Gareth Porter


Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for IPS News, discusses the Israeli Mossad chief’s admission that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an “existential threat;” the conflict between policy “realists” in Israel’s military and intelligence community and the “messianic” hawks aligned with Netanyahu and Ehud Barak; why a Republican presidential victory in 2012 (excepting Ron Paul) would advance Netanyahu’s push for war; how ever-harsher sanctions are leading to a complete shutdown of Iran’s oil exports (which could provoke a reaction like Japan’s in 1941); and why Obama would be “crazy” to push for a Libyan-style regime change in Syria.

MP3 here. (28:43)

Gareth Porter is an independent historian and journalist. He is the author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. His articles appear on Counterpunch, Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and

18 thoughts on “Gareth Porter”

  1. It's just not enough that American politicians and media constantly affirm their love and devotion to Israel. Israelis won't be satisfied until America actually proves its undying devotion by committing war crimes and genocide together with Israel on the Muslim populations of the world. Only then will they be reassured that our love is true.

    1. No, you're wrong. The US can do all of that for Israel and they would still demand more pounds of flesh. Do you remember what Harry Truman said about Jewish supremacists? I'm paraphrasing here but it goes something along these lines: "Jesus Christ couldn't please them, how in the hell am I supposed to please them?"

  2. U$israel(Sham) is Buildincc:
    Iran is the war pivot
    Iraq is the tactical pivot
    Egypt is the strategic pivot
    OilArabia is the prize

  3. From my perspective, Obama has already been cornered on this issue. I think the chances of the Iranian regime voluntarily giving up their “enrichment program” (whether Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons is a separate issue) are roughly equivalent to the chances of Mr. Obama traveling to Tehran and publically getting on his hands and knees begging Khomeini to voluntarily give up the program—kissing his feet in front of photographers at the same time. These scenarios are simply not going to happen for domestic political reasons. Even if the decision makers in the Iranian regime wanted to give up the nuclear enrichment program, it seems unlikely they can do so without seriously compromising the regime itself.

  4. Mr. Obama has already made it clear a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, and the accepted spin is the clock is ticking down fast as to when Iran will have inevitably nukes. Since the Iranians will not be giving up there enrichment program, the only way for Mr. Obama to be somewhat consistent as time goes on is to change the spin and say he is certain Iran’s enrichment program is for peaceful purposes (which seems extremely unlikely) and/or claim a nuclear armed Iran is benign (which seems even less likely than an Obama trip to Iran to kiss Khomeini’s feet). Virtually all of the Republican candidates have gone "all in" on this Iran war thing. The current Israeli administration is definitely all in on this. If Ron Paul actually is perceived to be a serious Presidential contender, it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis strike Iran before the election.

    1. Wake up Benny Trollo! If Iran even wanted, they don't, a nuke, it would take at least 8 more years of unimpeded work! U say it wouldn't surprise u if the Israelis strike Iran before the election??? Israel would do it if they could, they can't and only the US can do it and that will probably not happen anytime soon, and go back to searching the web for more sites that criticize Zionism.

      1. Jon, I'm not entirely sure where you are getting this 8 year timeframe from; however, that is not the timeframe being discussed by either the Israeli Administration, nor the relevant US pundits and decision makers in power, nor the IAEA for that matter. It's important to keep in mind "facts" do not matter in this situation. Additionally, Israel is more than capable of launching a military strike on Iran. I'm guessing you are assuming rationality and effectiveness is a primary consideration of the people who are currently in power and can make this happen. If so, your assumption is deeply flawed. It was not "rational" to send 100 k + US troops into Iraq to dispose of WMDs which did not exist—particularly when there were UN weapons inspectors on the ground and in Iraq at the time; yet it was done anyway. The march to War has already begun, and I'm not quite sure there is a way to stop, much less reverse, the momentum of the train at this point. We'll see what happens…

  5. I am not even sure that Israel sincerely believes that Iran is a real threat. Israel has become a perverse country that "hates" other countries on a level that doesn't make sense to healthy, balanced minds.
    Israel seems to have developed a hatred for Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, etc. based upon some of their own internal irrationality and then they obsess upon their own hatred until it becomes a "real" threat in their own minds.
    We need to steer clear of these psychopaths.

    1. I agree but its the same irrationality the US has followed. Israel is a reflection of America, I think in many ways. They've learned to manipulate a Superpower. They can act on the same level with out dealing with any of the responsibilities the US has to deal with. It is a Superpower by proxy if that makes any sense…which makes them much more dangerous then the US.

  6. The Russian NATO-Ambassador went to Washington and asked: If people from Mars had disarmed Iran completely, would you still deploy the missiles in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland ? They answered: Yes, that will be made as decided. Der Spiegel, 49/2011. Bob Aldridge Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.