Worried about Iran? Hang on a second.

Didn´t Roger Cohen once point a finger at Sean Penn?

Israel - We Control Stupid Americans

‘An Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache, stated that she was not worried about negative ramifications the Israeli onslaught on Gaza might have on the way the Obama administration would view Israel.

She said “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable.

What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you cant criticize Israel”

Late last month, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life gave a breakdown of the religious affiliations of the new U.S. Congress that will be sworn in next week.

Pew found overall that the new Congress is in many ways a reflection of America’s religious demographic make up, at least when compared to the results of its own massive Religious Landscape survey released earlier last year.

For example, it found that Protestants comprised about 54 percent of the incoming members compared to about 51 percent of the adult population overall.

But there was one significant departure between Congress and the nation as a whole: in a country where religion and politics often mix, the politicians were far less likely than the general population to openly admit to no spiritual affiliation.

“Only five members of the new Congress (about one percent) did not specify a religious affiliation, according to information gathered by Congressional Quarterly and the Pew Forum, and no members specifically said they were unaffiliated. By contrast, the Landscape Survey found that individuals who are not affiliated with a particular faith make up about one-sixth (16.1 percent) of the adult population, making this one of the largest ‘religious’ groups in the United States,” Pew said.

Pew also found that a few faith groups were overrepresented and some under-represented.

“Jews, who account for just 1.7 percent of the U.S. adult population, make up 8.4 percent of Congress, including just over 13 percent of the Senate,” it said.

This last fact is very interesting and should be investigated deeper by the media (as their task as watchdog of the democracy)

What does this disproportionate percentage of Jews mean for the US democracy and foreign policy? especially the policy towards Iran

The only unthinkable option is to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. History repeatedly has shown that the appeasement of
aggessive dictators has never succeeded. The problem that is Iran today is not a by-product of American foreign policy, but rather a by-product of the Mullahs radical vision of Islam. One that is militaristic, and aggressive towards the West, and a complete departure from the moderates who made up Iranian society before the Revolution. The Iranian people go hungry, while the Mullahs spend money they do not have financing Hamas’ terrorists, and trying at all costs to obtain Nuclear Weapons. Their obsession is a medieval one, but the weapons at their disposal today are not swords, but nuclear ballistic missiles. Israel will destroy any nuclear facility that Iran possesses. In doing so, they will make us all safer. The world can not allow a regime run by a bunch of out - of - touch religious fanatics, which is what the Mullahs in Iran are- to have their fingers on a nuclear ballistic missile, capable of destroying American, or European cities on a religious whim.

My solution to the threat of the militarization of civilian nuclear capacity is centralized vertical integration. Remove nationalism from nuclear power production and put it under international control. Ownership of all aspects of civilian nuclear power in all countries (including the USA, China, Russia, France, etc.) would be given to a beefed up IAEA. The IAEA would control the fuel supply from the mine to the reactor to the waste repository. Thus any and all nations that were desirous of civilian nuclear power could simply purchase a plant from the IAEA. The plant would be designed, constructed, fueled, staffed and operated by the IAEA. The standardization that would result would speed the construction process, lower the probability of disaster and reduce cost. Any weaponization would result in severe automatic penalties - national pariah status, international ostracism.
Iran is entitled to civilian nuclear power. Let’s call their bluff. Let them have the power but not the control.
tadzio chasellara, USA

Excellent article, Roger, except where you write:

“Netanyahu is right about one thing. The Iranian nuclear program, which Iran implausibly says is for civilian purposes, is “the greatest challenge” now facing 21st century leaders. If Obama fails, his “new era of peace” will become the bitterest phrase of his inaugural speech.”

To quote your own warning: “Hang on a minute”

I thought the greatest challenge in the 21st century was the existence of over 50 ALREADY MANUFACTURED AND READY TO LAUNCH nuclear wepons in the hands of Pakistan which, as everyone knows, created the Taleban and still gives sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Pakistan has also fought 3 wars with India since 1947 and the 2 nations could blow each other to smithereens over Kashmir at a moment’s notice. The only war Iran has fought was the one imposed on it by the U.S. which encouraged Rumsfeld’s old buddy Saddam Hussein to invade Iran.

Iran hasn’t attacked another nation in 250 years, which is more than can be said for the U.S.A. for whom starting wars (usually with the wrong enemy) seems to be as easy as breathing.

In summary, the fact that everyone’s attention is turned towards Iran makes it all the more likely that Al Qaeda sympathizers located throughout Pakistan’s ISI will hand a nuclear weapon to Palestinian freedom fighters. And Israel, when that happens, don’t blame Iran but your and America’s own unforgivable stupidity.

Mohsen Rezai: “America will not do anything military within the next 10 years” “What the U.S. needs to do now is regroup, repair, reconstruct.”

Typical arrogant reposnse from Iran. You think Rezai isn’t relishing the day his backwater regime is being compared to the U.S. ? All they’ve done is uncover 1940’s techology and they’re willing to use it while the rest of world is not.

And why would the U.S. have to regroup? Too many wars? Bad economy? World War II didn’t convince anyone that America can fight on multiple fronts around the world and persevere in difficult times?

The Unthinkable

Logic and reason have left the realms of western governments which the latest economic disaster shows. The stagnation in stopping the world from its worst ecological catastrophe speaks by it self and as Hamid Varzi in the last blog observes the those zionist friends in Obamas administration are no signs of hope.
After all the “most stupid” is a more than valid option in the modern politics. The totally oversized military needs a target or it will lose its absurdly big part of the taxpayers cake in the times of crisis.
Wouldn’t it lead into an us-american identity crisis if the loose gun strategy would be abounded?
Can anybody give me a reasonable explication of Israel gone amok en Gaza? Even if I would be hardline zionist I couldn’t help me but explain it by diagnosis of pure insanity.

Unfortunately war is a more that common option in the times of crises and with the military alliances for the next world war forming - is there anything more needed than a spark to drive this world into madness of Armageddon?

Q

“From Basra through Kabul to the Paris suburbs, Muslim rage would erupt”

I don’t know Basra or Kabul, but concerning Parisian suburbs what you say is complete nonsense. Among the rioters in Paris suburbs, few of them read or speak arabic, very few of them are “muslim”, and most know more about the deeds of Tony Montana and Tupac Shakur than the profet muhammad. What are they? Alienated kids with a deep post-colonial identity crisis.

Make no mistake about it. They know much more about American gangsta rap than the Qu’ran. They are much more inspired by ‘92 L.A. riots than Al Qaida…

Therefore, should I call them Muslims or Americans?

Without at least the threat of force Iran will go the way of North Korea. Talk all you want and we’ll do what we want. Until we need some more cash or whatever then it’s back to talking and then back to doing what we want until next time.
Repeat as needed.

The President Obama is not easy situation . Marco Pizzorno, an expert of International Humanitarian Law , Istructor of IHL says to President Obama that there’s the necessity to enlarge the diffusion of Humanitarian and Human Law in War Theatre. Marco Pizzorno says that Isreal needs to defend Itself and Its populations.The important thing is to give a great diffusion of International Rules in war scenes to all. Marco Pizzorno trusts in Obama ’s work

Basically agreed on all points. Excellent job.

Maybe Obama can make up his own mind, and cease following Bush’s program with such touching scrupulousness. How “bipartisan” can one be? Does that mean twice partisan? Please, oh Obama, come from below the TARP (Transferring Assets to Rich People), and face the reality of this alien, non American world. Bush left various traps in foreign policy, with sharp stakes at the bottom, apparently inviting the Obamamoth and his administration to fall into them. Iran is one of them, Afghanistan is another.

The language of naked military threat is itself an aggression in international relations. It is particularly unbecoming for the USA in the case of Iran. The mess that Iran became is pretty much the artwork of the USA. Obamamoth inherits the policy of his predecessors. OK, he was born in 1961, and he probably did not learn at Punahou that the CIA, excited, financed and organized the Iranian Shiite fanatics to ovethrow Iranian democracy in 1953. The CIA used big lies, falsely claiming that Prime Minister Mossadegh planned to shut down Islam. A vicious dictatorship using torture and summary execution insued, with full American support. Goodie Carter put approvingly his hand on the Shah’s shoulder. Then the Shiites came back with a vengeance. Now the USA, that apprentice sorcerer, has to live with the consequences of his own plots.

And then there is the problem of Israel. Israel increasingly reminds me of a sentry ship, left as an outlier to detect an enemy attack on the main force. In this case the main force is the West. Israel is the attack dog in the middle of the Middle East, ready to bark and bite. Maybe it should become a bit more brainy for its own good.

There was a famous case during the Falklands/Malvinas war. The destroyer Sheffield was such a sentry, far out of the main British fleet, in charge of detecting and attacking any threat. It was attacked by by an Exocet bearing supersonic Argentinean Super Etendard. Although the British knew Exocets very well (The Royal Navy was the main buyer of this French missile), and thought they could handle it. The sea skimming rocket tore through the ship, destroying it completely, with great loss of life.

Morality: it’s not because you think you have it all figured out that you do. Modern weapon technology can be deadly efficient. Three nuclear warheads would make Israel more of place of Shoah than Auschwitz. The conclusion is not that Iran should be attacked as a first option, by an Israel rendered mad by terror.

To be rendered mad by terror should be the last option. The first option ought to be nuclear disarmament. Worldwide. That should be the deal proposed to Iran. We go on with world nuclear disarment with tough inspections, and we, the West, invite you, Iran, to join us.

Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

Doesn’t anyone ever stop to consider that perhaps the reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons (assuming that it does) is that Israel has illegal nuclear weapons with U.S. blessing? America’s support of Israel is not only sinful, it is so obviously against U.S. interests that it makes me weep for America’s failure to provide real leadership for the democratic world.

Roger is beginning to sound a little like Captain Queeg from “The Cain Mutiny” with his constant references to former President Bush. Apparently, W is Roger’s can of strawberries (”Ah, but the strawberries, that’s….that’s were I had them.”)

Roger, in case you haven’t heard, America has a new President, a President for “change,” and her name is Nancy Pelosi, so get over it, ok?

Besides, if you and Jacques Chirac feel that it’s ok for Iran to have a nuclear bomb on top of a intercontinental ballistic missile which can reach Europe, why should I worry? Others may, however. Perhaps that’s why the poodle attacked Chirac, who knows?

Albert Boada (Spain, but resident in China).
The basic problem with nuclear weapons is that they exist and some countries have them. Regardless the discomfort that western powers might feel knowing that countries like North Korea, Pakistan or Iran have or might have them, I see no ultimate reason to state that western discomfort could be more legitimate than the fear felt by Iranians, Koreans and others. After all, they are or have been potential target of Israel, Indian or American nuclear weapons.
Once, and only once, we acknowledge that it is unlikely that others will give up what we are not willing to give up, at least without getting enough compensation and guarantees. Blaming only Iran, a country (and by any means a “failed country”) demonized and pushed against the wall by many years of sanctions without considering their legitimate concerns of being targeted by Israel nuclear power or by “Lasting Freedom” style invasions is not only utterly unfair, but also unrealistic.
Nuclear security nowadays seems more a matter of smart generosity (unilateral and multilateral reduction of nuclear weapon arsenals), negotiation between equally legitimate countries or multinational organizations (not just a speaking down monologue) and control of the existing weapons.
It seems to me that talks about Iran nuclear ambitions should at certain point include talks about the arsenal or the only nuclear power in that region, Israel.

Well, what can be said other than “Complete bollocks!!!!!!”.
Israel is the provoking one in all of this. They always have been. Why is it that they can have access to “peaceful” nuclear technology but no-one else in the region? Why is it they can have an advanced military in the region, but no-one else. Oh, that’s right, because we can trust them.
Israel today is no better than Germany of the 1930’s. Beligerent and full of self-importance. If any history is going to be repeated, it is probably because the Israelis hair-trigger will go off (possibly unintentionally) but causing some horrendous catastrophe (as if Gaza was not enough) and thereby precipitating an all-in brawl across the region, similar enough to Europe in the 1930’s.
It would appear that the US has little option than to support Israel. However, the US would be far better placed to take a neutral stance and not support Israel, much to the horror of the Israelis.
I like some of the suggestions above as well, more power to the IAEA is an excellent idea, not that I think for a moment the US would allow it. Another idea would be to place all military in the hands of the UN. Why do sovereign states need military nowadays anyway? If all power was in the hands of a truly independant arbiter, that would definitely make people behave better!

Roger,

You’ve set out the dangers of military preemption of Iran’s nuclear programme by Israel. However, your argument is not new and adds little to the debate.

Yes, there are significant risks and dangers of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear programme. But what are the risks and dangers of Iran having nuclear weapons? The question is not unimportant given Iran’s repeated threats to wipe Israel of the face of the map.

In more immediate terms, the situation is somewhat analgous to you being confronted in a street at night by a man (with previous links to violence in the neighbourhood) who makes it clear that he intends killing you. To the best of your knowledge, he is loading what appears to be a gun.You too are similarly armed with a gun and have a rapidly decreasing amount of time to decide how to respond:

[a] It’s possible that the man is holding no more than a small umbrella which he is struggling to open. If you shoot him preemptively, you’ll be indicted for murder and a range of significant reprisals by his friends/family/supportes can be expected.
[b] The man may have a loaded gun but can his threats be taken seriously? Does he mean what he says? You know that he’s directly sponsored some recent vandalism and petty crime aimed at you but does that mean that he’ll take the next step and shoot you? If you shoot him preemptively, the law may decide not to prosecute you (after all, the man had a gun in his hand which he threatened you with), but there is very significant risk of violent reprisals.
[c] The man does have a loaded gun and his threats are real. The risk to you is that he shoots and kills you.

Some passers-by will urge you to shoot the man outright. Others will warn you of the risks of doing so and will condemn you out of hand if you make the wrong choice. But the risk is also that your own life could end in a matter of seconds.

What do you do? Which of these options will you take? You’re now faced with a choice between two evils….not so straight forward is it? You have to make a choice in the next few seconds whilst others will have the luxury of debating and condemning your actions for months to come.

In your next article Roger, it would be good to see you give a more balanced context to the cholces that Israel faces.

I thought everyone here might benefit by an example of U.S. and Israeli hypocrisy.

Now, we all know Ahmadinejad came under fierce criticism for ‘doubting’ the historical report on th Holocaust. He was demonized, vilified and my nation victimized by the ‘principled’ West (including spineless Western Europe) with massively increased sanctions.

So, I ask you all, if merely ‘doubting’ the facts of the Holocaust leads to Western opprobrium and demonization, why is Mahmood Abbas, who wrote an entire doctoral thesis describing “The Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed” a U.S./Israeli ‘ally’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas

Is there no end to Western hypocrisy, or to the West’s gratuitous victimization of Iran?

Is there any reason why ‘Sir’ Bernard Lewis, an arch-Zionist who publicly and repeatedly denied the Armenian Holocaust, should have been awarded America’s highest civilian honour in 2002?

I mean, how long can the U.S. and Western Europe maintain their claim to basic fundamental principles of human rights when they selectively demonize some nations and protect others that are infinitely worse in every respect?

Unfortunately for the U.S., ‘deprived’ nations are rapidly becoming empowered economically, militarily and educationally, and they’re refusing to be pushed around as in the 19th and 20th centuries. Unless the U.S. (in particular) radically alters its hegemonistic polices it will bleed to death economically, politically and militarily, and merely hasten a New World Order in which the U.S. itself plays merely a supporting role.

Cohen is right on most points, except one.

Any military action by Israel against Iran will be seen as backed by the US. Because Israel will use US fighter jets, US bombs, US intelligence and will require permission from the US to fly over Iraq.

Israelis are no locked into a very bad logic (a bit like Germans were in the 1930s) and we can expect that they will not stop digging deeper the hole in which they are. They are likely to elect the extremist Netanyahu. They will seek further escalation and confrontation. They will aim at something alike to the “final solution of the Palestinian question”.

In its own interest the US must stop this folly (although I agree with posting no.1 that Israel’s lobby controls the American Middle East policy which ironically supports the Arab view that the Jews already have a home country in the Americas). Obama should be very clear to Israel that any jet entering Iraq airspace will be considered hostile and will be shot down. Israel must not be allowed to escalate the Middle East conflict to a global one, even if some radical Jews may think that this will bring on the messiah quicker.

Salutations, Roger.

Some time ago I sent you an e-mail about a possible visit to Irania on the occasion of the completion of the railway line from Bam to Zehdan, but you never replied to that.

However, I am still glad that you are visiting the Islamic Republic of Irania. Every Muslim whether Shia or Sunni is proud of the achievements of the Islamic Republic, the only exceptions are the officials of American Protractrates (the Catamite Kingdom of Jordan, the Kingdom of Sodom Arabia, etc.). And I hope you did make an effort to see Dr Hamid Varzi, whose contributions to your blog are the most informative.

America and the IRI may have grievances against each other (American hostages held by Iran; America subversion of the elected government of Iran and its replacement by an American Stooge, American shooting down of an Iranian civilian airplane resulting in over 200 deaths, etc).

The only way American should proceed in the Middle East is to recognized the Rights of the People of Persian Heritage and be positive about the struggle of these people to form their own “Perfect Union”. The boundaries drawn by colonialists (British, Russian) creating Afghania are artificial. Today, America and Britain are occupying Afgania because they want to exercise exclusive rights over the opium trade. Historically the British are upto to their old tricks: the British encouraged their slaves in India to grow opium and then FORCED the Chinese Government to allow this narcotic unimpeded import into that country. Now, the British and the Americans occupiers of Afgania have contracted the growing of Opium to the Afghan warlords and all three (the British and American occupiers and the Afghan Warlords) are making money while the British and American occupiers are using opium growing in Afghania as an excuse to prolong their occupation of that country.

My analyses show that it is the “manifest destiny” of Irania, Pakia, Afghania and Tajikia to progress together and build their area cooperatively. This conclusion is based on their shared history, their shared culture, their shared aspirations and other parameters that form the bonds and basis of any strong nationhood, notwithstanding the American-British created pseudo wedge-issue of Sunniism-Shiism.

All problems of the Middle East will become soluble when these four nations start working together. Pax Irania will bring true tranquility to the Middle East and is also the precondition to the inevitable Liberation of Palestina. The present moves of the Western hegemonists to try and create Bantustans (West Bank on one hand and Gaza on the other) in the lands of Palestina to provide slave labour to the Zionist occupiers of the rest of the country will end the same way as the efforts of the Apartheid Regime in South Africa. America should accept this inevitability gracefully, just the same as it did in the case of South Africa.

If iran’s ever barked out against pakistan … iran should think that a country like pakistan can do anything it can so we PAKISTANI’S dont need dictation.IRAN get a rocket and please go settle on moon and built nuclear there.we need peace.THE WORST NEIGHBOUR WE EVER GOT..WORSE THAN INDIA

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PREVENT THE IRANIAN A-BOMB

I am at a loss for ideas on the Nuclear Iranian problem. But there are points in your piece that I also want to ask of you, Mr. Cohen.
You are saying that an American Military Intervention in Iran “is not an option. It is unthinkable”. In your view when can it be an option? In the extreme scenario that Mr. Ahmedinajad casues me to shine at night time I am sure you will approve! There is a long distance between that and the situation right now. I would like to know your honest opinion when do you think a US military intervention can be an option. Since you are not a US government employee what you say would not bind anyone. If you do not answer for fear of the “Iranian Press Freedom” I will understand though!
In another part of your article you mention the 1953 USA intervention in the overthrow of a legitimate, but somehow left leaning government of Iran by the Shah as a mistake. I fully agree with you on that. That was a big mistake as was the Viet Nam War!
The US mistake for the Afghanistan issue did not start with putting Iran inside the “axis of evil” by USA in 2001 and not accepting their help. It started much before that when USA supported the Mujaheeden in Afghanistan against the Russian occupation forces.
These Mujaheeden are the same people that formed El Kaida, formed Taliban and used STING shoulder fired missiles given by Americans(legally or not). My enemy’s enemy is not always my friend!
Israel also did a similar mistake when successive governments supported the seeds of HAMAS as a balance against FATAH in the 80s.
I did not know or am so sure that USA was or trying to destabilize the Islamic Republic.
Since you are asking the US government to declare “…openly that the US government is no longer trying to destabilize the Islamic Republic” My guess is that you agree with that statement. Economic sanctions can have a destabilizing effect but the purpose is to force the Iranians hand to give up the Atomic bomb building efforts without jumping to any military option. How much the economic sanctions are succeeding, with so many holes in it is another topic that should be discussed.
Your direct access to people like Mohsen Rezai is an asset for journalistic purposes but it can also be a chain in your legs which might obscure your objectivity for fear of losing that asset.

I’ve followed Israeli-Palestinian conflict now for more than three decades. What is mystifying is why neither Israeli nor Americans are seriously inclined to de jure establishment of a Palestinian State?

From my knowledge of the children of Abraham, I’m lost to understand the raison d’etre for current Isreli (domestic) politics which sound more and more like a reverse Shoa against Hamas and Palestinian population.

If 1.7% of US population can exert more than 17% influence in US Senate on behalf of Jewish State, there is going to be serious implications to US foreign policy - going forward - even under BO.

The New Yorker, July 7, 2008

Annals of National Security
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....fact_hersh

Mr Roger,

You have indeed accurately described the viability of america’s planned millitary campaign on Iran very blantantly - it is not an option. I agree with you on this account. However, i would like to raise the contention that claiming belief and support in a millitary campaign, as President Barack Obama has, does not equate to the postulation that such a millitary campaign is one that is of strategic and political logic. The political aims of such a advocacy or a such a declaration may be not just for the sake of information, but possibly and largely for the attainment of an edge and a bargaining chip when negociations are put on the table - Obama is aiming, in my opinion, to portray an image of america as capable of striking Iran millitarily, but unwilling to do so because it believes, at the end of the tunnel, that diplomacy is the way to international progress. Shying away from a millitary operation and openly saying that America will not resort to a millitary operation to ensure that Iran does not further develop its nuclear capability to weapons is as good as admiting defeat, both millitarily and politically. Though Obama and american diplomats may know very well indeed that the sustanability of a millitary operation in Iran, given the current global economic and political situation, especially with Russia disturbed by the very idea of missiles planted in poland, it cannot afford to show this knowledege in concrete actions or words, but must instead maintain the consistent stand that they always had against Iran and its exploits, using this as a bargaining chip to finally achieve what it wants by diplomacy (bordering on the extent of coercion) without moving a single millitary unit. Thus, i urge you, Sir, to reconsider your assumption that the public expressions of american leadership is representative of a failure to acknowledge that such a millitary operation is not viable in any sense, and that change in their diplomatic attitudes are pertinent to ensure stable relations.

Best Regards,
Mitchell

I always enjoy your articles and perspectives. However you mentioned recently that it was “unthinkable” for the US to abandon Israel. Have you ever questioned why that is?

American support for Israel (which brings no major benefit to the US) was one of the motivations for 9/11. Immediately following the attacks though, former Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu called the strikes “good” because they would “generate sympathy” for Israel. Five Mossad-associated Israelis were arrested videotaping live and cheering the WTC attack (the infamous “Dancing Israelis”). All fled to Israel upon release.

9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow (a Jewish American) identified Iraq early on as a threat not to the US, but to Israel. Haaretz Israel News later reported that 25 “mostly Jewish” neocons conceived the Iraq War. The flow of sensationalist WMD “intelligence” from Ariel Sharon’s office around Mossad directly to the Office of Special Plans run by Jewish neocon Doug Feith is well known. Yet once the Iraq War got going though, only seven tenths of one percent of American KIA were Jewish Americans….

Israel sold nuclear weapon technology to apartheid South Africa. They took US aid to build the Lavi fighter, and promptly sold it to China, which resold it to Iran. Some US weapons even ended up in Saddam’s Iraq. They have spied on the US, and maintain a WMD program that destablizes the region, and by extension the world. They demand US aid be paid in euros. The believe they are the Chosen People, who because of a humiliating historical grievance, and the threat of a monolithic global enemy, are entitled now to annex land, use collective punishment on civilians, and force “sub humans” into dreadful ghettos. Who else is allowed to behave this way in modern times? Didn’t someone else act like this 65 years ago? Why do modern Israelis allow it? Is Hitler truly the father of their state? How many Palestinian children have to die for Nazi crimes?

Imagine if the US media lost its pro-Israel bias (the under-reporting of Palestinian deaths has been documented in numerous balanced studies). If they covered the facts objectively, like much of the European and Asian media does, American public attitudes would over time come to resemble those of Europe, where Israel was in recent years named both the worst national brand in the world, and the greatest threat to world peace.

What is “unthinkable” only remains so, as long as the US media continues self-censorship, born of a cocktail of Holocaust guilt, comparative cultural affinity, and the influence of the Israel Lobby. America has been wrong so many times - on witches, on slavery, on Japanese-Americans, on Reds Under The Bed, on Iraq WMD. Isn’t this another one? And ask yourself this: what just cause has ever relied on suppression and distortion of the facts?

Robert Lomax, USA

I want to underscore the importance of the US role in the 1953 Iranian coup, which shattered Iran’s best chance for democracy. Iranians of all generations regard this incident as proof of the nature of American interests in the region. It is refreshing to read media coverage that reflects Iran’s historical and cultural nuances that are pivotal to the success of US’s response to the nuclear threat.

The whole issue of the nuclear threat is being presented in a very skewed manner throughout today’s blogs, media, and politics.

Let us remember that the only time in history when an atomic/nuclear bomb was actually used was in Hiroshima and Nagazaki, when the US was sure that Japan could not respond.

We lived through decades of the ‘cold war’ because both the US and the Soviets owned such devastating weapons. Pakistan today is not a “state” threat, because India also has such weapons. (i.e.) There was/is a status of balanced deterrance.

Non-state entities (including AlQaeda) are not a realistic nuclear threat either because they cannot produce such weapons in their caves and mountains, nor would any state (including Pakistan) ever be so stupid as to supply such organizations with these weapons.

Why? Well, if AlQaeda detonated such a weapon against a Western target, who would be the first country to come to mind as their suppliers? .. You guessed it! .. Pakistan! .. If the aftermath of 9/11 was any indication of what is done to collaborators in an AlQaeda attack, and if Iraq was an indication of how flimsy that evidence would have to be; then it is reasonable to assume that Pakistan would be summarily destroyed. No … I don’t think Pakistan is ready to be annihilated yet!

And even should Iran go nuclear, the same would hold true for it as well with Hezbollah for example.

Therefore that leaves us with one other scenario; that being the one of a nuclear state that fears for its survival under conditions of conventional warfare. Which state most closely falls into that category? .. Right again! .. The Zionist state! ..

What makes that scenario so much more ominous is the fact that they know that their antagonists do not possess any “balanced deterrance” (except for the relatively far way Pakistan upon whom they could easily unleash their Indian friends and whom could easily be kept out of direct harm’s way) and that is why they are so hostile about having anyone else in the region acquire such capabilities. If we add to the equation their little regard for human life demonstrated in Gaza, their history of massacres and unhesitating use of excessive force, and the unquestioned support provided to them by another nuclear power that has indeed used such weapons before against those who have no deterrant. If we consider all of that, we are left with the most serious nuclear threat humanity faces today! … Israel (and the USA)! … Today, the real threat of the use of nuclear weapons comes from states/powers who ALREADY own such weapons while their antagonists do not!

Therefore, one might look at Iran’s acquisition of nuclear capabilities as the making of a potential ’second cold war’; whereby there is enough deterrance on each side to make the future use of such weapons by any side a form of suicide.

The only caveat here though is Iran’s regional aspirations. If these aspirations become too expansionist (and some of the signs are indeed present), whilst other regional players remain non-nuclear, then we could be in for a real ‘regional’ threat … but that would represent possibly only an economic threat to the West, which may or may not require their intervention/deterrance.

The real need today is to completely ban nuclear weapons altogether, so that no one has a need nor an excuse to produce them. However, hegemonial superpowers and expansionist Zionism will sadly never voluntarily allow that to happen …

I agree a US attack on Iran would be insane. So would an Israeli attack. Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the US. Iran has a right to a domestic nuclear power program and there is no evidence Iran has a covert nuclear weapons development program. The Russians do not think there is a secret nuclear weapons program, and they are in a position to know, with 2000 or more Russian technicians involved in the Iranian nuclear power program.

Mr. Cohen misundrestands the example he sites of when Mr. Rezai “convinces” Khomeini to alter his course on the Iraq war and accept the terms that he had stubbernly refused to accept for six years costing hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. It was not some epiphony of undrestanding the merits of peace, or the well being of the Iranian people, that prompted Khomeini to alter his course. It was the very real threat to the longevity of the Islamic regime that prompted the change. In the month preceding this decision the US navy had sank approximately half the Iranian naval force in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the mounting Iranian casualties, particularly the victims of chemical weapons, and the rockets that the Iraqi army was lobbing into Tehran had prompted the Iranian population to undrestand that the revoultion had utterly failed them.
The lesson from that bit of Iranian history is not what Mr. Cohen drives to fortify his argument. The real lesson that policy makers should undrestand is that negotiation with Iran will only succeed when it is conducted from a position of strength. In the thirty year history of hostility between the US and the Islamic regime the only time that the Iranian Ayatollahs made a genuine attempt at negotiation was shortly after they observed the US military accomplish In two weeks in Iraq what the Iranian military could not do in eight years of war. Looking to their East they saw the Taliban dispatched in short order. The Iranian regime saw itself as next and only when regime survival became seriously threatened in their minds did they find a taste for negotiation. This is the lesson of history. Mr. Cohen exagerates the consequences of military action and fails to realize how the american soldier and diplomat must coordinate their efforts to achieve success in Iran policy. Blaming President Bush will not solve this problem. If Obama allows the Khomeinists in Iran to get their hands on nuclear weapons the world order will have changed to the detriment of liberty and freedom.

Roger Cohen’s religious background doesn’t figure in his posted biography - in itself, interesting - but one may be oardoned for guessing Jewish. It’s extraordinary how intelligent, apparently educated, people never seem to escape their religious preconceptions. In this instance Cohen says blithely that any abandoning of the American blind support of Israel is ‘unthinkable”. And there lies the real problem, which George Marshall understood back in 1948 when he warned Truman not to recognize the proclamation of the Zionist state, founded in wholesale larceny and the pioneering of ‘terrorist’ methods since adopted by aggrieved Islamists. The US must now begin to control Israel, rather than persisting with the reverse. Obama, surely, must appreciate that.

Mr. Cohen is right in his assertion that a military option is not an option at all. A missile from an American or an Israeli fighter could engulf the region in flames. And since Iranians are very good at fighting wars in distant theaters, or aiding those who actually do the fighting, the Western world will have a merry time trying to stop them.
But here’s the irony: Iran is not the enemy. Yes, Iranian leaders are stubborn, unforgiving, manipulative, defiant and altogether a diplomat’s worst nigtmare. But they are also pragmatic, worldly and
proud. They don’t want to see their country isolated nor annihilated.
The upshot of having an ancient civilization as your hostile country is that it wants to survive. So all the images of an apocolyptic war initiated by a nuclear mullah with a switch in his turban do fit the comic books. They don’t ,however, fit the Clausewitzian-minded Iranians who are young, savvy, educated, and very much pro-American.
As an Iranian myself I believe that the only way to take care of the present is to heal the past. Iraniands do not subscribe to the American addage, “Let bygones be bygones.” To them “bygones” are almost never gone. We should take the non-option military threat off the non-existent table, address our mistakes, and acknowledge Iran for what it is: a (relatively peaceful)regional hegemon, with big aspirations, and a bigger chip on its shoulders,

A calm and intelligent piece - which has, alas, elicited a number of rather crazed responses. My only qualification for your argument, Roger, is the claim of fifty years of anti-American hatred following in the wake of an attack. It would be more like one hundred years. We already have fifty years - and counting - beyond the CIA and that coup in Teheran. The real imperatives - moral, pragmatic, ecological, even military - add up to a complex program: to find a way out of what so often appears inevitable. Your column is a step in the right direction: think calmly, try to satisfy the zealots with logic and common sense, force everyone to go outside the militarist box. But heavens, it sure isn’t easy. Though there is no magic solution, I believe that constantly pointing out the “real world consequences” is the necessary, but not sufficient, response.

Dr James Edward White, United States of America.
Your sentiment is reminiscent of Chamberlain in the 30s. The so-called intelligentsia should pray now for a leader of our country who deals with reality of human nature, rather than what sounds good in a classroom. “You cannot make them love you; but you can certainly make them fear you.” If only you believe in yourself. Fifty million dead in WWII because of spineless opposition to Hitler, from neighbors who could have smothered him in the cradle, with a squadron of good soldiers, and stout hearts. And yet you want to appease the next enemy! Incredible!

Bebe Netanyahu, the once and future Prime Minister of Israel, is the right man at the right time to deal with iran and its proxies. No one in the world should be surprised when Israel takes out all the Iranian nuclear facilities, and much more. Israel has the means, and the motive. No individual, or nation, can tolerate threats to its survival. Iran cannot be permitted to get an A-bomb, and won’t be.

“Never again’ means never blowing off a threat to survival. Iran will act on its ideology. The world believes the intentions are sincere.

The reason Jews total only 15 million folks on a planet of 7 billion souls, but have immense disproportionate influence and wealth, should be obvious to even the stupid folks on this blog.

Darwinian survival advantage goes to the most intelligent and talented. We have succeeded in surviving by our wits for thousands of years, against all enemies.

That makes us the “Chosen People”.

Better learn who you are messing with.

Geopolitical cognitive dissonance theory
————————————————————————-

Possibly more elaborate comments will follow although there is a suspiciously low number of reactions to your essay. Are other people already afraid to speak out their mind on Iran even on a IHT blog.

For now it may be constructive to gently highlight the full-fledged demonstration of a basic concept of cognitive dissonance theory. (i.) The reality knocks at the door. (ii.) The reality does not match your mindset. (iii.) That causes conscious or unconscious psychological discomfort which human beings tend to avoid. (iv.) So, your perception and interpretation are modulated to relieve that discomfort.

Cfr. (ii.) and (iii.) “War is terrible beyond imagination.” So, is the responsibility to take the right decisions, as a politician or as a respectable journalist, which you are deservedly. In your analysis, you give, cfr. (i.), a near to exhaustive analysis of the threat the Western world is acutely confronted with. In our democracies, for instance, we are already that much threatened by minority violence that governments and politicians back away from rightful stances. However, cfr. (iv.) you withhold from the obvious conclusions. “War is terrible beyond imagination.” I am fully behind any policy that can avoid war. If a war is unavoidable, then the right strategic choices have to be made, not at least about timing. A responsible timing can exponentially limit the scale of the disaster, as do the adequate preparations in words and actions.

A war is avoidable. We keep hoping, arguing, praying and thinking laterally about scenarios wherein finally the threatening side would once show a minimum of goodwill and co-operate in all procedures unavoidable to avoid a war. The terrible anti-Semitic reactions and propaganda beyond imagination of the Western intellectual nomenclatura during the Gaza operation, from a motivational viewpoint in geopsychology, is not precisely encouraging in the appropriate direction.

In a comment posted on your blog concerning the American presidential elections, I deliberatedly left out a crucial paragraph out of fear that it would trigger an adversely directed collective cognitive dissonance effect. It anyway was overshadowed by other electoral dynamics. Iraq seems to evolve in the right direction. We will never know the terrible scenarios that would have evolved without the intervention but even without having found WMD it is entirely within reasonable imagination to have an idea. That is a supplementary dimension in the terrible decision responsibility. The sacrifices are visible, measurable and villified. The comparative blessings stay for ever unmeasurable.

“History repeatedly has shown that the appeasement of
aggessive dictators has never succeeded.”

I feel it’s important to remind my compatriots in America that Iran has not engaged in military aggression during either the 20th or the 21st century. Calling it a nation ruled by “aggressive dictators” is not justified by fact. The USA, by contrast, killed millions of civilians in its aggressive wars in the last fifty years — mainly in Vietnam and Iraq. One could add Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Afghanistan as well if one really wants to count wars.

A once-obscure Nazarene counseled his hearers to remove the timber from their own eyes before worrying about the mote in their brother’s.

From an historical world perspective it appears that peace has much more to fear from the nuclear-armed and very much in-love-with-war USA — and Russia, and Israel — than from Iran…nuclear or not.

The Zionists have committed NUMEROUS holocausts against the Palestinians; the latest one took place only a few days back.

Just to give the Zionists a taste of their own pudding, from NOW ON every man, woman and child in the world should DENY the holocaust that the Zionists want to us to remember until ALL ZIONSTS ACKNOWLEDGE the holocausts perpetrated by them against the Palestinians.

As a first step every humanity respecting nation, especially the Muslim Nations, should legislate against people who deny the Palestinian Holocausts.

Secondly, I recommend to all Muslim countries that they should accept no Diplomats, Scholars, or Visitors from outside their area (i.e. America, European, Canadian, Australian, etc.) who deny the holocausts against the Palestinians.

Except for the odd ‘agent provocateur’ or two, the comments on this Blog are so intelligent that I wonder why the message doesn’t sink into the minds of those people running the U.S..

For how much longer does the U.S.A. intend to discredit AND impoverish itself by encouraging Israeli barbarity? For how much longer does the U.S. intend to support, strengthen and guarantee the security of Middle Eastern dictatorships, even those ones whose Muftis preach death to all Christians and Jews; the nations that planned, financed and executed 9/11; nations where there isn’t a church or a synagogue in sight but which insist on planting mosques all over Europe?

America, if you’re looking to fight a “War of Principle” that would justify the $ 850 billion Pentagon budget and/or continue detracting your citizens’ attention from their undeserved economic fate, go off and invade Zimbabwe! The whole world would cheer you on instead of cursing.

NO?

Sorry, then we’re forced to conclude, as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan did in explaining the motive behind the invasion of Iraq, that “it’s all about oil”.

What a waste! What a huge waste of natural resources, human resources, blood and treasure all round. America, WAKE UP!

David (16), you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble in writing such a lengthy belligerent piece if you’d bothered to provide evidence for your following statement:

“The question is not unimportant given Iran’s repeated threats to wipe Israel of the face of the map”.

Your suggestion that Iran be pre-emptively attacked Iran is based on the above sentence. Let me open your eyes:

The above sentence is a Neocon-Zionist mistranslation of a speech in which Ahmadinejad stated that “the Israeli regime would vanish from the pages of time”, just as the South African Apartheid regime did, i.e., that Israel would implode without a shot being fired. So far he’s spot on.

Many American Farsi-speakers have provided the correct translation and interpretation, but the Zionist Conspiracy is so cynically effective that it has managed to transform this harmless and very accurate sentence into a ‘cause célèbre’.

If I write that “The U.S. Empire is at an end”, am I making a threat or a forecast? It’s truly sad that some people cannot tell the difference.

quote:
The New York Sun, a newspaper published by Ronald Weintraub and edited by Seth Lipsky, and known for its pro-Israel bias, carried an article recently on the obeisance made by Hillary Clinton to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in New York, which might almost be called a pledge of allegiance to Israel. Quoth the Sun’s staff reporter, Jill Gardiner:

“A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton’s re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the AIPAC dinner always draws a parade of politicians.

‘New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community,’ he said. ‘If you’re running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the issue that matters most to them.’

Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for AIPAC, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has ‘an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro-Israel community.’”

Hillary apparently sang the song that everyone at AIPAC loves to hear, for later in the Sun’s article, we read, “While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran.”

Att: Robert Lomax (25):

What a superb post! Among your other great points, probably the biggest scandal of the 21st century was the establishment of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans 6 months before the invasion of Iraq and disbanded just 3 months after the invasion, having successfully completed its task of fabricating WMD evidence against Iraq. Larry Franklin, who worked for Dr. Feith, was sentenced to 22 years in prison for spying for Israel. (Yawn. What’s new?)

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski, in Congressional testimony, described how the Pentagon office was overrun by Israel generals who screamed orders to Dr. “Strangelove” Feith and didn’t even obey the Pentagon’s signing in protocol! No wonder Israelis believe they run the U.S., having suckered the U.S. into invading Iraq and demonizing Iran!.

Why the OSP has never been investigated will remain a U.S. secret, and we may only learn the full extent of the OSP’s ‘dirty war’ 50 years into the future when it no longer matters who destroyed whom because the U.S. will have invented new ‘enemies’ to intimidate, vilify and invade.

As the Roman General Brennus said many centuries ago: “Vae Victis”. It works well, until the boot is on the other foot.

Sorry for the typo: Brennus led the Gauls in victory against the Romans, and when the latter complained that the conditions imposed by Brennus were too harsh, exclaimed: ‘Vae Victis!’ or “Woe unto the conquered!”.

Will quote my husband here, “The Islamic Republic of Iran” will fall, because it`s frightened of its own citizens. The next generation with no memory of the revolution and the blood bathwhich followed will not tolerate the regime which has made Islam appear as a gangster religion. The government doesn´t even fight it`s own battles. (One lesson learned from the war with Iraq.) One can twist facts and figures till the end of the time, but nothing positive has come out of this regime. It`s reduced thousands of years of Perisan civilization into a mediocre power trying to win over angry Arab youth.

Michelle, why do you think the Islamic regime has managed “to win over angry Arab youth”? Why is the most popular leader, not just in the Arab but throughgout the 1.2 billion Islamic world, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah? Have you or your husband ever stopped for even one second to contemplate this question?

I suppose you subscribe to the Western media disseminated view that “Muslims simply enjoy killing”? … that they haven’t been provoked? … that there are no historical injustices perpetrated by the West? … that 150 years of British-U.S. imperial rule have been benign and attempted merely to empower Middle Eastern nations and make them strong and independent? … that Judaism and Christianity, which devastate the Middle East with the aid of cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells and white phosphorous, do not appear as ‘gangster religions’? … No, in your view only Islam does.

Michelle, I can understand why you make such sweeping statements, because the mainstream Western media rarely portrays the roots of terrorism accurately. I therefore strongly recommend that you read Lawrence Wright’s brilliant “The Looming Tower”, Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies” and Michael Scheuer’s “Imperial Hubris”. Clarke was the U.S. National Security Council’s Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor under Bill Clinton, and Scheuer was Head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit at the same time. All 3 firmly blame the U.S.A. for the birth and growth of ‘Islamic terrorism’. There’s also Robert Baer’s brilliant “The Devil We Know”.

And yes, contrary to your statement in another posting, I do indeed read the books I recommend and don’t just throw out names.

By the way, it’s not just “angry Arab youth” that is anti-American but most of the non-Islamic world, according to regular PEW and CNN/Time polls. The U.S.A. is seen by many as the most hypocritical nation on Earth, a force for evil rather than the force for good it was in the 1940s when it made inordinate sacrifices in a just cause. It’s been downhill ever since. Your reference to Islam as a ‘gangster religion’ is quite amusing considering the misdeeds perpetrated by Christian and Jewish nations:

The U.S. is so overtly hypocritical regarding Iran’s nuclear programme that everyone suspects a hidden agenda aimed at giving the U.S.A. global military superiority:

1. The U.S. Congress last year approved a budget of $ 50 billion (out of an unbelievable $ 850 billion Pentagon budget) for increasing the power of its nuclear weapons.

2. The U.S. unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty, to Russia’s and everyone else’s alarm.

3. The U.S. shamelessly refuses to ratify the international ban on landmines (which should be a no-brainer).

4. The U.S. maufactures and supplies cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells, white phosphorous and other banned WMD to Israel for dumping on hapless Palestinians (This is, of course, a “good” Judao-Christian War).

5. The U.S.A. has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but cynically and hypocritically uses that same NPT to beat up Iran!

6. The U.S. has refused to ratify the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and is designing and testing new generations of nuclear weapons.

7. The U.S.A. has refused inspections of its facilities while hypocritically demanding inspections for other nations.

8. The U.S. is actively pursuing military domination of outer space. Here below is an article written just a couple of months ago:

World Opposes U.S. Space Weapons Stance
Tim Rinne
NFP State Coordinator
The following editorial by NFP State Coordinator Tim Rinne was published in the December 13, 2008 edition of the Grand Island Independent.

Just as it’s done every year since 2005, the Bush/Cheney Administration has once again opposed a UN resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Every other country on earth except the U.S. (and Israel which abstained) supported the resolution in the December 2 vote. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Great Britain, France, Japan, Canada, Venezuela — 177 nations total — all voted in favor of the annual “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS) resolution, as they have for the past twenty years. Only the U.S. dissented.

Although our government didn’t actually start voting against the PAROS resolution until four years ago, the U.S. has never supported it. Prior to 2005, we’d always abstained. Neither Republican nor Democratic administrations showed any inclination to heed the will of the world community on this issue. And the reason is plain.

As the world’s only remaining superpower, the U.S. has had unchallenged space superiority — and we weren’t going to forfeit that advantage to be placed back on an equal footing with others. The Bush/Cheney White House made clear its hostility to any new space treaty when it stated in 2006 that “there is no — repeat, no — problem in outer space for arms control to solve.” That same year, the administration released its new “National Space Policy” which openly calls for U.S. space dominance and asserts that we have the unilateral right to “dissuade or deter… and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. interests.” And this past February, when, Russia and China proposed a draft treaty banning weapons in outer space, the administration dismissed the plan out of hand as “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage.”

We Americans are justifiably concerned about our national security. But in our headlong rush to protect our own national interests, we tend to forget that other nations have national security concerns of their own.

Imagine for a moment how America’s policy on space — where we get to rule supreme — must strike the rest of the world… And then imagine how we, as Americans, would react if Russia or China were to adopt such a policy. We’d be outraged.

And appropriately so.

But it should come as no surprise then that the U.S.’s stanch opposition to a measure seeking to preserve outer space for peaceful purposes doesn’t sit particularly well with our global neighbors.

Perhaps after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the U.S. was the only space power still standing, we could get away with that kind of high-and-mighty attitude. But those days are gone. China is now shooting down its own weather satellites. India has just landed a probe on the Moon. Iran is launching missiles into space. And Russia’s rejuvenated space program is matching the glory days of the old USSR. America is still the big shot on the block, but the neighborhood is changing fast.

And rather than annually stonewall efforts to negotiate a new space treaty, it’s now in the U.S.’s national interest to sit down at the table and hammer out a comprehensive and verifiable accord.

For those of us in Nebraska though, the threat of an arms race in outer space hits particularly close to home.

Along with its missions of nuclear deterrence, cyberspace, intelligence/surveillance/ reconnaissance, information operations, missile defense, full-spectrum global strike, and combating weapons of mass destruction, U.S. Strategic Command in Bellevue is now responsible for space. And StratCom’s fingerprints are everywhere.

Seventy percent of the munitions targeted on Iraq during the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign, for instance, were directed from space by StratCom assets. Those proposed Missile Defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that are sparking a new Cold War with Russia are StratCom’s handiwork. This past February, StratCom used that self-same Missile Defense system to shoot down a dying U.S. satellite, demonstrating that Missile ‘Defense’ can just as easily double as an offensive anti-satellite weapon. And those unmanned Predator drones that are invading Pakistani airspace and firing missiles at al-Qaida targets are being flown courtesy of StratCom’s satellite network.

StratCom is up to its eyeballs in turning space into the next battleground. And if we have any hope of preventing war from erupting in the heavens, the incoming Obama Administration needs to reverse twenty years of short-sighted White House policy and set about negotiating a treaty on space.

I give my support for The strategy of Marco Pizzorno because to enlarge Humanitarian Law knowledge is necessary for all.
Marco Pizzorno is doing a great work fo, i think that a change can start with good ideas.

now Iran has a sattallite, what does it mean?? iran found a new poewr???