The conspiracy theory is seductive for any student of Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman and neo-conservatism. Why has the US engineered this crisis in he middle east? Five reasons: First, that’s where the oil is. Second: that’s where the threats to Israel are. Third: the threatened denomination of middle eastern oil sales in euros would destroy the US dollar. Fourth: an Iranian response to a “pre-emptive” attack on Iran by Israel would justify a massive retaliation by the US on behalf of “gallant little Israel”. And Fifth: the “crisis” would justify the imposition of martial law and suspension of the Constitution by the President. We could add the ring of US military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia and the need to contain the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Scary stuff! More so when the players are mad…

Johntas

Don't forget it will also deflect attention from
a) the space ships at area 51 and
b) the expensive program that is keeping elvis alive but hidden from the general public.

No turnrightthenleft I assumed nothing. I read wgat the author wrote. He is a very skillful worsmith and I don't believe for onr minute he wasn't aware of his omission in criticising a proposed Israeli pre-emptive strike.

It is you who are assuming he will criticfise equally an Israeli strike simply because he's been critical of some Israeli actions in the past.

I'm attacking the author's attitudes and opinion, not the author. Your suggestion otherwise is wrong.

I haven't seen Loewenstein argue for a return to pre '67 borders. I've only been aware he favours negotiation. He may have but I've missed it ... and that would be unusual.

Rudd will do as he's told...

You're saying the author is an apologist for Israeli action in Iran.

You don't have anything to back it up. Quite literally.
You have an absence of discussion. You have inflated this to an entire argument based on absolutely zilch.

The author hasn't commented on Israeli action in Iran, so ultimately unless he does, I suppose neither of us can comment comprehensively either way.

The difference is, all his background has been critical of Israeli intervention. There's no Israeli apologism there.

Your argument that the omission of this mention equals endorsement is on such shaky ground it boggles the mind, though at least I have precedent.

In honestly don't see how you can make such an aggressive, insulting and authoritative statement as to the author's intention using nothing at all but an absence of comment, when the author has shown numerous examples of an attitude critical of aggressive Israeli foreign policy.

It's among the weakest arguments I've seen on OLO, and there's quite a few out there.

Guess politics like peace, has become much about making a personal choice these days?

Like trying to make head nor tail these days of the phony peace movement in Iraq?

Such news can now give substance for more than a few of our OLO’s who often talk about backing the big league US of A, more sure now because Bush has forgiven his main enemies in Iraq, Saddam’s Baath Party Sunnis, and declaring the Iraqi Shias whom Bush gallantly moved into save now the sworn enemies.

And so we turn again to Iran, whom America developed so much hate for since they kicked out the fake Iranian Shah, and held the US Embassy staff prisoner for over a year. Then Donald Rumsfeld saw his chance in 1981 to kid Saddam to knock out Iran once and for all. But once again America lost out, Saddam’s Iraqis soundly thrashed after eight years of fighting.

Now it seems America has her chance to knock out Iran once again, Dick Cheney the Vice –Pres’ seemingly much more eager than Bush, no doubt his mind on the oil.

Finally, the very fact that the only mention that Howard has made on today’s situation in Iraq is that he is so happy that the situation has quietened down for the better.

Reckon the only genuine title for it, however, is all quiet now on the Western Front, the worst still yet to come in the East.

Now my own experience of our academic historians is that they did not come down in the last shower, even though among our contributors, many, especially the females have been called left-wing loonies.

So it looks like it's up to us to revolt in our own way, saying NO NO No to any attack on Iran, and hope and pray that the attacker deserves to be the loser.

Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney-based journalist and author - and for those of you who question his credentials may I suggest that you go to either your local library or book shop and get a copy of his book,
"My Israel Question." You'll have a better understanding of the man.

As John Pilger says, "I can think of few books about Israel and Palestine written by an Australian, as important as Antony Loewenstein's - 'brave j'accuse' ..."