Tag Archives: obama

Political Rants

Great satan.

The draft agreement with Iran represents a step away from yet another war in the greater Middle East / Southwest Asia region, but it is being presented and discussed squarely within the same imperial context that has defined our relationship with the Islamic Republic for my entire adult life. It is a little hard to see how Obama can inch this country away from its delusions about Iran without departing from them himself, at least in a small way. He has always been an incrementalist when it comes to human progress. Often, as the drones fly, I feel like we’re moving incrementally in entirely the wrong direction, but even where I agree that we should have this kind of agreement with Iran, it is with the realization that we are still reaching substantially beyond anything that should be considered our legitimate concern.

One reason Iran doesn't like us.Before anyone accuses me of it, I am not a fan of the clerical regime in Iran. The Iranian people have, however, been subjected to sustained attack by the United States since we expanded our empire during and after World War II. We have caused them immense suffering, through the overthrow of their democratically elected government in 1953, through the imposition of our close ally, the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, through our support of Saddam Hussein in his murderous war against Iran, through decades of draconian sanctions. There are many Americans – some friends, even – who will list for me the strikes against Americans attributed to Iran (all in the context of various military adventures on our part), but in all honesty, they pale in comparison to what we have done to them.

It’s a stretch to say that Iran was interested in developing nuclear weapons, but frankly, it wouldn’t come as any surprise. The regional nuclear arms race various American politicians – from Obama to the G.O.P. – have been warning us about is already underway. With an arsenal of hundreds of warheads in Israel and nuclear-capable assets deployed in the region by the U.S., who can blame anyone in Iran’s position for wanting some kind of deterrent, particularly since we have demonstrated in very practical terms our willingness to invade non-nuclear states and our reluctance to attack those who maintain an atom-powered arsenal.

Let’s get past this obsession with our own “great satan” and stop being afraid of this country we’ve been threatening for 35 years. If this agreement is the first step, I’m all for it.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Short takes.

So many things going on in the news that it’s hard to pick which one to pull my blowhard routine on. So I’ll blow a little less hard this week, so to speak. Here goes.

Trust me on this. Again.TPP / MAI – It’s been a full court press on the Trans Pacific Partnership fast-track authority issue currently facing the House of Representatives. As it happens, WikiLeaks has released another leaked chapter of the agreement, this one dealing with “Transparency for Health Care”, so to speak. The more that emerges on this agreement, the more it seems like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) that was killed in the early 2000’s – basically an investors’ rights agreement, written by corporate lobbyists seeking to elevate the status of their superhuman client conglomerates to a status above that of sovereign nations. The House has turned fast track legislation back, fortunately, but this is truly the thing that wouldn’t die. We will have to remain vigilant on this issue.

Boots in Iraq, Missiles in Europe – Obama is getting in touch with his more bellicose side this past week, with threats to base medium range missiles in Europe (with which to threaten Russia and counter their recent cruise missile deployment and “aggression” against Ukraine) and a promise to send another 500 or so “advisers” to Iraq’s Anbar Province to join the campaign against ISIS. One would think that these two items would be hard to reconcile – a thrust against unwarranted extraterritorial aggression … paired with unwarranted extraterritorial aggression. Still, when the empire does it, it’s not contradictory or ironic.

Jail Break – One of the biggest stories since the last sporting event our news organizations obsessed over. Pretty impressive display of ingenuity, getting out of that massive prison. I can’t help but feel sorry for their alleged accomplice, whose name and face are being displayed across the media with the usual abandon.

Texas Hold-em – This time, we have video of a police officer – a trainer, no less – wrestling a bikini-clad black teenager to the ground, pulling a gun on some other kids, doing a dramatic shoulder roll, etc. He has resigned, blaming his dramatic behavior on having had a difficult day responding to two suicide attempts. Wait … they send THIS guy to talk someone off the ledge? Hope to hell they were white.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

No negotiations.

There’s more news of drone deaths, this time including western hostages. “Mistakes can occur”, president Obama says, employing the passive voice as his predecessor Ronald Reagan often did. The American captive, aid worker Warren Weinstein, had asked his government to work toward negotiating his release, to no avail. We do not make deals with “terrorists”. Unlike during practically every war our country has been involved in previously, in the context of the “Global War on Terror”, prisoner release negotiations have been barred, whether on the part of the United States government or by private parties, such as the families of the captives. Thus, no release, and ultimately, death by drone.

Chief hostage negotiatorWhat brought this policy about? Perhaps it’s the experience of, again, Reagan and the fallout from the Iran-Contra scandal. The official line at that time was, “we will not negotiate with terrorists”, but the effort towards back-channel negotiations became clear as the story unfolded. Of course, context is important, it seems to me. Back in the eighties, we were deeply involved in the Lebanese civil war, both directly and through Israel’s invasion – that was the proximate cause of the capture of westerners in Lebanon. We were also supporting Iraq’s murderous war against Iran, which no doubt accounts for Iran’s interest in negotiating for arms with American representatives. And then there’s the Contra side of the ledger. Against that bloody backdrop, negotiating for captives seems pretty minor.

As far as I can tell, in every American conflict since the end of World War II, we have referred to our enemies as terrorists. We certainly did it in Vietnam. It’s a pretty simple principle – the other side kills, as do we, but their violence is worse than ours. Ours is justified, even if it’s way beyond the scale of the violence practiced by our adversaries. And so, we express regret when our flying killer robots accidentally blows up an American. No such courtesy when we incinerate nameless Pakistanis, etc.

As in previous conflicts, terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder. Which is why barring negotiations over captives is so nonsensical. If we did it before, we can do it now.

luv u,

jp