Iran is winning, Israel is losing

Juan Cole: Leaks Suggest Iran Is Now Winning in the Middle East – Juan Cole’s Columns – Truthdig

From 2005 through 2006, Iran appeared to be on the retreat in the eastern Mediterranean. Pro-Western Sunnis and Christians took over in Beirut. Syria was expelled from Lebanon and there was talk of detaching it from Iran. The powerful generals of Turkey, a NATO member and ally of Israel, were reliably anti-Iranian. Now, Hariri is a supplicant in Tehran, Syria is again influential in Beirut, and a Turkey newly comfortable with Islam has emerged as a regional power and a force for economic and diplomatic integration of Iran and Syria into the Middle East. Iran’s political breakthroughs in the region have dealt a perhaps irreparable blow to the hopes of the United States and Israel for a new anti-Iranian axis in the region that would align Iran’s Arab and other neighbors with Tel Aviv.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

17 comments on “Iran is winning, Israel is losing

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. CUBA? has always hated Israel ?????

    Didn’t Cuba maintain diplomatic relations with Israel until ’73 and only start opposing Israeli policies after the ’67 war?

    I’m a little fuzzy on this and thought that it was Israel that held a grudge against the Cubans since the time that Castro overthrew the Lansky regime.

  2. @ fuster:
    ’73’s when Cuba severed diplomatic relations with Israel. At that time Iran under the Shah still had mostly close ties with Israel (there were some exceptions to the general rule). Interestingly, all three countries have always been at war with Oceania.

  3. @ fuster:
    1967, the year of the National Conference on the New Politics, was the year the far left swung into the ferociously anti-Israel position it has held ever since. In the days between the closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt and the start of the Six-Day War, the members of the Columbia Independent Committee on Vietnam, which I belonged to, suddenly began wishing for Israel’s defeat. I had never heard anything like this before, and I still don’t understand how they all became anti-Israel the same day. Then the war happened, and Israel won. The leftists never got over the bitterness of their disappointment.
    Your comment about Lansky is a lie and a slur. In a world desperate to believe ever more bad things about Israel, it is also a danger.

  4. @ CK MacLeod:
    The Shah, like all Iranian rulers going back to Cyrus, understood that Israel and Iran were natural allies. Khomeini changed that. Allies-shmallies, thought Khomeini. Virtue is what matters.

    The most dangerous of all hatreds are those that have no motivation. Hitler is the best example.

  5. George Jochnowitz wrote:

    Your comment about Lansky is a lie and a slur

    Where’s the lie, what’s the slur?

    I do remember the swing toward confusing the Palestinian leadership with progressive, socialist causes around the globe and leftists forgetting the basis of Western determination to oppose regimes that (quite falsely) said they represented socialism. It was in large part due to a dawning in understanding that we were quite willing to oppose things and movements by using methods and people nearly as murderous and heartless.

  6. Well actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that, there’s that little matter of the SS St. Louis, under Laredo Bru, one of Batista’s stand in, and as I recall, under Grau’s term, they voted against the state hood
    resolution, in ’47, but clearly under Fidel, Cuba adopted a Third World
    liberationist character, that began with Algeria, and extended toward
    the Middle East in general;

  7. No, mcFrog, I was referring to the regime’s at various points, which
    were regretable instances. I wrote that post in the aftermath of the
    Myers spy ring being discovered

  8. One assumes he means in the revolutionary context, recall that the Shah did support Musa Sadr’s Amal militia, who was not on Israel’s Hanukkah card registry, but that is different from Hezbollah. I don’t know what happened to Dr. Cole, I read a collection of his essays,
    I’ll find the Amazon link.

  9. @ miguel cervantes:
    When i assume that I know what george means I’m sometimes surprised.
    When people discuss how countries hate Israel, they often mean the greatest part of the population of the place.

    I have trouble with thinking that the Cuban people hate Israel. The Cubans I’ve known aren’t really great haters. They’ve been excellent at becoming furious over a personal or family insult and great at holding a grudge, but having a dark heart toward large groups of people they’ve never met ?

    If George meant revolutionary socialist Cubans opposing and willing to fight against Israel for the cause of Palestinian empowerment, that’s a different bucket of guts entire.

  10. That’s what he meant, consider that one of the strongest allies of Israel, today in Congress is Ileana Ros Lehtinen, who took over Claude
    Pepper’s seat, almost a quarter century ago, This is the collection I was referring to;,+juan&hl=en&ei=49sCTeOKL4aglAe455DtCQsa=X&oi=book_
    result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falseago ;

    I thought the reference to Lansky, who used to live in one of my
    old neighborhoods was due to one of the later Levine novels, which
    have him as a character

  11. I hope you get a kick out of it. I enjoyed it.

    It made me a tiny bit sad to contemplate how few novels the guy has published. That damn Hollywood, I tell you. It just despoils people.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins