Iran: the seventh country on the alleged US list for regime change
Just a reminder of Wes Clark’s claim the US planned back in 2002 to “take out 7 countries in 5 years”. Six of those countries – Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon & Syria – have now had “revolutions” or “civil wars” or conflict. – Iran is the seventh.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Marwa Osman’s analysis of the protests in Iran for Syria Analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C6f04H6b-k&feature=youtu.be
A
BigB: Continuation on our Corbyn thread (seems I can’t reply now on original thread)
You’re so right on NATO, Environment/energy etc. But my point is that Corbyn is already supported by the electorate whilst being left of the narrow political spectrum taught at Oxbridge and accepted as ‘the only way’ by the MSM. For now this will have to do. More radical policy would be counterproductive at this point, for the reasons I previously gave. The link you posted on green energy shows where Corbyn wants to go. See it as a positive, not a negative. The neoliberal system can only be defeated from within, by someone who is still allowed to play the electoral game. Unless you advocate armed revolution….
Operation Ajax redux..
The Wolfowitz memo sounds like Mein Kampf, and has started out similarly successful: 6 out of 7 is not a bad score. Of course it has taken 15 years instead of 5, but engineers know that everything takes roughly 3 times longer than planned (the pi factor). Looking on the bright side, Syria has emerged bloody but unbowed; so actually the Wolf has eaten only 5 chickens — and digested none. In fact, it soon might have to disgorge. For the second time in my life, I thank God for Russia.
The insatiable One Per Cent crave deification through avarice.
The M.I.C. is the most profitable, self perpetuating business on the planet.
Their reign of Terror is coming to an end.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
There is only one short term remedy for these attempts at regime change, which have brought so much suffering to the world and must have led to the deaths-within the last fifteen years or so- of several millions of entirely innocent bystanders to imperialism’s aggression. And that is to for the victims to visit upon the aggressors equal measures of the violence and pauperisation which is dealt out by them. If 9/11 was not the work of disgruntled members of victim communities it might have been, and the obvious logic behind such action is the only reason that so many people still believe that the sudden demolition of WTC 7 can be accounted for by The Establishment. The case of Iran is particularly dangerous because any war against it- and attempts at regime change are wars and regarded as such by all grown-ups- will have to involve simultaneous campaigns against… Read more »
!00%, thank you!
Whilst I agree with your diagnosis, I cannot agree with your solution. Escalation of violence, endless vendetta, revenge all exacerbate the crime. This morning’s speech by the Chinese premier about supporting the UN makes much more sense to me. We have international laws which prohibit wars of aggression. The UN would work if the Big Five had their power of veto removed, and the US corruption rooted out. Peace, Truth and Justice could so easily be with8n our reach. We need to get more vocal and find some courage to speak truth to power. Well done Offguardian. You need to join forces with other alternative media with the simple goal of reforming the UN. Venceremos
I agree with Hugh O’Neill and will go so far as to say that it is precisely because the US and its allies spurn diplomacy, shun the UN and ignore international laws and conventions in favour of subverting and overthrowing governments that the current global situation of chaos, uncertainty and violence exists. Revenge is not the solution.
You might notice that I specified what you call ‘revenge’ as no more than a short term alternative. As you suggest the only solution is to pursue peaceful policies.
But this would seem to depend upon getting public opinion, now more impotent than it has ever been, to recognise that these wars have costs, both economic and social. And that the victims are real people not less than human and unworthy of sympathy.
The difference between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn is that Corbyn offers the public the option of peace, whereas Sanders appears committed to imperialism as the norm.
The US needs a peace platform of the sort advanced by Black Agenda Report, there is a massive appetite for social justice and peace in the world. Only the few benefit from war and imperialism.
Bevin: Corbyn’s attitude toward peace is ambivalent, to say the least. In part, it is mollified by the pro-Israel neocon warmongers in the Labour party. He has committed to closer ties with Russia; whilst also committing to spend 2% of GNI on NATO …whose entire raison d’etre is imperial and russophobic? He has committed to stop the air strikes (an NFZ?) and a negotiated settlement to the “Syrian civil war” [???] …whilst also committing to INCREASING the 0.7% GNI FCO-DFID ‘Foreign Aid’ budget? This coming AFTER it was disclosed that £13mn was diverted to the jihadi cause? [in a letter to Treason May – December 2017] As has been exposed elsewhere, including here at OffG, this is a fraction of the (known) £325mn spent on funding the Syrian “opposition” [what opposition???]. I’m sure I don’t need to draw a parallel between UKAID and USAID? He has also committed to the… Read more »
Corbyn’s position is very difficult. During the past two years it has been even worse, he has made all manner of apparent compromises, or allowed them to be made on his behalf. But the reality is that hr cannot go back on his commitments to, for example, independent foreign policy and support for Palestine. And he cannot go back because his power is based entirely on public opinion- he has no support but that of the people, led by the most politically aware and committed, socialists. The best electoral chance currently on offer anywhere in the world is Corbyn. And what he desperately needs is for the PLP to be brought into line by the constituents of MPs like Ian Austin, Stella Creasey and Jess whatsername. By Corbyn of course, I refer not to the man himself (of whom I know nothing and care less) but to the movement that… Read more »
Bevin: I respect your POV, and I’d love to wholeheartedly endorse it …but from personal experience, I can’t. For a start: independent foreign policy – independent of whom? Trump: whilst still maintaining an alliance with NATO and the ‘Washington consensus’ of imperialism? [There is a further muddying of the waters with PESCO, the “permanent cooperation” of NATO and the EU – who sets the foreign policy there???] And who sets our nuclear ‘deterrence’ policy??? In aligning with the single market (if that is what our policy is, as Abbot seemed to be indicating) – are we dependent or independent of Brussels? It’s not at all clear where our national sovereignty lies? Or even where Labour would want it to be? On Palestine: trust me, any position that is deemed to be ‘too’ overtly Palestinian …and Corbyn will not know who to cry “et tu Brute” to – there will be… Read more »
“Therefore, your invocation of Chartism is most apt: did they not also dissolve into mid to late century affluenza? ” ‘No’ is the easy answer to that- Chartism evolved into other broader movements, most notably Trade Unions for a variety of reasons. Affluence was not one of them. Regarding your other points the last thing that the working class needs is a Vanguard Party. What exists is a challlenge, a necessity for many, particularly the young, but also those concerned about the NHS and basic services such as transportation and utilities: they have no alternative but to vote for Corbyn and that involves making sure they have a Corbyn candidate by digging out the neo-liberals from the Labour Party. It is either that, winning the lottery, emigration (where too in a neo-liberal globe?) or betting on the afterlife. OK most people, one hand on their crotches the other reaching for… Read more »
Bevin: thanks for your reply. Digging out neoliberals – as you put it – is not possible. The grassroots do not control the party – the neoliberals control the NEC, the endorsement of policy, and the majority of the PLP. No neoliberals, no party …though it pains me to say. The “permanent election” has coalesced around a singular point: Brexit. To me, it seems Labour are biding their time on the assumption they have won the next election. That’s the antithesis of political debate, much as sterile as it has been for the last 35 years? And then you quote TINA! Commuting, services, rents, wages …there is no disconnect between these than either the environment or the structure of capital accumulation – none. What there is is a massive consciousness gap leading to fictitious thinking – that we can transcend the laws of physics to achieve negentropic permanent exponential growth… Read more »
Big B: one question mark at at time is generally considered enough by grammarians. Scattering them about so freely doesn’t help to bring on the eco-Marxist utopia, you know. But then, nothing makes that very likely. In the real world, Corbynism is about the best chance that Britain has – though a long shot. I doubt that JC would get very far with his hoped-for programme as PM, considering the hysterical massed opposition his principled honest politics draws from the English-raj class and their retainers in lamestream media-hacking and Paedominster pocket-politics. Worth a try though. Once again, consulting that ever-useful touchstone of the real world, it’s about the best chance we have. Bevin: should you read this; I notice that the hasbarollocksers infesting Craig Murray’s comments section seem to have ousted you from that website. You might want to have a look at The Lifeboat News as a place to… Read more »
Bevin, Big B, Rhisiart. U guys know your stuff no doubt: political history/theory etc. But what you want isn’t currently on offer, by any political party, with even the slightest chance of success in an election. It will probably never be on offer in the US, in our lifetimes. A starting place is victory in ‘us vs them’. It is that simple. In the UK there is a genuine chance of victory for people over profit. The outcry of the monied elite/corporate media will be vicious, and the truly radical propositions you want to see, would be counterproductive at this point, and an easy target for the spite and bile of billionaire press barons, who still can buy the minds of enough of the electorate. I believe these will follow, attempting to change structures and policy from within, through unilateral disobedience. Until then, have faith in Jeremy Corbyn. Not a… Read more »
Corbyn v May: no debate necessary. How do we navigate “stage 2” (or stage 1 even) without a map of the territory? All our macroeconomic and political economic theory is based on historical precedent: but there is no historical precedent for the ecological and economic crises we now face. Recent (20th century) prosperity was based on abundant cheap hydrocarbons: how do we design a political economy based on declining hydrocarbons, resources, etc? That’s a debate worth having, and respectfully, one that won’t wait?
If Corbyn wanted, for example, to withdraw from NATO, right now, publicly stating this, would electoral suicide. Enough of the electorate still take their cue, wittingly or not, from the billionaire press barons and/or liberal TV news. Witness the corporate roll out of purple faced old men screaming about being denied their promised nuclear Apocalypse on BBC election ‘debates’. Your point about the White Helmets and his supposed support of fund raising for them – I’d take the position, that such things, are mistakes. A quick, simplistic reaction to what would initially appear to be humanitarian aid. Perhaps driven from elsewhere with Labour. Of course, building an green economy is vital, but in simplistic terms, it is not without precedent. In by gone, simpler times people knew not to destroy their own environment, as they had nowhere else to go. Just the same as today, except for the 1% elite,… Read more »
Basher: I get the realpolitic of the deviation from 35 years of neoliberalism. However, whilst positioning himself as a non-interventionist – Corbyn has also endorsed the pre-intervention NATO propaganda. That was my original point: his position is ambivalent. Put in context, support for the WH is entirely consistent – not a mistake. And no, neither can he say the WH are a western regime change propaganda construct – such is the indoctrination of the electorate. That is the centrist common ground that political discourse has been pulled into. Likewise on the environment. I believed in JC enough to join the party to get him elected. Comparing anyone with May would doubtless prove favourable! This vision from candidate Corbyn is one I would fully endorse. However, this had changed by the Manifesto to 40% nuclear, unproven technology (Carbon Capture and Storage), and preserving the North Sea oil and gas industry –… Read more »
Nobody can be too kind, but you certainly come very close.
”The best electoral chance currently on offer anywhere in the world is Corbyn.” Yes, it’s that bad! I would be interested to know why you think Corbyn is any different to the current social-democratic parties and leaders throughout Europe: viz., Tspiras, Hollande, Shulz, Papandreou, Sanchez et al. Maybe it would be best to state the obvious which is that social-democracy is out of date and out of time: it was the response in the economic and geopolitical crises in the US in 1933 and the rest of Europe up to and beyond 1945. It was a spent force, as were its spokespersons by the mid-1970s. It has had its day and has now been almost entirely co-opted by the neoliberal establishment – conference hot air notwithstanding. What is left of social-democratic parties in Europe had already capitulated by the mid-80s to neo-liberal forces, or in some cases such as Germany,… Read more »
The history of Social Democracy is not particularly long. If indeed, outside the confines of sectarian polemics, there is such a thing as a Social Democratic tradition. In many european countries, for example, Social Democracy masqueraded as Communism for seventy years or more. In others it was invented by the CIA and its cultural offshoots, after the War, precisely because, outside of the CP and minuscule Trotskyist sects, there were no Social Democrats. The Labour Party is a different story. The possibility of instituting democracy into the party is live even if it is chancy: the NEC can be captured by the CLPS, and the Constitution changed to ensure that it is made democratic sooner rather than later. There is nothing inevitable about the party being dominated by Blairite scabs or Union Bosses: they can be reduced to the indignity of having no more ‘say’ than numbers warrant quite easily.… Read more »
Top marks, Comrade. Love it
What a good post! Once in a while some one posts pure gold. Thank you!
All planned since Long by the US Neocon Power Elite!
“Message for the New Year: Beware of Fragmentation!”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2017/12/25/message-for-the-new-year-beware-of-fragmentation/
Cordial regards and best wishes for the New Year!
Reblogged this on Worldtruth.