"t will be interesting to watch how long Europe and Turkey are willing to follow U.S. orders and refuse to allow Iranian gas to help fill the Nabucco pipeline." Could Ben please explain why it is US national interest to get between Iran and the Europeans? Is it because such independent relationships would threaten the US military's role as the global cop, thereby threatening the US empire and its hegemony?

Could we have some answers, please?

Posted by JohnH, Aug 18 2009, 11:03AM
>>>>>>>>

Ditto.

I can't find any "national interest" in 99% of US policies anyway. Our national interest seem to be composed by ideologues with pet enemies like Russia and Iran, pet friends like Israel, domination fetishes, personal hubris, the brain farts of capitalist cannibals and etc..

I am sick of them.

BWTTGASO

I guarantee you that just about every European Country will scoff at the notion of subordinating their own national interests to the hectoring of the US - Israeli "brotherhood".

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL1613888820080316

Yes, it does seem that megalomania is disguising itself under the false pretense of "national interest." I'll bet anything that Ben can't explain why it's in the US' national interest to insert itself between Europe and Russia or Europe and Iran.

Speaking of exerting influence on foreign countries, it's a two way street...A joint project by The Sunlight Foundation and ProPublica is shedding light on foreign lobbyists in the US...for a motherload of hairraising details..

http://www.propublica.org/feature/opening-the-window-on-foreign-lobbying-718

http://www.propublica.org/feature/adding-it-up-the-top-players-in-foreign-agent-lobbying-718

"Essentially, Friedman's tentative conclusion is that Washington's aggressive policies toward both Moscow and Tehran are bringing the two hydrocarbon exporters closer together."

Quelle surprise.

Been pointing out for more than a year that the notion of isolating Iran or attempting to force Teheran to knuckle under is foolhardy. Can't be done. Too many intersecting interests and large muscular powers in play to accomplish that, not to mention the geographic position.

Why would Russia blockade Iran? It won't.

Will Turkey blockade Iran? No way.

Pakistan? The U.S. will have it's hands full corralling events in AfPak, and because we need them to do that much, we won't be demanding extras from them.

China has too much leverage over us, and its own energy interests preclude performing menial tasks for U.S. corporate interests. And its strategic interests supercede our own.

If only there was some sort of concert of democracies that could rush across the world stage with a convenient figleaf so we could act unilaterally! If only.

If only we'd acted with just a little bit of integrity in relating to Iran, a dose of respect through the channels of normal relations -- then perhaps they'd have a reason, any reason, to find common ground. To work a deal, work together. Instead, our national interest pays the heavy cost of our vanity and overweening sense of entitlement.

Instead, we gave orders when we had no power and less right to go a high-handed route, forgetting entirely the point of prudent politics rooted in self-rule we so ably proved in 1776. Failure to practice that single princple at home and abroad has cost us tremendously at home and abroad. No form of progress is available until that's repaired.

""""..follow U.S. orders.."""" that really is the rub isn't it???

Posted by Kathleen, Aug 18 2009, 4:47PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, that shows it all doesn't it?

BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND AND START OVER

Gawd, it's hard to believe I have been saying this for 9 years....

Posted by rich, Aug 18 2009, 7:12PM - Link

"If only there was some sort of concert of democracies that could rush across the world stage with a convenient figleaf so we could act unilaterally! If only."
>>>>>>>>>>>

ROTFLMAO!..that is so funny! Best laugh I have had this week.

What's mind boggling in all of this is that the US still insists on using the failed policies of the Reagan-Bush era towards Iran. Back in the day, cheap oil was plentiful and Saudi Arabia was pumping gobs of it. The US and Europe (along with Japan, the major oil importing nations) could afford to isolate Iraq and Iran, which kept their crude off the market and carried the additional benefit of avoiding a total price collapse.

But then the century turned. Oil became scarce, so that US decided it had to grab Iraqi oil while it could (though it can't seem to manage to make Iraq increase its production). The Russians did Bush a HUGE favor by dramatically increasing oil production. Chavez proved himself to be a very reliable supplier. But Washington decided it was best to alienate these two.

And though crude rose to $140/barrel under Bush, he decided it was wise to alienate Iran instead of enticing it to work with the US. And now the financial wizards in Washington are threatening to impose a blockade of refined products on Iran, which will almost certainly be met by an Iranian embargo on exports, sending prices skyward once again.

But are assured that this is all in the national interest. But how could this be in anyone's interest to alienate one's best potential suppliers, particularly when they have alternative markets like China and India? Hasn't it occurred to anyone besides George Friedman that these antiquated policies might somehow be counterproductive?

Will somebody please inform these cold warriors that it is no longer 1990? The sheer stupidity of the foreign policy mob has become a major threat to the nation.

Did the Iranian regime shoot Neda in cold blood just because George Bush was mean to them? Or do you mean not to notice such trifles?

If you are pushing an amoral, purely realist policy like China's, where you don't care how many people a government kills as long as the oil flows, please just say so.

But funny thing, I thought that was what the US was being criticized for in it relationship with Saudi Arabia. This situational realism gets so confusing.

Nadine has previously suggested that Obama is pro Hamas, even
pro Achmedinejad. So what do you say, Nadine: according to your
weird world view, perhaps Obama was behind the killing of Neda?
That would clarify a lot, wouldn`t it?

The Iranian regime shot Neda? Why would they do that? And what evidence do you have? There is none from what I have seen. And there is no motive.

Neda's death is a tragedy. But the cynical exploitation of her death by the corporate media is an even greater tragedy. The least the media could have done is to find someone, like Rachel Corrie, who was clearly killed in cold blood by the regime.

well nadine said so... that's good enough, lol... either way it's serving her purpose quite well thank you very much... if nadine says so, that must make it so. if the bullshit media says so without offering any proof, it's even better for freaks like nadine..

Iran will never be a serious competitor to the US, in the way that
the USSR was, and that Russia and China may very well become.
The US and Iran share a number of interests where they should
be ideal allies. The US is losing economic opportunities because
of this rift.

Europe will be deferential to Russia in many subjects, to the
extent that their gas supplies are dominated by the Russia.
Russia's behavior towards the Ukraine is an instructive proxy,
whose meaning has not been lost on the EU, particularly in
northern Europe.

Russia is intent on having all of the supply lines to Europe going
through russia or being subject to Russian control and influence,
regardless of where the gas originates. US behavior towards
Iran strengthens Russia in many ways, and makes Europe weaker
and more precarious as it seeks energy security.