Monday, August 31, 2015

Middle East "Scholars" Sign Letter Supporting Iran Deal

Hat tip Campus Watch

The National Iranian American Council has published a letter signed by 73 (now up to 80) university professors who are described as "prominent international relations scholars", in which they support the Iran nuclear deal and urge Congress to approve it.

I won't bother researching each and every "scholar" listed here, but the list includes a who's who of academic activists who are apologists for all the carnage that is occurring in the Middle East in the name of Islam.  They are also activists against Israel. I have posted articles about many of them on this site including Juan Cole, Rashid Khalidi, Reza Aslan, Peter Kuznick, John Esposito, Peter Beinart and Noam Chomsky.

You will note that the letter makes not one mention of the odious nature of the Iranian regime or their threats to annihilate Israel (and the US). You would have thought they were talking about Switzerland during WW II. It makes you wonder also as to the nature of the NIAC.

These are not prominent scholars; they are activists on the wrong side of most issues. Frankly, I am surprised they didn't get more signatures on their letter given the sheer number of  anti-Israel activists roaming around the halls of academia. I mean, where is  Mark LeVine of UC Irvine? Where is the great "independent scholar with a PhD from Princeton", Norman Finkelstein? I could go on and on all day.

The letter is a joke. It should not be taken seriously by Congress. If they know anything at all about these signatories, they will throw it in the waste basket.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

You will note that the letter makes not one mention of the odious nature of the Iranian regime or their threats to annihilate Israel (and the US).

Well, those are a given of the entire process. If the regime were not odious, and had not made blanket threats to annihilate Israel and The Great Satan (America), then we would not be so terribly concerned over whether they developed a nuclear weapon, would we? Do we impose sanctions on Britain? France? How about Israel, which developed its nuclear armament outside the scope of international treaties, and committed a series of criminal acts to kidnap the technician who revealed this to the world?

We negotiated with Iran because they could do this and we don't have the resources or the will (in terms of public support) to do what it would take to stop them, and we don't want them to. They negotiated with us, because while they could make it unacceptably bloody if we tried to invade them, we can cut off their economic lifeline to the extent that they became rather uncomfortable and decided to seek some relief if we didn't demand too much that would insult their national pride and sense of honor.

From such muddled motives is international diplomacy made. Anyone who seeks a fairy tale of good and evil and happily ever after should think about what they were smoking last night.

Gary Fouse said...

When will we have the will to do what it takes to stop them? When they hit Israel with a nuclear missile? When they pass off a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda or somebody else that goes off in the US?

Cutting off their economic lifeline? That's what we were doing. It hurt them so bad they came back to the negotiating table and robbed us blind.

Fairy tales and smoking pot? How about believing the Iranians will come clean and join the family of nations. Save that argument for John kerry not me.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Iran hasn't joined the family of nations. It has made a sober evaluation of what its status of forces is, what the status of forces of those opposed to it is, what it can afford to give up, and what it wants in return. We did the same.

Gary, do you think that hordes of young American men would be volunteering for military duty even if Iran did drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv? I rather doubt it. And if you don't know that Iran and ISIS are enemies, you're more of a fool than I took you for. Iran is more likely to drop a nuclear weapon on the Caliph than on Tel Aviv.

Invading Iran would be at this point a bigger deal than invading Germany was in 1944 -- and remember, this time we don't have the Soviet Union to absorb eighty percent of the casualties.