David Barsamian Interview Part 3

In the final part of our exclusive interview with David Barsamian, we discuss the possible role of Israel in an attack on Iran, the Jewish population in Iran, the history of U.S/Iranian relations and much, much more. Click here to see part 1 and part 2


Read more!

David Barsamian Interview part 2

By Ben Cohen
Editor

In the second part of our interview with author David Barsamian (see part one here), the topic of conversation moves to the occupation of Iraq, the business of war, the cultural history of Iran, and the consequences of another war in the Middle East. See below for part 2 of our exclusive interview:

Read more!

Exclusive: The Daily Banter interviews David Barsamian

By Ben Cohen
Editor

The Daily Banter.com caught up with David Barsamian, author of 'Targeting Iran', and 'What We Say Goes' last week during his visit to Los Angeles. Barsamian is one of the world's leading political activists and authors, and founder of the award winning 'Alternative Radio' in Colorado. Barsamian had a lot to say about the Bush Administrations aggression towards Iran and disastrous occupation of Iraq, and provided for a fantastic interview. We spoke for over 30 minutes and covered a great deal so will be posting the next parts of the interview over the rest of the week. See below for part 1 of our exclusive interview:

Read more!

David Barsamian speaks at UCLA

By Ben Cohen
Editor

I went to see author David Barsamian speak at UCLA (the University of California in Los Angeles) last night about his new books 'Targeting Iran', and 'What We Say Goes' (Co authored with Noam Chomsky). Barsamian is a witty, engaging speaker, but his topic was depressing beyond belief. Far from being a plug for his new books, his main aim, it seemed, was to raise awareness of the Bush Administrations naked desire for another war.

In a jam packed room on the centre of campus, Barsamian informed his audience of the United States sordid history in the Middle East, and continued aggression in the region.

'If you want to understand U.S History', he said, 'there's really not much to it. You just have to watch 10 minutes of the Sopranos'.

Despite professions from the Bush Administration that they have our 'security' in mind, the evidence speaks to the contrary. The Bush Administrations ambitions in the region have nothing to do with our security, or providing freedom for the Iranian people said Barsamian. Like Iraq, "Iran has enormous oil wealth, something the U.S desperately wants to control". And what of the 'military super power' the U.S government is so scared about? Barsamian asked the audience to take a guess how much Iran spends on their military. $20 billion, $100 billion, or even $200 billion?

"Iran spends $5 billion a year on their military as compared to the $3/4 of a trillion the U.S spends", he answered. "In one year, Iran spends what the U.S spends a week in Iraq. To put it further into context, $5 billion buys you two B52 bombers".

Iran, he argued, is also a diversion from the disaster in Iraq. "The U.S was looking for a scapegoat-now they've got one. Iran".

Speaking of the 17,000 marines and sailors now placed off the Iranian coast, Barsamian does not think the U.S government is bluffing.

"Some people think the Bush Administration in sabre rattling. I don't. They have a history of violence, they have the weapons and I believe they will use them'.

And what of the repercussions if the U.S attacks Iran?

"The consequences are incalculable", he stated emphatically. "If we are seeing rivers of blood from Iraq, it will turn to oceans of blood if they attack Iran."

Stay tuned to The Daily Banter for an exclusive series of video interviews with Barsamian next week.


Read more!

Noam Chomsky: What danger are we in, even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon?

In our final excerpt from the critically acclaimed book 'Targeting Iran', author David Barsamian interviews MIT professor Noam Chomsky on his views about U.S aggression towards Iran. Chomsky is perhaps the most recognised voice of the true left, and his analysis of International affairs are widely regarded as some of the most important in modern history.

These excerpts are exclusive to TheDailyBanter.com

Click to read part 1 and 2 of the excerpts.

DB: A report in late January 2006 in the Los Angeles Times, titled “57% Back a Hit on Iran if Defiance Persists,” shows that support for military action against Iran has increased over the last year even though public sentiment is running against the war in Iraq. Is that a paradox?

NC: No, it’s not a paradox. In fact, there are figures and polls that look like paradoxes. So, for example, take Iraq. I’ve forgotten the exact numbers, but a fairly large percentage, maybe two-thirds of the population, thinks it would have been wrong to invade Iraq if it had no weapons of mass destruction; and even if it had an intention to do so, it would have been wrong to invade. On the other hand, about half thought it was right to invade Iraq even though the fact that they had no weapons of mass destruction had been officially conceded long before and the public knows it. That looks like a direct contradiction. But Steven Kull, the director of the institute that runs the polls—the Program on International Policy Attitudes which is the major one—pointed out that it’s not really a contradiction. People still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even though it’s been officially conceded that they don’t.
What does that mean? He didn’t go into it, but what it means is that the government–media propaganda campaign was extremely effective in instilling fear. People think they’re defending themselves. Even if it’s already been conceded that the threat was not there, and maybe concocted, the fear still remains. And it’s the same with Iran. If you read enough of those articles you cited, you will think we’re in mortal danger if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. What danger are we in, even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon? They’re not going to use it except as a deterrent. If there were even an indication that they were planning to use it, the country would be vaporized. So it’s there for a deterrent. But people can be frightened by massive propaganda. It’s not a surprise.....

Take a classic example, Germany. Under the Weimar Republic, Germany was the most civilized country in the world, the leader in the sciences and the arts. Within two or three years it had been turned into a country of raving maniacs by extensive propaganda—which, incidentally, was explicitly borrowed from Anglo-American commercial propaganda. And it worked. It frightened Germans. They thought they were defending themselves against the Jews, against the Bolsheviks. And you know what happened next. It can be done. And it was done to an extent in the U.S., as well, by very effective propaganda.
You’re seeing it again today. So, for example, just do a media search and find out how often it has even been mentioned that when Iran began enriching uranium again, it was after the Europeans had rejected their side of the bargain, namely, to provide firm guarantees on security issues. That means no guarantees that Iran will not be attacked, which is no trivial matter. Of course, when one partner to a bargain backs down, we expect the other to back down in reaction. Ask if that has been mentioned once in the media in the U.S. anywhere. It’s not that the press doesn’t know it. Of course they know it. At least, if they read the international business press they know it. For example, in mid-January [2006] there was a very good article about it by Selig Harrison in the Financial Times, the leading business paper of the world. You think they didn’t read it at the New York Times news desk or editorial board? Sure they read it. But that’s not the kind of thing you report. I don’t have the facilities to do a search, but I’d be willing to bet that that’s not even been mentioned in the mainstream in the United States.

DB: Or that Iran is virtually surrounded by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf.

NC: If that were mentioned, which it may be, it’s because we’re defending ourselves, just like Hitler was defending himself against the Jews.

DB: Has anyone ever done research on the real cost of oil to the U.S. when you factor in Pentagon spending, the ground troops, the naval and air bases in the Middle East, and the stockpiles of WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] and conventional weapons?

NC: I know of only one attempt to do it. It was by Alfred Cavallo, an energy consultant. He did a study—I don’t want to quote the figures from memory, but it was something like, if you count in the military, it amounts to a subsidy of 30 percent of the market price of oil. But it’s not the full story. Military spending and bases may be costly to the American taxpayer, but policy is not designed for the benefit of the population, it’s designed for the benefit of power sectors. And for them it’s useful to dominate the world, by force if necessary. And also don’t forget that Pentagon spending, though it’s a cost to the taxpayer, is profit for the corporations. It depends what you think the country is. If you think the country is its population, yes, it’s a big cost. If you think the country is the people who own the country, no, it’s a gain.
I should say, the same is true of other things, like a lot of concern about the enormous U.S. trade deficit. How we are going to deal with it? Economists tear their hair out. It’s a catastrophe. If you assume that the U.S. consists of its people, yes, there is a huge trade deficit. On the other hand, if you assume that the U.S. consists of the people who own the country, which is more reasonable, the trade deficit goes way down. Then, for example, if Dell is exporting computers from China to the United States, it would be considered U.S. exports, not U.S. imports. And it is from the point of view of the Dell management. Then the trade deficit shoots way down. You can read about that in the Wall Street Journal. It’s not a big secret. The business world understands it. And they don’t say it, of course, but they act, and the New York Times acts, and the government acts, as if the country is the people who own it. And that’s not surprising. They’re among the people who own it, so why shouldn’t they look at it that way? Simply ask yourself how many pages are there in the press devoted to business affairs and how many are devoted to labor? Most of the people in the country are labor, not owners of stock. The ownership of stock is very highly concentrated: the top 1 percent owns maybe half of it, and most people own essentially nothing. The stock market and business affairs are huge issues. But labor affairs doesn’t even have a reporter covering it. That expresses the same comprehension of what the country is.

To purchase a copy of the book, click here, or click the image link at the top left corner of the page. Read more!

Targeting Iran part 2

The Daily Banter is pleased to publish the second set of exclusive excerpts from David Barsamian's critically acclaimed new book 'Targeting Iran". The book contains interviews with todays leading intellectuals about the escalating conflict between the United States and Iranian governments.

Click here for part 1.

We'd like to thank David Barsamian and City Lights Books for supporting The Daily Banter.

Next week we will be publishing excerpts from Barsamian's interview with Noam Chomsky.

By David Barsamian

Under George W. Bush, U.S.–Iranian relations have deteriorated drastically. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush designated Iran as part of the “axis of evil.” The speech stunned Tehran, particularly as it had just assisted the Bush administration in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The “axis of evil” label was a big setback for reform president Mohammad Khatami (1997–2005), who risked much in cooperating with the United States. For Iran to be categorically grouped with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which had waged an eight-year war against Iran (1980–88), was an additional humiliation....

Political tensions with the United States have sharply escalated in 2006–7. United States allies Israel, India, and Pakistan all possess nuclear weapons but have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Washington gives those countries a free pass, but not Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT and has come under intense scrutiny. As a signatory to the treaty, it is permitted to enrich uranium. However, it is accused by the Bush administration, with some European support, of enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, referred the issue of Iranian compliance or noncompliance with the NPT to the UN Security Council in New York. In December 2006, the Security Council voted to impose limited sanctions on Iraq. More comprehensive sanctions, with the United States pressing the issue, are on their way. Interestingly, the United States is also a signatory to the NPT and, as such, is obliged to draw down its nuclear weapons arsenal. Despite their importance for understanding the crisis, it is virtually impossible to find mention of these key facts in most U.S. media reporting on the issue.

The central tenet of U.S. policy is: What we say goes. To make certain Tehran understands this basic principle of statecraft, in February 2007 Washington has dispatched yet another aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf to join the already deployed Eisenhower group. The new armada is led by the carrier USS John C. Stennis.

One can only imagine the response from Washington if Iranian naval vessels were deployed offshore from New York or Seattle.

The U.S. position on talking with Iran is: Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start. You concede, and then we can sit down and talk. This posture is a nonstarter as far as the Iranians are concerned. On February 27, 2007, Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, restated his country’s position: “Demands that Iran halt enrichment are illegal and illegitimate.” That will “never” happen, he said. However, he added, Iran is prepared to negotiate about its nuclear program “without any preconditions.”

Although the Bush administration says it has no intention to invade Iran, the New Statesman and the BBC, on February 19 and 20, 2007, revealed detailed plans of what an American attack would look like. The BBC reported that two triggers would cause U.S. military action: (a) any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon or (b) if Iran were responsible for a high-casualty attack against U.S. forces.


Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, in an opinion piece in USA Today, has this advice for Americans and the regime in Washington: “The Iranian people are exceedingly proud of their 2,500-year history and culture. Iran as a country is larger and greater than its rulers and exists apart from any government in power at any particular time. If America attacks, however, Iranians will unite, forgetting their differences with their government, and they will fiercely and tenaciously defend their country.”

David Barsamian is the award winning founder and director of AR (Alternative Radio) and author of 14 books. To purchase a copy of the book 'Targeting Iran', click here, or go to the link at the top of the page.
Read more!

Targeting Iran- Part 1

The Daily Banter is pleased to publish exclusive excerpts from David Barsamian's critically acclaimed new book 'Targeting Iran'. David Barsamian is the award winning founder and director of AR (Alternative Radio) and author of 14 books. 'Targeting Iran' contains interviews with Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian and Nadhid Mozaffari about the escalating conflict between the United States and Iranian governments. It is critical reading for anyone interested in the subject, and provides insightful analysis of the next potential war in the Middle East.

We'd like to thank David Barsamian and City Lights Books for supporting The Daily Banter.

We will also be publishing a series of extracts from the book over the next week, so stay tuned for more!

Targeting Iran
Introduction by David Barsamian

In the modern period, Iran has been the center of great power rivalries. First czarist Russia, then the Soviet Union, competed with Britain for supremacy in Iranian affairs. Since the end of World War II, the United States has projected its military, diplomatic, and economic power on Iran and the Middle East. For good reason: Iran has huge oil and natural gas reserves. The area constitutes, in the words of a 1945 State Department document, “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history” (Chomsky and Barsamian, Imperial Ambitions, 2005, p. 6).
In late October 2006, the United States deployed a “strike group” of military vessels to the Persian Gulf, including a nuclear aircraft carrier, a cruiser, a destroyer, a frigate, a submarine escort, and a supply ship, as well as Marine Corps units, just off Iran’s coast. The task force was dubbed the Eisenhower Strike Group. The former president’s name has special resonance for Iranians. It was Eisenhower who approved the 1953 coup overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh. The latter, a popular figure, had the temerity to believe that Iran’s oil wealth should benefit the Iranian people. Clearly, Mossadegh did not understand the basic rule of international relations as explained by top State Department planner George Kennan: it is “our oil.” So when Mossadegh nationalized the oil wells, Washington, egged on by London, overthrew him. The shah was restored to power. His tyrannical rule set the stage for the rise of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. Ayatollah—“sign of God”—is the supreme Shiite clerical title.

The 1953 coup is one of the central events of twentieth-century history, and its repercussions continue to this day. Yet most Americans know little about Iran and the coup against Mossadegh. Ask the average American about the hostage crisis, however, and I am certain you would get a much higher level of recognition. Mark Bowden’s Guests of the Ayatollah (2006), for example, is a 680-page book with only four references to Mossadegh. Bowden’s book received extensive media coverage and hit best-seller lists. One cannot understand the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis, the subject of his book, without the context and background of the 1953 coup. The coup, code-named “Ajax,” was directed by Kermit Roosevelt and run out of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Twenty-six year later, the militants, with some reason, feared a rerun. Months before the seizure of the embassy, President Jimmy Carter dispatched Robert Huyser, a top general, to Tehran to inspire a countercoup using sympathetic elements in the Iranian military. Huyser did not succeed.
The 1953 coup was doubly significant; it not only terminated the democratic experiment and brought back the shah, but it effectively ended British influence in Iran. The United States was now in the driver’s seat, exactly where it wanted to be. Marginalizing the British and also the French in the region was one of Washington’s primary policy goals in the post–World War II era. So the Iranian coup was a big step in realizing their geopolitical objectives. For Iranians, the events of 1953 are not ancient history. Their memories of the destruction of their democracy are vivid. And the memories extend beyond Iran. While I was on a lecture tour of Lebanon and Syria in 2005, whenever I mentioned the coup, members in the audience were well informed about its details and ramifications.
Under the shah, Iran was a cornerstone of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East for more than twenty years. Iran and Israel were, as Nixon’s defense secretary Melvin Laird said, local “cops on the beat” ensuring that “radical nationalists” would not threaten U.S. interests.
The Islamic Revolution of 1978–79 ended that equation and altered regional power dynamics. With the overthrow of the shah, Iran severed itself from the United States. Not only did the United States lose one of its main regional allies, but the new government in Tehran signaled the end to the flow of Iranian cash going to U.S. military contractors. The shah had spent tens of billions of dollars purchasing U.S.-made weapons. He had also, with Washington’s blessing, embarked on a nuclear energy program.
Today, the United States and Iran are on the brink of war. Much of what we see playing out today had its origins in the events of the late 1970s. The “loss” of Iran was a huge blow to Washington’s larger strategy in the Middle East. The humiliating and interminable hostage crisis, coupled with a botched rescue mission, further hardened Washington’s stance toward the new government in Tehran. The United States cut off diplomatic relations and imposed sanctions, conditions that continue to this day.

To purchase a copy of the book 'Targeting Iran', click here, or go to the link at the top of the page.
Read more!