The Hitlerian method is this: Invent a “controversy” (for example, “ethnic Germans in Czech Sudetenland are oppressed”). Make a set of demands. If the demands are met, add new conditions. When you’ve pushed things as far as they can go and the other party finally refuses, accuse that other party of acting in bad faith and claim justification for doing what you wanted to do anyway (invade and occupy Czechoslovakia).
The Iran “nuclear weapons controversy” is an invented crisis of that Hitlerian type.
He reminds us that all US spy agencies say Iran does not appear to be after nukes (Israeli spies concur), that the IAEA does not even say Iran “might be” developing nukes, and that Iran is perfectly entitled under international law (and supported by the vast majority of the world) to a civilian nuclear program. It is the US that has no right to any say in that program whatsoever.
But the US, for reasons which are quite obvious, has imposed deadly sanctions on Iran, targeting all Iranian civilians, and changes the conditions for removing the sanctions “every time the Iranian government agrees” to meet the current conditions.
The US, including Obama, has done this numerous times. For example, Knapp notes that in March, “all parties seemed ready to sign an agreement – so the US piled on new conditions … at the last minute”, then said Iran had created the impasse.
The new US “deal” with Iran includes “up-front demands on Iran with the dangling fruit of lifted sanctions in the future.” (bold added)
Knapp then makes a prediction: that the US will break the agreement and make new demands within a few months, without ever lifting the sanctions: “the Hitlerian method in spades.”....Washington's Blog
US-Imposed “Deal” part of “Hitlerian Method” towards Iran
Robert Barsocchini
Interesting take, and I can't argue with it.
ReplyDeleteMoon of Alabama is also predicting that this deal will fall apart, that it's just kabuki theatre for domestic consumption, that the powers-that-be have no interest in peace with Iran.
AIPAC does not want peace with Iran.
US oil producers do not want peace with Iran.
The Sauds do not want peace with Iran.
The military-industrial complex does not want peace with Iran.
The only logical reason for the powers-that-be to seek peace with Iran is to compete for influence against Russia and China.
This deal wasn't signed with only the US and Iran participating. If it were, I'd tend to believe this stuff.
ReplyDeleteThis was done by the P5 + Germany. The Five Permanent (P5) members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.
You honestly think that after an Agreement is formally signed that the other P4 and Germany are going to entertain US sanction shenanigans when their companies have a lot of money to make by trading?
Why wouldn't US oil producers not want peace with Iran? Oil producers generally like social stability, and Iranians have newly filled oil fields (previously thought to be sucked dry) that are waiting for Halliburton to pounce.
The US military needs peace with Iran to protect the troops in Afghanistan if our relationship with Russia goes 100% south. Look at a map. We can't come out via Pakistan except in the western part, and it's anti-American right now near the water's edge. The Chinese have a port there. If the US reneges on the deal, China could close its port to them, with Russia to the north.