I think there has been too much focus on the “reactionary theocracy” rather than taking a look at the Iranian struggle against Zionism in the region and standing up to U.S. imperialism. Also there has been several report whereby Iran has more progressive policies — especially in the area of birth control — than the U.S. I think that there is a sort of exceptionalism occurring on the left that make some members of the left feel superior when it comes to analyzing Iran.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09202007.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57uRKOGhGA

Of course, oil is a major variable in U.S. policy. Cows eat grass.

When a so-called credentialed progressive essayist, like Weissman, makes a sound and standard argument for oil as the only variable in a detailed essay, you had better consider that what he leaves out is as important as what he carefully discusses. No other reason to respond to Weissman. Zionist neo-cons are positioned everywhere in our national government and openly preaching for more murder.

When does the sun shine? It only shines in the daytime.

It is probably true that the conflict in Iraq is of benefit to other lobby groups, but the question you need to ask yourself is “If there was no oil present, would the US armed forces still be fully engaged in conflict there, or have even set foot on Iraqi soil at all?”

There seem to be very good and persuasive arguments put forward by many people promoting the theory that the conflict in Iraq is PRIMARILY about oil supply, and oil markets. Other motives appear to this (casual) reader to be red herrings.

Some may gain some comfort from thinking that our leaders are driven by philosophy and idealism, but here in the West, the philosophy we are taught (and many live by) boils down to ‘more for me’. Look for the money flow - there lies the pre-eminant motives.

Weissman, who are you typing for?

Get of the pot, Weissman.

And among those “liars” are Alan Greenspan and war criminal Henry Kissinger