Trump and Netanyahu aim to remake the Middle East with bombs. Iran shows why that will always fail
The US has rashly followed Israel into a war that will not end Iran’s nuclear programme or topple its government
he joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran over the weekend – targeting nuclear facilities, infrastructure and symbolic state institutions – reflect the bankruptcy of a decades-long approach to Iran that has hinged on pressure, coercion and destabilisation. This latest gambit appears less a strategic gamechanger than a desperate bid to regime-change Iran and prop up a rickety regional status quo built around unchecked Israeli dominance.
The timing of Israel’s initial surprise attack on 13 June was no coincidence. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – who has long sought to sabotage any prospect of US-Iran detente – appears to have steamrolled Donald Trump into the escalation he has always wanted. The result looks like a trap: Trump, once again, manoeuvred into a destabilising Middle East conflict that serves Netanyahu’s agenda far more than the US’s.
Although the joint strikes have caused significant damage, they have also provoked a swift response. Iran’s missile barrages are piercing Israel’s vaunted defences, sending millions into bomb shelters day and night, and exposing strategic vulnerabilities previously thought secure. Crucially, Tehran appears to have anticipated the US attack on the Fordow uranium enrichment plant over the weekend – reportedly removing sensitive equipment and sealing the site’s entrances ahead of time. Even senior US officials now concede that Fordow was not destroyed. Instead, they’re signalling a return to negotiations as the only viable path for addressing Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile – an implicit admission that there is no military solution to this problem.
The episode underscores a deeper reality: Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is designed to withstand precisely this kind of attack. Its dispersal, depth and scope mean that meaningful and verifiable destruction would require a full-scale ground invasion – repeating the catastrophic miscalculations of Iraq. Far from eliminating the threat, military escalation risks pushing Iran closer to weaponisation, while foreclosing the only durable solution: diplomacy........................
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
https://www.972mag.com/american-jews-israel-hasbara-lebanon/
The war that canonized America’s hasbara playbook
The defensive line taken by the American-Jewish establishment during the 1982 Lebanon invasion solidified many of the methods that are deployed when Israeli violence makes headlines today.
In 1984, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) began disseminating what it described as a “college guide” for understanding the discourse on Israel on U.S. campuses. “American college students are regularly exposed to bitter denunciations of the State of Israel in a way that most Americans are not,” warns the opening chapter of the booklet. It points to a “barrage of propaganda which is hostile not only to particular policies of a given government of Israel but also to the very right of the Jewish state to exist,” and which is, the authors continue, “designed to delegitimize the one viable democracy in the Middle East and America’s most reliable ally in the region.”
The responsibility for this “anti-Israel” campaign, the guide repeatedly stresses, lies with “foreign Arab students” who are “growing in number… dramatically.” In the back of the book are distilled dossiers on 100 different American universities, many of which name respected professors such as Edward Said, Walid Khalidi, and James Zogby as spearheading these efforts on their respective campuses.
AIPAC’s guide — which billed itself as “the first full-length study of the anti-Israel campaign on college campuses, and what is being done to fight it” — was far from the lobby group’s first foray into hasbara or pro-Israel messaging. But it was emblematic of the American-Jewish establishment’s stepped-up efforts to combat criticism of Israel following a massive blow to the country’s reputation two years earlier, when the Likud-led government staged a brutal invasion and occupation of Lebanon.............
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Must watch
Sharing This Video Could Get You 14 Years in Prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECkVO4F_38I
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000b
https://archive.is/4GKua#selection-1575.0-1581.126
by Clive Cookson
Lessons Unlearned from Israel’s Bombing of Iraq’s Osirak Reactor
In a New York Times opinion article on June 21, Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel’s military intelligence, attempted to defend Israel’s recent decision to start a war with Iran, in which Israel was briefly joined by the U.S. government under the administration of President Donald Trump.
Under the headline “Why Israel Had to Act,” Yadlin’s opening sentence states, “Forty-four years ago this June, I sat in the cockpit on the Israeli air force mission that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. In one daring operation, we eliminated Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.”
The parallels between that event and the current war on Iran are indeed remarkable—but the real lesson to be learned from it is precisely the opposite of the one Yadlin draws.
In addition to constituting aggression under international law, “the supreme international crime” as defined at Nuremberg, the American and Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities proves how policymakers in both countries refuse to learn from the lessons of history.
The claim that Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 halted or set back Saddam Hussein’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability is a popular myth.................
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
https://judgenap.com/the-coming-police-state/
The Coming Police State
We have seen this before.
A foreign entity attacks American persons or property and the government warns that its sleeper cells have infiltrated the United States and it is somehow necessary to expand the powers of the government and shrink protections for civil liberties — and this shrinkage will somehow keep us all safe.
The premise of this deeply flawed argument is that less liberty produces more safety. That premise is historically and morally erroneous. Even if we had cops watching us on every street corner or FBI agents virtually in every home, who will keep us safe from them? And who would want to live, who could be private and free, in such an environment?
Here is the backstory.
When James Madison referred to the creation of the American republic as an inversion, he must have been met with quizzical looks and curious laughter. He meant that throughout history, popular governments came about by monarchs and despots — the sovereign — begrudgingly giving up power. This was, to Madison, power giving liberty.
In America, however, Madison argued — following his neighbor and good friend Thomas Jefferson, who maintained that individual persons are sovereign — the government came about by an inversion of the old way. In America, liberty gave power..............
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.