Israel Discovers the Great Satan

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Bob McDob
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 1590
Joined: 2002-07-25 03:14am

Israel Discovers the Great Satan

Post by Bob McDob »

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2002/0212-Iran.html

A GoogleSearch for "The Great Satan" brought up this old editorial from February 2002. I still think it's worth commenting on today.
TEL AVIV -- Some weeks ago, something curious happened: Israel discovered that Iran is the Great Satan.

It happened quite suddenly. There was no prior sensational news, no new discovery. As if by the order of a drill-sergeant, the whole Israeli phalanx changed direction. All the politicians, all the generals, all the enlisted media, with the usual complement of professors-for-hire, - all of them discovered overnight that Iran is the immediate, real and terrible danger.

By wondrous coincidence, at exactly the same moment a ship was captured that, allegedly, carried Iranian arms to Arafat. And in Washington Shimon Peres, a man for all seasons and the servant of all masters, accosted every passing diplomat and told him stories about thousands of Iranian missiles that have been given to the Hizbullah. Yes, yes, Hizbullah (included by President Bush in the list of "terrorist organizations") is receiving horrible arms from Iran (included by President Bush in the "Axis of Evil") in order to threaten Israel, the darling of the Congress.

Does this sound mad? Not at all. There is method in this madness.

On the face of it, the matter is easy to explain. America is still in a state of fury after the Twin-Towers outrage. It has won a amazing victory in Afghanistan, hardly sacrificing a single American soldier. Now it stands, furious and drunk with victory, and does not know who to attack next. Iraq? North Korea? Somalia? The Sudan?

President Bush cannot stop now, because such an immense concentration of might cannot be laid off. The more so, as Bin-Laden has not been killed. The economic situation has deteriorated, a giant scandal (Enron) is rocking Washington. The American public should not be left to ponder on this.

So here comes the Israeli leadership and shouts from the roof-tops: Iran is the enemy! Iran must be attacked!

Who has made that decision? When? How? And most importantly – Where? Clearly not in Jerusalem, but in Washington DC. An important component of the US administration has given Israel a sign: Start a massive political offensive in order to pressure the Congress, the media and American public opinion.

Who are these people? And what is their interest? A wider explanation is needed.

The most coveted resource on earth is the giant oil-field in the Caspian Sea region, that competes in scale with the riches of Saudi Arabia. In 2010 it is expected to yield 3.2 billion barrels of crude oil per day, in addition to 4850 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year.

The United States is determined (a) to take possession of it, (b) to eliminate all potential competitors, (c) to safeguard the area politically and militarily, and (d) to clear a way from the oil-fields to the open sea.

This campaign is being led by a group of oil people, to which the Bush family belongs. Together with the arms industry, this group got both George Bush senior and George Bush junior elected. The President is a simple person, his mental world is shallow and his pronouncements are primitive, bordering on caricature, like a second-rate Western. That is good for the masses. But his handlers are very sophisticated people indeed. It's they who guide the administration.

The Twin Towers outrage made their job much easier. Osama Bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests. If I were a believer in Conspiracy Theory, I would think that Bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one, I can only wonder at the coincidence.

Bush's "War on Terrorism" constitutes a perfect pretext for the campaign planned by his handlers. Under the cover of this war, America has taken total control over the three small Muslim nations near the oil reserves: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The whole region is now completely under American political-military domination. All potential competitors – including Russia and China – have been pushed out.

For a long time, the Americans have been arguing among themselves about the best route for piping this oil to the open sea. Routes that may be under Russian influence have been eliminated. The 19th century, deadly British-Russian competition, then called the "Great Game", is still going on between America and Russia.

Until recently, the western route, leading to the Black Sea and Turkey, seemed most feasible, but the Americans did not like it very much, to say the least. Russia is much too near.

The best route leads south, to the Indian Ocean. Iran was not even considered, since it is governed by Islamic fanatics. So there remained the alternative route: from the Caspian Sea, through Afghanistan and the western part of Pakistan (called Beluchistan), to the Indian Ocean. To this end, the Americans conducted, ever so quietly, negotiations with the Taliban regime. They bore no fruit. Then the "War on Terrorism" was started, the US conquered all of Afghanistan and installed their agents as the new government. The Pakistani dictator, too, was bent to the American will.

If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.

That would have been the end of the story, but the appetite grows with the eating. The Americans drew two lessons from the Afghani experience: (a) that every country can be subdued by sophisticated bombs, without putting any soldiers in harm's way, and (b) that by military might and money America can install client governments anywhere.

And so a new idea came up in Washington: Why lay a long pipeline around Iran (through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan) if one can lay a much shorter pipeline through Iran itself? One has only to topple the Ayatullah regime and install a new pro-American government. In the past, that seemed impossible. Now, after the Afghani episode, it looks eminently practicable. One has only to prepare American public opinion and to acquire the support of the congress for an attack on Iran.

For this, Israel's good services are needed. It has an enormous influence in the Congress and the media. It works like this: Israeli generals declare every day that Iran is producing weapons of mass-destruction and threatens the Jewish State with a second Holocaust. Sharon announces that the capture of the Iranian arms-ship proves Arafat is a part of the Iranian conspiracy. Peres tells everybody that Iranian missiles threaten the whole world. Every day some newspaper tells its readers that Bin Laden is in Iran or with the Hizbullah in Lebanon.

President Bush knows how to reward those who serve him well. Sharon got a free hand to oppress the Palestinians, imprison Arafat, assassinate militants and enlarge the settlements. It's a simple deal: You deliver the support of the Congress and the media, I deliver the Palestinians on a platter.

This could not happen if America was still in need of allies in Europe and the Arab world. But in Afghanistan, the Americans learned that they don't need anybody anymore. They can spit in the eyes of the pitiful Arab regimes, that are always begging for money, and disregard Europe altogether. Who needs the negligible armies of Britain and Germany, when America alone is mightier then all the armies of the world combined?

The idea of American-Israeli cooperation against Iran is not new for Sharon. On the contrary, in 1981, when he was just appointed Minister of Defense, he offered the Pentagon a daring plan: in the event of Khomeini's demise, the Israeli army would immediately occupy Iran, in order to forestall the Soviet Union. The IDF would turn the country over to the slow-moving Americans, once they arrived. For this purpose, the Pentagon would stockpile in advance the most sophisticated arms in Israel, under American control, to be used in this operation.

The Pentagon did not accept the idea at that time. Now, the cooperation is being established against a different background.

What conclusions should we draw from all this?

First of all, that shall be located on the frontline of this coming war. Beyond the exchange of curses between the "two Persian Chiefs-of-Staff" (as the joke goes in Israeli command circles, alluding to the fact that Shaul Mofaz was born in Iran), an Iranian reaction to an American assault may hurt us grievously. There are missiles. There are chemical and biological weapons.

Second, that those of us who desire an Israeli-Palestinian peace cannot rely on America. Now everything depends on us alone, the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Our blood is more precious than Caspian Sea oil. At least to us.
Thoughts?
That's the wrong way to tickle Mary, that's the wrong way to kiss!
Don't you know that, over here lad, they like it best like this!
Hooray, pour les français! Farewell, Angleterre!
We didn't know how to tickle Mary, but we learnt how, over there!
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Two steps to the west, buddy.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

There will be no attack on Iran. There's no need for it. Hell, we're already exploiting the Caspian reserves through Azerbaijan, which has worked hard for good relations with the U.S.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

I also might note that:

1. They're grossly overestimating the size of the field.

2. A pipeline can be laid through Turkey to Azerbaijan once that entire thing with Armenia is resolved. Or through Georgia the same if not.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Andrew J.
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3508
Joined: 2002-08-18 03:07pm
Location: The Adirondacks

Post by Andrew J. »

The guy's just dead wrong too, seeing as how we attacked Iraq instead.
Don't hate; appreciate!

RIP Eddie.
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
2. A pipeline can be laid through Turkey to Azerbaijan once that entire thing with Armenia is resolved. Or through Georgia the same if not.

Replace the word "can" with "is being" , the ground breaking for a pipe line from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia happen over a year ago.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Replace the word "can" with "is being" , the ground breaking for a pipe line from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia happen over a year ago.
Ah. I thought I'd heard about that, actually, but I was too lazy at the time to confirm it. It does make the entire article a bit silly, rather.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Aother sophisticated delivery of the same ol' same ol' "Evil America guided by the evil yet childish George Bush, is only doing this for the oil. No blood for oil, rah, rah, rah"....

Come back when there is a real argument.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Coyote wrote:Aother sophisticated delivery of the same ol' same ol' "Evil America guided by the evil yet childish George Bush, is only doing this for the oil. No blood for oil, rah, rah, rah"....

Come back when there is a real argument.
I don't see why this argument doesn't have any legitimacy:
In the run up to this year's Iraq war, conferences and studies commissioned by hawkish conservative think tanks in Washington debated and prepared models for privatization of the Iraqi oil industry with, of course, major U.S. participation.

A Heritage Foundation study by Ariel Cohen and Gerald O'Driscoll argued, "The Bush administration should provide leadership and guidance for the future Iraqi government ... (including) a massive, orderly and transparent privatization of state-owned enterprises, especially the restructuring and privatization of the oil sector."

Commented John B. Judis in The New Republic Jan. 20, "The study has been well-received by administration neo-conservatives."
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Okay, I've said it before and I'll say it again-- of course one of the reasons we went there was for oil. In case folks haven't noticed, oil, that thing which makes some old guys rich, is also the thing that makes the global economy go. Like it or not, it is the truth, until we find better ways to power ourselves and our industries.

Oil brings in a lot of money. That money could be used for a variety of purposes, and if it goes to an American company (and Americans will not be the only ones to benefit from this oil) then the money will go for many things-- some of it will go to make the old guy richer, some will go to make the company bigger, but in making the company bigger then that means more people are hired to work there, and so on.

As opposed to Saddam Hussein, who will most likely use the oil money to perpetuate a dictatorship that tosses people into plastic-rippers for fun, buries the entire families or clans of political opponents in mass graves, and foments war with neighbors and has done so in th epast with chemical weapons.

So, given a choice between oil riches going into the pocket of a greedy old man, or going into the regime of a ruthless dicatator that kills hundreds of thousands, well, I'd rather see the greedy old man get it. The worst he's likely to do is buy a Mercedes and flaunt it in my face. If you or anyone else can provide an argument that can prove that it is far better and more morally justified to allow the regime of Saddam Hussein to perpetuate its horrors instead, I'd sure like to hear it.

We went to war for many reasons, some spoken and obvious, some unspoken, some mistaken, and some very much on the mark but left unsaid. To say that the only reason we went to war was for oil is as pale and two-dimensional as saying that the only reason we went to war was for humanitarian purposes, or for WMDs, or for regional stability, etc, etc.

Regardless of what people may think of George Bush or America, I still think we made the right call and took the right action. Even if it means a few old geezers are going to get rich-- the payoff is that a lot fewer Iraqis are going to end up face down in mass graves. That is a good thing.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Post Reply