Coming War with Iran (Updated)

The Bush admin has done an admirable job of selling the coming war with Iran. Popping every trial balloon like it was just bubbles of fantasy, it has made such a war appear less and less likely. Simultaneously, it has made those who see the writing on the wall of such a war look like so many Chicken Littles.

Excellent job, you guys in disinformation and psyops. You really have played this game superbly.

So all the talk about Condi working for a diplomatic settlement and Cheney in the doghouse was so much dust in our eyes. Or perhaps Dick has wormed his lovable way back into the deciderer's heart. Who knows?

As it is, the signs that such a war with Iran is imminent becomes more more compelling by the hour. There is still a huge armada in the Persian Gulf. AF personnel are well-rested and do not suffer from the fatigue that the ground troops do. The naval and AF ordnance and resources are stacked high and ready.

Then, of course, you have George, Rex Youdas, displaying apocalyptic fantasies once again in public. Yesterday, for example, in a little-covered speech (that's what floating all those bubbles does, see, it makes such speeches seem like trivialities and old hat, nothing important, just a bunch of verbiage), almost made it a fait accompli.

Born at the Crest of the Empire picked these choice quotes:

(AFP) "The United States demanded Tuesday that Iran end any support for extremists in Iraq "at once" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust" in the Middle East if Tehran gets atomic weapons."

(Speech text) "I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism were allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world."

Those are fighting words and this guy is in a corner, facing the oblivion of history or the glory of being the one to save the world from evil. Which would you choose?

And if that weren't sobering enough, consider the following remarks from Col. Lang, a guy whose instincts and experience on these matters I think you should trust:

In fact such a strike would be merely the opening battle in yet another long war fought against a major piece of the Islamic World.

The current IO [Information Operations, i.e., the Defense Department's propaganda wing] campaign against Iran makes it seem more and more plausible that such an onslaught will be attempted.

Then again, don't we deserve this in some weird, twisted way? Didn't most of us applaud George and facilitate his egomania as the guy in the white hat who fights the evil ferners who're out to kill us all?

What or who's going to stop them? The Democrats will not, no matter how many dollars pour into their campaign troughs. They're up to their eyeballs in dining with the AIPAC and Defense Dept. military-industrial technocrats.

Update In response to a post at Lang's blog, I noted the following:

The Dems will not in any way tie Bush's hands on Iran. AIPAC is too strong in both parties. And it's AIPAC and its minions who are pushing hard this idea of hitting Iran.

Dick has what he wants, I think, in Iraq. I wrote several months ago that he and Rumsfeld were telling Der Deciderer that things were sufficiently "contained" in Iraq to go after Iran. Obviously he couldn't make the appearance of that stick in the popular press.

Now, however, with Petraeus conveying confidence and almost spouting success, the perception that Iraq is indeed contained can gain more credence. I say this after listening to two people on NPR talk about Iraq in terms that made Iraq sound like it was on the verge of entering the Emerald City.

This is a liberal talk show and if the impression given by the host and her speakers is so sanguine, then how do you think Der Deciderer feels?

What broke my growing euphoria, though, was a statement during the news break that Condi Rice is sounding the Cheney fight song. It sounds like she's given in and is now on-board with Dick

Updates: Fer "evil ferners" see the comment left by Davie on my very successful post, "Kill All Muslims." (more of which in a second)

Col. Lang has kindly linked to an article explaining further the IO plan of operations vis a vis the Iranian War.

Also see this from Chris Floyd.

Related Links

The Next War, By Wesley K. Clark
Bush setting America up for war with Iran

Read more!

History of the NeoCons, with Religion and the Bush Too

This is what you've all been waiting for: a documentary on the religious and neoconservative politics behind the Bush administration.



Be sure to also watch

part 2
part 3
part 4 Read more!

Texas George Rex Judas (3)

Judas is a prototypical villain in Christian theology and secular mythology and history. Characterized as the epitome of evil, he haunts Dante's description of Hell as the ultimate sinner. Gnawed by one of the faces of Satan in Dante's vision, he symbolizes for the great Italian poet not only the the betrayal of God's Son but of the very principles that make human society possible. Alongside him is the Roman Senator Brutus, assassin of Caesar.

For Dante, Judas and Brutus both betrayed God--Judas betrayed God's eternal plan for humanity, Brutus betrayed the Roman Empire. For Dante the Empire was the supreme government and had been set in place by God to usher in the New World spoken of in the Gospels.

In recent literature, no one has plumbed the depths of Judas' betrayal more profoundly and more hauntingly than the French playwright and novelist, Jean Genet. In his novels, the theme of betrayal is a constant. In homoerotic and narcissictic terms, Genet's main characters act as fantasy characters of his own desires and passions. In his resentment at society's hypocrisy toweards his homesexuality and his early childhood of severe poverty, he has them carry out the ultimate evil act. For him, this is betraying the trust and love of others.

Genet was a life-long criminal--mostly petty thievery. His fantasy novels depict a world peopled by the Paris underworld and explorations of the criminal mind. What's compelling in Genet's portrayal of criminality is that he believes in evil for evil's sake. It is obvious that his hatred of society--perhaps for its disgust at his homosexuality--was so deep that he was motivated to commit the ultimate evil, the ultimate crime.

But Genet's evil intentions are not just aimed at the bourgeois world that rejected him outright. It is also directed at the idea of society itself, the very principle that brings people together in a bond that cannot--must not--be betrayed. Though he obviously identifies with criminals whom he knew so well, he also knows that no one is more hated among criminals than a snitch--a Judas. For Genet, therefore, Judas represents the ultimate evil being and his act of betrayal is an act in defiance of God for it undermines all good that God could mean for humans. The ultimate good, of course, is eternal and lasting love and friendship.

It is this intimate bond of friendship that Judas symbolizes not just for Genet but for other writers. Jorge Borges explores the temporal dimensions of Judas' betrayal. For Borges, Judas is a keystone in the eternal plan such that someone must be sacrificed for God's plan to work. In a mirror image of Jesus' sacrifice, Judas himself is a kind of sacrifice that enables that eternal act. For Borges, the profoundly ironical nature of this anti-sacrifice has metaphysical implications that call into question the human understanding of God's benevolence.

It is these dimensions of temporality and social bond that Kierkegaard discusses in his elaboration of the demonic. The virtue of Kierkegaard's understanding is that it tries to capture and express life as it is lived, in all its triviality, boredom and everydayness. Kierkegaard understands the tendency of fiction and works of art to project falsely stylized pictures of the world. Because of this aestheticization of life, the real nature of actuality is not captured by art. Only an idealized, static picture arises from art. While these works can teach much about possibility, they eventually lead to an imaginary reality of pure possibility that is simply unlivable and finally unethical.

Projecting into possibility the human striving for dignity and wholeness is at the basis of being who are are. As discussed before, possibility is the eternal aspect of human personality. Humans must balance in an unending work of passion the interplay between possibility and actuality. To allow one aspect to gain dominance is to falsify not only our understanding of the world but also ourselves. This unbalanced understanding will eventually affect the way we treat and value others.

As I noted in the previous section, the human being must understand him or herself as beings in time. They must understand that history forms them as much as they form it. Our understanding of ourselves and the world is paramount in this effort to engage our temporality. We accept the past in order to live towards the future in the present.

This ever-intensifying living in the present is a matter of passionate pursuit for what will outdo everything that would limit falsely or expand unconscionably our effort to be who we are. The effort demands an ever-vigilant undertaking not only not to deceive myself about why I do what I do, but also to accept responsibility for how I act and undertake that confrontation and engagement with the world.

One way that I can refuse to accept this responsibility is to say that something or other made me do what I did. Children obviously do this. Criminals often blame something or other for their behavior and actions. Kierkegaard understands that the demonic intersects with not only betrayal of oneself but also God. Judas, therefore, from this perspective symbolizes the propensity of all humans to run away from their duties to others and themselves as well as God. But Judas' betrayal is profound in that it rejects the very idea of what it is that would enable people to live together in a loving and compassionate way. Genet was right to focus on Judas as not only a narcissist but also an extreme anarchist, perhaps the only pure form of evil possible in this world.

I will take up the figure of George Bush and Judas in the next section, trying to show how Bush's interest in history is an attempt to flee from the truth of his actions in Iraq and thereby not only as a form of the demonic but a Judas-like act that betrays the true bases of human community.

Back to Index

Next Section Read more!