SC246-9

https://stephenlendman.org/2021/11/25/lying-with-malice-aforethought-in-mind/

Lying with Malice Aforethought in Mind

Ahead of going-nowhere JCPOA talks in Vienna next week, USCENTCOM General Kenneth McKenzie lied saying Iran is “very close” to being able to build a bomb.

He knows — or should know — that Israel is the only nuclear armed and dangerous Middle East country, that it maintains stockpiles of banned chemical, biological and other terror weapons.

He knows that Iran abhors nukes, wanting them eliminated everywhere.

He knows that not a shred of credible evidence suggests an intention by Iran to develop and produce nukes.

He knows that Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries, that the Islamic Republic prioritizes peace, stability, cooperative relations and compliance with the rule of law.

He knows that hegemon USA-dominated NATO and apartheid Israel wage forever wars on invented enemies.

He knows that Iran threatens no other countries.

Yet days ahead of nuclear deal talks set to resume in Vienna on November 29, he lied about Iran with malice aforethought, saying:

“They’re very close this time (sic). I think they like the idea of being able to break out (sic).”

Knowing the above remark is a bald-faced Big Lie, he said it anyway.

Why? Was it part of continued, knee-jerk US demonization of Iran in line with what’s gone on since its liberating 1979 revolution — gaining freedom from hegemon USA’s control?

Or was it with something more sinister in mind?

Was it another shot across the bow to further undermine already DOA talks?

Was it the Biden regime’s war department’s way of making sure they stay DOA?

Was it with already planned greater war on Iran by other means in mind, perhaps harshly enough to risk things turning hot?

Like his Pentagon counterparts, McKenzie is a warrior abhorrent of peace and stability.

Rising in the ranks fastest comes from smashing other nations.

War-making lets junior officers gain field grade status. They, in turn, have a better shot at gaining stars.

Generals are aided to get more of them.

Peace and stability slows or deters their ability to be the best that they can be at raping and destroying one nation after another.

Notably since the neoliberal 90s — especially post-the mother of all states-sponsored 9/11 false flags to that time — perpetual wars against invented enemies have been the hard-wired American way — with no end of them in prospect by hot and/or other means.

JCPOA talks are deadlocked going nowhere because Biden regime hardliners have no intention of complying with SC Res. 2231.

Its unanimous adoption made the landmark agreement binding international and US constitutional law.

Militantly hostile toward all nations free from their hegemonic control, dominant Biden regime hardliners have no intention of lifting illegally imposed sanctions on Iran or any other countries.

Imposing more for invented reasons is virtually certain.

Longstanding US hostility toward Iran shows zero chance of easing.

The same holds for China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Occupied Historic Palestine, and other nations free from the scourge of Washington’s hegemonic grip.

Its hostility has nothing to do with alleged threats to US national security that don’t exist. 

It’s all about US megalomaniacal rage to own planet earth, plunder its resources and exploit people at home and abroad worldwide as impoverished wage slaves, owning nothing.

By creating greater Middle East instability than already, McKenzie said CENTCOM is prepared to confront Iran militarily if ordered to go this far.

Undiplomatic Biden regime “diplomats are in the lead on this, but Central Command always has a variety of plans that we could execute, if directed,” he said, especially if already DOA JCPOA talks fail.

According to White House special envoy for Iran Robert Malley, “(i)f they start getting too close for comfort…we will not be prepared to sit idly (sic).”

In stark contrast to hegemon USA’s illegal abandonment of the JCPOA — E3 regimes following suit in deference to their higher power in Washington — Iran remains in full compliance with its nuclear deal obligations.

On Tuesday, interventionist Blinken’s spokesman Price defied reality, saying:

The Biden regime calls for “a mutual return to compliance with the” JCPOA (sic) — ignoring that hegemon USA and E3 vassal states alone are in breach of their obligations.

Price compounded his arrogance, insolence and hostility toward Iran by calling for “permanently preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” — that the world community of nations knows it doesn’t seek.

There’s no ambiguity about its legitimate nuclear program with no military component.

There’s no evidence suggesting a change of policy, nothing indicating noncompliance with its NPT obligations.

It’s well known that Iran fully complies with what’s required under international law across the board.

Its geopolitical agenda is in stark contrast to US-dominated NATO and apartheid Israeli breaches as official policy of their ruling regimes.

Price unacceptably threatened Iran on Tuesday, saying:

“(I)f the Iranians, through their actions or through their inactions (sic), demonstrate or suggest that they lack that good faith (sic), that they lack that clarity of purpose (sic), we’ll have to turn to other means (sic).” 

“We have a variety of other means (sic). We’re discussing those with our” colonized vassal states.

Separately his boss Blinken menacingly said: “(A)ll of the options necessary to deal with this (nonexistent) problem” are on the table.

Do Biden regime hardliners intend setting the Middle East more ablaze than already?

Do they have greater naked aggression in mind on multiple fronts?

Will they destroy planet earth by attempting to own it?

A Final Comment

On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh tweeted the following:

The Biden regime “manufactures fake news.”

“Orchestrating photo op to sell fake narrative about need for ‘mutual return to JCPOA’ doesn’t change reality that unlike the US, Iran never left the deal.”

“Spin won’t get the US anywhere. Wise decisions—like ending max failure—just may.”

Iran’s involvement in Vienna talks is with one key goal in mind — removal of all illegally imposed sanctions for political reasons alone.

With no prospect of Biden regime hardliners easing their war on Iran by other means, chances of removing what never should have been imposed in the first place are virtually nil.

Note: Malley separately tweeted the following hostile remarks:

“Met with the E3 political directors and senior officials from Egypt, Jordan, and the GCC to discuss 2 paths open to Iran: continued nuclear escalation & crisis, or mutual return to the JCPOA, creating opportunities for regional economic & diplomatic ties. Time to choose is short.”

In response, former Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif slammed his attempt to reinvent the historical JCPOA record, tweeting:

“@USEnvoyIran is exploiting the change of administration in Iran & ‘memory lapse’ of E3/EU to rewrite recent history.” 

“Iran never left to do a ‘mutual return to JCPOA.’ The US (and E3) did.” 

Along with apartheid Israel, they’re notorious for blaming invented enemies for their own high crimes and other wrongdoing against them.

....

https://www.oftwominds.com/blognov21/collapse11-21.html

We Don't Talk About Collapse To Revel In It, We Talk About Collapse to Prevent It 

Those of us who discuss collapse are generally dismissed as doom-and-gloomers, the equivalent of people who watch dash-cam videos of vehicle crashes all day, reveling in disaster. Why would we spend so much effort discussing collapse if we didn't long for it?

Those dismissing us all as doom-and-gloomers hoping for collapse have it backward: yes, some long for collapse as a real-life disaster movie, but those discussing collapse in systems terms are trying to avoid it, not revel in it.

If the system is vulnerable beneath a surface stability, then the only way to avoid negative consequences is to understand those vulnerabilities / fragilities and work out systemic changes that reduce those risks.

It's not the analysis of vulnerabilities that causes collapse, it's refusing to look at vulnerabilities because to do so is considered negative. Why not be optimistic and just go with the consensus that the status quo is impervious to serious disruption? Can-do optimism is all that's needed to overcome any spot of bother.

The problem is humanity's propensity to confuse optimism with magical thinking. This confusion is particularly visible in any discussion of energy. The status quo holds that every problem has a technological solution, and doubting this optimism is dismissed as naysaying: "why can't you be positive?"

I consider myself an optimist in the sense that I see solutions that are within reach if we change our definition of the problem so we can enable new solutions. I consider myself a practical, pragmatic optimist because I understand from life experience that systemic solutions generally require arduous transformations that will demand great effort and sacrifice. In many cases, this process is mostly a series of failures and disappointments that are the essential parts of a steep learning curve.

But little of this basic awareness is visible in media descriptions of "solutions."

Thus every advance in a lab somewhere is immediately touted as the globally scalable solution: algae-based fuel, modular nuclear reactors, new battery designs, etc., in an endless profusion of technologies which are 1) not even to the prototype stage 2) cannot be scaled 3) limited to specific uses 4) require the construction of new infrastructure 5) consume vast resources to be built, including hydrocarbons 6) are not renewable as they must be replaced every 10-15 years 7) are not cost-effective once externalities are included 8) are intrinsically impractical due to complexity, dependency on rare minerals, etc.

All this "optimism" is actually 95% magical thinking, as the practical, real-world realities are dismissed or glossed over: "oh, they'll figure all that out."

In other words, throw enough money and talent at a problem ("we went to the moon, so anything is possible!") and it will always be solved in a way that's bigger and better. This is not optimism, this is magical thinking being passed off as optimism. Real optimism is cautious and contingent, hyper-aware that solutions are a dependency chain that only reach cost-effective scalability if an entire chain of circumstances and advances line up just right.

There's another source of confusing optimism and magical thinking: being too successful for too long. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove discussed this in his book Only the Paranoid Survive: once an organization reckons it has succeeded and has everything necessary to continue achieving success without making any systemic changes, then it's doomed to decay and eventual collapse.

When success becomes the default then all the hard parts of success--sacrifices made, failures mopped up, gambles that didn't pay off and gambles that did--melt away and all that's left is a sunny confidence that somebody somewhere will work out a solution that scales up to solve the problem for all of us: "we have top people working on it--top people!"

Meanwhile, back in the real world, it takes 20 years to get a new bridge approved and built in the U.S., 20 years for a new subway line approved and built and 20 years to get a new landfill approved.

We're supposed to make the leap to a renewable zero-net-carbon future in 20 years and we can't even build one new-design nuclear reactor prototype in 20 years, even as we'd need hundreds of new reactors to replace a significant slice of hydrocarbon consumption.

But if you dare to point out this painfully visible discrepancy between the real-world difficulties in getting a single prototype built in less than 20 years and the claim that we're going to transition away from hydrocarbons in 20 years, then you're a doom-and-gloomer, a naysayer who derives some bitter pleasure from shooting down optimists working on painless, sacrifice-free techno-solutions.

The essence of magical thinking is the belief that the long dependency chain between the idea/lab experiment and a solution that's cost-effective and scales up to serve everyone will always fall into place because it's always fallen into place in the past, and so there's no reason to doubt that all the pieces will fall into place going forward.

This is magical thinking because it has zero interest in the real-world constraints embedded in each link in the long chain. If you bring up any of these constraints, the magical thinking "optimist" is immediately annoyed and accuses you of being a bitter naysayer. The idea that there might be real-world constraints that "top people" can't overcome is rejected as naysaying.

The possibility that there might be systemic constraints is rejected out of hand because "anything's possible if we throw enough money and talent at it." There will always be a solution / substitute which will be affordable and sacrifice-free.

That all the previous examples of this were enabled by our exploitation of the easiest-to-extract hydrocarbon wealth is overlooked as a footnote.

This leaves us all frustrated. Those of us grounded in the real world are frustrated that if we bring up any real-world constraints--for example, those wondrous untapped ore deposits that are going to make all these new techno-wonders cheap and quick and easy are far from paved highways, far from major river or bluewater ports, far from processing plants, and far from sources of the millions of liters of diesel fuel that will be needed onsite to extract the ores--then we're bitter naysayers who can't bear optimism and easy success, while the magical thinking "optimists" are frustrated that we're not accepting the technocratic religion that "top people" and a tsunami of money will solve any problem.

One thing I've noticed is "top people" (actual experts with long experience) are never the ones hyping some new technology as the pain-free affordable solution unless they're paid shills of special interests. Then they hype nuclear reactors as the solution without mentioning the problem of what to do with the waste, to name one constraint "optimists" inevitably ignore.

In the real world, the hard part is getting every link of the long dependency chain to work reliably and at a cost that's sustainable/affordable. Success comes not from blithely dismissing constraints as naysaying but from accepting most potential solutions will fail due to issues for which there is no cost-effective, practical, scalable fix.

On a systemic level, this requires questioning whether the system itself has to change if we want a different result. If one possible result of the current system is collapse, realizing the system itself must be changed isn't doom-and-gloom, it's problem-solving.