Eli Clifton


Eli Clifton, writer on U.S. foreign policy at the Washington bureau of IPS News, discusses LobeLog’s Daily Talking Points on Iran-U.S. relations, the designed-to-fail nature of sanctions meant to justify military action, why Israel isn’t threatened or worried about Iran’s nuclear program and why there’s no law preventing Iran (as a sovereign nation) from withdrawing from the NPT and building nuclear weapons.

MP3 here. (19:20)

Eli Clifton writes on U.S. foreign policy as well as trade and finance at the Washington bureau of IPS. His articles have also appeared on Right Web and in the South China Morning Post. Eli has a B.A. in Political Science from Bates College and an MSc in International Political Economy from the London School of Economics.

7 thoughts on “Eli Clifton”

  1. There are many diffs between Iraq & Iran.

    But one important one is that there are several not insignificant countries that are determined to treat Iran like a normal country despite how much the U.S. twists their arm. Those include BRIC, that have real economic reasons for trading with Iran. And that puts some brake on what Israel & U.S. can do.

    So I would look for how the U.S. starts to vililfy those countries as one indicator that the attack-Iran scenario is becoming near term.

    1. What do you think Obama is doing, with immense new pressures on Russia and China, in the case of China, amounting to war brinksmanship?

  2. But the recent sanctions resolution gives the US the right to inspect Iranian ships come September as Fidel Castro said. And then the war is on. Castro said that the Iranian response will be to sink the US fleet in the Persian Gulf and the US will go mad and use nuclear weapons. How on earth did the war party manage to get this text into the resolution ?

  3. Re: Israeli Brain Drain as existential threat

    Scott-I’m just perusing the Leveretts’ article on Goldberg’s piece (“The Weak Case for War with Iran”) from about 10 days ago. This article supports Eli’s recollection that the above-captioned argument was made by Esphraim Sneh and Ehud Barak, rather than Netanyahu and Barak, as was Scott’s recollection.

    Not that this is definitive: I haven’t got ready (i.e. convenient) access to the original Goldberg piece right now, so it is entirely possible that Bibi was quoted there and not re-quoted by the Leveretts.

    Anyway, as Scott pointed out, even if he’s wrong about this it doesn’t detract from his larger point that this is an argument that is astonishingly being advanced by senior Israeli government officials as a valid component of Israel’s causus belli with Iran.

    Keep it up Scott, Antiwar.com and my fellow antiwarriors (from across the traditional political spectrum, I am pleased and proud to be able to point out).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.