“Most Americans support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, while a smaller majority endorses such US strike, according to a poll commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League. Some 63% of poll respondents characterized Israel as a “crucial ally” and said that the Jewish state’s relationship with the US does not undermine America’s image in the world. As to Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, the poll showed that 57% of Americans support Israeli military action to prevent such scenario while only 31% opposed such move. Some 50% of respondents suppor. Meanwhile, nearly half of all Americans said they sympathize with the State of Israel, while only 18% said they sympathize with the Palestinians. Some 63% of respondents said they believe Israel is serious about peace. ………”
That last 63% almost certainly don’t know much about Netanyahu and his Likud. You always get a “generic” answer when asking a “generic” question. The tendency among American voters, assuming this was a “good” poll, is to use whatever vague general information they have and answer accordingly to specific questions. For example, if the question was “Do you think the Likud wants to be left in peace to complete the takeover of the West Bank?” They may have answered the same affirmative.
Besides, the most recent headlines drive opinion polls in the United States in this era of sound bites. Iran and its nuclear program being in the headlines cause people to quickly associate Israel with peace. I bet ($5) many of these same folks would answer affirmative if asked whether the US faces an imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear attack. It is all headlines driven, I tell ya. (Sad fact is, most people in the United States cannot identify Missouri or Nebraska on a map, let alone Iran or Israel. As for locating Bhutan…..). Cheers
mhg
Watched part of the GOP South Carolina foreign policy debate, The highlights, rather the Lowlights:
Q (Major Garrett): “How would you think outside the box in foreign policy…” Newt Gingrich: “I would explicitly adopt the Reagan John-Paul II agenda…..”
John-Paul II foreign policy? I fully expected Garrett to retort with a resounding: “WTF”? John-Paul II had a military jingoistic foreign policy of bombing Iran and boycotting UNESCO for admitting the Palestinians? One more lie………..
Herman Cain, the Pizza Man, is reported to have said that President Barack Obama’s reaction to the Arab Spring has allowed the movement to go in the wrong direction..….
Little Ricky Santorum, in desperation, essentially endorsed state-sponsored terrorism: “there are scientists turning up dead in Iran. I hope the United States is involved in that….”
I have modified my original suggestion about “some” of these guys (and gal) going for a hike along the Iraq-Iran border. Initially I thought Newt Gingrich needs it the most. Now I think they all ought to go to the Iran-Iraq border, and quickly. Cheers
mhg
BFF “Nor did I find much sympathy for Obama in Israel. The right thinks of him as a naïf who can easily be out-maneuvered, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently done. The left is disappointed in him for the same reason: that Obama let Netanyahu push him around. The spectacle of members of Congress leaping to their feet to clap after almost every sentence of Nethanyahu’s address gave comfort to the right that America could always be manipulated. To the Israeli left it was pathetic. “Netanyahu could have been reading from the telephone book,” said author and journalist, Yuval Elizur……..”
What can I say? Members of Congress were intoxicated by all the bullshit Mr. Netanyahu spread under the some of the Capitol, as he is wont to do wherever he goes. They recognized a sour b.s. disseminator, a right-winger, one of their own. Only better at it. Cheers
mhg
“The “Iran Threat Reduction Act” HR1905, passed on November 2 by the House Foreign Relations Committee, neither reduces an Iranian threat, nor puts significant pressure on Iran’s leaders to change policies with which the United States disagrees. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the Senate (S1048). If passed, the House bill would, however, make it illegal for any American diplomat to speak to or have any contact with an Iranian official unless the President certifies to Congress that not talking to the Iranian officials “would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States” 15 days prior to that contact. Former U.S. Ambassadors William Luers and Thomas Pickering point out that this bill is not only illegal, it places the United States in greater danger in the world…….”
“(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that — (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.” Cheers
mhg
“The legislation requires the US president to impose sanctions on Iran’s central bank if he determines it is facilitating terrorism or the development of nuclear weapons, or supporting Iran’s elite military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “I believe the central bank of Iran is not only engaging in those activities; I believe it is the ultimate engine of those activities,” said the author of the central bank provision, Representative Howard Berman, a Democrat. The sanctions would effectively block from the US economy any foreign bank involved in significant transactions with Iran’s central bank. The legislation was approved by the House panel …………..”
There are many institutions and individuals in Iran that contribute to their nuclear program:
The Central Bank of Iran, by virtue of operating in Iran, supervising banks and the balance of payments and maintaining the exchange rate and monetary policy in general helps the nuclear program.
An Iranian doctor, by virtue of working in Iran helps the nuclear program (he may treat some nuclear scientist or a procurer of ‘yellow cake’ from Niger).
A street sweeper in Tehran (there are many of them since Iranians like their cities clean) helps the nuclear program by virtue of improving the quality of life of nuclear scientists and procurer of ‘yellow cake’ from Niger.
A grocer in any Iranian city almost certainly feeds some workers on some not-so-secret nuclear plants, let’s call him the green grocer of Natanz.
A home vintner in North Tehran, by virtue of supplying some secret party that some nuclear scientist or some clerk at a nuclear plant might attend, is helping the nuclear program.
A baby sitter or a housemaid in Tehran, by virtue of……..
You get the drift. It could be a virtual declaration of war, to which the Iranians will most likely only respond in kind, with virtual retaliation. That is how the Iranians, including the dogmatic mullahs, operate in the game of chess their ancestors invented. That is why the alleged Saudi ambassador plot sounds so ridiculous, regardless of all the “weighty” Western leaders who endorsed its veracity. It does not fit the pattern of a game of chess.
(one good thing is that the bill leaves it up to POTUS to decide if the Central Bank is engaged in such activities, The bad news is also that it leaves it to POTUS). Cheers
mhg
“On the eve of what is likely to be a nearly complete withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq, one of the great questions is what Mr. Sadr is going to do…..” N YTimes Iraq has had a way of making American presidents look and sound foolish, mainly because they misread it. George W Bush fell into that trap when he parachuted in front of a huge banner reading “Mission Accomplished”. Little did he know that the bloody party was just beginning in Iraq.
Now there are reports in the media that the United States will keep several thousand troops in Iraq after they all withdraw from Iraq. An Orwellian touch I could not help noticing, although most people are probably still digesting the administration’s last “announced” position, that ALL U.S. forces will leave Iraq next month. Even the supremely opportunistic Republican candidates were quick to slam the withdrawal plan, even if most, almost all, Iraqis insist on it. Now all GOP candidates have to amend their statements to insist that there is a need for more than, say, 5 thousand troops. So, Mr. Obama announced that he is keeping his promise to completely withdraw from Iraq, before he decided to break that promise and keep forces in Iraq (I wonder what Senator John Kerry is up to these days). Would be interesting if they will actually remain and if they will remain under the laws of an independent Iraqi state or under a colonial rule that exempts them from Iraqi laws.That should boost the political fortunes of an already politically extremely fortunate Muqtada al-Sadr. Cheers
mhg
“Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi says Tehran will definitely take legal action against the US administration over calls for the assassination of Iranian officials. Salehi told IRNA on Sunday that American statesmen are so brazen that they formally discuss assassinating Iranian military figures in the US House of Representatives and the Senate. He stressed that Tehran would pursue the case through all legal and judicial channels. Salehi said that the US administration’s anti-Iran bids comes as Washington has been leveling baseless accusations against the country alleging that Tehran was involvement in a plot to kill the Saudi envoy to Washington. On October 11, the US Justice Department accused Iran of plotting to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir with help from a suspected member of a Mexican drug cartel. Tehran says the media hype created by Washington is an attempt to deflect international attention from the anti-corruption and anti-corporatism protests currently rocking the country. ………….”
It is interesting that the Iranian leaders are becoming Americanized in at least one respect: they are becoming trigger happy in matters of lawsuits. For all I know they could also be watching Jersey Shores or Desperate Housewives (I have never watched any episode of either). I wonder if Alan Dershowitz, if he is asked, would refuse to represent the mullahs on principle. Or maybe he would rise to the challenge. What these Iranian mullahs don’t understand is that violent protests, even strong protests, don’t work in the USA. The 1960s protests (especially the Chicago events which were arguably violence committed by the police) led to the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. That was no doubt the opposite effect of what the protesters wanted (helped along by the not-so-soft racism of Nixon’s Southern Strategy) Cheers
mhg
“Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday that it’s time for the United States to confront Iran, and that it should never take the military option off the table, in an ABC interview with Christiane Amanpour. “I think it’s time to confront the Iranian regime because It’s the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism, it’s trying to get a nuclear weapon, it’s repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table,” she said.
In addition to keeping the military option open, Rice pointed to “even tougher sanctions” as a means of confronting the Islamic Republic…………Rice also commented on plans for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq this year, noting that, “This is one of the downsides of having our forces out of Iraq, because we can confrontthe Iranians in Iraq.” ………….”
I am beginning to think that Condi Rice is almost as smart as Henry Kissinger, almost. Kissinger had a brilliant solution for the United States to stop losing the Vietnam War: escalate into Cambodia and Laos. Brilliant move: within four years the Communists were in power in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. So Rice wanted the Obama administration to keep forces in Iraq to “confront Iran”. I assume she doesn’t mean having a few thousand American boys and girls sitting targets in a hostile environment. Maybe she would also agree to leave Palo Alto and go to Iraq to advice the troops she wants to remain in harm’s way. maybe Messrs Romney and Gingrich and Perry and some of the airwaves gasbag warriors will volunteer go go with her. Cheers
mhg
“Raised a Christian, Manuel Gomez now goes by Mohamed Chechev, and counts himself among a handful of Tzotzil Indians converted to Islam by Spaniards in southern Mexico. “I am Muslim. I know the truth. I pray five times a day, celebrate Ramadan and have traveled to Mecca,” Chechev said in rudimentary Spanish. He lives in a mainly Protestant community in Chiapas called Nueva Esperanza on the outskirts of San Cristobal de las Casas, where he shares a modest house with 19 relatives and sells vegetables he grows on a plot of land……….. In the interior courtyard of the home, Chechev’s wife Noora (born Juana) and his daughter-in-law Sharifa (Pascuala) swept and cleaned laundry. They wore long dresses and a veil covered their hair………… And Chechev followed in the footsteps of another indigenous leader, Domingo Lopes, who was an official at an Adventist church before converting to Islam, introduced to the region by the Marabutin movement which moved to Mexico from Spain in 1993 in a bid to create a self-sufficient community. The Marabutin sect is a hangover from the days when Spain was part of the Muslim empire forsome seven centuries……………”
Oddly, the Mexicans have not rushed to pass laws against the Shari’a threatening their Agave Tequila. They have not, yet, taken a page from the worthies in Bible Belt Oklahoma which passed ananti-Shari’a law last year only to discover that it may apply to the Bible and the Ten Commandments as well. There was also something about Islamic danger in both Tennessee and Missouri. Call it the revenge of the native Mexican deity Quetzalcoatl against the Catholic priests who forced his fans, with iron and fire, to abandon him. Even more ironic: those who concerted these handful of Mexicans came from Spain, presumably without the regulation Catholic mullahs. And not seeking “oro y plata”. Okay, before the good people of the great states of Tejas and Arizona panic: this “Muslim” conversion thing is far away in Chiapas. It is not going to go far, it will not spill across the border. Never fear, the drug cartels still rule supreme, and the Evangelicals, as they will for many years to come. There will be no “officially sanctioned” polygamy along the border, not as much as already exists in Texas. Cheers
mhg
“But for both sides the politics proved too tricky. Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has managed to cling onto his post but heads a parliament so angrily divided that it rarely makes a decision—and his mandate is by no means strong enough to force one through on his own. The movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr, a populist Shia cleric, which is powerful both in government and on the street, remained vehemently opposed to letting any American troops stay. When it became clear that Iraqi politicians, mindful of the residual Iraqi anger over American abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, could not publicly approve of letting American soldiers have immunity from arrest, as any American administration must insist, the talks broke down and plans for a rapid and complete withdrawal began in earnest. In the United States, where Iraq has long been absent from the front page of newspapers, there were a few howls of protest at the news of the withdrawal………..”
Republicans are mostly pissed about the end of SOFA and withdrawal from Iraq. Candidates who never fired a shot in anger on a battle field are screaming against the “loss” of Eyeraq. You’d think Mesopotamia as there Jerusalem. Maybe the Republican National Convention next year the battle cry of this GOP diaspora will be “Next Year in Baghdad”, or is it Fallujah or Basrah or Abu Ghreib. Now I shall have to insist on all Republican Tea Party candidates going to Iraq. Not just the “viable” candidates like, well, I have to think more deeply on this “viability” thing. The American people are fickle and are prone to the “next morning: what the hell did I vote for” syndrome. By all means go to Iraq, talk to al-Maliki, talk to al-Sadr, text al-Sistani about staying. Then go for a group hike all he way to he Iranian border. And should you stray a bit and inadvertently cross over into the domain of the mullahs, the American people will understand. There is always 2016 or 2020…………
Rattlesnake Ridge 
BFF