See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Shift in War Hawks
Source:
veteranstoday.com
URL Source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/08/shift-in-war-hawks/
Published: Apr 8, 2013
Author: Paul Balles
Post Date: 2013-04-10 12:45:17 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Propaganda, Ray Takeyh, Taqiyya, Deception
Views: 78
Comments: 1
“Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” –Noam Chomsky Watch out for a shift in war hawks. Before the Iraq war, at least a dozen in the U.S. Administration and major media spread enough propaganda to silence the majority of Americans. These hawks, acting more on behalf of Israel than America had a natural shill in the Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi who fabricated evidence about WMDs and al Qaeda in Iraq. An equally–if not more–dangerous fabricator in the current political scene is Ray Takeyh, an Iranian settled in America, writing for major media publications and using his influence as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. [ Pic link ] In a recent article in the Washington Post, Takeyh writes “As the great powers contemplate a solution to the Iranian nuclear conundrum, they would be prudent to appreciate how Tehran uses diplomacy to complement its quest for nuclear arms.” “…its quest for nuclear arms”? There’s no question in this statement about Iran having a programme to develop nuclear arms. According to Takeyh, Iran is on a quest for nuclear weapons. He writes as if there’s no obligation to support his assertion with evidence. He offers no facts to support his claim. Takeyh fails to acknowledge Iran’s insistence that its nuclear interests are in electrical power and medical research. He completely ignores the fatwa issued by Kamenei forbidding nuclear weapons. Takeyh fails to point out that Iran is a member of the non-proliferation treaty, and it is perfectly legal for Iran to develop nuclear power. Not nuclear weapons—electricity. Takeyh makes no mention of the fact that Iran’s nuclear development for peaceful means is under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Instead he argues that “…any concessions on Iran’s ‘right to enrich’ in order to obtain that suspension would fall into Tehran’s trap of hampering a U.S. or Israeli military option.” His stance makes Takeyh closer to Israel than to his origins in Iran. He conveniently ignores Israel’s possession of 200 or 300 nuclear warheads. A major problem is that Takeyh has established himself as an expert on Iran. He’s the author of The Guardians of the Revolution: Iran’s Approach to the World (Oxford University Press, 2009). He is also the author of two previous books, Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic (Henry Holt, 2006) and The Origins of the Eisenhower Doctrine: The U.S., Britain and Nasser’s Egypt, 1953-1957 (St. Martin’s Press, 2000). Takeyh has published widely, including articles in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, National Interest, Survival, World Policy Journal, Washington Quarterly, Orbis, Middle East Journal and Middle East Policy. His commentaries have also been featured in many newspapers, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times and International Herald Tribune. Prior to joining the Council on Foreign Relations, Takeyh was Senior Advisor on Iran at the Department of State. He was previously a fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy and has taught at National War College, Yale University, and University of California, Berkeley. The impressive array of credits in Takeyh’s background makes it impossible for most people to fault his statements or analyses. However, even the most honoured scholars and experts can make mistakes if they have blind spots, been influenced by others, fail to see the weaknesses in their assumptions or have ulterior motives. Highly regarded scholars and experts can represent an even greater danger than a Chalabi business tycoon and politician. The great danger comes when scholars exercise their potential to lead the world into another war. Poster Comment: I thought the name "Ray" seemed unusual for an Iranian but didn't consider what his last name might mean until I was reading the Comments section at a westernjournalism.com article, which is the linked source for the 4um topic, "We Don’t Need Obama’s Birth Certificate". Saw the word "taqiyya" there and didn't know what it meant but thought it might be similar to his last name, so I looked it up. This is a summary from Wikipedia sources for the words Taqiyya and Dissimulation: a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It consists of concealing the truth or parts of the truth; false information This practice [Taqiyya] was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[3] No term such as taqiyya is used in Sunni jurisprudence. Protecting one's belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called idtirar, which translates to "being forced" or "being coerced", and this word is not specific to concealing the faith. In Arabic taqiyya literally means caution, but came to be used as a technical term by some jurists meaning dissimulation.[2] Kitman is used synonymously and means concealment.[7] Takeyh/Taqiyya could be comparable, perhaps, to the Mossad's motto, which is oftentimes translated as: By Deception Thou Shalt Do War.
a form of religious dissimulation,
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Made a copy of a comment at an english.irib.ir/news article that I thought was educational for posting on the subject of Iran but it seems to have been deleted there. Here's most of it: I think "NNTP" was probably a typo for NNPT or NPT -- the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Both the United States and Iran have signed the NNPT. Under international law, the US is supposed to recognize Iran's right to nuclear power and other peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Under article IV, the US is supposed to help Iran build those peaceful facilities (which is a great way to make sure that they are peaceful)! In refusing to comply with article IV and in using the threat of military force to coerce Iran to surrender their rights under the NNTP, it is the United States that is in violation of International Law, not Iran!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest