The Times inverts Middle East reality…


… as usual. Today’s headline — a nice big one in the print edition — read


What it should have said, of course, is


Because the real story here is not that Iran has proven willing to “unclench its fist”, as the Times goes on to say. Iran has for decades been almost desperately willing for a normalization of relations with the so-called ‘West’ — with the important proviso, of course, that ‘normalization’ is not a euphemism for ‘recolonialization’. All the spook agencies — even the Mossad! — agree that the Iranian government has not been trying to develop nuclear weapons — though given the fact that Israel has such weapons, who could blame them if they did? The Iranians have always signaled their willingness to go well beyond their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — to which they, unlike Israel, are a party — and indeed they have now agreed formally to do so.

As usual in dealing with the Empire, and its juiced-up, erratic, hair-triggered gunsels like Israel, all the ‘give’ has been on the Iranians’ side. Cf. the Palestinians.

No, what is new here is that for once the US and its lapdogs — collectively referred to as ‘the West’ — have decided to negotiate in good faith. They drove a hard — an unnecessarily hard — bargain, but this time, they didn’t go to the table intent on tipping it.

Like the failure to provoke a war with Syria back in fall 2013, this clearly seems to be a significant defeat for the neocon faction at the hands of what’s usually called, for lack of a better term, the ‘realists’: that is to say, people who never did, or no longer believe that giving Israel a blank check is the one-size-fits-all imperial answer to every question the Middle East poses.

Hillary The Inevitable must be appalled. She and her husband have, after all, made a career of carrying Israel’s water. Will she face an agonizing decision: repudiate the agreement and make a lot of Democrats unhappy, or embrace it and let her opponent, whoever that might be, have all the true-believer Zionist money?

This should be fun. Or at least, as much fun as an American presidential campaign could ever hope to provide.

9 thoughts on “The Times inverts Middle East reality…

  1. It’s not a done deal yet; congress still has to vote on it and there’s little doubt in which direction Israel’s bitches in that august body will vote. I suspect Obama is counting on this.

    We are at war with Syria.

      • It’s not a treaty, so no approval needed from the congress critters. Obie can suspend sanctions on his lonesome for two years, so congress will have to wait to scuttle the deal.

  2. For sure, we are at war with a lot of “folks” though semantics say otherwise. Missiles have rained down on the Iranians – American missiles, whether in Israel’s more recent “strategic” tossing, or our former client the former Hussein.

    The quasi realists have now indeed freshly disseminated what seems to be plausible (redundancy intended) diplomatic and political coup.

    This greater threat from- and potential war with Iran scenario has been a carrot stick waved at the American patriot since the seventies at least, so I don’t like to read too much into the leavings. Nevertheless I cannot help but see this as a setup for future conflict. You know, when those insane Persians hellbent on fomenting conflict brazenly break the rules the US so lovingly set forth in this “agreement”.

    • They’ll break the rules by kicking out the “inspectors” who are there strictly for verification. Probably accuse them of being spies like Saddam.

  3. I was mistaken. It is not a “treaty” so it doesn’t require the Senate’s approval. It is a “non-binding international agreement.” This should clear up any confusion:

    But the deal itself is still tentative, Congress can still derail it by imposing new sanctions, and existing sanctions have to be removed by Congress though the president can suspend them for two years.

    I suspect it is all theater in the end. The US is not ready to attack Iran so it is best to sideline them for the moment while they work on destroying other countries in the area. The zio-kooks want to unleash their pit bull on everyone at once; the pit bull doesn’t want to bite off more than it can chew.

  4. They got lukcy this time. The Eye-ranians’ curent leader is not as telegenic as the last guy, known for running his mouth, otherwise Netenhayu could have projected his face in front of members of Congress and gotten more than just a couple of dozen standing ovations out of them. Of course, a bit of a downer for many in the Jewish State (or among the legions of its zealous fans worldwide).

  5. The heart of the matter seems to me this: Amurricans won’t support war with Iran because they don’t feel threatened by that country and they know they were already conned into two wars in the region. Even the most impressionable have started to know bullshit when they see it.

    I don’t believe Amurricans can be whipped up into fighting a war on behalf of the Jewish State. Reasons, in no particular order: 1) they’re weary of the wars they were conned into fighting. 2) the military really is stretched to the breaking point. 8th tour in the Middle East to defend Jewish nutjobs? Fughettaboutit. 3) They don’t feel threatened by Iran. The mullahs weren’t “behind” 9/11 and the hostage crisis that made Ted Koppel famous might as well have happened centuries ago.

    • 4) Young Amurricans, even many young Jews, don’t give a shit about Israel. 5) The Jewish State is just that — a Jewish State. Ie: an alien entity to most Amurricans, even despite decades of AIPAC propaganda. No one will say this in “respectable” circles, but the neocons, AIPAC and many in Israel, including Bibi, know this to be true: After 2 godforksaken wars, “good Christian boys and girls” from Appalachia will not go to a war in behalf of Jews — people who, at best, they find alien and at worst they think are loathsome Christ-killers. Whom, not incidentally, they suspect conned us into Iraq.

Leave a Reply