live yesterday morning...)

The HuffPo's Michael Calderone feels the same way:

Military strikes expected! Weapons inspectors called in! A murky al Qaeda connection! And Cheney says time's up for Ira...

Wait. Haven't we seen this movie before?

It's already been a decade since the media hyped bogus WMD claims prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But it sure feels like 2002 for anyone who was around then and is now scanning newspaper headlines or watching TV talking-heads discuss a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities -- an act which could pull the U.S. into another thorny Middle East military conflict.

Or as the former New Republic editor and ex-Iraq-hawk Peter Beinart noted yesterday in a piece for the Daily Beast:

How can it be, less than a decade after the U.S. invaded Iraq, that the Iran debate is breaking down along largely the same lines, and the people who were manifestly, painfully wrong about that war are driving the debate this time as well? Culturally, it's a fascinating question -- and too depressing for words.

The role of the media - print and broadsheet, Anglo and American - in the run-up to the Iraq invasion was particularly egregious and shameful; unforgettable and unforgivable. Take the New York Times, which had to issue a public apology for its "credulous" and "flawed" coverage of the Bush administration's false and exaggerated claims about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" in 2002 and 2003.

Yet, a decade later, few lessons seem to have been learned. Here's the New York Times's public editor, Arthur Brisbane, commenting last month on the paper's ludicrously hawkish and alarmist coverage of the IAEA's latest report on Iran's nuclear programme:

Readers complaining about the Jan. 5 article believe The Times should avoid closing the gap with a shorthand phrase that says the IAEA thinks Iran's program "has a military objective."

I think the readers are correct on this. The Times hasn't corrected the story but it should because this is a case of when a shorthand phrase doesn't do justice to a nuanced set of facts. In this case, the distinction between the two is important because the Iranian program has emerged as a possible casus belli.

(For further details on the US press and Iran claims, check out Just Foreign Policy's Robert Naiman writing over at Huffington Post.)

Like Iraq, Iran isn't a left-right issue. For example, here's noted left-winger Seumas Milne of the Guardian, writing in his column today:

If an attack is launched by Israel or the US, it would not just be an act of criminal aggression, but of wanton destructive stupidity. As Michael Clarke, director of the British defence establishment's Royal United Services Institute, points out, such an attack would be entirely illegal: "There is no basis in international law for preventative, rather than pre-emptive, war."

It would also be guaranteed to trigger a regional conflagration with uncontrollable global consequences. Iran could be expected to retaliate against Israel, the US and its allies, both directly and indirectly, and block the fifth of international oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. The trail of death, destruction and economic havoc would be awesome.

But, then again, here is the Conservative MP and former soldier John Baron writing on the Staggers blog:

We need to better understand and engage with Iran, and offer the prospect of implicit recognition of Iran's status as a major power in the region - a status we created ourselves by our misguided invasion of Iraq which fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. There is a precedent for recognising this new status. In the 1960s, when the US presence in Asia was waning and China was beginning to flex her muscles, Nixon did not respond by denying the reality of Chinese power. His visit to China in 1972 took everyone by surprise, but it was the right decision - it was a defining moment.

I suggest the US needs to realise that this is one of those defining moments. Israel and Iran are two proud nations, both perhaps uncertain as to the best course of action. The US is the elephant in the room. It needs to put behind it the underlying antagonism of the last 30 years which defines this crisis. It needs to make clear an Israeli attack would be unacceptable, and then better engage with Iran. It is in Israel's long-term interest that this happens.

Meanwhile, top generals and spooks from the United States and Israel are lining up to warn against an air attack on Iran, including Martin Dempsey, James Clapper, Michael Mullen, Paul Pillar, Ephraim Halevy, Meir Dagan, Dan Halutz. My favourite quote comes from retired four-star general and former head of US Central Command, Anthony Zinni:

I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll love Iran

But is anyone listening? A frustrated Beinart, in his Daily Beast piece, writes:

Can you find former military and intelligence officials who are more sympathetic to a strike? Sure. But in my lifetime, I've never seen a more lopsided debate among the experts paid to make these judgments. Yet it barely matters. So far, the Iran debate has been a rout, with the Republican presidential candidates loudly declaring their openness to war and President Obama unwilling to even echo the skepticism of his own security chiefs.

And as the New York Times's Scott Shane pointed out yesterday:

Despite a decade of war, most Americans seem to endorse the politicians' martial spirit. In a Pew Research Center poll this month, 58 percent of those surveyed said the United States should use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only 30 percent said no.

"I find it puzzling," said Richard K. Betts of Columbia University, who has studied security threats since the cold war. "You'd think there would be an instinctive reason to hold back after two bloody noses in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Indeed. But there doesn't seem to be - and the media, a la Iraq, isn't helping. And so, as I said at the start, I'm worried. Very worried. We all should be.

So what are we going to do about it? I plan to start a new series of blogposts, with the original (!) title of "Iran Watch", in which I intend to try and examine and deconstruct the claims and counter-claims made by politicians and pundits about Iran, its nuclear programme, the IAEA's inspections, US/Israeli plans for military action, alleged al-Qaeda links, etc. I want to try and play a (small) role in holding opinion-formers to account on Iran in 2012 in a way that they weren't on Iraq in 2002 and 2003, a shameful period in which "dodgy dossiers" were embraced uncritically and our political leaders, in the words of the former weapons inspector Hans Blix, "misled themselves and then they misled the public".

Myths must be dispelled and falsehoods rebutted. And I need your help. Please send me, via Twitter, articles, headlines, speeches, quotes, reports, etc, that you come across which make false, exaggerated, fear-mongering or otherwise outrageous or nonsensical claims about the "Iran crisis". Whether wittingly or unwittingly, we can't afford a repeat of Iraq. We just can't.

Further reading:

"The road to hell" - Hans Blix, New Statesman, February 2012

"Now they tell us" - Michael Massing, New York Review of Books, February 2004

@ns_mehdihasan #iranwatch

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Iran Watch Nuclear Iran

More from Mehdi Hasan

136 comments

Sat, 2012-02-25 12:36 — Sir Michael (not verified)

There has never been a single terrorist incident in the history of the world which was done in the name of religion. There have been theocratic regimes and certain individuals who have done appauling things for religion. But terrorism is an entirely different phenomena.

Thu, 2012-02-23 10:38 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@ Ken - what right wing nutter sites? Everything I have posted in factual.

This site that I posted is an Iranian site that shows in great detail how the Iranian regime intendeds to wipe Israel of the map with conventional weapons - shouldn't it form part of the discourse? Don't you think its important?

http://www.alef.ir/vdcepw8zwjh8ewi.b9bj.html?142262

Mon, 2012-02-27 15:43 — rob andersen (not verified)

Sir M
You write;
'There has never been a single terrorist incident in the history of the world which was done in the name of religion. '
Ok everybody? He says so, that's it

Wed, 2012-02-22 17:58 — jankaas (not verified)

"I am brown"

i don't believe you Julia. you are a known liar, and you betray your bigoted xenophobic self in every single post. no person who's ever been persecuted as you claim, could allow the bigoted bullshit you vomit up at every opportunity.

"you haven't listened to anything I have said"

but i have dear, and it's you and your type who need to be exposed for what you are; Fascists

Sat, 2012-02-25 13:00 — jankaas (not verified)

@JJ

" The fact remains that a group of British citizens, in the name of their religion, decided to murder innocent people going about their business."

and you would agree that the IRA and Loyalists fit into this "group of British citizens"? the Troubles caused the death of over 3000 British citizens. any thoughts on how that vast number puts your Islam hysteria into perspective?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats...

also you appear to know nothing about Honour Killings, where they take place, who commits them & for what reason, and which religion leads the way. are you sure you know how to do a basic internet search? would be happy to show you.

Fri, 2012-02-24 18:48 — Julia Harris (not verified)

NEWS FLASH, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU...

The UN nuclear agency says Iran has increased production of higher-grade enriched uranium, raising fresh concerns about how quickly it could make an atomic bomb.

A confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also said Iran had failed to give a convincing explanation about a quantity of missing uranium metal.
Diplomats have said the missing amount could be used for experiments to arm a warhead.
Iran insists it has no intention of making nuclear weapons and maintains the sole purpose of its activities is to generate energy.
But the report expresses "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme."

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16176547

Thu, 2012-02-23 23:10 — sven king (not verified)

@ JJ, great post 23 February 2012 at 21:19, where are the usual suspects...

Fri, 2012-02-24 18:52 — kafantaris (not verified)

Iran faces a delicate issue. On the one hand it wants to show the world all it’s got and put it at ease, while on the other hand it fears that such show 'n tell will give its enemies a roadmap to bomb it.
Saddam Hussein faced a similar dilemma ten years ago. Though he wanted the world to know he had nothing to hide, he also wanted to bluff his archenemy Iran into believing Iraq still had WMD.
Bluffing did not go well for Saddam, and it might not go well for Ahmadinejad.
But since the price tag for ridding Saddam proved high, maybe we ought to reflect what we are asking of Iran now. On the eve of a threatened attack, we are asking it to take us to the depths of its arsenal and show us all it's got.
Such great expectations are a sign we have been talking to our friends too long and are in need of a broader perspective. Exactly when was the last time we asked Pakistan, India, China or Russia to show us their arsenal?
“But those countries are not advocating the destruction of Israel.”
True, but Israel is not a thorn on their side either.
Surely, however, we can see beyond the hyperboles and figure out their underlying purpose. Or have we forgotten that not all Iranians are thrilled with Ahmadinejad?
He sure hasn’t forgotten.
Nor has he forgotten that that his countrymen hate Israel even more. So he tells them that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth. Expectantly, this nonsense unites them against a common enemy. It is even a diversion from the misery and isolation brought on by his theocratic regime.
Quite clever work by Ahmadinejad -- and not a rial spent or a bullet fired.
So why are we letting the crazy talk about destroying Israel get us all worked-up -- to the point of turning the world topsy-turvy again.
Can we not see the desperate attempts of an unpopular regime simply trying to hold on?

Fri, 2012-02-24 18:54 — Buckskins (not verified)

Israel now and forever. Get used to it. America and our brothers and sisters in Israel are as one. All the stupid comments about Israel dictating to America, and Israel is responsible for 9/11, or any other bucket of islamic garbage is only needed by our late night TV comedians. Whats next? Our comics are all Zionists LMAO.

Fri, 2012-02-24 18:57 — Buckskins (not verified)

Be afraid Iran. Be very very afraid....

Thu, 2012-02-23 23:41 — Parkour Pete (not verified)

The likes of Booth, Galloway and Ridley are driven not by compassion, as they'd have us believe, but by hatred of Israel and so find it very hard to work up a froth against a leader and state that feels the way they do.

They probably wish he was murdering Israelis instead.

Thu, 2012-02-23 12:11 — Silican (not verified)

From The San Francisco Chronicle: "In his recent memoir, former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said he doubted policy makers in Washington were ever truly interested in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, but that they sought instead to achieve isolation and regime change in Iran".

Hans blix all over again+Alqaeda links now 'surfacing'+WMD=Same old lies for the same old purpose.

BTW has anyone else noticed that Julia Harris and Sven King make the same spelling and grammatical errors. If you are going to have a conversation with yourself you ought to make it less obvious.

Thu, 2012-02-23 23:56 — jankaas (not verified)

"What a disgusting comment."

calling your bluff Jerky Jism. what is so very disgusting about my comment?

Thu, 2012-02-23 12:17 — Awake!

Sir M
Ok, let's not jump the gun, i'm not talking invasion, i haven't said we should do anything. You judge people to easily.
So we're both agreed that Iran having nukes isn't the best of ideas. Bringing in other countries isn't relevant although i agree with you, especially pak.
Now, surely the question then is why is it we don't think Iran having nukes is a good idea? What makes us think that? Perhaps you have an aversion to nuclear proliferation full stop. Perhaps we both recognise that life is not valued in the same way in this part of the world, so we conclude that if they had weapons of ultimate powerthis would be disagreable. This pre-supposes that they would actually use them though. So inherently in the thought
'i ain't comfortable with Iran having nukes'
is the belief that they might actually use them, subject to having them, subject to having them..subject to having them...er subject to having them... gettit, subject to having them.
Elsewhere, u called yourself a Kantian. Not 15% of people who read Kant understood him I reckon ( I deliberately had to write wrong answers in uni papers to pick up marks my prof was so lost with him-imagine if that clown had tried Hegel or Gadamer HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH). So here is a question for you
Is there a moral imperative, as parent and guardian of the young (and therefore the future),do I have a categorical duty to insure continuation of the collective?
Now before you machine gun your pints about imperialism blah blah, u might want to consider that it took the German idealists some 200 years to refine some of these ideas, so show some humility and u might contribute something intelligent to a very important debate.

Thu, 2012-02-23 12:22 — Olijaan1

The article published by Alef (linked to above) concerning Israel has been getting a bit of an airing. While its content and rhetoric should be condemned, it is important to note that although it was written by a government strategist, in Persian it is clearly stated that "This theory/proposal is ONLY based on my own opinion and thus there is no guarantee that the Islamic Republic of Iran will accept and perform it." Thus, the author is writing in a purely personal capacity and his words do not represent official Iranian government policy at all.

Similarly, in response to FA's comment above ("What do you think of Iran refusing to let the IAEA inspectors do their job??") I would point out that the purpose of the IAEA's visit was to hold talks, not perform inspections; and that the site in question, Parchin, as a military rather than a nuclear site falls outside the IAEA's mandate. Iran is under no obligation to allow access to it.

And incidentally I applaud Mehdi's initiative; it's time for an evidence-based discourse, rather than warmongering invective. The (COD-addled?) diatribes on this subject ignore that the consequences of any military strikes on Iran would be catastrophic in human terms.

Fri, 2012-02-24 00:09 — jankaas (not verified)

@Sir M

"They are right here:"

oh no, no, no! those are the wrong type of Muslims matey. the only ones that count, you know, the only ones that really matter, aren't like these fakers at all;

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

i realise that the above are merely a bunch of Islamic scholars, clerics, Middle Eastern commentators, politicians, Muslims from Western nations, professionals, community leaders, scientists, writers and other assorted so called 'experts' who appear to do exactly that which they are accused of never doing.

according to received wisdom all Muslims across the globe, every man woman and child old enough to stand, danced for joy for 9/11.

Fri, 2012-02-24 00:20 — Raheel (not verified)

this article is worth reading to understand the real reason there is a campaign against iran.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB23Ak01.html

(and written by an american!)

Fri, 2012-02-24 19:15 — jankaas (not verified)

"NEWS FLASH, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU..."

says Sweet Schizophrenic Julia....

who exactly are "WE" then dear?

Fri, 2012-02-24 19:16 — jankaas (not verified)

@Buckskins

go on then, what would you do next if you were in charge?

Thu, 2012-02-23 13:28 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Awake, this is what I mean about being tangental.

We are discussing the possible war with Iran, the ethics of such a thing, the disparity between the hysteria of the right wing punditocracy and the actual evidence from experts, and the speculating on the true motives of the increasingly hawkish rhetoric from certain quarters.

What are you discussing?

Wed, 2012-03-07 12:20 — Marion (not verified)

You really need to stop copying and pasting. The global intelligence files to which you allude are part of Sratfor which is in turn owned and run by the CIA. The CIA put out this information in order to deliberately deceive Wikileaks. Indeed Wikileaks have already admitted they were duped. SO when you copy and pst information, make sure it is factually correct.

Thu, 2012-02-23 13:59 — maxinemf

We Do Not Have To Die Defending Israel’s Fantasies.
Posted on February 19, 2012by horse237
I am not the only one who thinks we will never have peace until Israel no longer has the right to make us die defending their fantasies.
Israel has active delusions about an imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons program. The UN’s IAEA and 16 US intelligence agencies all agree Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Yet the Zionist owned media tells us that all NATO countries in general and America in particular must do battle to the death against 1.5 billion Muslims.
The media was recently full of pictures of small but fast Iranian boats circling an American aircraft carrier as they passed through the Strait of Hormuz. All of those Iranian boats are armed with Russian made anti-ship missiles designed to sink American aircraft carriers. They have Mach 3.1 speed which is 3.1 times the speed of sound (767 miles per hour 1,235 km/h). Those fast boats were less than a mile from their target. Even if they were 5 miles from target, that first wave of missiles would hit the carrier in less than 25 seconds of hostilities. Arriving at the same time would be missiles fired from drones aimed at the control room, the radar, the flight deck and the anti-aircraft missiles and guns rendering the ship both operationally useless and defenseless. Please note Iranian drones have a 1,000 km (621 mile) range and are armed with 4 missiles each. Arriving over the next 25 seconds, would be Russian, Chinese and European made missiles from a greater distance. A carrier has 12 compartments. If 7 of the 12 are breached, then the ship will sink. Each of the 12 compartments would be hit by one or more missiles. A wave of 1,337 pound (606 kg) Russian made 130 mile (210 km) range rocket artillery shells would arrive soon afterwards continuing until the carrier was blown apart.
Now let’s go back to those media photos of the Iranian fast boats circling that carrier. The caption should have read: “Iranians tell American Navy that you were sent on a suicide mission to die for Israeli fantasies. If you attack us, you will all die within 2 minutes.”
You might have read of late that Israelis have said that they are not in a position to attack Iran so America should do it for them. That is because it will take at least 45 minutes for Israeli jets to reach Iran. The American fleet would be sunk and every military base in US Central Command hit by multiple Iranian Guided missiles with fuel air explosive warheads. This means only an American sneak attack will have a chance of working. But even that would guarantee the sinking of our Persian Gulf fleet and the killing or capture of every man and woman in US Central Command.
The American military knows they have been fighting and dying for Israel’s fantasies in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years. And many know Israel did 911. They also know Dick Cheney wanted to paint a couple ships in Iranian colors. Cheney wanted to make it look like the Iranians had attacked the US Navy.
I believe an accidental war is much more likely. There are hundreds of ships and a lot more than 2,000 jets and helicopters armed with missiles plus thousands of anti-aircraft missiles. And don’t forget the 150,000 short and intermediate range ballistic missiles the Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah have aimed at Israel. All of those men are working long hours far from home under extreme stress. And we know from past experience the Americans are given drugs to help them stay on duty for prolonged hours. I want to rank the orders of probability of the causal factors for WW III from the highest to lowest as follows:
1 Accidental war
2 An Israeli false flag attack on an American target followed by a NATO sneak attack on Iran
3 a direct NATO sneak attack without a preceding false flag
4 And the least likely an Israeli attack.
The Israelis are cowards. They are very good at killing unarmed civilians in Gaza. They used to be good at blowing up buildings with Americans inside. They blew up a daycare center in Oklahoma to tug at American heart strings at the sight of the death of 19 children.
Israel cannot blow up any more buildings with Americans inside. The 911 Truth Movement will not allow it. The US military will not allow the Israelis to sink an American ship even one like the USS Enterprise that is fated to be decommissioned anyway. My regular readers know I said that Wall Street wants to have some foreign or military fiasco in March so that CIA Director General Petraeus can resign and run for President as a Republican. He is on the short list of potential American dictators. But there are others on the list.
In the final analysis Israel cannot start a war. Nobody will believe them. Everyone knows Israel did 911.
The next step is for everyone to understand that Israeli fantasies have nothing to do with reality. And the only exit that leads to peace is for the people of the world to take away Israel’s power to start wars in which other people die. I propose the following solutions.
1) Continue telling people that Israel did 911.
2) Tell people there was no Holocaust. The Holohoax was just one of many Zionist lies to justify war. Iraq’s WMDs and yellowcake uranium come to mind as other examples of Zionist lies.
3) After we stop the war, we must follow through and take the final step. We must seize the assets of the bankers and their co-conspirators who stole 30 trillion dollars from us. We must put the bankers in prison. And we must seize the assets of the media who lied to cover up tens of trillions of dollars in fraud so they are as guilty as the politicians who made their crimes possible. Besides it was media lies that helped to kill millions of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Thu, 2012-02-23 14:16 — Enlightened

The more I thinlk about it the more I am sure... Julia Harris is Melanie Philips. She has been hiding behind this alias for some time now as she doesn't have the minerals to reveal her identity.

Thu, 2012-02-23 14:22 — maxinemf

I have thought that for quite some time. Apparently Ms Phillips is a regular contributor to the Jewish Chronicle and will not countenance any criticism of Israel. I believe she suffers from divided loyalties and would choose Israel over the UK

Thu, 2012-02-23 14:38 — Parkour Pete (not verified)

maxinemf

You're quite the odious racist aren't you. Did you copy and paste that from a far-right sight?

Fri, 2012-02-24 20:59 — JJ (not verified)

Following the UN report that Julia mentions it appears that Israel has all the justification it needs for an attack on Iran. The only question is not 'if' but 'when'.

If the FT from today is right about the hardline faction being successful in Iran's coming elections then this will start the clock ticking. After all, if this faction wins then Khameini will be swayed towards their views on going for broke on the nuclear issue.

Wed, 2012-03-07 13:59 — JJ (not verified)

Er...yes, Marion/Jenny/Yvonne/Mariella luv. It's good form to apologise after your howler on the other thread: 'Tam Dalyel died'.

No apology yet?

Thu, 2012-02-23 15:08 — Awake!

sir m
er... i asked
's there a moral imperative... to insure continuation of the collective?'
and u answered i'm tangential to ask this question, since the topic, is , er... the ethics of going to war with Iran (your words!!)
You HONESTLY don't see a link, professor Kant?

Do you

Fri, 2012-02-24 22:02 — jankaas (not verified)

"Following the UN report that Julia mentions"

which neither you or Julia have ever read Jerky Jism, so do be quiet, there's a good boy.

Wed, 2012-02-22 21:43 — willoyen

@Parkour Pete: Never mind the pirates who control the coast of Gaza getting away with whatever crimes they like
- Who could you possibly mean?
obviously the most spectacularly successful practitioners of state terror and land banditry... the Quakers, perhaps?

Thu, 2012-02-23 15:41 — maxinemf

The Zionist brigade can't take it anymore since they no longer have a monopoly on dissemination of information. In response to Parker Pete, you sound like an EDL member to me. Face it, you think Israel is above criticism and above international law. Am I right?? Are you the one that raises the Israeli flag on the EDL marches???

Thu, 2012-02-23 15:44 — maxinemf

I am wondering if Julia Harris has dual nationality?

Fri, 2012-02-24 22:16 — Ken (not verified)

JJ....Following the UN report that Julia mentions it appears that Israel has all the justification it needs for an attack on Iran.

---------------------

WTF? Will you and your metal mates please stop posting absolute rubbish. I doubt you know anything about what is happeneing frankly,you just parrot rightwing nutter wensites like the reat of your silly mates. It is very very boring. Educate yourself.

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:02 — Awake!

sir M
tell us prof... come on, tellus maxinemf is occupying, what were your words again, oh yes, here;
'the disparity between the hysteria of the right wing punditocracy and the actual evidence from experts'

Do u get it now- most are incapable of the thought process, skimming the surface, unaware really, asleep... There will be post after post of anti jew,muslim, america, pentagfon blah blah blah... but it boils down to this
Do u feel comfortable with iran having nukes? That is the debate friend.
Let me help you, i take your side now.
No, i don't feel comfortable with that but no need to attack them.
now u pretend to be me, go on, perspective shift can unblock pathways sometimes.

Fri, 2012-02-24 22:34 — JJ (not verified)

Ken, are you drunk or high? Your spelling is atrocious. I know that schools have gone down the drain but a teenager still has time to learn how to spell. Lay off the substances, junior!

Wed, 2012-02-22 22:03 — Awake!

sir M
'Do we know what might happen? Of course not. Might you be driving your car one day and cause a car crash? No? How can we know? Shall we take away your driving license just to be on the safe side?'
It would have to be a pretty big car crash to cause the same kind of damage a nuke would...
Sir m your examples are awful, honestly.

And that's the essence of the problem really- it will boil down to whether people are comfortable with the idea of Iran having nukes.
Hasan, the real service here is to ensure that our prime minister dosen't stand up in parliament and tell us all that they can deliver nukes in 45 mins, holding a dossier full of his own hand writing. Fortunately, the current bunch seem above that sort of behaviour.
Don't fret, it won't be like Iraq, they will send in drones and take out facilities with special forces- it's written in the sand, and besides, there's not enough money left to send half a million soldiers to the other side of the world.
Sad for the Iranian people no doubt, as sad as it is for those in Homs right now who are being exterminated as we debate. The facts are that in that part of the world there is not the same respect for human life we have- so why even ENTERTAIN the idae these guys getting nukes?

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:16 — Parkour Pete (not verified)

@maxinemf

You don't get it do you? You're the one that sounds like an EDL member.

Do you not realise that your postings reveal you to be a racist bigot?

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:17 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@ Enlightened, you have really made my day, thanks for that back handed compliment.

Comparing me to the incomparable, amazing authority that is Melanie Philips has really done much for my ego. Its inspired me and strengthened my resolve to speak to truth and dispel the lies, thanks. I am really honored to be mentioned in the same light as her, if only I were as brilliant as she.

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:18 — Tom (not verified)

Stay out of Iran. And, if we're already there ("covert aid to rebels, terrorists, bribed Iranian govt. offcials or anyone else for that matter), stop it immediately.

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:21 — maxinemf

Israel is determined to destroy Iran. First, they used the argument that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face fo the map. When that did not work, they now use the nuclear issue. My question is not should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons/energy etc but rather why should Israel be permitted unregulated nuclear weapons. How come Israel can have nuclear weapons but not others.

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:24 — maxinemf

Correct me if I am wrong Parkour Pete but I know of no EDL member who supports the rights of Palestinians (as I do). As for accusations of racism, that really is a feeble argument.

Wed, 2012-02-22 22:18 — Sir Michael (not verified)

"so why even ENTERTAIN the idae these guys getting nukes?"

Aside from the rest of your usual rambling stupidity we don't own the rest of the world. Until such time as we are attacked we have no right to simply destroy everyone and everything that might, some day, become our equal in military might. That is the height of imperialism.

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:28 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Julia - "amazing authority that is Melanie Philips has really done much for my ego."

This here is your problem. You believe that opinion, not knowledge or experience, confers authority.

You should pay attention to people because they know things. Not because you like what they say.

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:38 — Parkour Pete (not verified)

@maxinemf
1) Continue telling people that Israel did 911.

2) Tell people there was no Holocaust. The Holohoax was just one of many Zionist lies to justify war. Iraq’s WMDs and yellowcake uranium come to mind as other examples of Zionist lies

Have I misunderstood you? Is this what you posted earlier? If so, the use of the word 'zionist' fools no one. Not all zionists are Jewish so were you referring to, say, Christian zionists, or Arab zionists who are Israeli citizens? Please explain.

And do not assume you have any idea about my opinions with regard to Palestinians or indeed, a war with Iran.

Or are you cretinous enough to infer that anyone who doesn't loath Israel with the same passion as you must automatically hate Palestinians and want war with Iran?

Wed, 2012-02-29 20:02 — jankaas (not verified)

@Julia

is this another one of those threads that you have believe to have 'won'..?

Thu, 2012-02-23 16:39 — maxinemf

I agree with Sir Michael: the blatant one-sided propoganda peddled by Melanie P is no substitute for hard factual knowledge. Most of MP's articles are based on light headed drivel designed to pander to the lowest common denominator. I suspect Netanyahu would be MP's most favoured dinner party guest!!!

Mon, 2012-02-27 22:28 — Khosrow (not verified)

Since the Cold War the mass media have increasingly become an indispensable political tool, though the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines had set the first major records in the 20th century.
If the West claims to be a ‘PARTICIPATORY’ DEMOCRACY, based on active role of the citizens in the formation of their societies and freedom of speech, and responsible mass media, rather than being led by a certain group IN THE NAME OF THE MAJORITY, then considering the shocking information provided by these authors, that reveal the skilful CONTROL OF PUBLIC OPINION by certain groups, the EFFICIENCY of the WESTERN DEMOCRACY, its MEDIA and the accuracy of the western public opinion are questionable, especially when issues such as war are imminent.
I am not sure of the accuracy of the information provided by these sites; some of them may have a bad reputation as fanatics, but here my concern is mainly with the PARTICULAR ‘INFORMATION’ made public by them. I hope the ZIONIST CONTRIBUTORS to this blog would feel responsible to ENLIGHTEN THE READERS by ‘OBJECTIVELY’ DEMONSTRATING the inaccuracy of the information provided by these site and books:
1- John J. MEARSHEIMER & STEPHEN M. WALT: THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY (2007)
The authors’ extensive research demonstrates the power of the Zionist lobbyists in America and how Israel for years has strived to prevent any close relation between Iran and America to become reality.
2- ILAN PAPPE: THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE (2006)
Pappe’s research takes us to the heart of Israel’s ethnic cleansing policies from its very inception.
3-- Jewish Dominance of America - Facts Are Facts
http://www.rense.com/general59/sdom.htm
4-The Jewish Propaganda in British Media (1997)
http://theunjustmedia.com/media/the%20jewish%20propaganda%20...
5- The Jewish media-power in Britain (2002)
http://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/gbmedia/gbmedia....
6- Jewish Power in the American Medias
http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/whorules.htm
7- JEWISH "MEDIAS"= Jewish Propaganda
http://radioislam.org/medias/index.htm

Thu, 2012-02-23 17:05 — maxinemf

In response to Parkour Pete: why don't you come clean:
1. You are itching for a war with Iran. Or rather you are pushing western nations to fight wars with Iran on your behalf ( cowardly as Israel is).
2. Israel has been complaining about Iran for close to ten years now, threatening war every time an Israeli election is loooming.
3. Pray enlighten me: do you think Palestinians are entitled to have a state in west bank and Gaza. I am guessing not

Wed, 2012-02-22 22:42 — Julia Harris (not verified)

"Myths must be dispelled and falsehoods rebutted. And I need your help. Please send me, via Twitter, articles, headlines, speeches, quotes, reports, etc, that you come across which make false, exaggerated, fear-mongering or otherwise outrageous or nonsensical claims about the "Iran crisis". Whether wittingly or unwittingly, we can't afford a repeat of Iraq. We just can't.

The shear desperation of the man. He is trying his utmost to scour the depths of the internet to make his support for Iran more self evident. This for me is a new low from Mehdi Hassan in that he isn’t interested in looking at the big picture, he just keeps on wanting to strengthen his and the Iranians positions that they are not developing Nukes and so tie into any kind of pro or anti Iranian propaganda to suit his message.

How many articles have we seen on the NS defending Iran, saying that any type of intervention is wrong? Where is the balance? Where are the inconvenient truths that so many others (war mongering right wing islamaphobic fascists) seem to be drawing on? Something’s are worth fighting for, freedom is one of them , the Iraq war rid the world of a terrible man in Saddam Husain. Lets wait for the sectarian fighting in the so called Arab spring to mature and no doubt the left will start to blame us for that too.

The fact is more people died in Iraq form Muslim killing Muslims, no one said they had to take such a viscous and blood thirsty course of action, but they did. They chose to slaughter there brethren instead of joining together and building a successful country, putting any differences aside and feeling liberated from the dictatorship. Iran and Iraq are different countries, trying to harp on that we are making the same mistake again is wrong as the circumstances are different and history has shown us that decisive action against the Nuclear ambitions of Assad and Saddam Hussain has paid dividends now when we see the true brutality of these people, something Israel has known and still knows of the likes of Iran, even though the apologists like Mehdi Hassan will keep telling us there is no bomb, until there is one, when he’ll say. Well there wasn’t the concrete evidence for me, so I thought it better to give this mad Islamic Theocracy the benefit of the doubt in there pursuit of Nuclear weapons, Amen.