The Jerusalem Post, not exactly an Israel critic, reported that in 2016, only 2.6% of Israel's electricity was produced from renewable sources. With the country's rich solar and wind resources, and its advanced technology, there has to be another reason why its energy policy is so backwards.
As anyone who reads this Times of Israel article would realize, Uzi Eilam's statements are highly relevant to the negotiations now going on. Yet even though this story was carried today by at least 5 major Israeli newspapers (Israeli Times, Haaretz, Ynet, Jerusalem Post, and Yedioth Ahronoth), not even one US mainstream newspaper has as yet covered it (per my Google Search at 5 pm, May 8). What a terrible indictment of our mainstream media. Long live "Informed Comment" and other blogs like it!
If you really want to see how hypocritical this refusal of a visa is, have a look at the speech Eisenhower gave in 1959 to the Iranian majles, 6 years after approving the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Address to the Members of the Parliament of Iran," December 14, 1959. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. link to presidency.ucsb.edu.
According to the April 24, 2011 Time magazine article you referenced, one can calculate that the Persian Gulf force deployment cost $1.2 trillion for the years 2008-2010, or $400 billion per year. Although this seems very high, even half that is a huge drain on the US, which could use that money for so many better needs. Could this be considered an indirect sanction by Iran on the US economy, and shouldn't we want to get out from under it?
The conversation about an Israeli attack would benefit from considering it as a probability, not as just a binary yes and no. If your thesis is true, the probability is low, but the outcomes of an Israeli attack are so terrible that we must take even a low probability as a red alert. As you know, other serious observers believe the probability is higher.
It is hard to buy your statement that the Neocons are currently in the wilderness. As Barbara Slavin wrote, on July 27, "A number of players with more skeptical views about the prospect of rapprochement with Tehran -- such as White House aide Dennis Ross and nonproliferation experts like Robert Einhorn and Gary Samore -- appear to be driving U.S. policy now..". Ross and to a degree Einhorn have been associated with the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Samore, prior to becoming WMD chief, made statements consistent with those of the Institute. In addition, if you look at the steps Obama has taken -- getting Russia and China on board for UN Sanctions, ratcheting up US and encouraging EU sanctions, getting the Saudis to pressure China and also warning the Chinese that Israel might attack if they didn't join up with the sanctions, increasing shows of "credible" force in the Persian Gulf and Diego Garcia -- these all fit neatly with the Dennis Ross approved "Bipartisan" recommendations of 2008, with his 2009 book (Myths, Illusions & Peace)and with the Washington Institute 2009 "Preventing a Cascade..." report. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it would seem that indeed neocons are calling the shots, or at least that Obama does not have any divergence of viewpoint (John Limbert's resignation eliminated perhaps the last knowledgable voice on Iran in higher echelons).
The Jerusalem Post, not exactly an Israel critic, reported that in 2016, only 2.6% of Israel's electricity was produced from renewable sources. With the country's rich solar and wind resources, and its advanced technology, there has to be another reason why its energy policy is so backwards.
As anyone who reads this Times of Israel article would realize, Uzi Eilam's statements are highly relevant to the negotiations now going on. Yet even though this story was carried today by at least 5 major Israeli newspapers (Israeli Times, Haaretz, Ynet, Jerusalem Post, and Yedioth Ahronoth), not even one US mainstream newspaper has as yet covered it (per my Google Search at 5 pm, May 8). What a terrible indictment of our mainstream media. Long live "Informed Comment" and other blogs like it!
If you really want to see how hypocritical this refusal of a visa is, have a look at the speech Eisenhower gave in 1959 to the Iranian majles, 6 years after approving the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Address to the Members of the Parliament of Iran," December 14, 1959. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. link to presidency.ucsb.edu.
According to the April 24, 2011 Time magazine article you referenced, one can calculate that the Persian Gulf force deployment cost $1.2 trillion for the years 2008-2010, or $400 billion per year. Although this seems very high, even half that is a huge drain on the US, which could use that money for so many better needs. Could this be considered an indirect sanction by Iran on the US economy, and shouldn't we want to get out from under it?
A really informative website, especially on the ME. We desperately need your kind of analysis.
The conversation about an Israeli attack would benefit from considering it as a probability, not as just a binary yes and no. If your thesis is true, the probability is low, but the outcomes of an Israeli attack are so terrible that we must take even a low probability as a red alert. As you know, other serious observers believe the probability is higher.
It is hard to buy your statement that the Neocons are currently in the wilderness. As Barbara Slavin wrote, on July 27, "A number of players with more skeptical views about the prospect of rapprochement with Tehran -- such as White House aide Dennis Ross and nonproliferation experts like Robert Einhorn and Gary Samore -- appear to be driving U.S. policy now..". Ross and to a degree Einhorn have been associated with the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Samore, prior to becoming WMD chief, made statements consistent with those of the Institute. In addition, if you look at the steps Obama has taken -- getting Russia and China on board for UN Sanctions, ratcheting up US and encouraging EU sanctions, getting the Saudis to pressure China and also warning the Chinese that Israel might attack if they didn't join up with the sanctions, increasing shows of "credible" force in the Persian Gulf and Diego Garcia -- these all fit neatly with the Dennis Ross approved "Bipartisan" recommendations of 2008, with his 2009 book (Myths, Illusions & Peace)and with the Washington Institute 2009 "Preventing a Cascade..." report. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it would seem that indeed neocons are calling the shots, or at least that Obama does not have any divergence of viewpoint (John Limbert's resignation eliminated perhaps the last knowledgable voice on Iran in higher echelons).