Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| Goldberg seeks to suppress the most important negotiations regarding war with Iran |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2012-11-02
At Bloomberg News, Jeffrey Goldberg writes: Romney’s more potent criticism of Obama has more to do with statements made by Obama’s underlings. It is true, as Romney wrote, that administration officials have discussed publicly the risks of an American (or Israeli) attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. There are risks, of course—potentially catastrophic ones—of attacking. But it doesn’t help the American negotiating position to publicly telegraph to the Iranians these sorts of doubts. Romney/Goldberg suggest that publicly talking about outcomes of war-fighting damage a country’s negotiating position. Please sirs, negotiating between whom and whom? There are two independent sets of negotiations going on here. Negotiations between the American and Iranian Governments As to negotiations between Iran and USA, both sides are grown up, both sides are poker players, and they will not be put off by what people say. Those negotiations will not be disturbed by public discussions. America-Israel have been fighting a fierce and cruel quasi-war—a war of terrorism (the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists), cyber-attack, and economic sanctions—against Iran, and the purpose of that quasi-war has been to persuade Iran to heed our negotiating stance. Of course Iran hears our government. Whether or not this quasi-war will persuade Iran to halt its nuclear work or to speed it up is another question. But public discussion in the USA has not stopped this quasi-war. And thus has not interfered with our government’s negotiations. Romney/Goldberg are wrong. Negotiations between the American People and the American Government The other and (to my thought) more important negotiation is the one to determine the USA’s priorities, and that negotiation is the ongoing negotiation between the American people and the American government—and establishment—which make operational decisions about all issues of governance including war. That negotiation does (or could) be influenced by the election, if only this issue were more directly discussed. If the American people are able to see, as I believe, that there is little military (or “security”) danger to the USA or to Israel from Iran’s proceeding with its nuclear projects and great danger from either country’s attacking Iran, the American people would be in a position — as democratic NEGOTIATORS sitting across the table from BIG-ZION, BIG-WAR, BIG-EMPIRE — to win this negotiation by putting a kibosh on a new war. Romney/Goldberg are wrong again. If they support popular American democracy (a support not always in evidence), they must acknowledge that control of the world’s most powerful armed forces, the American forces, must be in the effective control of the American people rather than in the hands of people who profit from war-making and care little for the desires (or safety) of the American people. The oligarchs (BIG-OIL, BIG-COAL, BIG-GAS, BIG-DETROIT, and likely BIG-WAR) have stymied American action to reverse global warming—much to the cost (in money and safety) of the American people. Why should it be supposed that another set of such “BIGs” (as I suggested above, these might be: BIG-ZION, BIG-WAR, BIG-EMPIRE) would have the best interests of the American people as a whole in mind as they decide about war with Iran? USA’s Governance at Odds with Views of American People I am not a naive baby in promoting popular democracy. The public are easily misled and not all that smart anyhow. But at least the public have the motivation to look after their own safety and prosperity, and there are so many signs that the BIGs have no such motivation that I recommend that Americans reclaim popular democracy—if they can, sir!—from the oligarchs. As we read in Plitnick’s “Unseating the Israel Lobby”, The “unshakeable bond” that Obama, Joe Biden and Mitt Romney all talk about is hardly reflective of US public opinion. How many Americans really believe that the US should support Israel right or wrong, whether or not Israel is respecting US needs in the region? Not many, at all.And, discussing the Democratic party convention vote on Jerusalem, he writes: At the convention, the Democrats’ leadership went into a panic at the media reaction to the Israel plank in their platform, which did not include a statement affirming Jerusalem as Israel’s “eternal, undivided capital.” The omission was not accidental, but was an attempt to square the party’s platform with the Obama Administration’s own policy, the same policy which has been held by every US administration since Lyndon Johnson. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |