Only If We Let It

Hardly a day goes by that we are not inundated with demands to attack Iran. Our media, our Congress — packs of neoconservatives — have been howling for war on Iran for years. And years.

This reckless axis has been relentless in its orchestrated effort to manipulate and influence public opinion. And, if we are to believe the myriad of polls, it’s working. According to investigative journalist Gareth Porter, who wrote on July 30 that “polling data for 2010 show a majority of Americans have been manipulated into supporting war against Iran — in large part because more than two-thirds of those polled have gotten the impression that Iran already has nuclear weapons.”

Horror Tent Revival

Is it possible that a majority of Americans can be lured again into the tent of horror to support yet another bloody war? Have we learned nothing from history — the blatant lies that catapaulted us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan? It’s amazing how easily our handlers control us; enrage us; shape our beliefs, our opinions. As George Orwell wrote in 1948 about those controlled by Big Brother…

A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

For centuries, those in power have known that fear is the easiest of emotions to work with. As with Iraq, and now Iran, we are paralyzed with fear; fear of “known unknowns” — of factually unsubstantiated threats about Iran’s lust for Israeli blood. Many of us have been ducking and covering for so long that we have lost the ability to reason; even to think beyond the “truth” that is hammered into our national consciousness with blow after blow of an Orwellian sledge hammer — we must support, and protect, Israel, no matter the cost.

It’s tempting to pretend that we believe Iran’s refusal to give up its nuclear energy program — which it has every right to pursue as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — is proof that it is an “evil Islamic regime” whose maniacal leaders are feverishly working to wipe Israel off the map. Tempting to take at face value the sinister warnings of those like Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at AEI and Weekly Standard contributing editor, who warned in his April 2006 article, “To Bomb, or Not to Bomb — That is the Iran Question”…

Given the Islamic Republic’s dark history, the burden of proof ought to be on those who favor accommodating a nuclear Iran. Those who are unwilling to accommodate it, however, need to be honest and admit that diplomacy and sanctions and covert operations probably won’t succeed, and that we may have to fight a war — perhaps sooner rather than later — to stop such evil men from obtaining the worst weapons we know.

Gerecht, a former consular officer for the State Department and CIA Mid-East specialist, is, like most of his neoconservative peers, pathologically obsessed with Iran’s destruction, and is as good as it gets when using fear and misinformation to justify that destruction.

Porter also wrote in his July article that “the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran.” Porter pointed out that Gerecht first revealed his “Israeli-neocon fantasy as early as 2000, before the Iranian nuclear program was even taken seriously, in an essay written for a book published by the Project for a New American Century.” Gerecht argued that, if Iran could be caught in a “terrorist act,” the U.S. Navy should “retaliate with fury.”

Now, a decade later, that appears to still be Gerecht’s position. In his ponderous July 26, 2010 Weekly Standard piece, he writes…

…if nuclear weapons in the hands of Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards are an existential threat to the Jewish state — and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, like his predecessors, has said that they are — Jerusalem has little choice. Bombing is the only option that could likely alter the nuclear equation in Iran before Khamenei produces a weapon. The Obama administration might fume, but it is hard to imagine the president, given what he has said about the unacceptability of Iranian nukes, scolding Jerusalem long. [...] The left wing of the Democratic party has been going south on the Jewish state for 30 years, but congressional Democrats, who’ve been pushing for new sanctions against Iran more aggressively than the White House, are not that far gone. By and large, the Republican party would hold behind the Israelis.”

Here, Gerecht is echoing the belief blurted out by Netanyahu in 2001 when talking about a broad attack on Palestine and undermining the Oslo Accords — “I know what America is,” Netanyahu said. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”

Sadly, there many more like Gerecht — Dick Cheney and his efforts to do an “end run” around a balking Bush to force an attack on Iran; Norman Podhoretz with his constant refrain “bomb Iran before Iran bombs us”; National Review’s Larry Kudlow who says if Israel furiously attacks Iran, it will be “doing the Lord’s work”; the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and Daniel Pipes with their confident forecast that Bush would attack Iran before leaving office if Obama won the election.

Then, there’s the US Congress, whose members can agree on absolutely nothing to ease the suffering of their own citizens, but stand shoulder-to-shoulder in passing resolution after shameful resolution for Israel’s right to defend itself and against Iran’s right to do the same. If Senator Joe Lieberman’s mouth is moving, you can bet he is demanding an attack on Iran — and he was joined by his cohort Senator Lindsey Graham just last month, who said we must sic our military on Iran, “with the goal of overthrowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

But by far the the most strident is the wild and woolly former UN ambassador John Bolton. He runs at top speed from one media outlet to another, calling for Iran’s destruction — just as he did for Iraq. I can’t help it. This guy is grotesquely fascinating. As I wrote in September 2008 about this issue…

It’s no laughing matter, but the sight of this tousle-headed, “got milk?” maniac running in circles, warning of — demanding — a nuclear holocaust is good for a grin, albeit a grim one. Even as he was being forced onto the United Nations over national and international objections, Bolton was hot on Iran’s trail. He insisted that Iran is the most dangerous critter out there — harboring terrorists, arming terrorists, training terrorists — sending bombs, IEDs, weapons to Iraq to kill Americans. If it weren’t for Iran, there would have been no 9-11 attack because Iran provided safe haven for the box-cutting killers headed our way. Bolton warned if Iran managed to produce a single nuclear weapon, Israel, the United States — the world — was toast. He promised that Iran will come after us. “That’s the threat,” Bolton barked, “that’s the reality whether you like it or not. And it will be just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time.”

Time Out

Considering the consequences of history repeating itself, perhaps we should call a “time out” and take a closer look at Iran. We didn’t bother to check out the accusations made by these same bloodthirsty warmongers against Iraq — false cries of weapons of mass destruction, lies about Saddam Hussein aiding and harboring Al Qaeda terrorists — we had but a scant 45 minutes to dive under our duct-taped plastic or we would surely die. Now, after hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been destroyed — millions displaced — trillions of dollars wasted, far too many of us say we were not to blame. Hey — we were lied to. Besides, that was years ago. It’s all history now.

Iran, as a major civilization, dates back to 4000 BC and, although it has been invaded by Greeks, Arabs, Turks, even Mongols, it has no modern history of attacking or occupying other nations. However, unlike other areas that continue to be devastated by US and Israeli assaults, history shows that Iran is capable of defending itself. Both its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and frisky little president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have promised to do exactly that if attacked.

In August, Khamenei said “the consequences of a US attack would be grave…not merely regional, but will cover a vaster scene.” If our warmongering babblers took a closer look at that “scene,” they would see the destruction of the 32 US bases in the region as well as the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz — the gateway to the world’s oil.

Regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have said over and over (and over) that Iran seeks nuclear power for generating electricity for medical purposes and for its growing population. In 2005, Khamenei issued a Fatwa that “the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.” And, in spite of blatant lies and distortions to the contrary, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to verify Iran’s pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy.

The timeline of Iran’s nuclear program from the 1950s shows that Iran has never sought nuclear energy for anything other than peaceful purposes. In 1957, the Shah opened the American Atoms for Peace in Tehran, and signed an agreement with the US for cooperation in research on peaceful uses of nuclear technology. And, in 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the first day it opened for signature.

Before we buy into railings from those like Gerecht about evil Iran’s “dark history” in pursuing nuclear weapons, perhaps we should study the dark history of two other nations — one that obliterated the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in mere moments just 65 years ago…that used napalm, chemical weapons, and deadly toxins against the Vietnamese…that uses deadly depleted uranium to wipe out entire generations and to deform future generations…or perhaps the other one that takes great delight in dropping white phosphorus bombs on a trapped civilian population with nowhere to run…

The Choice is Ours

If our evil axis succeeds in its lust for war on Iran, yet another March 19, 2003 “Shock and Awe” will come roaring through. We can choose to sit, once again transfixed by sounds of explosions, gunfire, sirens, screams — and once again listen to Mike Malloy say in a dead voice stripped of all emotion…

This is a dark day. This is a filthy day. This
is a day for shame…

Or we can rise up and stand firm. As Malloy also says, over and over (and over) — “We know the truth. We no longer have an excuse for remaining silent.”

History is replete with examples of citizens uniting and changing the course of history. When that happens, empires — even a shining empire on a hill — must change…or fall.

History. Round and round it goes. Will the US and Israel attack Iran? Will history repeat itself?

Yes, but only if we let it. The choice is ours.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. She can be reached at: rsamples@sirinet.net. Read other articles by Sheila, or visit Sheila's website.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. MichaelKenny said on October 18th, 2010 at 10:34am #

    Be wary of polls. Even if the poll is carried out honestly by a reputable organisation, it is very easy for groups with an “agenda” to get their people into the sample. Once you’re in one organisation’s sample, they all seem to find out about you and call up (I speak from experience!). Equally, false polls are very easy to fabricate, to say nothing of questions formulated to elicit a particualr answer or permit a particular interpretation, regardless of the answer. An extreme example: a few years back, an American right-wing site claimed to be aware of a poll that showed a majority of Europeans favourable to an attack on Iran. I knew that was nonsense, so I went looking for the pollster’ website, a Brussels-based think tank. No website! I was re-directed to a US neocon website with a very similar name, which mentioned the Brussels outfit and the poll, but provided no link to the poll data. The think tank was also not listed in the Brussels phone book. After some googling, I found that the think tank had a president, an Italian Jewish woman who took part in pro-Israel conferences in that capacity and who co-authored articles articles with the (Italian Jewish!) author of the website article in a small Italian newspaper whose (Jewish!) editor was known for his rabid support of Israeli extremists. My conclusion? The poll was a fake designed to “create the event”, the message being “everybody else is in favour of attacking Iran. Why are you out of step?”

  2. 3bancan said on October 18th, 2010 at 11:01am #

    MichaelKenny said on October 18th, 2010 at 10:34am #

    In short: don’t ever believe what the people say, you only need to believe the only real truth that exists, ie MichaelKenny’s “truth”…

  3. 3bancan said on October 18th, 2010 at 12:01pm #

    Sheila Samples: “The choice is ours.”
    A typical American “choice”:

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3970773,00.html

    The zionazification of the world is marching on…
    Of course our regular zionazis here will say again “Bullshit!”…

  4. bozh said on October 18th, 2010 at 12:34pm #

    The label “neoconservatives” appears misleading to an unknown degree.
    It wld be better to call the masters of people and wars “masters of people and war”, “the greatest criminal minds” or “paleoconservatives” or “samecons” which behaved criminally in all lands– save n. america and parts of afrika.

    I do not know how obama, truman. johnson, churchill, senacherib, genghis, nero, darius, rabin, sargon, a tsar or kaiser differ from one another.

    In basics there is no an iota difference between, them save in the fact that they used different weapons but with same thinking!
    This thinking can be educed only after reviewing what they did!
    If sheila knows of any basic differences in thinking between these ‘leaders’, she’s welcome to tell them to us.

    The point of this post is that the basic structure of governance had not changed an iota; most basic component of it is that now as in the past one in a thousand ruled any land.
    So our sole task wld be to set up a timocratic and pantisocratic structure. I think that we have a such structure in progress in some lands.

    In US and in all democratic or theocratic lands or empires, the idea is rejected
    as this weakens influence and mastery of sacerdotal class of people and, of course, the ‘nobles’. tnx

  5. Mulga Mumblebrain said on October 20th, 2010 at 4:24am #

    What is in store for Iran was revealed when one of Netanyahu’s retinue of thugs informed a US journalist that, in regard to Iran, one must ‘Think Amalek’, to understand Netanyahu’s position. Sifting through the psychopathic sludge of Torah exhortations to genocide and celebrations of it (mostly, thankfully, untrue, but interesting examples of pathopsychological projection none the less)one finds that ‘Amalek’ is yet another of those ‘eternal enemies’ that the Jews seem to attract, and one that the Great Jew in the Sky has ordered be exterminated, down to the last suckling etc.
    So, there you have it. Following on from Oded Yinon, and ‘A Clean Break’ and the other Zionazi tracts that call for obliterating the entire Islamic Middle East, you have the open advocation that yet another country, Iran, be ‘obliterated’ (in Hilary Clinton’s revealing Nazi usage) for what, exactly? Oh yes, for failing to acknowledge Zionazi supremacy, for aiding Israel’s victims to defend themselves and for failing to throw themselves on the ground and eat dirt when the Herrenvolk bark orders.
    The aspect that gets overlooked, I think, in understanding Zionazi genocidal lusts, is the element of revenge. The Zionazis’ belief that non-Jews are insects we understand. The Zionazis’ race hatred for those that its colonial project has displaced, and their friends, we understand. The Zionazi lust to kill, we can see in their religious tracts, that they share with the worst ‘Christian’ fascists. But we seem to neglect to consider that the killing is also, for some Jews, the worst, but, inevitably, the most powerful and dangerous, revenge for the Nazi Judeocide, and in that case, one must wonder whether the list of future victims might not be far vaster than just Moslems andArabs.

  6. Sheila Samples said on October 20th, 2010 at 9:42pm #

    To MichaelKenny… That one poll you tracked is, I fear, just one of many. The mainstream media is also campaigning furiously for Republicans, and they use polls to influence their viewers.

  7. Sheila Samples said on October 20th, 2010 at 9:46pm #

    To 3bancan…Thank you for the ynet URL. I had not seen that article. Frightening, isn’t it? It would be wonderful if US politicians protected and defended their own citizens rather than those of another nation. And, Chicago will soon have a zionist Mayor. Things are looking kinda bleak right now…

  8. Sheila Samples said on October 20th, 2010 at 9:50pm #

    Thank all of you so much for your comments. It never ceases to amaze me just how intelligent Dissident Voice readers are.

  9. mary said on October 21st, 2010 at 12:20am #

    About the use of depleted uranium in weaponry, the terrible birth deformities in Fallujah after the 2004 attack by the US should be noted.

    There are other references on this site and this on the UN report.

    http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/345.html