Archive for September, 2010
STEPHEN WALT: Mainstreaming war with Iran:
Richard Cohen–Israel Liability for US
Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:20 PM
From: “Stephen Sniegoski”
Critics of the US “special relationship” with Israel hold that it is detrimental to American interests in the Middle East. Its supporters, however, normally claim the opposite—that Israel is actually an American strategic asset. (The Chomskyites are the odd men out since even though they are critical of American and Israeli policies, they maintain that US support for Israel is beneficial for the imperialistic interests of the (predominantly gentile) US ruling class, though harmful to the American masses.)
Considering this normal constellation of opinions, it is a novelty to read Israel supporter Richard Cohen’s admission that the Jewish state is not a strategic asset, but rather a liability, for the United States, and was recognized as such by United States officials even before its creation. As Cohen writes in the Washington Post (Aug. 31): “A fundamental document in this area — a once-secret CIA analysis from 1947 — was unearthed (to my knowledge) by Thomas W. Lippman and reported in the winter 2007 issue of the Middle East Journal. The CIA strongly argued that the creation of Israel was not in America’s interests and that therefore Washington ought to be opposed. This was no different than what later diplomats and military men (most recently, David Petraeus) have argued and it is without a doubt correct. Supporting Israel hurts America in the Islamic — particularly the Arab — world and, given the crucial importance of Middle Eastern oil, makes no practical sense.”
“The CIA further argued,” Cohen observes, “that the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict would soon widen to become an Israeli-Islamic conflict — another bull’s-eye for what was then an infant intelligence service. That process was already underway, which is why some non-Arabs (Bosnian Muslims, for instance) fought the creation of Israel, and has only intensified as radical Islam, laced with healthy doses of anti-Semitism, has gotten even stronger.”
Cohen thus claims that the US support for Israel is motivated by ideals, not by any material self-interest. “What neither the CIA nor, for that matter, the anti-Israel State Department recognized in the late 1940s,” he maintains, “is that America’s interests are not always measurably pragmatic — metrics, in the jargon of our day. Sometimes, our interests reflect our national ethic, an affinity for other democracies, sympathy for the underdog. These, too, are in America’s interests and they may be modified, but not abandoned, for the sake of mere metrics.”
While expressing the objective truth in his observation that America’s “special relationship” with Israel is detrimental to America’s material interests, Cohen’s explanation for this support is totally off the mark . According to Cohen, the American people just naturally like Israel because America’s “interests reflect” its “national ethic, an affinity for other democracies, sympathy for the underdog.” Thus they are presumably quite willing to sacrifice their country’s strategic interests for the benefit of Israel.
In Cohen’s scenario, there is no need for any action by the Israel Lobby, or what James Petras calls the Zionist Power Configuration, because the American people do not need any special persuasion to support Israel. But the very fact that American Zionists devote considerable time, effort, and money to promoting the interests and image of Israel would indicate that they do not regard American support for Israel to be forthcoming naturally. And, as a result of their efforts, they are essentially able to dominate the discourse in the mainstream media on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, which means that the great majority of the American people simply do not know the actual facts of the situation.
Cohen writes that Americans naturally identify with the underdog. But why would any knowledgeable person regard Israel as the weak underdog and the Palestinians the all-powerful top dog? For it was the Zionist Jews who expelled the Palestinians from their homeland and currently treat them as subordinate class in Israel proper and militarily dominate them on the West Bank and Gaza. It is clear that the Israeli Jews are the wealthy oppressors and the Palestinians are the impoverished oppressed, and this is exactly how the rest of the world sees the situation.
Cohen, however, manages to obfuscate the whole situation to the benefit of Israel. He presents the Palestinian desire to undo some of the effects of their expulsion from Palestine in 1948 (obviously they cannot undo over a half century of pain, misery, and death) by the “return of Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel and control over all of Jerusalem” as being a ridiculous impossibility. But while Cohen demands that the Palestinians ignore the harm done to them in the past, it is a common practice for Jews to demand recompense for harm done to them going back not only to the Holocaust, but for mistreatment over the past two millennium. And, of course, part of this recompense was their recreation of the state of Israel on land inhabited by the Palestinians. In short, while Cohen denigrates the idea that the Palestinians have a right-of-return after an exile of a little over 60 years, the state of Israel is based on a right-of-return after an exile of almost nineteen hundred years!
Moreover, Cohen writes that the “What the Arab world seems to appreciate is that America will never agree to what the Arab world most wants — an Islamic state where a Jewish one now exists.” What Cohen presents here is a false dichotomy. Many Muslims may desire an Islamic state in Palestine, but it is not clear that this is what the Arab world demands. And while it is what Hamas wants, it has not been what the Palestinians have officially sought over the years. Until the rise of Hamas, the representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), officially called for a secular democratic Palestine, which would incorporate Israel. The non-Islamic PLO was vehemently opposed by Israeli governments. Moreover, it would seem that the Israeli Mossad, in fact, supported the creation of Hamas for the purpose of weakening the PLO.
As the PLO became sufficiently weak and pliable, Israel would begin to back it against the increasingly powerful Hamas.
Cohen’s facile assumption that the only alternative to the Jewish state is an Islamic one still remains false. Since there is no evidence that a majority of Palestinians actually want an Islamic state, and support Hamas not because of its Islamic ideology but because of its resistance to Israel, this would be a very unlikely result of allowing Palestinian refugees into Israel or a one-state solution in Israel/Palestine. Obviously, the Jewish population would be unanimously opposed to an Islamic state, which would be a further guarantee against its creation. Rather the likely result of the melding of the Jewish and Palestinian populations in the same country would be some type of multi-cultural state. However, the country would not be a Jewish supremacist state, which is the sin qua non of Zionism and is what Zionists seek to retain; and this is what the purportedly fair-minded liberal Cohen refuses to point out.
Cohen writes: “But until both sides, particularly the Arab peoples, give up on what they really want, the clock will remain where it has been,” which means that there will be no peace settlement. However, while Cohen spells out what goals the Palestinians must sacrifice, he does not mention what concessions Israel must make. To repeat, the simple fact, which Cohen manages to avoid, is that the leaders of Israel and the pro-Zionists throughout the world want to maintain a Jewish supremacist state and they perceive it to be threatened by both a one-state solution and a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.
So, in essence, it would seem that Cohen simply expects the Palestinians to accept a position of subordination to Israel, in which they would agree to what Israel has basically offered the Palestinians in the past “peace processes,” which is something quite short of a viable state. Instead, Israel has offered the Palestinians only a relatively unarmed entity (defenseless against potential Israeli military incursions such as the attack in Gaza), consisting of a congeries of non-contiguous Bantustans interspersed with Jewish settlements and Jews-only roads, with an Israeli security zone along its borders, and with Israel retaining control of the West Bank aquifers, upon which the Palestinian entity would depend upon for its water supply.
In conclusion, Cohen has clearly demonstrated a definite pro-Zionist inclination, and it is this viewpoint which makes his acknowledgement that Israel is a strategic liability for the United States all the more telling. Of course, the validity of this claim does not depend upon its proponents’ motives, but rather upon how it comports with the facts. And it is clear that American support for Israel turns the peoples and countries of the Middle East, the crucial source of the oil upon which the US and the overall industrial world depends, against the United States.
Transparent Cabal Website:
Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
Time stands still in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 31, 2010; A17
Say what you will about the Arab world, it’s hard to earn its gratitude. President Obama went to Egypt and not Israel. He demanded that Israel cease adding new settlements in the West Bank. He treated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with a chilling disdain. For all of that, though, Obama’s approval rating in Arab countries has sunk. Unlike almost a fifth of Americans, the Arab world clearly knows Obama is no Muslim.
The polls show some startling numbers. When this spring the Pew Global Attitudes Project asked residents of Islamic countries what they thought about Obama, he got good marks when it came to such matters as climate change. But when the question was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the numbers not only declined in Indonesia and Turkey, they nearly went through the floor in the three Arab countries polled. In Jordan, 84 percent disapproved of the way Obama was handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Egypt, the figure was 88 percent and in Lebanon it was 90 percent.
For Obama, the figures must be disheartening. They strongly suggest that his attempt to woo the Arab world, to convince it that America can be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians, has dismally failed. In fact, the extent of this failure is most stark in Lebanon. There, 100 percent of Shiite respondents — in other words, Hezbollah and others — have no faith in Obama and his good intentions. This may be a setback for Obama, but it is paradoxically a success for American values.
What the Arab world seems to appreciate is that America will never agree to what the Arab world most wants — an Islamic state where a Jewish one now exists. This entirely reasonable conclusion is based on what has long been American policy — not what the State Department wanted but what the American people supported. America has always liked the idea of Israel. The Arab world, for totally understandable reasons, has always hated it. Nothing has changed.
A fundamental document in this area — a once-secret CIA analysis from 1947 — was unearthed (to my knowledge) by Thomas W. Lippman and reported in the winter 2007 issue of the Middle East Journal. The CIA strongly argued that the creation of Israel was not in America’s interests and that therefore Washington ought to be opposed. This was no different than what later diplomats and military men (most recently, David Petraeus) have argued and it is without a doubt correct. Supporting Israel hurts America in the Islamic — particularly the Arab — world and, given the crucial importance of Middle Eastern oil, makes no practical sense.
The CIA further argued that the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict would soon widen to become an Israeli-Islamic conflict — another bull’s-eye for what was then an infant intelligence service. That process was already underway, which is why some non-Arabs (Bosnian Muslims, for instance) fought the creation of Israel, and has only intensified as radical Islam, laced with healthy doses of anti-Semitism, has gotten even stronger.
But where the CIA went wrong — and not, alas, for the last time — was in predicting that the Arabs would defeat Israel and that the state would not survive. The CIA was pretty sure of the outcome, what a later CIA figure might have called a “slam dunk.”
What neither the CIA nor, for that matter, the anti-Israel State Department recognized in the late 1940s is that America’s interests are not always measurably pragmatic — metrics, in the jargon of our day. Sometimes, our interests reflect our national ethic, an affinity for other democracies, sympathy for the underdog. These, too, are in America’s interests and they may be modified, but not abandoned, for the sake of mere metrics.
This is why Obama’s overture to the Arab world, clumsily executed, was never going to succeed. America can please some Arab governments — Egypt and Jordan, for instance — but not the Arab people. What they want, and what they have been told repeatedly they deserve, is a return of Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel and control over all of Jerusalem. These are both out of the question as far as Israel is concerned. It is not willing to give up its capital and, in a relatively short time, its Jewish majority.
This week, Palestinians and Israelis will once again talk peace in Washington. But until both sides, particularly the Arab peoples, give up on what they really want, the clock will remain where it has been. Those Pew polls show that’s around 1947.
Press TV’s Waqar Rizvi talks to James Morris on Israeli Nukes
US applies double standard with Israeli nukes yet again
What about Israel’s Nukes?!
IAEA rejects Arab resolution against Israel
PressTV – NAM: IAEA could die saving Israel
’US covering Israeli nuclear program’
ISRAELI NUCLEAR THREATS AND BLACKMAIL
Excellent Press TV ‘The Isle’ broadcast for interview with Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu:
Jefferson wrote on Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:55 pm:
Our AIPAC Federal Israel First government carries Israel’s water again. We give them billions in aid and materials, we fight their enemies by proxy in wars based on lies for Israel’s benefit. We now tell the world that the NPT shouldn’t apply to Israel while insisting that it applies to Iran? What is being served?
Is it no wonder that the NPT which was pioneered by the US for the planet’s whole good is regarded as a joke? And we pay for this fealty given which is the sad part. All costs and no benefits….Israel isn’t worth it. I remember when the US (before Israel) had no enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. -jd
US: Arab States Must Drop Call for Israel to Join NPT
By Jason Ditz On September 13, 2010
US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Glyn Davies again warned Arab nations against trying to push forward a non-binding resolution urging Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), insisting it might harm the Mideast peace talks.
“We need to send a positive impulse to that broader peace process, not a negative one,” Davies insisted. US officials had previously reacted with outrage when they learned that Israel’s arsenal was a topic for discussion at the IAEA meeting, insisting it was “untimely and uncalled for.”
But the issue of Israel’s status as the only nuclear weapons power in the Middle East and the region’s only non-signatory to the NPT isn’t going away, and must continue to be an issue as the Nuclear Free Mideast push continues.
Israel has ruled out joining the NPT, claiming such calls are unfair, and President Obama has indicated that he is backing that position and that he believes Israel has an inherent right to the possession of nuclear weapons. President Obama also criticized his own vote in favor of the Nuclear Free Mideast resolution at the most recent NPT meeting, insisting it was a “mistake.”
Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com
US told IAEA to drop discussion about Israeli nukes during conference over nuclear weapons this week...
as it “might ruin peace talks”…! glad that that’s been dealt with…./msa
“The Arab Group urges to keep the item ‘Israeli nuclear capabilities’ on the agenda of the general conference and… will submit a draft resolution” to the assembly next week, Sudan’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Mahmound El- Amin said, speaking on behalf of 22 Arab states.
“The Arab Group requests the IAEA member states to support the draft resolution and vote in favour of it.”
El-Amin made the statement to a closed-door session of the IAEA’s 35-member board of governors which is preparing for the organisation’s 54th annual general conference next week.
Earlier, the United States and the European Union had pressed Arab countries to withdraw their resolution — which calls on Israel to sign up to the nuclea r Non-Proliferation Treaty — (so as not to jeopardise Middle East peace talks).
Washington even flew in President Barack Obama’s top nuclear advisor, Gary Samore, to Vienna earlier this week to try and persuade Arab nations to drop their plans.
The IAEA, which is investigating both Iran and Syria for alleged illicit nuclear activity, used “double standards” when dealing with Israel and a recent report by agency chief Yukiya Amano on the matter was “weak and disappointing,” El-Amin argued.
It was “devoid of any substance and not up to t he typical level of the agency’s reporting” and that was why the Arab countries would not drop their resolution.
Brussels and Washington believe that zeroing in on the Jewish state would jeopardise a proposed conference in 2012 on the creation of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
It could also have a negative effect on relaunched peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Israel is believed to be the only Middle East power to possess nuclear weapons.
Every year, Arab members of the IAEA table the same anti-Israeli resolution at the watchdog’s week-long general conference, which brings together all 151 IAEA member states. Last year the Arab states succeeded in having it adopted b y a very narrow majority.
A Bipartisan Look at the Israel Lobby
Posted By Philip Giraldi On September 15, 2010 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized |
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Preparedness Group’s September 10th report “Assessing the Terrorist Threat” concludes that there is a growing threat to the United States derived from the radicalization of some American Muslims, a number of whom have joined extremist groups abroad. The report and its conclusions have received wide distribution in the United States mainstream media, to include a Washington Post article on September 11th headlined “US Must Deal With Homegrown Terror Problem.” National Public Radio reported it as “Homegrown terrorists pose biggest threat” while the Associated Press headlined “US must deal with domestic radical problem.”
As the Bipartisan Policy Center was founded by five former United States senators, its findings have an aura or respectability. This is unfortunate as the report deliberately seeks to heighten fear of a minority community based on what it might do, not necessarily what it has done. The timing of the release of the report is also intriguing, coming as it did just before 9/11, heightening the already considerable anti-Muslim sentiment being expressed nationwide over the proposal for an Islamic community center in southern Manhattan near the former site of the World Trade Center.
Warning about a Muslim domestic terrorist threat is bad policy intended to dramatize complex issues in Manichean terms, somewhat akin to advocating security initiatives that can fit on a bumper sticker. While the report concedes that United States government “overreactions” have contributed to the growth of extremism, it does not address the core issue, which is that the national counter-terrorism policy is itself deeply flawed and arouses legitimate concerns in many Muslim countries that Washington is intent on a never-ending apocalyptic war against Islam.
In reality, Muslim Americans are law abiding and the number of radicalized young men is tiny, many being naturalized citizens with deep family roots in countries where the United States is undertaking military action and killing large numbers of civilians. Describing the terrorism threat confronting the United States as a “Muslim problem” is a simplistic and ultimately incorrect assessment of a much more complex group of interactions. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s identification of 43 Muslim men who were convicted last year over support for or alignment with militant groups is unconvincing evidence of a major threat against the United States. Many of those convicted were on the receiving end of FBI sting operations in which an informant was inserted into the group, suggesting the possibility that the informant might have served as a catalyst or enabler for the proposed terrorist act. In legal terms, this is referred to as “entrapment.” Of the 43 cited convictions in 2009, only two were of men who actually carried out a terrorist action and there was one more who was capable of doing so, suggesting that the contention that there is a significant terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated.
The Bipartisan Policy Center might claim to be bipartisan because it includes both Democrats and Republicans but that does not mean that it is objective. Two years ago it produced a “task force” report on the Iranian threat called “Meeting the Challenge: US Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development.” It concluded that Iran has no right to enrich nuclear fuel for any purpose and predicted that Tehran would have sufficient highly enriched uranium in one year’s time to build a bomb. It advocated talking to Tehran to give it a chance to surrender on all key issues before attacking it, urging newly elected but not yet inaugurated President Barack Obama to build up forces for the assault. The task force recommended that the US military should, after bombing Iran into submission, remain in the area vigilant and ready to react to any possible attempt at retaliation by Tehran.
Currently, two years after the alarming report, Iran still has neither a nuclear device nor any weapons grade fuel and there is no solid evidence that it has a program to produce a bomb, meaning that a war would have been another case of “preemption” of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, reminiscent of the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq. And the Iran report conclusion calling for a US attack could hardly have been otherwise based on the make-up of the Bipartisan Policy Center task force that produced it. It included Dennis Ross, who has been described as the State Department’s “lawyer for Israel” as well as Steve Rademaker husband of Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Michael Rubin also of AEI, Kenneth Weinstein of the Hudson Institute, and Kenneth Katzmann of the Congressional Research Service. Rubin drafted the report assisted by the project director Michael Makovsky, who is the brother of David Makovsky, the senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli think tank that was founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). No one on the task force was an independent expert on Iran who might have been willing or able to express Iran’s concerns or point of view. Indeed, apart from Rubin, no one on the task force knew anything about Iran at all, except possibly that it was supposed to be part of the axis of evil.
And history repeats itself for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s current “Assessing the Terrorist Threat.” It was written by Peter Bergen, a journalist, and Bruce Hoffman, an academic. Both have made their reputations talking and writing about terrorists, so, in a sense, they are part of the burgeoning terrorism industry and have a personal stake in hyping the threat. On page 2 they acknowledge assistance from a number of “experts.” Judging from the names, not one is a Muslim, meaning that there has been no input from the very community that is being excoriated in the report. That is very much business as usual in Washington, but it invites some skepticism about the agenda of the authors of the report and the institution that sponsored it.
If the Bipartisan Policy Center is seriously interested in examining threats against the United States rather than starting new wars or persecuting a religious group, I would suggest that they set up a new task force and take a long hard look at the actions of the Israel Lobby. They could start by talking to Ross, Rademaker, Rubin, and the two Makovskys since they are members in good standing of the Lobby and are readily available, probably sitting somewhere down the hall. Explain to them how United States security has been compromised by the tie that binds with Israel and how its institutions have been corrupted. Suggest to them that official Washington insofar as it relates to the Middle East is an AIPAC-run enterprise. Run through the list of the State Department’s Assistant Secretaries of State for the Near East and discover that all of them have been Israel-firsters ever since Martin Indyk, an Australian citizen and AIPAC lobbyist, obtained the post in 1997. Bush appointee and hawk Jeffrey Feltman currently holds the position, virtually guaranteeing that there will be no shifting of allegiance at Foggy Bottom. Describe to them the more than $120 billion that Israel has received directly from the US taxpayer and discuss with them the many spies for Israel that have avoided prosecution because of government fear to cross AIPAC.
And then there is AIPAC itself. You might explore with Dennis Ross why he thinks AIPAC should not be registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act even though it describes itself on its website as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.” And you can chat a bit in a friendly way about how it works through intimidation and a large number of pro-Israel PACs to control Congress. And then there are the Israel-firsters in the media, the gatekeepers of truth and managers of the narrative. Names like Will, Krauthammer, Horowitz, Zuckerman, Ignatius, Thomas, Kristol, Friedman, and Brooks come to mind but there are many, many more. And remind them of the stories that just won’t go away, like Senator Arlen Specter trying to make everyone forget how Israel illegally obtained uranium from a plant in Pennsylvania owned by one Zalman Shapiro and used it to make bombs. Or the nagging accounts of Israeli spying, the most aggressive effort to steal American secrets by any country considered to be friendly.
And never forget that the Lobby is bipartisan. There are the billionaire Crown and Pritzker families of Chicago, exceptionally good friends of Israel and President Obama’s money men, and Aubrey and Joyce Chernick of Los Angeles who have been funding the recent anti-Muslim frenzy. And let’s not leave out Irving Moskowitz the California bingo king and Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel, who both actively support the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements. And speaking of the settlers, the “charitable” funding that enables them to arm themselves and steal Palestinian land is a tax write-off thanks to a congress, treasury, and justice department that prefer to look the other way.
Yes, there is quite a lot to examine and if anyone is seriously interested in genuine threats against the United States AIPAC and the Israel Lobby are good places to start. But to do so would not be welcomed in many influential circles and there would be inevitable retaliation from the chattering class and the media. The well-funded Bipartisan Policy Center would attract the anger of some very powerful and wealthy people and would suddenly find itself less well-endowed as its supporters disappear. Instead of taking on the Lobby let’s follow the Center’s sage advice and amble down a more inviting and less controversial path. Let’s bomb the hell out of Iran shortly before locking up American Muslims in prison camps to keep them out of mischief. Such measures will undoubtedly stop nuclear proliferation and end the international terrorism problem while the friends of Israel will be able to sleep soundly in their beds knowing that they will not be troubled by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
Ahmadinejad: Zionists (Israel firsters) influencing Obama (Ahmadinejad must have read the Mearsheimer/Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ book and former Republican Congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book as well!):
Obama knows full well about the Mearsheimer/Walt book as well!:
The Lobby Strikes Back!
Would very much like to watch the entire interview especially after what CBS ’60 Minutes’ did to Ahmadinejad as conveyed via following:
Report: ‘60 Minutes’ Cut Ahmadinejad’s Statement, ‘Solution Is Democracy’ in Israel/Palestine
Apologize to the World Mr. Wallace and Return that Emmy
Help! CNN runs reports produced by propaganda outfit headed by former AIPAC president (it is bad enough that former AIPAC newsletter editor Wolf Blitzer has so much influence at CNN!):
ALAN HART — Obama has signalled his coming complete surrender to Zionism and its lobby
‘US pro-Israel bias demonizing Islam (Iran)’
Petraeus Downplays Afghan Drawdown
Insists Pullout Will Be ‘Gradual’
Afghanistan: ‘No way we’re out by 2011’
‘US – Israel’s partner in crime, not a referee’
Rachel Corrie’s Family Confronts the Israeli Military in Court
9/11 Media Failure to Inform the Public about WHY we were Attacked
Violent Quran burning protests leave 11 injured in Afghanistan
Afghans Demonstrate Against US Quran-Burning That Never Happened
Afghan soldiers fired on demonstrators trying to storm a government building to protest once-planned Quran burning in US
|Quran burning and US inconsistency|
Why does the US government think burning Qurans is less civilised than drone attacks on civilian populations?
Farrakhan responds to question/comment about Neocon Iran warmongering at 6 min into following broadcast which repeatedly aired on Al Jazeera English day before yesterday (can watch AJE via http://www.livestation.com as well):
Islamophobia in the US
Riz Khan – Islamophobia in the US