Biden hearts Mubarak:
NewsHour host Jim Lehrer asked Biden if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."
"Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”"
yup, the Obama Administration continues a well worn US tradition, supporting dictator and autocrats. Especially as long as they heart Israel.Remember Bush and Musharraf recently? With utmost respect, maybe it's time to adjust your earlier analysis Prof Cole.
Oh puhleeze! Prof Cole, the Obama admin, and more importantly, the US establishment, is doing what it always does, mouth platitudes whilst trying to undermine the popular forces they appear to support. You can bet that right now the CIA and Mossad are advising their Egyptian counterparts on how to defeat this popular rebellion.
If this kind of revolt ever happened in Saudi Arabia the US would send its soldiers there to put it down directly!
At least now the right-wing will never be able to say that the "Arab street" doesn't exist.
Louie
Keep plucking that chicken mate. Your next trick will be to accuse J. Cole of hosting anti semitic comments on his blog, we know your works well.
My earlier comment was neither naive, nor anti-semitic. It's MY opinion. That you saw antisemitism is a reflection of your own fear-stricken state of mind.
Anyone with a grain of sense knows that the Israel lobby is real, powerful, and is composed of various interests and ethnicities. It sometimes includes the military industrial complex, mainstream media, christian evangelicals, and neocons. Opposition to Rupert Murdoch, John Bolton or John Hagee doesn't make you an anti semitic nut, yet.
Israel would let the UN apply sanctions on the US before the vice versa ever happened. If Obama ever used the UN against zionist interests the Israel lobby would terminate his second term, despite the good job Obama is already doing against that possibility.
thank you Prof Cole for another outstanding post on Gaza. I have used a small part of it as my Facebook status, crediting your blog. Maybe you can create short paragraphs for your readers to post en mass as their facebook status to raise even more more awareness.
"The Revolutionary Guards are a poorly equipped national guard. Revolutionary Iran’s strength has all along been asymmetrical, and the US military is simply not capable of ‘neutering’ Iran’s capabilities in this regard."
Robert Baer calls Iran an "asymmetrical super power", but how can that be possibly if your statement above is correct?
Even asymmetrical power depends on having capable weapons and tactics, for example revoluntionary zeal, guerilla tactics, anti-ship cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, fiber optics, and manpads, as opposed to missile frigates, f-16s, and sattelites. So how can the IRGC be both poorly equipped, but be capable of resisting US military pressure? Surely if Hezbullah was equipped enough to repel the IDF their IRGC mentors could never then be described as "poorly equipped".
Also I think the destruction of the American republic is exactly what the Lindsey Grahams of this world desire. That is their ultimate dream, to fundamentally restructure American society.
Asharq alawsat's reporting in this regard is at best suspect Prof Cole. When the Kurdish General asked for US troops to remain in Iraq you asked that context be injected into reporting for the reader to obtain a fuller understanding of events in Iraq. But I guess anti-Iranian reporting is exempt from this call for context. The context being that the newspaper sited is a well known Saudi propaganda rag that has a lot of love for Saudi client Allawi, and none for Al Sadr or Iran. Watch out Prof, a bias is showing.
" Anti-imperialism does not require analytical obtuseness."
In the original plans for the post invasion environment the Bush admin had planned to withdraw quickly and leave a force in Iraq of 30-50,000 troops. If that had happened would you have hailed that as a positive development Prof Cole?
Analytical obtuseness in my opinion is shown in not recognizing that 50000 US troops in Iraq still constitutes a continuation of the occupation.
Prof Cole i do not understand the logic of your post. You admit that combat troops have simply been redesignated as non-combat troops..with the same war fighting capabilities, yet you want to maintain the illusion that all combat troops have been withdrawn. If Bush had tried something similar i wonder what your post would have read like.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." 50,000 soldiers is as large as some European armies, and the US still controls Iraqi airspace, but somehow the occupation is over? Why is it that Western so called intellectuals insist on one standard for themselves, and another for the great unwashed of the world? Why twist the concrete reality of Occupation to justify political manipulation and word games?
Why Prof Cole are you trying to get us used to the idea of an Iraq occupied by American troops, and getting us to rejoice because their mission has been "redefined"? Howard Dean opposes the building of mosques, and Juan Cole says 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq is a reason to applaud. The world has turned on its head since 9-11.
once again Prof Cole personal preference influences his analysis. Despite Iranian denial it "seems likely"? How does it seem likely to anyone other than those who would wish it to seem so?
The basis of your speculation is the "implausibility" of Amiri being kidnapped by the CIA. But you think it more plausible that the Iranians would arrange a double agent to go to the CIA, spin a web of lies, to setup a scenario that failed so devastatingly for Saddam and Iraq?
If Amiri voluntarily fled to the CIA why did the US repeatedly deny knowledge of his whereabouts when initially accused by Iran of his abduction instead of trumpeting their latest catch?
It is more plausible that Amiri was meant to be the "slamdunk", the smoking gun, and for whatever reason he decided not to play along with the vilification, and destruction of his country for personal financial gain. Something strange to the American mind I understand.
The next time the US claims to have sources inside the Iranian nuclear establishment, instead of fantastic theories, I hope we'll all be reminded of the psy-ops flop that was Amiri.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Biden hearts Mubarak:
NewsHour host Jim Lehrer asked Biden if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."
"Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”"
yup, the Obama Administration continues a well worn US tradition, supporting dictator and autocrats. Especially as long as they heart Israel.Remember Bush and Musharraf recently? With utmost respect, maybe it's time to adjust your earlier analysis Prof Cole.
Oh puhleeze! Prof Cole, the Obama admin, and more importantly, the US establishment, is doing what it always does, mouth platitudes whilst trying to undermine the popular forces they appear to support. You can bet that right now the CIA and Mossad are advising their Egyptian counterparts on how to defeat this popular rebellion.
If this kind of revolt ever happened in Saudi Arabia the US would send its soldiers there to put it down directly!
At least now the right-wing will never be able to say that the "Arab street" doesn't exist.
Louie
Keep plucking that chicken mate. Your next trick will be to accuse J. Cole of hosting anti semitic comments on his blog, we know your works well.
My earlier comment was neither naive, nor anti-semitic. It's MY opinion. That you saw antisemitism is a reflection of your own fear-stricken state of mind.
Anyone with a grain of sense knows that the Israel lobby is real, powerful, and is composed of various interests and ethnicities. It sometimes includes the military industrial complex, mainstream media, christian evangelicals, and neocons. Opposition to Rupert Murdoch, John Bolton or John Hagee doesn't make you an anti semitic nut, yet.
Israel would let the UN apply sanctions on the US before the vice versa ever happened. If Obama ever used the UN against zionist interests the Israel lobby would terminate his second term, despite the good job Obama is already doing against that possibility.
thank you Prof Cole for another outstanding post on Gaza. I have used a small part of it as my Facebook status, crediting your blog. Maybe you can create short paragraphs for your readers to post en mass as their facebook status to raise even more more awareness.
"The Revolutionary Guards are a poorly equipped national guard. Revolutionary Iran’s strength has all along been asymmetrical, and the US military is simply not capable of ‘neutering’ Iran’s capabilities in this regard."
Robert Baer calls Iran an "asymmetrical super power", but how can that be possibly if your statement above is correct?
Even asymmetrical power depends on having capable weapons and tactics, for example revoluntionary zeal, guerilla tactics, anti-ship cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, fiber optics, and manpads, as opposed to missile frigates, f-16s, and sattelites. So how can the IRGC be both poorly equipped, but be capable of resisting US military pressure? Surely if Hezbullah was equipped enough to repel the IDF their IRGC mentors could never then be described as "poorly equipped".
Also I think the destruction of the American republic is exactly what the Lindsey Grahams of this world desire. That is their ultimate dream, to fundamentally restructure American society.
"Remember, this is almost a year into World War II"?
OMG, Americans! Surely you mean this is almost a year into America's entry into WW2?
how exactly does one qualify as a "former" CIA asset?
Asharq alawsat's reporting in this regard is at best suspect Prof Cole. When the Kurdish General asked for US troops to remain in Iraq you asked that context be injected into reporting for the reader to obtain a fuller understanding of events in Iraq. But I guess anti-Iranian reporting is exempt from this call for context. The context being that the newspaper sited is a well known Saudi propaganda rag that has a lot of love for Saudi client Allawi, and none for Al Sadr or Iran. Watch out Prof, a bias is showing.
" Anti-imperialism does not require analytical obtuseness."
In the original plans for the post invasion environment the Bush admin had planned to withdraw quickly and leave a force in Iraq of 30-50,000 troops. If that had happened would you have hailed that as a positive development Prof Cole?
Analytical obtuseness in my opinion is shown in not recognizing that 50000 US troops in Iraq still constitutes a continuation of the occupation.
Prof Cole i do not understand the logic of your post. You admit that combat troops have simply been redesignated as non-combat troops..with the same war fighting capabilities, yet you want to maintain the illusion that all combat troops have been withdrawn. If Bush had tried something similar i wonder what your post would have read like.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." 50,000 soldiers is as large as some European armies, and the US still controls Iraqi airspace, but somehow the occupation is over? Why is it that Western so called intellectuals insist on one standard for themselves, and another for the great unwashed of the world? Why twist the concrete reality of Occupation to justify political manipulation and word games?
Why Prof Cole are you trying to get us used to the idea of an Iraq occupied by American troops, and getting us to rejoice because their mission has been "redefined"? Howard Dean opposes the building of mosques, and Juan Cole says 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq is a reason to applaud. The world has turned on its head since 9-11.
This is the best reponse to the Goldberg article I have read. Thank you Prof Cole for this clear-headed, yet passionate post.
once again Prof Cole personal preference influences his analysis. Despite Iranian denial it "seems likely"? How does it seem likely to anyone other than those who would wish it to seem so?
excellent post!
The basis of your speculation is the "implausibility" of Amiri being kidnapped by the CIA. But you think it more plausible that the Iranians would arrange a double agent to go to the CIA, spin a web of lies, to setup a scenario that failed so devastatingly for Saddam and Iraq?
If Amiri voluntarily fled to the CIA why did the US repeatedly deny knowledge of his whereabouts when initially accused by Iran of his abduction instead of trumpeting their latest catch?
It is more plausible that Amiri was meant to be the "slamdunk", the smoking gun, and for whatever reason he decided not to play along with the vilification, and destruction of his country for personal financial gain. Something strange to the American mind I understand.
The next time the US claims to have sources inside the Iranian nuclear establishment, instead of fantastic theories, I hope we'll all be reminded of the psy-ops flop that was Amiri.