Dear 2006, I Have Some Propaganda I Would Like To Return

by va

Excuse me! I am relatively new to the intricacies of Israel and Palastine and such warrings and in fact I still get confused with the notation "I/P" (Internet Protocol? Iambic Pentameter? International Proletariat? Ah, Israel/Palestine). But might someone please tell me what Hamas has to do with Iran? For example, I am seeing douchebag's douchebag Michael Ledeen gushing about a piece in The Atlantic by douchebag's douchebag's douchebag Robert Kaplan where he sez "Israel’s attack on Gaza is, in effect, an attack on Iran’s empire, the first since its offensive on Iranian-backed Hezbollah in 2006." Um, pardon? Of all the people on whom it has been suggested Israel pawn off Gaza, Iran has not been one of them, ever, nicht wahr? And then of course there's Kristol, who said yesterday, "If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran." And why is that? "The Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program." Crazy! Crazy, over here, on its face! Crazy propaganda cleanup in aisle 4!

You crazy fucks! When did Iran ever have anything to do with anything? Unless perhaps it was 2006, when Dick Cheney decided that Israel's assault on southern Lebanon was going to provide a blueprint for a U.S. attack on Iran. In which case, for a whole new host of reasons, Kristol and Ledeen and Kaplan are fucking nutters! It is not 2006! We are not going to bomb Iran! Jesusy Christy Christ! Perhaps you jokers might consider crawling into the Cave of Circle Jerks and insane each other to oblivion!

Comments

[Jay_B]

A defeat for Iran, perhaps, but the Gaza siege is a clear victory for Uzbekistan.

[mario]

Either way, it's good for Republicans.

[actor212]

Um, va....Google is your friend:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4739900.stm

[Jay_B]

Iran giving financial support to Hamas in 2006 hardly = "an attack on Iran's empire".

Hezbollah is Iran's proxy and their puppet. Hamas is a convenient ally/propaganda tool for Iran to show their support for pan-Islamism.

Bombing the holy hell out of Palestinians -- if it hasn't been made abundantly clear by now-- isn't a particularly effective counter to the essential argument (made by Iran among other Islamic countries) that Israel is a bloodthirsty monster. But who am I to argue against "success"?

I hate the hateful fundies who run Iran as much as the one-note warmongers who've run Israel since Rabin was assassinated AND the Allah-says BOMB nuts who infect the Palestinians.

It's an endless cycle, of course with no heroes and lots of victims. But nothing a lot more bombing can't make better, right? I mean that's the underlying argument of everyone from American neocons and Likudniks in Israel to the Hamas folks and the Allah-sponsored suicide bombers. Bombs will make everything better!

[va]

Indeed, actor, Google was my friend, I thought:

"George Joffee: There's long been a link, in fact, between Iran and Hamas -- although not necessarily at a particularly high level. It goes back to the 1990s when Iran invited representatives of Hamas to attend IPS, the Foreign Ministry's institute that studies international and political affairs. There, of course, their presence was noted; they engaged in the activities of the institute but I don't think it went to the point of being a formal relationship between the movement and the Iranian government. There is, however, I think other relationships or at least they're alleged. The Israeli government has alleged that indirectly through Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran is engaged in trying to control the events inside the Occupied Territories and there have been allegations with, no proof at all, of involvement in some of the more violent activities there. Those links I suspect are largely Israeli propaganda and don't really carry water."

[Eric Martin]

Not sure va. There is definitely a subtext of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan squaring off against Iran via its proxies. Israel likely propagandizes, but there are reasons Egypt treats Hamas so poorly, and part of that has to do with the larger regional dynamic.

Laura Rozen posted this the other day (from one of her sources):

There are two domestic agendas here. The Israeli one is very familiar... But what people are not asking and is at least as important: what are the f**** rocket firers hoping to do? ... If you look at what people are saying, there is a disconnect between what Haniyah and people in Gaza are saying, and what Nasrallah and Meshal and regional actors say. ... The Hamas leadership in Gaza is saying, we want a ceasefire on our terms. What Nasrallah and Meshal and Iran are saying: Egyptians, rise up ... What’s missing in every analysis I see is that Egypt is the prize, the low hanging fruit ...

Sketch out the regional scenario: two unsympathetic forces hinged by Hamas. You have the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraqi Islamist parties on the one hand, on one side of the hinge. ... And you’ve got the Muslim Brotherhood regional project for overthrowing [moderate Arab regime] governments on the other.

The hinge is Hamas. Because Hamas is a core member of Leninist-style collection of national Muslim Brotherhood parties. It is also the only Sunni member of the pro Iranian alliance because of the money it gets through Khaled Meshal. Hamas is a hinge, Syria is a hinge. You've got Meshal in Damascus who gets lots of money from Iran. Hamas is not neutral in the moderate Arab regimes vs. Iranian alliance rivalry.

Both stand to benefit here. One project advances [unrest] in Egypt to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood. And while that is not something to be overjoyed for for Nasrallah, it's very helpful if it advances the Islamist agenda to destabilize your enemies.

It's limited ultimately. It's very unlikely to result in direct destabilization of Egypt. But they shoot for it, and hope that it contributes to the discreditation of all the [moderate, pro American] Arab regimes [egypt, jordan, saudi arabia] and in that sense, shows that there is an authentic movement in the region that has two manifestations, the Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are resistant to the regional order and the status quo. ...

What you end up with here are two groups of political actors with domestic and internal motivations that largely don’t have to do with Gaza. And they are using the lives of these people like casino chips...

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/008705.html

[actor212]

Well, va, the State Dept has said that Hamas is funded by Iran. Full stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Funding

[actor212]

Oh. Here's the State report:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf

[va]

the State Dept has said that Hamas is funded by Iran. Full stop.

It's that clear? Condoleezza Rice said Iran funds (fully? 1%? what?) Hamas and now, what, Gaza is an annexed Iranian territory?

If your point is just that Hamas gets money from Iran, yes, I know. But so what? Are you telling me that a "victory" for Hamas is a "victory" for Iran, per Kristol et al.? Or that Iran is the sole power that stands to benefit or lose out in this conflict? Or even that Iran has some deep interest in Palestinian territory? I doubt it.

Really, actor, unless you're ready to get behind Rice, Ledeen, Kristol, and/or Kaplan, I don't think we have a disagreement.

[Eric Martin]

Something to keep in mind:

Just because Kristol et al oversell Iran's influence over Hamas - and the significance of the potential victory or defeat of Iran as experienced vicariously through Hamas - does not mean that an equal underselling of that influence is in order.

Iran is not the sole power to benefit, or suffer, as a result of Hamas' fortunes, but it is one of the powers that is involved to some extent.

In general, Iran is quite adept at using regional proxies, and regional tensions, to its advantage. Iran is not unique in this. It's generally what regional hegemons do (or aspiring hegemons). They just happen to do it well - including outmanuevering us repeatedly in Iraq.

Speaking of which, that is the really funny part: Kristol et al thought that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would prove a blow to Iran!

In fact, they keep arguing that each new development represents that particular breed of pony.

I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic.

[va]

Thanks much, Eric. That's very interesting big picture for me.

Speaking of which, that is the really funny part: Kristol et al thought that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would prove a blow to Iran!

Yeah, same gag here. He thinks Iran will be emboldened by anything less than the destruction of Hamas; Juan Cole says "This whole episode may strengthen the hardliners in Iran" and that "if Israel prolongs the campaign, there is likely to be increased networking and solidarity among Shiites across national borders." Why didn't Kristol think of that, I don't wonder.

[stickler]

Would it be possible to just junk our current worldview as it pertains to the Middle East?

What say we just wipe out the Carter Doctrine, cancel all our aid to Israel (and Egypt and Jordan, too), pull out of Iraq, and be done. Iran wants to become (dun dun DUNNNNN!) Regional Hegemon? Fine. Hamas wants to fling pipe-missiles at bits of Israeli desert? Not our business. Israel wants to re-enact the (Godwin reference to Warsaw redacted)? Hey, whatever makes you feel tough.

And on our way out of that wind-swept chunk of the globe, we fling a set of the relevant maps in the general direction of Beijing.

Let the locals enjoy the tender peacekeeping mercies of the People's Liberation Army for a few decades. They'll long for us to come back.

[SteveB]

Haven't we been through this before? For fifty years, we saw the Hand of Moscow behind every national liberation movement in the world. This is why we killed a few million people in Vietnam, right? Because who controlled a tiny country in Southeast Asia was so vitally important in the epic struggle between Freedom and Communism, or something.
For people living under a foreign military occupation (like the Palestinians, like the Vietnamese), there is only one thing that matters - defeating the occupier. And any help in that struggle is welcome. Later, when that struggle is over, those relationships may not last (Vietnam later fought a war with China, who had aided them against the U.S.) This talk of "proxies" and "puppets" just leads us to ignore the genuine nationalist impulses that cause an Iraqi to fight the Americans, and a Palestinian to fight the Israelis, and leads us to see an American stake in struggles we should play no part in.

[El Cid]

Another party that benefits from Hamas is, of course, the Israeli militarists and anti-negotiation front, as it provides them with yet another excuse to avoid any final state settlement.

Which is, of course, why Israeli intelligence helped fund and support Hamas in the first place -- to divide the Palestinian secular leadership.

Blowback is a virtue to the militarists.

[Eric Martin]

Haven't we been through this before? For fifty years, we saw the Hand of Moscow behind every national liberation movement in the world. This is why we killed a few million people in Vietnam, right? Because who controlled a tiny country in Southeast Asia was so vitally important in the epic struggle between Freedom and Communism, or something.

Just to be 100% clear, I am NOT arguing that Iran's involvement with Hamas (or Hez for that matter) means that we should go to war with either - or even that we must immediately assume a hostile posture. Quite the opposite.

I'm one of those DFHs that thinks we can arrive at a mutually acceptable modus vivendi with Iran - if we are willing to make some, gulp, compromises.

[actor212]

It's that clear? Condoleezza Rice said Iran funds (fully? 1%? what?) Hamas and now, what, Gaza is an annexed Iranian territory?

I'm not saying that.

I'm also not prepared to let Israel twist in the wind if it's true.

So yes, we're that clear.