While Shirley Leung shamelessly sucks up to Sheldon Adelson in an effort to convince him to build a state-of-the-art casino in Boston, most people are wondering whether he should be institutionalized for comments he recently made at Yeshiva University.
The biggest donor to Republican Party political groups said Tuesday that the United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran to spur the country to end its own nuclear program.
Sheldon Anderson, the billionaire casino mogul, said on a panel at Yeshiva University in New York City that an initial blast, targeted to hit only desert area, would kill “maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever,” according to video posted on the foreign policy news website Mondoweiss.
“Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.”
That’s a serious gangster mentality right there, if you ask me. It’s not like the Iranians are unaware of what a thermonuclear explosion will do if one occurs in their desert, capital, or some Pacific atoll. They don’t need a demonstration.
They already know that we have nuclear weapons, and they know that Israel has them, too. I honestly have some difficulty understanding why Israel and some of its right-wing supporters are so preoccupied with Iran. I don’t really understand why Saudi Arabia is freaking out so much, either. They both seem absurdly invested in the maintenance of a hostile relationship between America and Iran.
“I honestly have some difficulty understanding why Israel and some of its right-wing supporters are so preoccupied with Iran. “
Boo — did you see the New Yorker article by Dexter Filkins (“The Shadow Commander”) in the Sept 30 issue? It concerns expanded Iranian influence around the mid east. Hezbollah, the Quds Force, Iraq, a growing civil war between shiites and sunnis, with Iran seemingly pulling the strings. It’s interesting reading. I’m no expert on the middle east and would like to hear you (and other) opinions about this.
Iran was the unintended winner of George and Dick’s excellent adventure. They could have tried to make lemonade out of their lemons, but no, that would have required too much honesty and/or a significant Middle East policy change.
It makes much more geopolitical sense to ally ourselves with Iran than the Saudis.
If Catholics and Protestants could murder each other for century upon century, why should Sunis and Shia be any different. Whether the Eucharist is an actual transformation or symbolic; whether one prays five times a day or three — this is REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF. God would surely want people to stand up for what’s right and true and be willing to die for such an essential cause. Right?
Actually, the Qu’ran speaks directly to this and instructs people not to argue over scripture. It says not to create separation, to love everyone and to let God figure out what was in each person’s heart when they get to the afterlife. But heck, that’s just what the Qu’ran says. Surely, we’re supposed to kill each other in the name of the Qu’ran and everything that’s true and good and pure and holy!
No faith is immune. You see it happening with the Burmese Buddhists right now.
Yup, they’re all cults. Some are more harmful than others, but all religions are cults.
Since cult means “theist worshiper” … well yeah.
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed lately, but Israel and Saudi Arabia, far from being enemies, have become virtually allies. And they pretty much want the same things from the US. That’s why, whenever people talk about Israeli political influence on the US, they also need to think about the Saudis. They have this influence for a different reason. Israel needs that Saudi oil leverage, and the Saudis need the magical loyalty that Israel gets from the religious right and Arabs could never get.
That said, the reasons for fear of Iran are not the same. Israel is always worried about Hezbollah, a Shia movement based partly in Iran and partly in Lebanon, also active in Syria.
But I agree with you, it is grossly exaggerated. The leadership of both countries is sclerotic and paranoid.
The Saudis, on the other hand, just hate the Iranians because they are Shia, and I suppose vice-versa. I suppose the Saudis worry about Hezbollah too.
There’s always the oil business, too.
There is that pipeline that is supposed to go from Iran, through Iraq and Syria to a terminal on the Mediterranean. That competes with the one through Turkey, the various Russian projects and the one that will never get built, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Gulf of Iran.
I think what may be going on is a shift away from the Saudis. Maybe if things go swimmingly between the US and Iran they can put a joint pipeline from one of those ‘stans across Iran to the Gulf where they can supply natural gas to India.
I kind of see it as the CIA and the American oil business having been aligned with the Saudis. That’s the Bush/Bandar alliance. The Mossad and the CIA have been doing lots of dirty deals together for decades, think Iran-contra and October Surprise to understand the Likud-Republican alliance, historically.
Now, perhaps Obama was being pushed into aiding the House of Saud’s Wahhabists and the whole sarin gas thing was a CIA hook to force Obama’s hand. But he outwitted them with the whole Putin deal. Without American intervention the Saudis know their zealots will not win in Syria. And having played their hand and lost they might be worried about their own Shiite population.
Perhaps Obama represents those interests who lean towards reestablishing ties with Iran. Or maybe those interests are the same ones who’ve been historically cozy with the House of Saud and we’re witnessing an historic shift. Before the Russian Revolution Americans held the rights to those fields near Baku, so maybe we’ve gone full circle.
Maybe Obama and Big Oil are realigning over an approximation of what had been pre-WWI petroleum control. They may have decided that Saudi Arabia is becoming too much of a problem (the Shia majority in their own eastern coastal oil region).
Or maybe Obama is sticking his neck out by going against the CIA and Big Oil, never a good idea in the corridors of power here in America, in which case he’s got the biggest balls that have swung through Washington.
Or maybe not.
I find your interpretation entirely convincing.
And where you write “They may have decided that Saudi Arabia is becoming too much of a problem (the Shia majority in their own eastern coastal oil region).”
… I would say Saudi Arabia and Israel both. The constant destabilization efforts of their respective security forces (and our own) in the region have become too much of a drain on us, diplomatically, militarily, and financially. Their agendas have diverged too far from our agenda, and if there is no change in our policy this will only get worse.
I think the current administration understands that better US relations with a more forward-looking Iranian leadership might provide some balance in the region.
There’s always the oil business, too.
There is that pipeline that is supposed to go from Iran, through Iraq and Syria to a terminal on the Mediterranean. That competes with the one through Turkey, the various Russian projects and the one that will never get built, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Gulf of Iran.
I think what may be going on is a shift away from the Saudis. Maybe if things go swimmingly between the US and Iran they can put a joint pipeline from one of those ‘stans across Iran to the Gulf where they can supply natural gas to India.
I kind of see it as the CIA and the American oil business having been aligned with the Saudis. That’s the Bush/Bandar alliance. The Mossad and the CIA have been doing lots of dirty deals together for decades, think Iran-contra and October Surprise to understand the Likud-Republican alliance, historically.
Now, perhaps Obama was being pushed into aiding the House of Saud’s Wahhabists and the whole sarin gas thing was a CIA hook to force Obama’s hand. But he outwitted them with the whole Putin deal. Without American intervention the Saudis know their zealots will not win in Syria. And having played their hand and lost they might be worried about their own Shiite population.
Perhaps Obama represents those interests who lean towards reestablishing ties with Iran. Or maybe those interests are the same ones who’ve been historically cozy with the House of Saud and we’re witnessing an historic shift. Before the Russian Revolution Americans held the rights to those fields near Baku, so maybe we’ve gone full circle.
Maybe Obama and Big Oil are realigning over an approximation of what had been pre-WWI petroleum control. They may have decided that Saudi Arabia is becoming too much of a problem (the Shia majority in their own eastern coastal oil region).
Or maybe Obama is sticking his neck out by going against the CIA and Big Oil, never a good idea in the corridors of power here in America, in which case he’s got the biggest balls that have swung through Washington.
Or maybe not.
Because Islam is a serious contender to replace Christianity and Judaism is not.
Are you joking or are you serious?
In the latter case — no, it’s hardly that!
Protestantism, and especially the varieties of it that make up today’s religious right, have an absolutely intense theological interest in Jews and Israel, in the form of what is known as Christian Zionism. That is because in their belief it is bound up with their own salvation.
Americans convert to Judaism as well as to Islam. What the figures are I don’t know, but that’s hardly relevant.
Yes, I’m serious. In the first century, Judaism was a serious contender to Christianity, indeed Suetonius was unsure of the difference between them. Now Judaism is a relic while Islam is gaining converts and mosques sprout all over America. My village of about 60,000 in Suburban Chicago had one synagogue and no mosques twenty years ago. Today, it has no synagogue and two mosques and a Hindu temple. Still one Roman Catholic church and two Protestant Churches (one evangelical). That’s just one data point but of particular significance to me.
Still, at this point I think the demographic issues you speak of have very little to do with Saudi-American and Israel-American relations now or for the foreseeable future.
Islam is not making inroads on the Zionists — Christian (the vast majority) or Jewish — that support Netanyahu (and by default, the Saudis), and for the average American, the folklore of the Crusades still dominates, whether they know it or not.
“The Saudis, on the other hand, just hate the Iranians because they are Shia, and I suppose vice-versa. I suppose the Saudis worry about Hezbollah too.”
I think there’s some significant fear in SA (and Qatar, Bahrain, etc) that their internal Shia minority (or majority, for some) could link up to Iran.
Less than a century it took. Impressive. I wonder if any of our intrepid journalistic bulldogs will scan the list of elected officials Adelson has supported financially, and ask any of them what they think of their sugar daddy’s approach to foreign policy?
Advocating for crimes against humanity and violating the nation’s treaty obligations. Seems that should be something most elected officials would want to distance themselves from.
Sociopathic. He clearly sees the Iranian people as insects.
To be fair – he thinks of anyone not as rich as he is as an insect.
Tres nouveau riche. Gauche. Just working out his inferiority complex on a geo-political stage instead of trying to gain acceptance from the old money society guards.
He runs a casino. To run a casino, you have as a business model the theft of money from people. And casinos are theft businesses. Yes, the games are fair, but anyone who knows probability knows that the house cannot lose. So, it is guaranteed that when you walk in, you leave with less. This creates a mentality of contempt for the rubes and disdain for their intelligence and a clear notion that most people are beneath you.
To be fair, people continue to live down to the expectations of casino owners.
good observation about casino.
the underlying assumption is people are prey.
The customers are prey — as we are for banks, cable companies, phone companies, and many big corporations. Casinos have less of a veil in that they offer no ostensible service except to feed addictions.
In defense of casinos – which I generally despise – plenty of people use them knowing perfectly well they’ll lose money on average and calculate that as equivalent to, say, a ticket to a sporting event, the cost they pay for an activity they enjoy. And what, after all, is a casino but a state lottery with bells and whistles?
But there are plenty of people, also, who think they’re gonna get rich. They’re the prey, and casino operators count on them. They count on creating addictions, too – it’s part of the business model, like a tobacco company.
I’m not talking about the chumps who go to casinos. I’m talking about the carnivorous thieves who run them. You want to lose money and get a free drink? Sure, go to the casino. But to run a casino, and become a multi-billionaire like Adelson, you must have a view of humanity that basically is cannibalistic – the mass of humanity exist to give you money for nothing.
But, as usual, there is the Donald Trump Exception to prove that rule.
.
○ The “American rabbi” is a regular contributor to the Jerusalem Post
○ U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice Questioned on U.S. Role in Rwanda/Congo Violence
If it makes you feel any better, it should be noted that Shmuley Boteach is a highly controversial figure in the orthodox Jewish community, and that’s putting it mildly. He’s a chronic publicity-seeker.
Obviously, the best way to convince Iran they don’t need a nuclear deterrent is threatening to nuke Tehran.
Whatever happened to a horse head in the bed, or boiling the pet rabbit? God, I miss the old days.
Oh. Wait. Those were movies. And as we all know, movies exaggerate things. Right? Right?
Excellent point. Maybe that’s Netanyahu’s plan. The so-called threat from Iran is somehow Netanyahu’s last effective excuse for refusing to negotiate seriously with Palestinians, though I haven’t succeeded in penetrating the logic behind it. Anyway if he convinced them to build nukes, Israel could remain an empire forever.
To the east, nuclear Pakistan and India. To the west and northwest, Iraq and Afghanistan, occupied by nuclear US (which has shown a predilection for invasion and occupation). To the north, various ex-Soviet states with close ties to either the US (for the carbon) or nuclear Russia. To the northeast, nuclear China.
Why, oh why, would Iran, with a minuscule military budget compared to all of its neighbors, and massive carbon reserves that all of its neighbors covet intensely, want nuclear weapons?
And despite all that, there is no evidence that they do.
But, as with Saddam and WMDs, there’s a lot of incentive for their leadership’s paranoiac tendencies to think it’s a good idea to let everyone believe they do. And the “right” to pursue it has been used as a nationalist rallying cry for domestic political purposes, much as it was in India and Pakistan. They’re trying to have it both ways, which is a dangerous game.
I think this is the level of sophisticated foreign policy I had in middle school.
Nah. Maybe late elementary school.
Without Iran as bogeyman, now that the suicide bombings of a few years ago seem to have ended in Israel proper, Israelis wouldn’t elect hard liners at all. An entire wing of their political culture depends on the population feeling constantly under threat. Seems obvious to me. The Saudis are precariously balanced, with a deeply repressive political system that they know cannot last as arab spring wells up around them. They need a bogeyman too.
That’s true too.
Hmm. Last we heard of Sheldon Adelson, he was sure Obama getting elected would mean he would be railroaded into time spent in Federal Prison. And yet he is free to go about advocating nuclear war?
Of course he is nuts. The guy makes his money from an addiction, not too far removed from the behavior exhibited by those that play Wall Street. The stock market is simply a casino for the rich.
Let’s not look too close at the mentality at work here though. There’s too much money to be made! A legitimate question that was never answered: the money Sheldon was dumping into the political process was foreign money.
Remember when Bill Clinton got a lot of shit because a (much smaller) donor’s money was from China? The rationale, of course, being that naturally his first allegiance was to a country other than the US? (In this case, pretty obviously, that’s Israel.)
IOKIYAR.
I think Saudi Arabia is afraid Iran could replace them as America’s best oil buddy. While they’re both oppressive theocracies, Iran’s population has been secularized by the experience and it has a democratic tradition now that could easily support a moderate regime. Combined with a large emigre Iran population in the US, a moderate Iran could get along very well with the US.
OTOH, Saudi Arabia and the US are very opposed culturally and overlook their differences mostly because they have to. If we had an alternative source of oil, we’d be pretty antagonistic to the current regime. In particular, they might have to worry about a secessionist movement in the Shia-majority oil provinces which could potentially have the support of the US, Iran, and Iraq. That would be a mortal threat to them. The current situation, with Iran isolated and the US forced to be supportive, is vastly safer for them.
Yes, exactly — and that’s exactly why it puts pressure on them.
Ah. A crazy Jew wants us to nuke Iran for Israel. And he’s the GOP’s biggest contributor. Fancy that.
And the courtier press yawns. No sex.
.
○ Netanyahu’s ‘list of millionaires’ – Nr. 1 Sheldon Adelson nr. 2 Ronald Perelman nr. 3 Stephen Wynn nr. 4 Ronald Lauder nr. 5 Tamir Sapir
○ Senate Hearing Samantha Power – Disassociating herself from earlier remarks on Israel
Parts from my diary – Adelson: Ousting of A President for Israel’s National Security.
The current freakout is because there seems to be a deal eminent with regard to Iran that could potentially normalize relations between the US and Iran. That would mean that the US would have no strategic threats in the Middle East. None. It would also mean that there was potential, if Israel would engage, for Israel also to have no strategic threats in their neighborhood.
Which would undercut all of the justifications for massive US presence in the region and for multi-billion dollars of US military aid in the region.
This is freaking out bunches of people in US national security and foreign policy. It would be helpful to understand how those events would affect their past writings and their current jobs. Folks who got so much wrong and still get so much wrong and continue to make sizeable salaries for their “thinking”. And the dollar guys and politicians they serve.
Still, at this point I think the demographic issues you speak of have very little to do with Saudi-American and Israel-American relations now or for the foreseeable future.
Islam is not making inroads on the Zionists — Christian (the vast majority) or Jewish — that support Netanyahu (and by default, the Saudis), and for the average American, the folklore of the Crusades still dominates, whether they know it or not.