“As the sanctions morph into a virtual blockade, they raise the specter that all blockades do — of provoking a violent response. Just as dangerous is the specter that the sanctions will drag on without producing tangible results, impelling covert or overt American action against Tehran to save face.” – Juan Cole,“Why Washington’s Iran Policy Could Lead to Global Disaster: What History Should Teach Us About Blockading Iran.”
“On October 7, 1940, exactly fourteen months before the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum penned a memorandum, recommending that the United States government provoke the Japanese into attacking America, and thus, allowing America to enter WWII with the American people fully behind the decision. The memorandum is called theMcCollum memo, and there is little mention of it in history textbooks.” - “October 7, 1940: The Day That Should Have Lived in Infamy.”
“If there is no free conversation human aggression accumulates. A man who listens only to his radio or is caught by the hypnotism of the movies must discharge his aggression somewhere else. But the civilizing sublimation of conversation does not reach him, so he cannot get rid of his aggression.
People have learned to be silent listeners. Dictatorship asks only for silent citizens. If man cannot redeem himself of his everyday tensions through words, the archaic primitive demands within him grow more and more awake. The world falls prey to his accumulated obsessions, and in the end collective madness breaks through. Let us talk now, so that we do not become mad animals!” - Dutch-American psychoanalyst Joost A. M. Meerloo, “Conversation and Communication.” (1).
The American-Iranian talks are designed to fail.
Investigative Journalist Gareth Porter says America’s posture in the talks with Iran this weekend is based on threats and unworkable demands in his article, “US-Israel Deal to Demand Qom Closure Threatens Nuclear Talks.”
For the piece, Porter interviewed Reza Marashi, a former official at the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State and the current research director at the National Iranian American Council. “The absence of any groundwork for significant incentives,” writes Porter, “leads Marashi to believe the administration plans to rely on threats rather than incentives to get Iran to agree to its demands.”
The Obama administration is taking a big risk by using the threat of violence to make Iran submit to the United States and Israel. This is not a smart move. Siding with Israel against Iran will be remembered as the biggest reason for America’s downfall.
“The Iranian nuclear issue,” wrote Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett in their article, Iran, China’s Rise, and American Strategy, “is likely to turn out to be, on many levels, a major turning point for America’s relative standing as a great power, in the Middle East and globally.”
The Iranian nuclear issue, as the public generally understands it, is a made-up issue that is primarily used for political propaganda purposes to demonize Iran and isolate it from the world. Even people in Washington know it is a grand hoax. The national security consensus is that Iran has not decided to make a nuclear bomb.
Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh highlighted the absurdity of America’s official reasons for sanctioning Iran when he said on Democracy Now on April 10 that, “the whole purpose of the economic sanctions is to stop the Iranians from making a bomb that we know they’re not making.”
So what explains U.S. sanctions against Iran? If it is not to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons, then what purpose do economic sanctions serve? The reasoning is very simple: to make Iran react out of desperation against America and/or Israel, and thereby provide a legal justification for the war criminals in Washington and Tel Aviv to attack Iran.
America wants to pursue a scorched earth policy against Iran, as it did against Japan during World War II. The FDR administration successfully provoked Japan into responding against America near American waters, so why not pull the same trick on Iran?
Once the painful effects of the sanctions sink in, Iran will be forced to respond in some fashion against America, and if such a response is extreme then American officials will be able to sell the lie to the American people that Iran started the fight and is responsible for all the trouble in the world.
America and Israel, a.k.a. the Giant and the Serpent, want the backing of the international community on their side when they finally decide to attack Iran militarily. But isolating Iran from the world is an impossible mission, which is why USrael will ultimately fail and will be driven out like dogs from the Middle East.
Most nations in the international community understand that American and Israeli hostility towards Iran is not based on the invented fear that Iran will spread nuclear proliferation by getting nuclear weapons, but on the very real fear that Iran reasserting itself as a regional power will significantly undermine USrael’s quest for world domination.
II. Drop The Stick, And Raise The Respect
“Already there is too much loose talk of war. Now is not the time for bluster. Now is the time to let our increased pressure to sink in. Now is the time to heed the timeless words of Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly and carry a big stick.” – President Barack Obama, “2012 AIPAC Speech.”
President Obama should have the tattoo “Thug Life” on his chest because he is more of a low-level gangster than a high-minded statesman. Don’t let his smile fool you. Underneath it, he is a soulless demon. He has a thirst for war and destruction.
If the Obama administration really desired peace with Iran, it would take the path of dialogue and diplomacy. Setting high demands and telling the Iranians to take it or leave it is not a peace-minded strategy. It leads to only one result: war.
If there ever was a time when governments needed to work in cooperation for peace and end war as a means of achieving political goals and resolving conflicts, it is now. Starting a war in our age is nothing less than madness.
In real talks between America and Iran there would be no preconditions, and demands would be left at the door. Real dialogue is about looking the other person in the eye, recognizing his rights, and speaking freely. So far, America and Israel have not done that with Iran. Instead, they have tried to taint Iran’s image with war propaganda before walking into the room to sit down and talk. This is not the behaviour of men. It is not even the behaviour of apes. It is the behaviour of devils and demons. And there are quite a few of those on both sides. Iran’s demons are definitely thirsting for war, too.
Reuel L. Howe, a professor of pastoral theology at Philadelphia Divinity School and the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia, explained the value and importance of dialogue in his book, “The Miracle of Dialogue.” Howe wrote:
“Indeed, the human race stands in danger of being destroyed, because of the deliberate effort of parties and nations to advance their own case by falsifying the aims and character of their opponents. With this frequently goes an ignoring of one’s own sin and responsibility, a representation of the self as being better than it is, and a sense of injury at the hands of the other, as if the fiction created about them was true. The abuse of dialogue has gone on so long that politicians find it difficult to break out of their monological fantasies and move toward a dialogical meeting. What is needed is the coming together of men of conviction from their respective camps who are willing to talk honestly with one another in the face of mutual criticism and loyalty to their own views. If these men would speak with one another not as pawns on a chessboard but as themselves in the sanctuary of truth, the sphere of public life would be transformed by the miracle of dialogue.” (2).
The hope of a dialogue between America and Iran is very low right now. Fear, distrust, and insecurity pervade the atmosphere. As long as America and Israel feel comfortable in toying with Iran, there will never be any meaningful talks amongst the three sides.
What is needed now is another American visionary – a new John F. Kennedy – to heal the wounds between America and Iran, and restore the broken bond.
But that is not enough. What is also needed is a Jewish visionary. The last one, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated because like JFK he was aiming for peace.
And there must be one more visionary – an Iranian visionary. Then, with the American, Jewish, and Iranian visionaries in one room, a real and fruitful dialogue can take place.
There will be endless war and all-consuming cosmic hatred of each other until the day the visionaries and peacemakers in all three countries get together and strike a deal for the ages.
“Dialogue,” said Howe, “is indispensable also in the search for truth and here, too, it is a worker of miracles.”
Maybe miracles are real. Maybe America, Israel, and Iran will mend their bridges and reconnect for the sake of the world. But it is wiser to remain skeptical and expect war than remain naive and expect a miracle.
1. Meerloo, J.A.M. “Conversation and Communication.” The essay is in the 1967 book, “The Human Dialogue: Perspectives on Communication,”edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu. Pg. 146.
2. Howe, R. L. “The Miracle of Dialogue.” From the 1967 book, “The Human Dialogue: Perspectives on Communication,” edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu. Pg. 152-153