Foreign Policy

Proposed TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) IP agreement benefits our rulers at the expense of the people.

"An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

I'm shocked.

Netanyahu vows to derail diplomacy between US and Iran.

Every time somebody argues against a war in the Middle East, they say these same things:

"Let’s be clear about what the stakes are: war with Iran would mean complete economic devastation, with the price oil skyrocketing into the stratosphere. The effects would be catastrophic: the world economy, already teetering on the brink of implosion, would rapidly deteriorate into a general crisis of confidence that would make the great depression of the 1930s look like a mere blip on the screen. To say nothing of the horrific human costs: Tehran in ruins, many thousands dead and wounded, and a general war of all against all in the Middle East. The conflict would drag in all regional actors: not only the US but also Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and quite possibly even the Russians. It would, in effect, be the beginning of World War III."

They said the same thing about Iraq, and none of it happened. They said it about Syria. Iran is not a major oil-producing nation any more, so other than the loss of life, I doubt much of this would happen. While all these things are possible, they're not likely. There's no need to exaggerate to make the case against starting a war with Iran. The loss of life and blowback are all we need to oppose attacking Iran. As for economic collapse, it's coming either way. The only question is when and what the trigger will be.

"The real story behind the French turnaround is that Netanyahu’s main man in Paris, Meyer Habib, called Laurent and told him that if the agreement went forward Netanyahu would strike Iran."

This doesn't make any sense. Why would a threat to strike Iran cause a negotiator to tank a peace deal? Israel threating to start a war if others don't start a war is no leverage to make others start a war instead of negotiating a peace agreement. The reasonable and moral thing to do is tell Netanyahu that if he does that, the west will condemn Israel, and it will suffer the consequences of its actions alone.

"’I know [Netanyahu]," the French MP, Meyer Habib, reportedly told Fabius, and predicted that the Israeli prime minister would resort to the use of force if the deal was approved in its form at the time. ‘If you don’t toughen your positions, Netanyahu will attack Iran,’ the report quoted Habib as saying. ‘I know this. I know him. You have to toughen your positions in order to prevent war.’"

Again, this makes no sense. They were negotiating a preliminary agreement. That threat is no leverage.

"Nice touch there: you have to stop talking peace "in order to prevent war." "

Even Raimondo, who's making the claim, sees through this.

"This threat by Netanyahu, delivered by his French messenger, is a bluff: the Israelis will fight to the last American, but when it comes to risking Israeli lives on the battlefield against a formidable opponent like Iran – not so much. This is just another transparent blackmail attempt, but the French have been sidling up to the Israelis for some time now and were eager to do their part."

That's why I say something else was at work here. That threat was meaningless. There were more likely bribes and threats issued against French politicians and companies.

The virus that the US and Israel jointly created to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Stuxnet, is now infecting nuclear facilities all over the world and threatens US nuclear facilities.