Iran does not want to Nuke Israel

Those who think Iran would nuke Israel are easily swayed by American propaganda. I would still support Israel destroying the Iranian nuclear reactor though, but not this pandering whining nonsense of Netanyahu constantly crying to the West to “do something”.

RT just interviewed Mohammad Jahad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister, on this topic. To preempt, no, I don’t agree with everything Zarif says in this article. Just making a point that the State-controlled US main stream media (state licenses all the airwaves) emphasizes what it wants and ignores what it doesn’t. There will be zero, absolutely zero, American media outlets reporting these comments. And people therefore assume, from what they read in the state-controlled media in America, that Iran for whatever reason wants to nuke everything and reinstate the 13th Imam and other warmongering stupidity.

If Bibi wants to take out the Iranian nuclear program, then shut up and do it and take the consequences. Stop the warmongering US-pandering BS.

These comments, however, I completely agree with. Thank you Zarif for your sanity, at least as reflected in these remarks:

“It is truly, truly regrettable that bigotry gets to the point of making allegations against an entire nation which has saved Jews three times in its history: Once during that time of a prime minister who was trying to kill the Jews, and the king saved the Jews; again during the time of Cyrus the Great, where he saved the Jews from Babylon, and during the Second World War, where Iran saved the Jews,” he said.

“We’re not about the annihilation of Jews,” Zarif stressed, reminding the channel that 20,000 Jews reside in Iran “in peace” and even have their own representative in parliament.

“We have a history of tolerance and cooperation and living together in coexistence with our own Jewish people, and with Jews everywhere in the world. If people want to espouse fear mongering to fan such hysteria in the world, that’s to their detriment,” Zarif said.

 

Moshe Feiglin interview posted on EconomicPolicyJournal.com

I helped set up this interview with Robert Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal. It’s good that American libertarians should start getting familiar with his name before he gets in power. I’m sure that many EPJ listeners will consider some of Moshe’s views scary, but the fact that he wants America out of the picture and left alone should make them pretty happy.

All in all, Wenzel was pretty courteous to Moshe throughout the interview, and though I suspect he thinks Moshe is a “warmonger”, the two can get along as they both respect the other’s space. That’s the beauty of noninterventionism and national independence where nobody funds anybody else’s issues. At the end he said he wanted Feiglin back on to discuss monetary policy. Very nice.

 

Responding to Likud Anglos’ Daniel Tauber’s “Freedom Agenda”

I know and respect Daniel Tauber, head of Likud Anglos, despite my tone in this rebuttal. He has gotten farther than I have in politics, though I suspect that’s because I hate politics. We agree on many things, but foreign policy is definitely not one of them. This is my response to his Jerusalem Post article that can be seen here. My responses to each paragraph are in bold.

Not long after September 11, US president George W. Bush declared “a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.” No longer would the US support dictators, but would actively push Arab states to become democratic.

So since 9/11, the US has not supported any dictators, but has instead actively pushed Arab states to become democratic? There are two problems with that statement, both of which have to do with reality. First, since 9/11, the US has supported almost every Mideast dictator with US taxpayer money. Both King Abdullahs (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) Qaddafi (when he did stuff Bush liked), Mubarak, Karzai in Afghanistan, who America basically installed by force of big bombs on airplanes (“democratically” I suppose), the guy in Qatar (a dictator who Bush really liked because they let him put bombs in their country to promote freedom in the Middle East), Bahrain, Kuwait, but I’m sure all this dictator support was in order to promote democracy and a free middle east.

If by “actively push Arab states to become democratic” Tauber means “actively push Arab states by force to do whatever America wants them to do” then he’s right.

The policy was based on two primary conclusions: first, that under authoritarian regimes, the Middle East “will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export”; second, the tenets of liberalism were universal and the “peoples of the Middle East” are not “somehow beyond the reach of liberty.”

The Middle East IS a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export precisely BECAUSE America cannot resist collecting oil fiefdoms and annoying Arabs with military bases on their land that they use to manage their ludicrous empire.

Inspiring words, but elections in Lebanon and in the Palestinian Authority (which Bush brought about) led to victories for Hezbollah and Hamas. While some advocates of the “freedom agenda” have hailed the Arab Spring as confirming Bush’s vision, in Egypt, Islamist parties won the parliament and presidency. But that doesn’t mean president Bush was wrong in principle.

Bush wasn’t WRONG in principle. Bush didn’t HAVE a principle. He was simply LYING. He didn’t care about liberty. He was just using the word “liberty” because he wanted to have Saddam Hussein’s handgun framed in the Oval Office as a war prize to show to his daddy so he’d be proud of him for finishing the job. It would have been cheaper to send him to a good shrink so he’d find his father’s approval in a way that wouldn’t cost $1 trillion and thousands of American lives for NO reason.

His argument was essentially a reformulation of the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” The “freedom agenda” merely applied US support for democracy abroad to the Middle East, where a pro-stability philosophy governed its foreign policy.

This one’s a real kicker. Yes, all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Like the right not to be bombed by foreign countries one did not provoke in any way. What the heck did Saddam Hussein ever do to the United States except unsuccessfully try to defend himself against them in 1991 and 2003? Sure he was a schmuck, but I can’t think of a single Mideast dictator that isn’t. The US has no pro-stability philosophy. If they did they’d leave other countries alone and just trade with them. They have not a pro-liberty philosophy, but a pro-empire philosophy, and will use any excuse to expand. 9/11 was a rather good one. Instead of going after Osama bin Laden directly with a few special forces, killing the guy and calling it a day, they followed the USSR’s example and obliterated all of Afghanistan and decided to make it a US colony.

For those who were indeed inspired by the “freedom agenda,” who, as liberals and humanitarians, still desire the success of democracy in the Middle East, the question is not whether democracy was meant to come to the region. The question is how, in light of subsequent developments, the “freedom agenda” could be modified to ensure that democracy is not merely the rubber stamp on an Islamist takeover.

The scholarly tone of this paragraph really drives me up a wall. Besides democracy itself being a horrible thing (the majority can always vote to kill the minority or take all their stuff in a democracy), no one who calls himself a liberal or humanitarian votes to promote liberal and humanitarian values by slaughtering innocent Arab children. NEVER forget that over half a MILLION Iraqi kids died after the first gulf war due to sanctions against the country that prevented food and medicine from entering Iraq’s borders. In the name of democracy I guess. Madeleine Albright called this a “worthwhile sacrifice” in an interview with 60 minutes in the mid 90’s. Does Tauber believe it was worthwhile as well? I can only assume so. No wonder Bin Laden was able to gather up so much support and enthusiasm for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

First, it should be recognized, as it has been by many, that elections alone do not establish democracy.

Yes, they do, and that’s precisely why democracy is evil. Tauber is confusing democracy with liberty. The latter is the ultimate good. The former is very bad. Democracy is effectively rule by the majority, which is precisely why pushing it in a culture that does not value individual life very highly is a sincerely stupid idea. In a country like the US where liberty is culturally respected at least in theory, democracy is less dangerous, though still pretty bad.

An election can be merely the one-time tool of an anti-democratic group in seizing power. Elections can also be rigged, either by outright electoral fraud or because those in power don’t allow for real opposition. The symbolic power of an election, which Bush realized could draw people to democracy, can also be misused as a method of legitimizing authoritarian regimes.

Yes, this is all true. Which is why Tauber’s “freedom agenda” is inane.

INSTEAD OF merely calling for or endorsing elections, the focus should be on establishing a democratic political culture by offering direct assistance to democratic organizations and pressing states, including new democracies – and pressing them hard – to establish and protect those institutions such as a free media and (non- Islamist) opposition parties.

If you want to press “new democracies” hard, why don’t you go do it yourself with your own money? How do you want to “press them hard”? By bombing them some more? More sanctions that will just end up killing more children? How much is this going to cost? Has it ever succeeded in history? Where is the money going to come from? The Federal Reserve? In case you haven’t noticed, America is the most bankrupt institution in human history.

Second, the collapse of authoritarian regimes in the region tends to unleash extreme anti-Israel forces, which may have even been fostered by the former regimes. This is not just a threat to Israel. If democracy enables those forces to wreak havoc on their neighbors as well as their own citizens that democracy will be artificial and worthless.

All democracies imposed by guns and bombs on cultures that do not value liberty in principle, are ipso facto artificial and worthless. The biggest threat to Israel is actually America itself, while they are busy pissing off so many Arab countries and Israel sits there as the easier target to lash out against in response.

So as part of its push for a democratic culture, the US should make clear, to Egypt especially, that state institutions must be free of anti-Israel rhetoric, that anti-Israel terrorist groups must be eliminated, and that “reviewing” peace treaties, leaving Israeli embassies unprotected from violent mobs and arresting Jewish tourists as “spies,” are all unacceptable.

And how is the mighty United States going to enforce all this? With more bombs and sanctions that will cost the global economy, already in recession, hundreds of billions of dollars? Will taxpayers be forced to subsidize secret CIA and NSA forces in Egypt making sure no Egyptians say anything bad about Israel or they’ll be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, yet another outpost of the US Empire?

Third, the US itself must not feed the obsession over Israel with repeated attempts at reviving the peace process. This shifts regional attention away from the various states’ many internal problems. These misguided efforts also divert US attention and capital from actually promoting democracy.

Now THIS is a good paragraph. I agree with this paragraph 97.72%, given that there are 44 words in it and I only disagree with one of the words – democracy. Change it to “liberty” and I’m all with Tauber. If only he applied the same logic of America leaving Israel alone to leaving everyone alone who does not attack them, then we’d be in business. It is indeed sad that the only country Tauber wants America to stop meddling with is the very country Tauber himself actually lives in. What about everyone else? Don’t they deserve to not be meddled with as well?

The final and most important reform to the freedom agenda is shifting focus to Iran, the preeminent anti-democratic force in the region. During our conversation, Abrams said it would have been “ludicrous” to think about democracy in the Middle East with someone like Saddam Hussein “sitting in the middle of it.” It seems equally ludicrous to think about democracy in the Middle East when the mullahs are sitting on high in Iran.

Iran WAS a democracy that respected liberty before America decided to get involved in 1953 and depose their leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, due to an oil dispute with Great Britain and install the dictatorial and brutal Shah. It is ludicrous to think about democracy in the Mideast by forcing it with armies on cultures that do not value liberty.

It goes without saying that Iran must be prevented from developing nuclear weapons.

Yes, but what does this have to do with America? Has Iran ever threatened America? America has certainly threatened Iran. Iranian nukes are Israel’s problem. Israel is the one being threatened, not America. So let’s deal with it.

Whether or not Israel unilaterally strikes Iran and regardless of how much damage it does to Iran’s nuclear program, the US must ensure that sanctions are kept in place and be overtly willing to use force itself.

With WHAT money? Sanctions against innocent Iranians for WHAT? Have sanctions EVER stopped governments from doing what the US didn’t want them to do? Can he cite an example? One would be enough. Just one.

The sanctions and military, cyber, covert and other attacks will take their toll on the regime. The mullahs cannot hold out forever as their airplanes threaten to fall out of the sky for lack of replacement parts, food prices rise, their currency is devalued, they are unable to export their most lucrative commodity, and cannot insure their commercial shipping, while also silencing all opposition.

In case you haven’t noticed, food prices are rising everywhere, currencies are being devalued globally, and America doesn’t export anything except papers called “dollars” and “treasuries”. See the chart below. That’s the US trade deficit. What plugs up the hole to bring it back to zero? Paper. When everyone realizes that the paper is actually worthless because America is not good for its debts, the Empire will come crashing down and Tauber will have to follow my advice to leave everyone alone due to complete lack of any alternative.

Celebrate the Message of Purim by Bombing Iran without America’s Go Ahead

The reason I want Ron Paul to be president is that I want to be left alone to develop independently and for Israel to make her own sovereign decisions and accept the consequences. One of those decisions is to take out our own garbage and get rid of the Iranian nuclear threat on our own. Now…

The essential problem of Purim is that the situation didn’t really change from beginning to end. At the beginning, Haman drew lots to determine which date the Persians were going to kill the Jews. On the day he drew lots, there were x Persians and y Jews. 11 months later when the day actually happened, there were still x Persians and there were still y Jews, give or take a few. The Persians still had the numerical advantage to slaughter us. The only thing that changed during those 11 months was that the King of Persia, Xerxes, or Achashverosh, decided to give us the right to fight back.

But what were we going to do if he didn’t? Just sit there and die? We were only going to defend ourselves with his permission? Apparently so. This is why Purim is not a holiday of full redemption. This is why the Megillah ends on such a sad note, with Esther still stuck as a sexual prisoner in Achashverosh’s disgusting hedonistic drunken palace of debauchery. Because we had no self confidence that we could fight on our own.

Back in Persia, this is what got us in trouble in the first place. We joined in the drunken feasts and Haman came to wake us up not to rely on our hosts so much.

The present day is not much different. We have Haman in Persia threatening to annihilate us. We have Achashverosh in the White House pigging out on debt, and we’re waiting for his decree that we are allowed to fight back.

But just as nothing really changed in the Purim story except our self confidence, nothing is going to change here when America says “OK” except our self confidence.

It’s not America we need, but self confidence. So let’s, sit down, fast and pray, just like Esther did, and then get up and get rid of this stupid little Iranian threat already without waiting for Achashverosh to do something.

Why most Ron Paul supporters are wrong about Iran, and why I don’t care

I visit Lewrockwell.com several times a week. I read the economic articles and some of the Ron Paul updates there. The site published one of my articles here that was read by about 100,000 people so I appreciate it, and he and his staff of course do great work, especially with founding the Mises institute in the 80’s.

The problem though with diehard Ron Paul people like Lew is that they have blindspots. Just like Zionist Jews and those who are freaked out by Jihad have blindspots regarding Paul’s foreign policy and cannot possibly entertain the notion that maybe 9/11 was actually partly America’s own fault, Paulians like Rockwell cannot possibly entertain the notion that maybe Iran actually does want to annihilate Israel.

If I had just stumbled onto Lewrockwell.com without being lured into the whole Paul universe and community first with his economic, libertarian message, I would have ran out of that website screaming and calling the ADL. Every day there is another article about how peaceful Iran is and how they would never hurt a fly and whoever believes otherwise is buying propaganda. Read that without understanding the message of liberty and you’re a Jew with the cultural history of Persians trying to annihilate you in the past (read the Book of Esther), you would be instantly repulsed. But when I read it, it only annoys me mildly. Less and less every day.

Two days ago I was listening to the Lew Rockwell show, one of his podcasts, and he was interviewing Bob Wenzel. Lew said something like “We don’t want Iran or Israel to attack each other, but of course Israel is the one that’s threatening and Iran is just being peaceful.”

That turned up the dial of annoyingness from mildly to moderately, and I am a Jewish ultra nationalist. Other Jews would have been horrified by that comment. Why can I stomach these and keep admiring Rockwell when I have what we would call a “nuclear disagreement”?

It has to do with liberty and independence. When people are independent and free, then other people don’t resent them for their problems. While Lew is obviously wrong about Iran being peaceful and he chooses to ignore statement after statement to the absolute contrary (most recently Khamenei saying that Iran must attack Israel by 2014 and killing Jews is a Muslim religious duty) much like an Obama socialist ignores economic reality, he is blind about this not because he hates Jews, but he hates fighting other people’s wars. He just doesn’t want anything to do with it, and Israel has much more influence in America than Iran does, so he blames Israel.

Essentially, if we are to reword what Lew is saying when he says that Iran is peaceful and Israel is the aggressor, we can say that when it comes to America being involved in the whole Iran Israel fight, Israel is much more responsible for bringing America directly into the picture than Iran is. This is what he hates, and because Israel is dragging America into the Iranian mess, he pins Israel as the aggressor. In that way, he’s right.

The reason his statements don’t bother me all that much are that even though he’s wrong, I know full well that he doesn’t hate or love Israel. He really just doesn’t care and doesn’t want anything to do with it or my problems. And I don’t WANT him to care or have anything to do with it either, so Lew and I basically agree. I want to be independent, I don’t want any charity, and I want to take care of my own problems in Israel.

If everyone took care of their own issues, then there’d be a lot less calls to the ADL and the malinvestment that goes into keeping them running will be redirected to something that actually matters instead of something that just makes people resentful of Jews whining about Anti Semitism all the time.

And if you want to make the claim that Iran is the world’s problem and not the Jews’ problem, I’d say, again, stop trying to bring the world into Jewish issues. It really makes them resent us, and if Lew doesn’t hate Jews now, he really WILL if this drags America into yet another war that will destroy his country.

Man up, be a Jew, let’s take out the trash and get some respect. I didn’t get my independence back after 2,000 years to freak out and cry to the world about some Persians trying to kill me. I got my independence back after 2,000 years so I can take care of them myself.

Iran should be on her knees thanking Israel for her existence

I got this from a friend of mine named Aviv who’s working with me on Moshe Feiglin’s campaign. I read it and I can’t believe I never thought of it before. Translated from Aviv’s Hebrew:

I had an interesting thought. The Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 and lasted for almost a decade. In 1981, one year into the Iran-Iraq War, Israel blew up the Iraqi nuclear reactor and was met with harsh condemnation from the entire world. It’s reasonable to assume that if not for Israel’s attack, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons that would have surely been used first and foremost against its bitter enemy – Iran. It follows, then, that without even intending to, Israel saved Iran from a nuclear holocaust at the hands of Sadaam Hussein. And what do we get in return? An Iranian nuclear program against us.

Why does no Israeli leader mention this fact? Instead of the poor little kid who doesn’t want to get beat up and tries to convince the world that the neighborhood bully is a dangerous threat and they need to take care of it approach – we have to come at Iran with an offensive approach with the tone of – What are you bitching about? Say thank you that you’re even breathing right now. We run this part of the world, and without us you’d have been vaporized by Sadaam’s nukes.

Imagine that after Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN, our Prime Minister gets up and instead of repating the defensive mantra “We went through the holocaust, and there must not be a second one” – he looks at the Iranian midget in the eye and tells him – you little pisher – you’re embarrassing yourself. It’s only thanks to me that you’re even alive right now, and you dare threaten me? Sit down and be quiet. We are the masters of the Middle East, and if you dare raise your head, you’ll take a good beating.

May we soon merit bold and confident leadership – confident in itself and God.

In case any of you have any doubts, that leader is Moshe Feiglin. And you know what Ron Paul has to do with this?

NOTHING. Just like it should be.

Zionists: What if Ron Paul is Right about Iran?

I love Israel. I love my country, and the land that God gave my family. I would fight and die for this place. I live here. I am not a peace activist. Nor am I a warmonger. I don’t believe in peace treaties with anyone whatsoever, nor do I believe in going to war under shaky pretenses.

I’m 28. Much of my high school and college career occurred during the end of Oslo and Arafat and Barak’s meeting at Camp David, and the subsequent outbreak of the brutal and bloody 2nd Intifadah murder spree. Watching every single suicide bomb on the news right after it happened, as a high school kid, drove me mad with rage against Islam and “terrorists” and Arabs. I hated them for their method of murder and killing my Jewish family. It is hard for me to describe the dehumanizing emotions I had.

The emotions were so strong that any attempt to attach “motives” to “terrorist” actions made me react impulsively and with disgust at whoever suggested that terrorists even had “motives”. I just wanted them dead and out of my country. These are classic “neocon” feelings. We’re good, they’re evil, that’s it, end of story, if you even try to explain anything you’re getting us all killed.

Now, if you identify with these feelings, let me ask you a few questions. Try to clear your head and see things from above for a second.

Were any of America’s wars since World War II necessary? What did any of them accomplish? How many people did they kill? Did America have to go into Vietnam? Why? Did they have to go into Korea? Why? Did they have to go into Iraq? Why? Did they have to prop up the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia? What about Egypt? Was involvement there necessary? Did we really have to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 in order to install the Shah?

WHY? Why did America have to do that?

What is the point of all of this? What has it accomplished? What would the world look like today if none of this ever happened? Would September 11th have happened? Would there be a “War on Terror?”

What the hell IS the “War on Terror”? Who is “Terror”? How does the war end?

The answer to this is actually pretty simple. The standard reaction is “America did all this for her security.”

I used to believe that. But I no longer do. America is not secure. She is a nation teetering on the biggest bankruptcy in world history, and running on the fumes of borrowed Chinese money. Her citizens are poorer and more dependent on handouts that they get from a government running on borrowed Chinese money.

In the last debate on December 15, every Republican presidential candidate talked about how they were going to A) Cut the budget and B) Massively expand the military. None of them realized the apparent contradiction here. Why? Because there is no substance to any of these war hungry power driven men with no souls. They fight not because they believe in something. They fight because it gives them power. Saying they’ll cut the budget will give them power. Saying they’ll massively expand the air force and the “modernize” the navy while at the same time dealing with a $15 trillion debt, this is just mad. It’s simply mad.

I wonder now if any of them are even conscious of the words that are coming out of their pandering mouths. These smiling, grinning, nonsensical people convinced that America has to put a no fly zone over Syria now and other such EXPENSIVE nonsense that CHINA  is running out of money to FUND.

Ron Paul’s strongest point in the debate was when he asked Mitt Romney, the guy talking about cutting the budget while  massively expanding the air force, the following question:

“How are we going to do that? We don’t have any MONEY!”

For those who can see the humanity in Ron Paul, who aren’t brainwashed by fearmongerers like Bachmann who say that if he becomes president Iran will nuke the US, you could read the horror in Paul’s face. “How am I on the stage with such…people? Is there anyone behind any of these shiny veneers? Do they even realize they are not making ANY SENSE?”

Every candidate, including Obama, is drunk on power. They go to war not for security, but because, as president of the most powerful country in the world, they can’t resist playing with their toy armed forces. And they CAN’T RESIST coming over here, to Israel, and telling us exactly how to make peace with our neighbors.

What if Ron Paul is right? What if September 11 really did happen because America simply can’t mind her own business? What if none of these undeclared wars ever had to happen, and 2 million vietnamese and Iraqis were still alive today?

If you ponder that question seriously, and it flicks a light on in your head and you recognize the possibility of it for even a fraction of a second, you can do one of two things:

1) Shut that recognition down immediately and go back to thinking America has no blame in any of this

2) Allow yourself to ponder further, ultimately culminating in a sudden rush of remorse that millions had to die for this pointless nonsense and you just didn’t realize it.

Whether it’s War Making or Peace Making, America feels they have to be in it all. What if Ron Paul is right? Imagine if he were president. Would he have forced Arafat and Barak to sit down and pretend to be friends at a meeting that was destined to explode in a murderous intifadah? Would he, like Clinton, pressure Israel to invite Arafat back into Israel to “make peace” with him? Would the second Intifadah have ever broken out? Would the first one? What if America simply left us alone to handle our own issues? Would any of the death and murder that drove me into a rage in high school ever have happened?

I remember when Obama ran and said something about talking to Iran. I thought it was a really really bad idea because I was a neocon back then. But I also never trusted Obama for a second and knew he was just saying this to get power. I knew he was just as fake as the rest of them and I didn’t believe in his “change” nonsense. I saw right through it. There was no human being there. Just a political veneer.

But Ron Paul is a real person. When he speaks to you at a debate, it’s a bona fide human being talking there. Imagine if we had one of those in the White House. Do you think the Ayatollah would chill out just a bit? We could back off each other, get some perspective? The White House could back the heck off of me in Israel and leave me alone? And if we feel like Iran is a threat over here, to let us deal with it how we want to deal with it without calling him up and asking permission like a lapdog?

What the heck does Iran have to do with America? Are they going to cross the Atlantic in the aircraft carrier that they don’t have and nuke Manhattan? Are they going to use their intercontinental ballistic missiles they don’t have and bomb Washington DC?

No. What America has to do with Iran is this: America thinks it runs the world. And there’s an annoying brat in Persia that America thinks has to be put in line. But it’s really none of America’s business. Leave Iran alone. All America is doing by threatening Iran is endangering me in Israel. Let us deal with it if we have to, but stay in your own hemisphere.

Don’t you think the world would be a much less scary place if there was a HUMAN BEING in the oval office?

What if Ron Paul is right?

What if?