Reject the Failed Hawkish Consensus on Iran

No matter who wins the presidential election next month, US policy towards Iran seems likely to remain extremely hostile and confrontational. Both campaigns seem determined to out-hawk each other. The Iran policy debate in Washington, such as it is, is focused entirely on the same bankrupt coercive measures of sanctions, threats, and military action that are guaranteed to make things worse. There is no serious discussion of reducing tensions or resuming negotiations in the new year. The persistence of this failed hawkish consensus is dangerous for the US, Iran, and the wider region, and it needs to end.

The failed bipartisan hawkish consensus on Iran closes off paths for resolving disagreements peacefully, and it paves the way for unnecessary wars. The consensus embraces escalation as the solution to each new crisis, and it writes off diplomacy as naïve and useless. It is the same kind of bankrupt, outdated thinking that has dominated US foreign policy in the region for at least the last thirty years, and it is why US Iran policy remains so destructive and dangerous. We are desperately in need of some fresh and different policy ideas.

Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are content to keep the US on a collision course with Iran for the time being, and that means that the US will be stuck with the same rotten foreign policy in the Middle East for at least another four years. Donald Trump recently expressed support for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. During the vice-presidential debate, Sen. Vance said that he would support whatever Israel wanted to do. On the Democratic side, Vice President Harris bizarrely claimed that Iran is America’s “greatest adversary” in response to a question in her interview with 60 Minutes. Harris asserted that Iran was an “obvious” candidate for being the greatest adversary because its government “has American blood on its hands.”

Keep reading

Media Urge Expansion of Ukraine War—Nuclear Risk Be Damned

Ukraine has for months been asking the Biden administration for permission to use long-range US, British and French weapons to strike deeper in Russian territory, which would be a clear escalation in the war. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the move would cross a red line for him, and recently announced that he was loosening Russia’s nuclear doctrine for using nuclear weapons.

Despite the risks of such escalation—and a lack of evidence that it would shift the war in Ukraine’s favor—Biden’s public reluctance to loosen his limits has been met in the war-hungry media primarily with derision.

The USBritain and France have all supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, including Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). But Biden has thus far limited their use to border areas. Britain and France are following Biden’s lead on range limitations.

Last month, in response to further advances by Russia into Ukraine, Ukraine launched a surprise invasion into Russian territory in Kursk. Since then, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pressed the US for more and longer-range missiles, Putin has increasingly raised the specter of nuclear retaliation.

Under its 2020 nuclear doctrine, Russia could respond with nuclear strikes to nuclear or conventional attacks it deemed a “threat to its existence,” if they came from a nuclear power. His new doctrine lowers the bar, so that a “critical attack” on Russia carried out with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” would be grounds for launching a nuclear response—including against the supporting power.

In other words, if Ukraine used long-range missiles supplied by a NATO power to launch an attack on Russia that it deemed “critical,” Putin could respond with a nuclear strike, against either Ukraine or against that NATO country.

Keep reading

Nobody Can Stop Netanyahu: Top EU Diplomat Laments

Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy head, expressed dismay on Friday that there is nobody who seems capable of stopping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from escalating wars in Gaza and Lebanon.

“What we do is to put all diplomatic pressure to a ceasefire, but nobody seems to be able to stop Netanyahu, neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank,” Borrell told a group of reporters at the UN, according to The Times of Israel.

He noted how Netanyahu said he would not stop until Hezbollah is destroyed, but, “If the interpretation of being destroyed is the same as with Hamas, then we are going to go for a long war.”

Netanyahu has not achieved any military objectives in Gaza and Hamas is still in possession of about 100 hostages. Netanyahu has escalated attacks in Lebanon as Hezbollah continued to launch attacks into northern Israel in defense of the Palestinians being massacred in Gaza.

Keep reading

Netanyahu: Israel Is Fighting a War on Seven Fronts

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the UN during his remarks at the 79th General Assembly summit on Friday. He called the body a swamp of antisemitism while saying Israel needed to defend itself on seven fronts.

The Israeli leader’s speech was contentious. Before Netanyahu took to the podium, Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif blasted Israel for waging a genocide in Gaza and creating a war with Lebanon. As Netanyahu began his address, a large portion of the UN General Assembly body walked out.

During his remarks, Netanyahu referred to the UN General Assembly as a “swamp of antisemitic bile.” He went on to slam the International Criminal Court (ICC) for considering charging him with war crimes, adding the true war criminals are in Iran and its allied nations.

During his address, Netanyahu presented two maps, one titled “the blessing” and the other “the curse.”  The Israeli leader said Tel Aviv is still seeking a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia. He claimed that if Riyadh established official ties with Israel, the world would receive a “blessing,” but Iran represented a “curse” to the region.

The Israeli leader explained “the blessing” was establishing a “landbridge” from India to Israel. The blessing requires Saudi Arabia to enter the Abraham Accords and normalize ties with Israel. Netanyahu claimed that would have happened, but the October 7 Hamas attack prevented the deal.

In the map titled “the curse,” five countries were represented in black: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. The Israeli leader claimed that Tehran was working to eliminate Tel Aviv using its allies in the region. Netanyahu presented the conflict as a battle between forces of civilization against barbarism.

Keep reading

Cheney Backs Harris: The War Hawk’s Blessing Reveals Continuity in Foreign Policy

If there is one eternal rule in Washington, it is that “politics makes for strange bedfellows.” If you were to presume twenty years ago, that former Vice President Dick Cheney would one day endorse a progressive Democrat from California for president, you would be sent to an insane asylum. The idea that a diehard neoconservative and perhaps the biggest war criminal in recent American history would one day endorse someone like Kamala Harris would have been laughable. But due to the prevalence of “Trump derangement syndrome” amongst many neoconservatives, this has become the political reality.

As someone who generally considers himself a member of the political left and who does not support Donald Trump, “Trump derangement syndrome” is not a term I use flippantly. Nevertheless, I cannot seem to find any other phrase to describe the type of voter who would view an endorsement from Dick Cheney for Kamala Harris as a positive. Former Vice President Cheney’s support of Harris is emblematic of a deeper, unsettling continuity in American foreign policy that transcends partisan boundaries.

Dick Cheney is not the only member of his family who has thrown their support behind Harris. His daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney, has also endorsed Kamala Harris after voting for Trump in 2020. In a recent episode of System Update, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out that Liz Cheney – whose entire political career revolved around her defending her father’s depraved imperialism – has become a useful idiot for the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. This shift is par for the course, as proponents of military adventurism have increasingly found a home in a Democratic Party committed to providing endless military aid to both Israel and Ukraine.

This is not surprising as the GOP has moved towards isolationism, ostensibly at least in Ukraine, with Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance, stating that “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” But both Liz Cheney and her father “care” about Ukraine, as they have an ideological interest in spreading the tentacles of American imperialism across the world. But in the modern Republican Party under Donald Trump, the Cheney family likely believes they have no tenable political future. Dick Cheney is a decrepit reminder of a time long ago, and Liz Cheney lost in the Republican primary for her district by 32 points.

Keep reading

Butcher of Gaza Netanyahu Repeatedly Lied to Congress about Iraqi “Nukes,” and Now Wants US War on Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a master of misdirection, the technique master illusionists use to divert the viewer’s attention from the trick and to pull the wool over their eyes. He uses his slick American accent, his bulging eyes, his rhetorical flourishes, his maniacal certainty, to fool people whenever and however he can. 

Netanyahu, the Butcher of Gaza, boasted of destroying the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords that would have resulted in a Palestinian state and an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories by 1997. He has consistently attempted to annex Palestinian private property and covertly has paid for a movement of Israeli squatters onto Palestinian land. He has engaged in collective punishment of innocent noncombatants in order to quash any resistance to his vast acts of grand larceny. He bankrolled Hamas for a decade with Egyptian and Qatari funds deposited in Israeli accounts, which he transferred to Gaza, in hopes of taming the organization by giving it Gaza as a fief. He thereby hoped to continue to split the Palestinians, most of whom support instead the secular, nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization. Most Israelis recognize that Netanyahu’s brain-dead policies led to the October 7 terrorist attack.

One of the twenty-first century’s worst war criminals, responsible for more deaths of innocents and children than Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu needs a bright shiny object to distract the world from the threat his racist, fascist Likud-led government, armed with 200 nuclear devices, poses to the planet.

Ben Norton at The Real News Network has reviewed Netanyahu’s long history of blatant warmongering lies:

Keep reading

Arrest These Insane NATO Warmongers!

Incredibly, the world is being pushed to the abyss of nuclear war by nonentity Western numbskulls who are not even elected.

Jens Stoltenberg, the civilian head of the NATO military bloc, is the latest blockhead to advocate for the United States to permit the targeting of Russia with long-range weapons.

The Norwegian figurehead, we are led to believe, made the conceptual breakthrough (how much was he paid and by whom or what was the blackmail used?) by telling the Economist magazine that the Ukrainian regime should henceforth be officially allowed to use NATO missiles to hit Russia.

Keep reading

Warmonger Victoria Nuland Pushes For Strikes On Russian Bases

ABC News’ Martha Raddatz talked with ex-Biden administration Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland about the war between Russia and Ukraine on Sunday.

During the interview, Nuland claimed America needs to give EVEN MORE military support to Ukraine since Russia is clearly winning the fight.

She told Raddatz, “They need to be able to stop these air attacks that are coming from bases inside Russia. So, I think there’s also a question of whether we, The United States and our allies, ought to give them more help in hitting Russian bases which we’ve not been willing to do.”

Asked if she thinks Ukraine should strike military bases inside Russia, Nuland confirmed she does and blamed Russia for “escalating” the war.

Raddatz pointed out the Biden administration believes Ukraine striking Russian bases would escalate the war and drag the U.S. further into the conflict.

Keep reading

Why Mankind Remains So Lost In Economic-Ignorance & Tribalistic-Warmongering

Carl Menger is widely recognized as one of the economists leading the so-called marginalist revolution along with William Stanley Jevons and Léon Walras. There are two other contributions by Menger that are relatively underappreciated and are vital for making sense of the socioeconomic order, including why mankind remains so lost in economic ignorance and tribalistic warmongering.

They are, first, his insights into the proper method or way to study the economy or social order and its emergence-evolution, and second, his application of such wisdom to explain the evolution of money and the entire socioeconomic order that further emerges thanks to money. Let’s further expand on these two.

Menger wrote an entire book devoted to discussing the proper method with which to study the social sciences, aptly titled Investigations into the Methods of the Social Sciences. So how should we study the social sciences according to Menger? He writes,

Natural organisms almost without exception exhibit, when closely observed, a really admirable functionality of all parts with respect to the whole, a functionality which is not, however, the result of human calculation, but of a natural process. Similarly we can observe in numerous social institutions a strikingly apparent functionality with respect to the whole. But with closer consideration they still do not prove to be the result of an intention aimed at this purpose, Le., the result of an agreement of members of society or of positive legislation. They, too, present themselves to us rather as “natural” products (in a certain sense), as unintended results of historical development. One needs, e.g., only to think of the phenomenon of money, an institution which to so great a measure serves the welfare of society, and yet in most nations, by far, is by no means the result of an agreement directed at its establishment as a social institution, or of positive legislation, but is the unintended product of historical development. One needs only to think of law, of language, of the origin of markets, the origin of communities and of states, etc. Now if social phenomena and natural organisms exhibit analogies with respect to their nature, their origin, and their function, it is at once clear that this fact cannot remain without influence on the method of research in the field of the social sciences in general and economics in particular. . . . Now if state, society, economy, etc., are conceived of as organisms, or as structures analogous to them, the notion of following directions of research in the realm of social phenomena similar to those followed in the realm of organic nature readily suggests itself. The above analogy leads to the idea of theoretical social sciences analogous to those which are the result of theoretical research in the realm of the physico-organic world, to the conception of an anatomy and physiology of “social organisms” of state, society, economy, etc.

Like Herbert Spencer, his contemporary and arguably the most famous and influential intellectual of the late 1800s, Menger too felt like the social order was akin to a “social organism” and should be studied using an organic or evolutionary approach similar to how we study the biological order. Menger thus felt like the methods of the physical sciences, like their use of mathematics, was as inappropriate for understanding the monumental complexity and evolution of the social order as it was for the biological one.

He writes, “I do not belong to the believers in the mathematical method as a way to deal with our science. . . . Mathematics is not a method for . . . economic research.”

Keep reading

EASY TIGER! GOP Rep. Tim Walberg Suggests Ending War in Gaza and Russia ‘Like Nagasaki and Hiroshima’

Michigan Congressman Tim Walberg appeared to get somewhat carried away with his rhetoric during a town hall meeting with constituents this week.

The event, which was held at Dundee Village Hall in Michigan, allowed attendees to ask Walberg his view on various hot button issues of the day.

One man said he knew a soldier who was travelling to Gaza to help build a port at the request of the Biden administration as Israel carries out its war against Hamas.

“Why are we spending our money to build a port for them?” the man asked, according to a video posted on the X platform.

“It’s Joe Biden’s reason; we need to get humanitarian aid into Gaza,” Walberg responded. “I don’t think any of our aid that goes to Israel to support our greatest ally, arguably maybe in the world, to defeat Hamas and Iran and Russia, and probably North Korea’s in there, and China, too, with them helping Hamas — we shouldn’t be spending a dime on humanitarian aid.”

The Congressman then brought up the example of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, when the allies dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities, which together killed over 100,000 people.

Although the bombings did bring a swift end to the war with the surrender of the Axis powers, debate over the ethics of the decision is debated to this date.

“It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima,” he continued. “Get it over quick. The same should be in Ukraine. Defeat Putin quick.”

In a statement to Detroit News, Walberg’s spokesman Mike Rorke insisted that he “vehemently disagrees with putting our troops in harm’s way.”

Keep reading