Home | About | Donate

Why Republicans Oppose the Iran Agreement: Follow the Money


#1

Why Republicans Oppose the Iran Agreement: Follow the Money

Jeff Faux

By any sensible measure, our country's highest foreign policy priority is halting the spread of nuclear weapons.

Given our size and military might, we Americans are safe from outside invasion for as far into the future as anyone can possible see. But we are clearly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And the more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance that a future suicide bomber strolling through one of our cities will be carrying a nuclear device in his or her backpack.


#2

The Republicans use Iran as a talking point to help galvanize their base. McCain's "bomb, bomb Iran" narrative pretty much summarizes the depth of thought about Iran in the Republican camp. Republicans will lob bombs at each other over other issues, but the message on Iran is sacrosanct. All inter-party competition involves unifying concepts aimed at the general election and differentiating concepts aimed at the primary. The Republicans are very good at staying on their unifying messages, unless perhaps they are Trumped.


#3

Thank you, Mr. Faux, for pointing out the preponderance of interests (along with their various financial backers) that work so assiduously to undermine world peace as per the current Iran deal... and elsewhere. So long as war is inordinately profitable and media too controlled to voice an empowered opposition to this atavistic mass death ritual, the Mars-ruled will continue their reign of plunder.

Too many journalists and pundits are one trick ponies and only see one singular entity as causative factor. As is always the case, it takes a constellation of factors/players/powers to manifest a condition or outcome that carries massive impications.


#4

It's the party of the angry white guy... and Yang. And since Yang likes to flex its macho muscles with talk about power, greatness, and, of course, the all-mighty gun (and that means massive gun/fire power), it favors war. This is wounded manhood turned into a plight against humanity.

The Dem party had a tradition of speaking to labor/unions, women, Blacks, and those left outside of the "white boy tent." In a very real way, it's Yin to the Republican Yang.

As many realize, with Big Money and its Shadow Elite players coming to control media, election campaigns (and outcomes), courts, congress, and the increasingly corporately controlled world of commerce operating on all levels (what with big banks swallowing little ones, as Walmart essentially does likewise to so many mom and pop small business operations), the political process has also been subsumed by Big Money. It forces ALL candidates to cater to Big Money donors and in the process, sell out. Thus, both parties come to serve Big Money. Repugs may get the Defense Firms while Dems get Wall St. Ultimately, mammon and Mars work in cahoots to support the empire's use of force in pursuit of global assets and hostile acquisitions.

Many who comment here (along with a good number of conventional media pundits) focus on the INDIVIDUAL sellout. This is either naïve or tactical. If naïve, it conveniently loses sight of the full scale of Big Money bearing down on elections, candidates, and therefore all possible outcomes. If tactical, then the emphasis on the "bad apple" allows the systemic fraud that U.S. elections have become to remain largely unexamined. THAT protocol is used to preserve corruption in every system ranging from major banking fraud (toss out one scapegoat), to torture inside the military (link it to a few "bad apples,"), to police brutality (if possible, blame the victim), to each successive shooting (blame it on the person's mental state), to each successive oil spill (look for "what went wrong" THAT time), etc.

This focus on minutiae and/or the single Bad Player is a strategic way for elites to maintain systems that are massively corrupted and punish far too many persons and living beings at every phase of their toxic operations.


#5

If an idea is mean, violent, money-grubbing, pro-business, anti-worker, or just plain stupid, you can be sure it will be loudly embraced by the Republicans, and quietly embraced by the Democrats.


#6

We have recently witnessed numerous bills make their way through our Congress and Senate despite public disapproval of them. This article shows that once again BIG MONEY controls policy in this country and until we enact some sort of public financing of our elections special interests will prevail every time.


#7

"By any sensible measure, our country's highest foreign policy priority is halting the spread of nuclear weapons.

Given our size and military might, we Americans are safe from outside
invasion for as far into the future as anyone can possible see. But we
are clearly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And the more nuclear
weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance that a future
suicide bomber strolling through one of our cities will be carrying a
nuclear device in his or her backpack".

These two paragraphs are risible.

The greatest threat to USAian people is the USAian people, with their guns and their gun-culture. The threat of terrorism against citizens of the USA pales to the irrelevant against the simple fact that during 1964-1975 more USAians killed USAians through fits of bad temper, carelessness in handling guns and deliberate criminal activity than USAian soldiers were killed in Vietnam.And this murder rate has not diminished. I understand that one is four times as likely to be shot by a USAian toddler than a terrorist, and probably even more likely to be shot by a neurotic teenager (or USAian police officer) with a semi--automatic rifle.

As for nuclear devices in back-packs, they are more likely to fry the carrier to death before the carrier gets on the aeroplane out of Pakistan.


#8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#9

Lets follow the money indeed: If the Israeli and Gulf Arab lobbies are the main source of where the GOP's refusals are coming from, where does the energy/oil lobbies (BP, Exxon, Conoco, Total, Shell, etc) fit in the picture? One would think these would be FOR the agreement, no? After all, Iran is a top 5 oil and gas exporter, and large energy companies do stand to benefit from lifting of sanctions. (not to mention the McDonalds, KFCs, GMs, Boeings, Pfizers and others). Aren't the Europeans already lined up to enter Iran's "lucrative" market? One would think that Obama would not be making all this effort to bring Iran to the table, if it werent for the approval of some really big financial backers somewhere? Surely Obama didnt go thru all this trouble just to make the Europeans and Asians happy. There must be some financial domestic incentives involved. Some big money to be made. No?


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

I would give Iran back the money in tranches, not all at one time. If they break the agreement, money stops.