War With Iran: New Excuse, Same Conclusion

Related Articles »





  • Printer Friendly Printer Friendly
  • Comments Comments (0)

The chorus of voices within this country calling for war with Iran are getting louder once again, this time baiting American leadership not with false evidence of nuclear weapons or fabricating ties to the terror attack in New York, which Americans are very wary of, but with promises of economic improvement.

David Broder of the Washington Post recently proposed a solution to the economic crisis created by Wall Street banks, in a typical Neoconservative non-sequitur: war with Iran. "Look back at FDR and the Great Depression," Broder wrote. "What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II."

According to Broder, Republicans will rally to the side of the President if he spends "much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs" which will improve the economy.

And since "Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century," the war is justified anyway, even aside from economics.

Previously, the Neoconservatives had succeeded in the same slight of hand, seducing Bush and Cheney into invading Iraq using the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext. Both Bush and Cheney had in the past expressed categorical opposition to an invasion of Iraq - Bush from his father's experience and advice, and Cheney who, in one interview in 1994, dismissed the mere idea saying "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

Who are the Neoconservatives? Despite the fog with which these figures disguise themselves, Neoconservatism consists of a group of largely Jewish members who follow the teachings of the Jewish academic and neo-Machiavellian Leo Strauss.

They are called Neoconservatives because they are literally "new conservatives," having converted, at least in name, from being old Socialists or Trotskyites.

And it is a common fact, that these figures have a special concern for and are aligned with Israel, specifically, the Likud party in Israel.

Joe Klein wrote with regard to them and their designs in 2008: "There were people out there in the Jewish community who saw [Iraq] as a way to create a benign domino theory and eliminate all of Israel's enemies .... I think it represents a really dangerous anachronistic neocolonial sensibility. And I think it is a very, very dangerous form of extremism. I think it's bad for Israel and it's bad for America. And these guys have been getting a free ride. And now these people are backing the notion of a war with Iran and not all of them, but some of them, are doing it because they believe that Iran is an existential threat to Israel."

Soon after the invasion of Iraq, the Israelis began aggressively lobbying for war in Iran. More recently, they began to threaten the U.S., arguing that if the U.S. does not willingly attack Iran, Israel itself would preemptively attack and then the U.S. would be dragged in against its will anyway, and should therefore attack on its own terms.

This buffet of casus belli is reminiscent of Broder's article and is the hallmark of a charlatan selling a senseless war.

It is hard to believe that the propaganda of Broder and those like him are not the product of what Netanyahu called for in 2007 in which Israel would "immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S." to get America to attack Iran.

If it looks like U.S. foreign policy is starting to resemble in earnest Soviet foreign policy, the resemblence is not a mirage induced by the deserts of Arabia.

Old Trotskyites are modern Neoconservatives, and todays Neoconservatives are old Trotskyites.

The Marxist-Trotskyist "Perpetual Revolution" is now indistinguishable from the Neoconservative "Perpetual War." America is today in Afghanistan, for reasons no one understands, just as was the Soviet Union, formerly.

It must also be noted that the troubling "Tea Party" phenomenon is a result of the Neoconservative subversion of the Republican party and the perversion of the party's actual conservative ideology, which causes the alienation of these people and the fracturing of their party, which tends to be isolationist and shuns over-spending.

Instead, the conservative party in the U.S. has turned into an unrecognizable Wilsonian, if not Trotskyite party, overthrowing foreign governments and liquidating America's wealth in the name of "Making the World Safe for Democracy," or liberating the proletariat, or giving Afghan women the vote or whatever transparent pretext they may currently give to disguise a lust for domination.

Tags: IRAN, ELECTION 2010, TEA PARTY


Matthew Soldad is a UC Berkeley student. Reply to [email protected]



Comments (0) »

Comment Policy
The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regards to both the readers and writers of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. Click here to read the full comment policy.
White space
Left Arrow
Op-Eds
Image Professor Healey's denial of tenure is not right
As the semester comes to a close, our campus is quietly losing ...Read More»
Op-Eds
Image President Trump is a nightmare
So I'm sleeping peacefully one night until a dark thought pops into my mind...Read More»
Op-Eds
Image Koch money influences climate science
The threat of corporate funding influencing climate change research and pol...Read More»
Op-Eds
Image Bin Laden's death no reason to celebrate
Well, we've done it. We've killed the man who started it all. We've destroy...Read More»
Op-Eds
Image David Crane is unfit to serve as a member of the U...
The flattering article on David Crane that appe...Read More»
Op-Eds
Image I-House leadership is unfriendly to workers
I am one of a number of residents who requested and attended a forum at ...Read More»
Right Arrow




Job Postings

White Space