A Missile Shield Against Iran |
Al Hayat - 13 August, 2012
Author: Jihad Al Khazen
According to news reports, the United States and the Gulf countries want to erect a missile shield to protect themselves against an Iranian attack. This is logical, because Iran may indeed attempt in a moment of despair, with the intensification of the embargo and the economic sanctions, to turn the tables by provoking a regional war.
The expected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in Israel that he is committed to taking all necessary measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear military capabilities, because a nuclear Iran is a threat to America and the world. Now this talk is illogic personified. If Iran is to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would not be in a position to threaten Israel, because it would be annihilated if it attempted anything. Most certainly too, Iran is not a threat to America and the world, which is impossible, given the fact that Iran does not have the reach to pose a risk to America today, or at any time before the end of this century.
Romney also said in Israel that the difference in wealth between the Palestinians and the Israelis is due to a large extent to cultural factors, which he believes determine economic success. This goes beyond being illogical to being an outright lie, and the billionaire candidate is too smart to be accused of being stupid, and cannot possibly convince himself or us of these claims.
The reason for the gap in wealth between the Palestinians and the Israelis is due to the fact that Israel occupies Palestinian lands, destroying and killing with American assistance. As for the reason the Israelis are wealthier, it is that there are politicians like Romney who sold their souls to the Israeli devil. This is not to mention the venal Congress which was bought by the Israel lobby, and which provides direct aid to Israel in the billions of dollars each year, and many times more in indirect aid and tax exemptions to Likudnik Jewish donors who place the interests of Israel above those of the United States.
I understand it when a superpower gives aid in times of economic prosperity and a surplus in its budget. Yet, for the United States to take away bread from poor Americans to give to a neo-Nazi state during a major economic crisis is to me something that goes beyond logic and lies, to sheer treason.
The whole world hates Israel, and this is why the latter is always a target, from New Delhi to Kenya, and from Bulgaria to Sinai. Each time there is a terrorist attack against Israelis, Iran and Hezbollah are automatically blamed. The first thing the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu said when he was informed of the attack near the airport in the town of Burgas on the Black Sea was: Iran. It was as though he has a supernatural knowledge of the unseen.
When Congress held an inquiry into the alleged Iranian terrorism, Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was called to testify on July 25. However, the Institute is a Likudnik think tank founded with American Likudnik money to support Israel, so is Levitt really a neutral and honest witness whose testimony is admissible in court?
On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a story about the terrorist attacks against Israeli targets around the world, and also talked to the same witness Matthew Levitt to explain the terrorist activities of Iran and Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post, in what is a complete lack of objectivity, published Mitt Romney’s speech in which he insulted the Palestinians, as it seems that this newspaper takes Romney’s talk to be divinely revealed, rather than a bunch of deliberate lies.
The Washington Post followed that with a piece by its editorial board, which includes known neocons and Likudniks, calling for the Syrian opposition to be helped in overthrowing the regime. While I do not object to this, the editorial continues by saying that U.S. intervention will help the United States establish ties with and exert influence over the parties that will possibly succeed Bashar al-Assad.
At least, there is a minimum of outspokenness here. So the intervention would be not to save the Syrians from the daily killing, but to advance U.S. interests. Then of course, modern history tells us that since Korea and Vietnam and to this day, American intervention in any country, even in banana republics in the Americas, has never led to democracy, but only replaced one dictatorship with another.
Thus, I find nothing logical that I can agree to in the political news this week, save for the missile shield against Iran. Indeed, the latter is able to wage a conventional war, and Persian greed in the Gulf is as clear as the afternoon sun.