theAnalysis.news

Noam and Daniel discuss the rising fascist movement and its roots in American history. They analyze the significance of the coming elections and the necessity to vote against overt fascism and continue to organize for more profound political change. Ellsberg and Chomsky on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/anti-regime-protests-and-the-devastating-effects-of-us-sanctions-in-iran\/#arve-youtube-kfp3jp8tl_q6347018939d75894362305","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/kFp3Jp8tl_Q?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheanalysis.news&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1","name":"Anti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in Iran","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Talia-Assal-50.jpg","uploadDate":"2022-10-05T13:38:49+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Iranians protest brutal repression and why U.S. statements of solidarity are empty without a reversal of crushing sanctions. Assal Rad joins Talia Baroncelli on theAnalysis.news. English TranscriptSpanish TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeGuestMusic Talia Baroncelli Hi, I\u2019m your guest host, Talia Baron"} Iranians protest brutal repression and why U.S. statements of solidarity are empty without a reversal of crushing sanctions. Assal Rad joins Talia Baroncelli on theAnalysis.news. .kt-post-loop_380903-be .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_380903-be .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Does the U.S. Owe Reparations to Afghanistan, Should U.S. Troops Leave? – Bennis & Wilkerson Israel’s War on Palestine – Ali Abunimah Abby Martin’s “Gaza Fights for Freedom” Trump & Neocons Want to Destroy Iranian Society – Trita Parsi Empire Update: Afghanistan/Somalia Withdrawal Scam; Trump Weighs WWIII – Abby Martin Empire Update: Did Trump Order Iran Assassination? – Abby Martin Biden’s Scary Foreign Policy Picks: A Blast From War Crimes Past – Abby Martin Ending the War on Yemen? The Disintegration of Israeli Politics The Oil Interests Behind the War in Yemen Biden’s Doublespeak About Ending Yemen War -Abby Martin Is Protecting the Murderous Crown Prince in the National Interest? – Phyllis Bennis and Larry Wilkerson US Bombing in Syria Illegal; Biden Should Rejoin Iran Agreement Now – Bennis/Wilkerson Biden’s Syria Deception: The Norwegian Connection Is Israel a Strategic Asset or Liability? – Wilkerson Why Did 72% of Israelis Want Attack on Gaza to Continue? Who Rules Israel – Shir Hever pt2 Fighting for Peace and Equality in Israel – Rula Daood and Alon-Lee Green From a Zionist Youth to Outspoken Critic of a Jewish State – Michael Ratner on RAI Pt 2/7 U.S. Sanctions Strengthen Iranian Theocracy – Hamid Dabashi Is BDS Effective Strategy? – Shir Hever Pt 3/3 Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/2 Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disillusionment – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 4/7 U.S. Refuses to Accept Iran as a Regional Power – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 1/3 Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 2/2 U.S. Attempts to Destabilize Iran Have Failed – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 2/3 Revealing 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo U.S. Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 5/7 Did Bush Cheney Create a Culture of Not Wanting to Know – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 7/7 Israel Wants U.S. to Weaken and Isolate Iran – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 3/3 After Forty Years of U.S. Destruction of Afghanistan, it’s Time for Reparations Why David Clennon Refused Audition for Hit & Run, a Netflix Israeli Co-pro Pt 1/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan and 9/11 Pt 2/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan, 9/11 & Climate Change Fmr. Israeli Intel. Chief Says Palestinian Israeli Conflict Greater Risk than Nuclear Iran Pt 2/4 Syria’s Six Wars and Humanitarian Catastrophe – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/4 Vietnam War Created Middle East Activist – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/4 One State or Two, Solution Must be Based on Palestinian Rights Phyllis Bennis on RAI Pt 4/4 Biden Bows to the Saudis – Trita Parsi & Annelle Sheline Awakened by the Palestinian Intifada – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (1/5) Palestinians can Learn From the African America Struggle – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (2/5) Does Israel Have the Right to Exist as a Jewish State? – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (3/5) Class Struggle in Palestine – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (4/5) Justice Requires an End to Israeli Jewish Supremacy Over Palestinians – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (5/5) Al Qaeda and the Saudi Agenda – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (1/2) Are the Saudis Fueling a Sunni-Shia War? – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (2/2) Anti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in Iran English Transcript Spanish Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music Talia Baroncelli Hi, I’m your guest host, Talia Baroncelli, in Berlin, and you’re listening to theAnalysis.news. I’ll be guest hosting a few episodes for theAnalysis. I’ll tend to be focusing on new migration issues, Iranian politics, as well as the contradictions of global capitalism. My political interests are shaped by my family history, as my mother and her family were advised to escape Iran during the Iranian revolution. My father’s side is primarily working class; Italians and Serbians. I grew up in Canada, but I’ve been living in Berlin for the past 12 years or so. I’ve been working at an NGO, working with refugees, primarily from Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran. I am now doing a Ph.D. in new border practices, the security regime, as well as the surveillance of asylum seekers. I’m currently working as a researcher at the University of Graz.  That is enough about me. Please don’t forget to donate by going to our website at theAnalysis.news and by signing up for our mailing list. In a few seconds, I’ll be joined by Assal Rad to speak about the ongoing protests in Iran.  I’m joined now by Assal Rad. She is a historian and the research director of the National Iranian American Council. She is the author of a recent book called The State of Resistance: Politics, Culture, and Identity in Modern Iran. Thanks so much for joining us, Assal. Assal Rad Thank you. Thank you for having me. Talia Baroncelli So on September 13, Mahsa Amini died in hospital after being beaten to death by the morality police, or at least allegedly being beaten in their custody. Since then, we’ve seen protests across Iran. We’ve also seen protests not just in urban centers but also in rural areas. I wanted to speak to you about the resentment on the part of the Iranian people towards the regime, as well as some of the socioeconomic factors which have undergirded the protest so far. Assal Rad Yes, of course. The first thing to– when we talk about what happened specifically to Mahsa Amini because I think there are so many layers of stories that are going on right now. Of course, it was ignited by this horrific event, by the killing of Mahsa Amini. The one thing I keep wanting to emphasize is that I think sometimes there are people– and I understand, it’s a [inaudible 00:01:51]. Eyewitnesses say that she was beaten by the morality police, the so-called morality police, in the back of the van. Iranian news media tries to release videos saying, “look, she was walking around.” The bottom line of it, regardless of whatever anybody comes up with, is she should never have been detained. She should never have been in the position where the positioning of her headscarf would be a reason to detain this young woman. Clearly, if she had not been detained, if she had not been harassed by the morality police, she would be alive today. This is clearly the responsibility of not just the individuals who detained her, but of a state that allows these types of draconian laws, that imposes these laws on its people, but also that allows violence against its civilians with impunity. A system that has no accountability for its officials when they carry out violence against their own people. What we are seeing in protests is indicative of that. I wanted to put that out at the very beginning. Cross narratives don’t matter. She should never have been there. It is the responsibility of the state, and the state has created a space in which violence is allowed. Talia Baroncelli Could you explain the morality police a bit more? I think there is a difference between the morality police and, for example, the Revolutionary Guard. Who actually constitutes them? Assal Rad The Revolutionary Guard, the IRGC is part of the military apparatus of the state. There’s a traditional military, and then the IRGC has a totally different function, but those are military branches of the state. Then you have the policing of the state, which also has different– you have traffic police versus [inaudible 00:03:52], which is more broad-based, what the police do in any state. The morality police, Gasht-e-Ershad, from my experience and from what I’ve seen from other people, for the most part, they’re there to enforce the outer appearance, the dress code, and the attire. This is focused on women, even though there’s also a dress code for men. The dress code is much more strict for women. For instance, men can’t wear shorts. Clearly, neither can women. My point is to say that the dress code goes beyond just women, but it is much stricter for women, and that’s who is targeted and enforced by the morality police. This is something that was established in the early years of the revolution when these laws were first imposed. I think everything was followed more strictly. Over time, people resisted this because they didn’t want it. The first protest against the hijab was the day after the hijab, compulsory hijab was announced. This is not new. It’s not like Iranian women suddenly woke up one day and thought, we want to have autonomy. They wanted autonomy the entire time. Over the years, you have something like Gasht-e-Ershad, the morality police, to enforce those laws, as people themselves, in their everyday practices, start to loosen the way that they wear it as very simple acts of defiance. Talia Baroncelli Under the current President, Ebrahim Raisi, he’s an ultra-conservative. I think the morality police have been enforcing some of those laws much more diligently than they had been in the past. I know Iran is still a bit different from places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, where women have to wear a full chador or a complete long face covering, and they can show a bit of their hair. I think there has been a bit of leniency in the past, but now it seems like they’re really cracking down on how women wear head scarves. Assal Rad Yeah, it depends on who– the political climate and the administration in power will impact how these laws are enforced. The law, as it’s written, is very strict. It’s just the oval of your face, your hands, that’s it. That’s all that’s supposed to be showing. That’s the way that the law is written. If there is leniency, that leniency comes– again, I emphasize this because it’s so important to understand that there’s constant resistance coming from the Iranian people. It doesn’t have to be in the form of large-scale protests. Again, there are everyday simple acts or acts of defiance. The leniency comes from the fact that you just have millions of people who aren’t doing it the way that you want to do it. Depending on who is in power, they will create an atmosphere that imposes that more or less strictly. Of course, Ebrahim Raisi is, like you said, an ultra-conservative. It’s not just this that we’re seeing an increase in repression since his administration has come into power. Now, that doesn’t mean there was no repression before his administration. There clearly was, but we’re talking about scale and increase. A few months ago, you saw filmmakers being arrested, [inaudible 00:07:20] being arrested. Talia Baroncelli [inaudible 00:07:25]. Assal Rad Yeah, across the board, there is more pressure on, and there’s more silencing of dissent, any form of dissent. That is happening. While it happened before, it’s simply happening more now. It’s more strict. There’s more imposition of the regulations. The way that Mahsa was handled, in and of itself, shows you why that climate is so important. Why who is in power, the discourse they use, and the environment they create are so important. I tend to, especially for an audience that is Western, make parallels so we can understand it. If you look at the atmosphere– a lot of people said things like, “oh, when [Donald] Trump became President, all the people who were racist came out.” I said, “well, it’s not just that. It’s also that he was emboldening that discourse and using it.” You also create an atmosphere where people might feel emboldened to do and act in certain ways. You have to consider that in the Iranian case as well. While all of those things may have existed before, all the laws may have existed before, this particular administration is imposing a larger broad-based crackdown on Iranian society. Talia Baroncelli Also, looking at this particular administration, one of your colleagues, Trita Parsi, recently wrote in an article that “this regime is pretty much allergic to any sort of reform.” I wonder if you think that reform or whether reform can be enacted or achieved from within, or if Iranians have to try and bring about some– I don’t want to say regime change because that would assume that there would be an outside actor, but some sort of revolution or even a small change in the government. Is that possible? Assal Rad I think sometimes we get caught up in the semantics. A revolution would be the toppling– typically, it is described as the toppling of a system. Historically, when we look at revolutions, it was the toppling of monarchies because feudal systems were the way of governance. Then it introduces these ideas like constitutionalism and self-governance. That’s like the classic notion of revolutions that you see in things like the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Of course, that’s not the only way that you can define it– the Iranian Revolution in 1979 was a revolution at the top of the monarchy. It didn’t establish a democratic state but established the Islamic Republic, which is not only theocratic, so it’s not only non-secular. The idea of [inaudible 00:10:06] that was imposed into the constitution also made it an authoritarian state by its very nature, by its very definition, in the way that it was in the constitution. Can it be amended? Can the Iranian constitution be amended? It has, but not necessarily for a good cause. For instance, in 1989, when there’s– only thus far, in the history of the post-revolution, there’s been one transition of power from the Supreme Leader; from [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini to [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei. I know their names sound familiar or sound the same, but they’re different people. Talia Baroncelli They’re not the same person. Assal Rad Oftentimes people say Khomeini said this. I’m like, Khomeini has been dead for a very long time. This is a different guy. The constitution was amended because Khomeini did not have the religious credentials to be able to take that mantle. It was amended. During the Khatami administration in the early 2000s, he introduced twin bills to try and give more power to the office of the President and reduce power, say, like the Guardian Council. This concept exists within it, but whether or not the system, and by the system, I mean those who wield the most power within it, will actually allow it is a different question. What you’re looking at in these protests is Iranians asking for fundamental change. Talia Baroncelli Right. Assal Rad Yes. First of all, even if the only thing they were asking for, which it isn’t, but even if the only thing they were asking for was the freedom of their attire and getting rid of the morality police and the dress code, by making the veil a choice, that arguably is revolutionary. That arguably is a fundamental change because it’s such an important symbol within the foundation of that state, the control of women’s bodies, just the control, the amount of control that it tries to wield over the lives of ordinary citizens. So that act in and of itself, I think you could describe in that way. Talia Baroncelli It would also be similar to the revolution because initially, the revolution was primarily led by women who wanted to be able to wear a hijab because they felt that they weren’t able to wear the headscarf under the Shah rule. There are some parallels there with this revolutionary act of protesting what they can and cannot wear. Assal Rad Yeah, I mean, the pendulum swing is important to understand in the Iranian case. It was his father in the 1930s that actually outlawed the chador and banned it. It was illegal. They actually stripped women of them at that time. The last Shah, his son, it wasn’t that it was banned because it wasn’t. It wasn’t that you couldn’t wear a hijab. It’s that because of the nature of the society and the imposition of Westernization, to a certain extent. It wasn’t that group of people; if they were more conservative, if they were more religious-minded, if they wanted to wear the scarf, they felt discriminated against. Disenfranchised versus something being– it’s not illegal to do it, but there are these differences in the way that society treats people with it. Maybe you’d have more difficulty getting a job if you were wearing it, for instance. Talia Baroncelli [inaudible 00:13:41] not as Western or educated in doing so. Assal Rad For the same reasons, those types of discrimination exist now. If the person that’s hiring you is Islamaphobic and a woman is choosing to wear a headscarf, even in the United States, that might cause discrimination against them because that’s the sort of environment we live in. It became a symbol of resistance because part of the way that Iranian revolutionaries, not all of them, but certain segments of them, understood it was as a symbol of resistance. It is seen that way in other contexts, in other historical contexts, and in other countries as well. That’s why at the core of it is choice.  You see, in these protests right now, people who are coming in support of Iranian women include Iranian women who choose to wear the chador. They’re wearing a chador. You can clearly see their own personal point of view, but they support women’s choices. It comes down to a question of choice, and that’s what they haven’t been given for the last 43 years. Talia Baroncelli  So maybe, shifting our gaze slightly westward now, maybe we could speak about the Left in Europe as well as in North America, where you currently are. I’ve seen some voices on the Left arguing that these protests can’t possibly be organic if they’re exclusively focusing on human rights or women’s rights and that they somehow detract from the history of U.S. intervention and repression and history of Western coups in the region. So I’m wondering how we could walk and chew gum at the same time and acknowledge the fact that these protests are organic and there is a ground solid support for changing some things in Iran, and people are suffering from the sanctions and from other Western political restrictions. Maybe we could speak about that as well. Assal Rad Yeah, of course. I’ve been attacked by some leftists. Not everybody. There are a lot of people that I know on the Left who are very much in solidarity with the protests. I’ve also gotten attacks that by showing solidarity with the Iranian women, by posting about these protests, I am somehow supporting an imperialist takeover of Iran. That is extraordinarily frustrating for so many reasons. First of all, I’m very outspoken about my views on U.S. imperialism; that’s one issue. There are other issues. Have sanctions devastated the Iranian economy, creating pressure on ordinary people from the middle to the working class? Yes, there’s no doubt about that. Is the intention of sanctions as a policy, very often, to foment unrest and instability in countries? Yes. Did sanctions force women to wear a hijab? No. Did sanctions create the morality police? No. Did sanctions create an atmosphere in Iran where those who wield power can use violence against their own citizens with impunity? No. Those are all the responsibilities of Iranian officials. I think there’s a problem on both sides when you try to undermine legitimate grievances, legitimate issues that affect human rights. On the other side, on the flip side, I take issue with people on the Left who make this argument. You’re completely just undermining their agency as if these people are not out there knowingly risking their lives for– for what? They’re doing it for themselves. They’re doing it for their country and their cause. They’re doing it for their freedom and their future. That’s not solidarity. We should be able to show solidarity in every situation. On the flip side, you have appropriated these protests for the advancement of exactly what we’re talking about, which is people saying things like, “see, sanctions were the best idea. That’s what we said. We were right.” To me, the problem with that is we use human rights language to talk about what’s going on right now. This is centered around human rights: the right of any individual for their own autonomy, for their own freedom, women’s rights, the right to expression, and the right to protest. All of this is framed in human rights language, but so is the language about sanctions. That’s the thing that’s so frustrating. If you were for human rights, you can’t selectively do that because human rights language also was used to frame why sanctions were problematic, why sanctions are when they’re broad-based and unilateral when they’re nationwide, and how it adversely impacts civilian populations. Collective punishment is against international law. There has to be some way of talking about these things with some level of consistency. I think on both sides, there have been problematic takes, and that’s why I’ve tried to emphasize listening to what Iranians are saying. The Iranians are not talking about sanctions right now. That’s not their current issue. We should very easily be able to get behind and have solidarity with people who are demanding their most basic rights. It should not be a controversial take. Talia Baroncelli Yeah, if the West really cared so much about human rights in Iran, then they wouldn’t have imposed sanctions during the Covid 19 pandemic, which cut off so many necessary humanitarian supplies, medicine, or other things to Iran. There is a bit of a double standard there. Assal Rad Well, you have a campaign– Israeli women standing with Iranian women. While that is positive, I’m sure there are women in Israel, there are Israeli women who very genuinely stand with Iranian women and who may even stand with Palestinian women. The function of a state that itself carries out human rights abuses and then uses this as a way to differentiate itself. That’s what I’m saying. There’s just so much disingenuous in the way some of the support is coming in too. Let’s just apply these things to everyone. Human rights are extremely important, but they’re not only important in Iran. They are just as important in Iran as they are everywhere else. They are equally important in every context, in every situation. Talia Baroncelli Well, that’s also one of the negative aspects of social media where everyone’s trying to virtue signal and put themselves out there and make themselves somehow part of whatever is going on to draw attention to themselves. So yeah, you definitely see people basically posting about what’s going on in Iran for their own personal gain or to gain media attention. Assal Rad You have U.S. politicians who are quite literally stripping women of their rights in the United States as we speak, tweeting about women’s rights in Iran. I’m not comparing the two situations. Women in the U.S. have a great deal more autonomy and rights than they do in Iran. I’m not paralleling that concept, but it is still– you can imagine as an American woman listening to what is happening in this country and listening to politicians who are actively seeking the policies that have just undone decades of women’s rights in the U.S. It’s not a small deal. It’s still a very big deal, especially for the lives that it’s going to impact in the U.S. It’s a women’s rights issue. It’s a global issue. It is frustrating to see this kind of– yeah, it’s like almost like double speak. I agree with you here, but then why don’t you agree when it’s our own population? It’s our own thing. So yeah, you see this across-the-board; people using this in various ways to fit there– to your point, just to get clicks or to get likes, so to speak. Talia Baroncelli Right, well, you’re a historian, so would you say that the current protests actually constitute a social movement, or is it really not yet at that stage? Is this something that’s continuous and can’t really be characterized in that manner? Assal Rad I think you could characterize it in that manner because I actually don’t think that– the initial protest might be a reaction to an event, but they are part of a very long history of protest movements, social movements, and political movements in Iran. If you look at the hijab specifically, then you can go back all the way to 1979, the first International Women’s Day and the first time women protested against it. If you’re looking at women’s rights, that goes back decades as well. The women’s rights movement in Iran is part of the reason why they finally got the right to vote in the 1960s. If you look at social and political movements in Iran, that goes back over a century. It goes back to the idea of constitutionalism at the core of it. When we say that what they are protesting is the system at its core, because the underlying thread in all of these protests and all of these movements is people, as a country and as a nation, want a government that is representative of them in the sense that it is acting their will. They believe– so the audacity for Iranians to believe that they should be independent of foreign powers, that they should have control over their resources, that their government should be a government that is governed by the people, and that there should be a constitution that creates accountability for the people who are in power. All of these things have been part of this for, like I said, over a century. I wouldn’t think of this as a spontaneous thing that’s fixated on one issue. I think you can see those threads and those roots throughout the history. Now, defining this moment is hard to do because we’re still in it. It’s hard to define what will happen. It’s hard to know what will happen. I think it’s fair to say that this is part of that long tradition. There’s also a reason why the state reacts the way that it does. Why it acts so desperately, really, to squash, these protests is because they don’t want that fundamental change. They want to maintain the status quo. They want to maintain their own survival, and that’s not what the people want. Now more than ever, I think we’re seeing the level to which they are going to resist. It’s not going to go away. If anybody thinks this is just going to go away, they’re just going to squash the protests, and that’ll be over. Maybe in the short term, you’ll see something like that, but that doesn’t mean that a movement has died. That doesn’t mean– that’s why you have protests throughout this history and throughout this period. I definitely think, especially now, when you hear things like teachers boycotting, students boycotting, labor, movements getting involved, just acts of civil disobedience, women going out and just not wearing their hijab. They’re not protesting. They’re not protesting. They’re just walking down the street without a hijab. That is an act of defiance. So that type of civil disobedience and these movements coalescing together create the notion of a social movement. Every movement doesn’t have to culminate in an immediate grand change to be very important. I think that’s something to emphasize too. If there isn’t a revolution tomorrow in Iran, that doesn’t mean that this was a failure. Talia Baroncelli I mean, every act in itself is valuable and meaningful. I was also wondering– [crosstalk 00:26:15]  Assal Rad Just the fact that they’re changing the conversation. Not only that but on a global scale, all of those things, all of those are already victories in my view. Talia Baroncelli How would you compare these protests to, say, the 2009 Green Movement, which protested the results of the election, and then in 2019, we had protesting against exorbitant fuel prices? How would you characterize these protests compared to the recent ones which preceded them? Assal Rad Well, 2009 was quite different because it was tied to a political movement at the time; it became the Green Movement. It was tied to this idea of Iranian reformists going back to Mohammad Khatami in the ’90s and early 2000s. Not necessarily having a revolution, but wanting to reform the system in a fundamental way so that there’s more power for the Iranian people. The government actually works in their interest. In 2009, there’s a great book about the 2009 protest, basically, everything that happened in 2009, the Green Movement called Contesting the Iranian Revolution by Pouya Alimagham, who teaches at MIT. In it, he talks about this taboo that was broken in 2009. Initially, when protesters went out in 2009, their first slogan was “Where is my vote?” That suggests this notion of accountability. They’re engaging in the political system, and therefore they think the political system should be accountable to them. As those protests evolve, you start hearing, for the first time, these chants of “death to the dictator”. It goes directly to the core of the system. In the book, one of the things he argues is that once that taboo is broken, that’s why it’s a watershed moment. Once that taboo is broken, now immediately you hear those types of chants and slogans. Even in 2000, even right now, while one of the core slogans that we’ve heard over and over again is “women, life, freedom” which sums up exactly what everything is about, you still also see the “death of the dictator” slogans as well being used throughout the protest. In that sense, you can see parallels. The reason why 2019 is different is in November of 2019, those protests were sparked by a hike in gas prices. There were less middle-class Iranians involved; it was more working and poor Iranians who were going to be very deeply impacted by such an extreme hike in gas prices. It was an economic issue that sparked it. In this case, you have a social issue that sparked it, and now the middle class is more involved. In 2019 you had less protests in Tehran. Now you see a lot of protests in Tehran, the capital city. All of these protests have their own unique qualities and features. I think the other thing that’s distinct in these protests is Iranians fighting back. Not just– actually, we’ve seen these videos. They’re incredible in certain ways. You actually see crowds surrounding security forces or a police officer. That, to me, is another taboo that’s being broken. It’s important to understand it if we’re going to look at the long term of where these protests will go and how they will evolve, and what lengths people might be willing to go to in order to see that change fulfilled. Talia Baroncelli Well, despite Iran’s isolation, it still is part of a capitalist economic system. The middle class has continued to be hollowed out. Maybe more people are even more impoverished than they used to be prior to the pandemic. Maybe we’ll see not just what used to be the middle classes but all sorts of people protesting over the coming weeks. Assal Rad At that point, when you look at– there’s a lot of commentaries that say enough is enough, or they have nothing to lose. There’s this idea of having nothing to lose. Part of that does come from economic pressure as well. They’re just feeling pressure from every side. You have the sanctions reimposed in 2018, which causes hyperinflation in the country; hyperinflation, unemployment, and their currency just taking a nosedive. The entire economy has just been in a state of decline. Obviously, it affects people’s daily lives, and that’s the number one thing that people always care about, rightfully so. You care about your livelihood before you care about anything else. When you have nothing to lose, then you see the force with which protesters are coming out because they’ve gone through the pandemic, they’ve gone through sanctions, and on the inside, they’ve gone through extensive crackdowns and protests being met with deadly force, more restrictions, more crackdowns across Iranian civil society. You can understand where this level of frustration comes from and why it’s targeted across the board. Talia Baroncelli People seem to be increasingly frustrated, and the economic situation isn’t helping. I wonder if, given these protests, if the U.S. will be more likely or less likely now to rejoin the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. Assal Rad Well, this is what the Biden administration has said or what we’ve heard so far. The deal will not, in any way, impede the administration’s ability or will to condemn and hold Iran accountable for human rights abuses. I would love it if the administration or the U.S. government, in general, would hold everybody accountable for human rights abuses, but I guess that’s wishful thinking on my part. In the case of Iran, this is what’s been said. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said, “we’ve sanctioned the morality police. We’ve sanctioned specific actors. They will continue– they’ve worked on–” and our organization actually pushed for this, and has been pushing for this for years, by the way– an update to the general license to GLD1, so that our sanctions aren’t impeding access to the internet for Iranians. On the Iranian side, authorities are shutting down the internet. Another action that we can take as the U.S. in support of protesters is to make sure that we are not inadvertently aiding their ability to block them from the internet. Some things are blocked, access is blocked from the U.S. side, from U.S. tech companies. This is what the Biden admin is saying. At the same time, they’re saying, “look at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was the evil empire and the greatest enemy of the United States, we still negotiated arms agreements.” Which makes sense. It makes sense to do so because if you look at how nuclear weapons affect the way that we calculate political decisions, you understand why it’s so important that an authoritarian state that is already subduing its people in this manner would be even more dangerous if it made the political decision to acquire a nuclear weapon. It’s not just a matter of– and I say that the political decision because thus far, Iran is still a signatory to the NPT even if the administration still says they’re open to returning to restoring the JCPOA under whatever circumstances they’ve come up with. If that authoritative state then has a nuclear weapon, it’s more dangerous not only for its own people but for the consequences, the arms race that it can set off. [crosstalk 00:34:54]. Sorry, what? Talia Baroncelli The regional arms race as well with Saudi Arabia. Assal Rad Exactly. So that’s the line we’ve heard so far from the Biden administration, which is, even if we are continuing negotiations, that doesn’t change the human rights issue. We’re still going to go after actors and hold accountable people who are human rights abusers. On the flip side, even with the worst of the worst– this is their lines. “Even with the worst of the worst, we maintain arms agreements.” That’s how the JCPOA is being understood, at least from our understanding of how they’re looking at it. Talia Baroncelli So basically, there are still lines of communication that are open and diplomatic lines of communication, but they’re maybe not as direct as under the Obama administration when there was actually– Assal Rad Well, they haven’t been. They haven’t been. Even before the protests, because the Biden administration never returned to the deal. A lot of the way that it’s talked about, sometimes officials from the Biden admin will say things like, “oh, Iran has to return to the deal.” Well, Iran is in the deal. The only country that’s outside of the deal is the U.S. Whereas, in 2014 and 2015, you had pictures of Javad Zarif and John Kerry while they were talking to each other. While you had direct negotiations then, because the U.S. is not a party to the deal, they are not part of the direct negotiations. It’s been indirect the entire time. I think the negotiations have now been going on for something like 16 months, but basically, since April of 2021, that’s when the first round of negotiations started. They haven’t been direct, and obviously, diplomacy works much better if you can actually have direct conversations. That hasn’t happened yet. Talia Baroncelli Right. Well, I mean, it was the cornerstone of Biden’s presidential campaign to get the U.S. to rejoin the JCPOA. Do you think that he said those things in bad faith or that he maybe changed his mind along the way, potentially to cozy up with Saudi Arabia and to increase oil production? What do you think happened there? Assal Rad It’s hard to say what this individual person’s thinking was; I obviously don’t know that. There is, I mean, looking at it, at least from the outside, president Biden, when he was a candidate and even before he was a candidate– I mean, the first time we hear Biden talking about Trump’s Iran policies is back in 2017, before the U.S. even leaves the deal. Trump was so outspoken about the fact that he hated the deal and he wanted to leave the deal. Joe Biden was warning in 2017 that this is a terrible decision; we shouldn’t do it. In 2018 when the U.S. withdrew, he strongly criticized the Trump administration. He did so on many things, but specifically on the Iran deal front, Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken before he was Secretary of State. All of the Biden officials were extremely critical of this decision by the U.S. under the Trump admin. It would have theoretically made sense, and people who were proponents of diplomacy and supported Biden’s campaign urged the Biden administration to take action earlier in his admin because Iran was going to have an election in June of 2021. This was always the fear. The fear was, well, now, right now, you have a moderate, engagement-friendly administration in Iran. This was their core accomplishment, which was the JCPOA in 2015. They were much more likely to return to compliance if the U.S. returned to the deal in a manner that was more efficient than what we’ve seen. It’s precisely what happened with the Raisi administration, which, while

"Terror and tyranny in the USSR arose more from war and the demands of state security services required to survive, and the paranoid politics it enabled, rather than any “inevitable” path from the socialist path taken," writes Jeffery Sommers. He joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news to discuss the end of the Soviet Union.

An important Chinese commentator warns that a cornered Russia may lead to “unimaginable consequences”. Larry Wilkerson says there must be immediate negotiations to end the war to avoid the danger of nuclear conflict and to refocus the world on the climate crisis. Wilkerson and Jay also discuss rising fascism in the U.S.

Biden again declares he will "defend" Taiwan with U.S. forces, essentially threatening nuclear war against China. Why is he dropping "ambiguity" and raising the level of tension? Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.

The Federal Reserve is trying to increase unemployment and strip U.S. workers of the small gains in bargaining power they have achieved in the aftermath of the COVID economic lockdown. Robert Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/chomsky-and-ellsberg-on-the-death-of-gorbachev\/#arve-youtube-qhyrjf-faas6329f75c139ae208243240","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/QhyRJf-Faas?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheanalysis.news&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1","name":"Chomsky and Ellsberg on the Death of Gorbachev","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/chomsky-ellsberg-on-the-death-of-gorbachev-8.jpg","uploadDate":"2022-09-16T13:25:41+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg discuss the significance of the life of Mikhail Gorbachev and what the deconstruction of the Soviet Union means for today's world. Noam and Daniel join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news. TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeGuestMusic Paul Jay  Hi. Welcome to theAnalysis.n"} Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg discuss the significance of the life of Mikhail Gorbachev and what the deconstruction of the Soviet Union means for today’s world. Noam and Daniel join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news. .kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_658b7b-82 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Chomsky and Ellsberg on the Death of Gorbachev Gorbachev Paved Way for Oligarchs – Aleksandr Buzgalin “Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay” (pt 1/3) Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 3/3) Russia, Climate Crisis, and the War in Ukraine – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 3 Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 2/3) Russia Started War, Capitalists on All Sides Fuel the Fire – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 2 Identity, Nationalism and Climate Change – Paul Jay Putin’s War Driven by Domestic Politics – Boris Kagarlitsky Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine Weaponized National Identity, War and an Orgy of Profits – Paul Jay pt 2/3 On Conspiracy and War – Paul Jay pt 1/3 Ukraine and the Doomsday Machine – Larry Wilkerson and Paul Jay The Invasion has Inflamed Eastern European Opinion Nationalism, Imperialism, Smoke and Fire Risking the Apocalypse for Money and God Who Benefits From a Protracted Ukrainian War? Hedges on Ukraine Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Socialism – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (12/12) Many Russians Think Climate Change is Propaganda to Weaken Their Economy – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (11/12) Why Does the West Hate Putin? – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (10/12) Why is Putin so Popular When People are so Poor? – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (9/12) Is Putin’s Rule a Dictatorship? – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (8/12) Putin is Anointed King, but Big Capital has the Real Power – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (7/12) Shock Without the Therapy: A New Russia is Born in Chaos and Plunder – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (6/12) I Returned from Vacation to Find the Soviet Union had Collapsed – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (5/12) Turning Power into Money, the End of the Soviet Union – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (4/12) Communism and Consumerism – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (3/12) Success and Mutation in the Soviet Union – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (2/12) Growing Up in the U.S.S.R. – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (1/12) Russian Chauvinism and an American Global Monroe Doctrine – Vijay Prashad pt 2 Ukraine a Pawn in a Larger Struggle – Vijay Prashad pt 1 Putin’s War Crimes Follow in the Steps of American War Crimes – Denis Pilash pt 2/2 Ukraine and the Oligarchs – Denis Pilash pt 1/2 Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion & Say No to NATO – Denys Gorbach pt 2/2 The IMF Connection with the Ukraine Crisis Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion and Say No to NATO – pt 1/2 Matt Taibbi on Putin the Apostate Ukraine From Crisis to Catastrophe – Gerald Horne  Ukraine: Russian Crimes, American Hypocrisy – Wilkerson and Jay From Jim Crow Kentucky to Red Square – RAI Stephen Cohen (4/5) Ukrainian Buzarov and Russian Buzgalin on the Conflict in Ukraine Is Trump for Detente With Russia and Militarism With China and Iran – RAI Stephen Cohen (2/5) U.S. Hoped Putin Would be a ‘Sober Yelstin’ – RAI Stephen Cohen (3/5) What is the Way Forward for the Ukrainian People in the Midst of International Tensions? – Andrey Buzarov pt 2/2 Is ‘Russia Meddling’ an Attack on America – RAI Stephen Cohen (1/5) What U.S. Foreign Policy and Pro Wrestling Have in Common – Paul Jay Part 2: A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin Why I’m Pro-Detente With Russia – RAI Stephen Cohen (5/5) A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin pt 1/2 Massive Escalation in Donbas or a New Propaganda Campaign? – Andrey Buzarov pt 1/2 Ukraine: Dangerous Dance of Military-Industrial Complex – Paul Jay Russian Political Scientist: “The Russian Public has no Appetite for War” – Stanislav Byshok Pt 1 Why is Biden Pushing Putin on Ukraine? – Larry Wilkerson Ukraine and the Battle of the Oligarchs – pt 2/2 Why Are Tensions Rising in Ukraine? – pt 1/2 Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy w/ Paul Jay Pt 1/2 The “Unfriendly” Dictator of Belarus Stalin and the USSR – Alexander Buzgalin Is NATO for Security or Aggression? – Wilkerson & Engler Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music Paul Jay  Hi. Welcome to theAnalysis.news. I’m Paul Jay. In just a few seconds, I’ll return with my guests, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. We’re going to talk about the significance and legacy of the life of [Mikhail] Gorbachev.  On Tuesday, August 30, Mikhail Gorbachev died. His legacy is a matter, of course, of international discussion and debate. Apparently, [Vladimir] Putin is not going to his funeral, which I believe is taking place as we speak. He wrote some kind of note about it. Gorbachev has been praised in the West as a hero of the deconstruction of the Soviet Union and also condemned. There is much talk about his failings.  Now, to talk about the significance of Gorbachev’s life and the demise of the Soviet Union, joining me again are Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. Thank you very much for joining me again, gentlemen.  Noam Chomsky  Thank you.  Paul Jay  Noam, kick us off. How do you assess the end of the Soviet Union and the role of Gorbachev?  Noam Chomsky  Well, Gorbachev was not committed to the end of the Soviet Union. That’s a misstatement; it’s commonly said, but that was not his goal. He did open up Russia, and he opened up the region to a degree of freedom that they had not enjoyed. His own intention was not to break up the Soviet Union, but he had a very much broader vision. I think that’s his major contribution among many. He called for what he called a common European home from Lisbon to Vladivostok, with no military alliances, no victors, no defeated, and coequals working together towards a social democratic future. A transformation of the whole region, working without military alliances and with cooperation.  This was an expansion of a Gaullist vision of an independent Europe as a third force in international affairs. Gorbachev carried it forward, and it could have survived. President [George H.W.] Bush was not strongly opposed to it. [Bil] Clinton dismantled it when he moved right away to expand NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] to the Russian border in violation of firm promises to Gorbachev. The ideal of a common European home, no military alliances, and working together to achieve a social democratic future that’s the vision we should honor, respect, and try to achieve.  Daniel Ellsberg  I saw Gorbachev, when he was in power, as the single head of state we’d ever seen, and really the last one we’d ever see, I’d say, who was wholly committed, fundamentally committed to a non-nuclear world and to getting rid of nuclear weapons. Beyond that, to a world with a different world order that was not based on threats and unilateral sovereign efforts to assure the security of one nation at the expense of another.  He pressed a revolutionary idea, really, that had some coherence which he got from some others of “common security,” sometimes called cooperative security, collective security. The idea was first proposed in some detail by Olof Palme in the Palme Commission in 1982 before Gorbachev came to power. Gorbachev picked that up from Soviet advisor Georgy Arbatov, a member of the Palme Commission, from European anti-nuclear and anti-war activists, and in the U.S from Randall Forsberg and others. They spoke of the need to take into account the security of others as well as one’s own security, and let’s try to avoid an action-reaction cycle in which efforts are made to maintain one’s own security by threatening the other, by lessening the security of adversaries or rivals, and rather, by having adversaries and rivals work together to achieve security that would be best for both sides. In particular, Horst Afheldt and Randall Forsberg pressed for non-offensive defense,  weapons of protection that could not be used in offense. You had to eliminate the offensive threat to the others.  Let me give an example that is relevant right now, for example, oddly, in an unprecedented kind of relationship that we have with Taiwan in theory. We agree with China, Beijing, that Taiwan is part of China– one China. On the other hand, thanks to pressure from Congress since 1979, we continue to arm this province of China, Taiwan, against the possible use of force against it.  Now, if Xi or his predecessors were like Gorbachev, they would not be threatening force to reunite with this province. Actually, as Paul has said, it was not Gorbachev’s intention to dismantle the Soviet Union, but he definitely refused to use force to maintain it in East Germany and other places, including Poland. It spread very quickly in ’89 beyond what he’d expected. I think he thought there would be more willingness to remain in without the use of force, but in any case, he refused to use it.  Nevertheless, Xi and the others have always maintained that if peaceful means were not sufficient to reunite eventually Taiwan and the mainland, that force was not excluded. They have built up force to that effect for the last 20 years.  Now, for the last 40 years, we have limited our sales of arms to Taiwan to so-called defensive means. We’ve seen those means at work in Ukraine actually: Stingers, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, weapons that do not pose a threat beyond their borders, and actually, very effectively— more than almost anyone expected in Ukraine—they have worked against the invasion by tanks and other offensive forces in Ukraine, resulting so far in a stalemate. Well, in Taiwan, I believe the effort to move toward recognizing Taiwan by overthrowing the 1979 agreements–I really don’t know entirely what in the world motivates this; I think one thing is to sell arms to Taiwan,  to greatly increase above the levels of the past the sales of arms, by our leading arms manufacturers: Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed–  there has been talk, even recently, that let’s add to their defense by giving them a deterrent capability against the mainland. That would mean longer-range weapons, missiles that could reach the mainland, which, as far as I know, they don’t have now. They did have when it was a U.S. base before 1979.  The idea of making it a base that would again threaten the mainland for deterrent purposes is clearly crossing a red line. It would almost surely lead to war. There is a difference between such armaments and what we have been selling up until now to Taiwan, which could be called “non-offensive defenses.”  Now, coming right back to Ukraine. What is the major rationale that Putin has given for forceful means to prevent Ukraine from uniting with the West, not only in the European Union but in NATO? The answer is there could be NATO bases, which aren’t there now, which would have long-range cruise missiles right on the border of Russia. Now, whether Russia could really withstand that or not, what we can predict is the old cycle. For hundreds of years, thousands of years in effect, when one party, when one region gains an offensive threat against the other, the other reacts in various ways, by building up its own arms, or in this case by invading, against that threat of putting actual offensive weapons on its borders. Now, right now, we’ve even given long-range rockets to Ukraine with a proviso that they must not use them against Russia, taking the risk that someone will go beyond those constraints and go into Russia. The distinction is very clear there.  What Gorbachev accepted was this idea of non-offensive defense, of removing a threat in order to regain and increase the security of both sides together. He actually acted on that.  By the way, I remember this so clearly with the death of Gorbachev, and the fact that no one I’ve seen in the obituaries has mentioned what Gorbachev called “a new way of thinking”- from Palme, Forsberg, and the others, and people in his own group like Georgy Arbatov, and others at the Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. The “new way of thinking” included the notion of removing threats from your adversary.  Well, on December  7th, 1988, three years after becoming head of the Soviet Union, he gave a speech to the UN that was totally unforeseen by the U.S., I would say. He talked about common security and the need to work on common interests in pursuit, by the way, of what Noam has pointed to, a common home, a European home, rather than rival adversaries confronting each other. He then said, unilaterally, he was removing 5,000 tanks from East Germany, which by the way, had always surrounded Berlin and kept West Berlin under threat during that whole time. So he’s removing 5,000 tanks and 50,000 troops from East Germany. Ultimately, he took out half a million troops– half a million unilaterally before any other agreement–from the Soviet armed forces he was deploying. As a colonel in the Pentagon was quoted in the New York Times the day after, the day after December 7, he said, “This is worse than Pearl Harbor.” They meant that. As Georgy Arbatov said at the time, “We are doing something terrible to you. We are removing your enemy. We’re taking away your enemy.” And that preceded the general reduction of force in East Germany that led to the uprisings.  Well, I think what we’ve seen since then and right up to the present is this otherwise inexplicable refusal of the U.S. and NATO in the ’90s and later in this century to try to enhance a friendly relationship with Russia, which was not communist but capitalist and was for a time friendly and open for investment. Our refusal to pursue what Gorbachev was offering, a friendly relationship– he said not an adversary, but a friendly relationship. That’s what George Kennan, one of the creators of the Cold War, said at the time: that expanding NATO was a disaster precisely because it would undermine those elements like Gorbachev in Russia and after Gorbachev who were for open, democratic-friendly relations with Europe,  in favor of reactionary and militaristic elements like those who are supporting invasion of Ukraine. Kennan said as early as the 1990s, “ultimately, you’ll go to Ukraine, and that will seal it. That will make it impossible to have any friendly relationship with Russia in this European home.” Well, we acted totally contrary to that.  As early as 2008, George W. Bush, against France and Germany’s strong objection, said Georgia and Ukraine, both formerly parts of the U.S.S.R., would be part of NATO, and we’ve gone along those lines. Why were we doing that?  Let me give my guess at this point. The ruling establishment in this country in the military-industrial complex, the Atlanticist forces of NATO, which was our foothold in Europe economically and militarily, never wanted friendly relations with Russia to persist, never wanted Russia to be a non-enemy. Where would NATO be under those circumstances? Gorbachev, [Boris] Yeltsin, and even Putin at one point said, well, maybe Russia could be in NATO. For a while, there was a partnership, a relationship. Why do you need NATO, then, if Russia is in it? Why do you need all these weapons that the corporations I’ve just described, including French and other corporations, are selling to NATO against who? If Russia is a friend, you don’t need any of this. The profits go, but even more importantly, the U.S. hegemonic leadership role in Europe vanishes if you don’t have a Russian enemy.  Contrary to Gorbachev, in other words, a Russian enemy was indispensable to our imperial elements who wanted a dominant U.S. position in NATO and elsewhere. This concept of his pretty much vanished with him. You just don’t read about it.  My friend Tom Reifer– our friend, Noam– sent me today at my request a number of articles on this subject which I’ve been looking at–which are absolutely fascinating– by Randall Forsberg, John Steinbruner, and others– who had innovated these concepts and are very brilliant. Even as late as the early 2000s– but they’ve gone down the memory hole essentially. I think that some U.S. elements here have been successful in getting Putin to reconstitute Russia as a clear-cut enemy. As long as you can foresee, with enormous profitable benefit to the military-industrial complex but in particular to the U.S. role in Europe. For example, getting rid of the Nord Stream 2 gas line from Russia, which the U.S. has opposed for decades now, for more than decades.  So the loss of Gorbachev, not by death, but much earlier, his power, I think, was the loss of these concepts to the world. I don’t want to say irretrievably, but I think it definitely lessened the odds for human survival.  Paul Jay  Noam, do you want to pick it up from there?  Noam Chomsky  There are a number of points that Dan made that I think ought to be stressed. The main one that comes out of what he’s saying is that the great powers: the United States, Russia, and China, must come to some kind of accommodation, or else there’s no hope for the survival of the human species.  Notice I don’t mention Europe, and that’s interesting. Europe ought to be on par with, certainly, China and the United States, at least economically. Russia doesn’t even belong in that club. Their economy is about the size of Mexico. Europe has failed in the last 70 years to find a place in the world order. It’s got a huge economy, an educated population, and is culturally advanced. There is every reason why it should play a major role in world affairs.  Well, there has been a conflict. One was the Gaullist vision, as Dan pointed out– Olof Palme supported it. Willy Brandt in Germany, with his Ost- politics, supported it, the idea that there should be a third force in which Western Europe and Russia would join together without military alliances– was confronted with the Atlanticist vision, as it was called, based on NATO, with the U.S. in charge. Well, given the U.S. power that, of course, won.  When Gorbachev came along, it raised a new crucial issue. You could no longer rely on the pretext that we have to defend ourselves against the Russian hordes. Actually, it was always a pretext, as Kennan and others understood well. You couldn’t even claim it anymore by the time Gorbachev came along. So what was going to happen to Europe? Well, there’s Gorbachev’s conception of a common European home, no military bases, coequals, partnership, and move towards general accommodation, which would then naturally extend to the China-based region; the Silk Road initiative came later. That’s one.  The other was the Atlanticist vision, NATO-based, and the U.S. in charge and NATO expanding to the Russian border. When George Bush, the second, not the first, invited Ukraine into NATO, I don’t know if he understood what he was doing, but the people around him certainly did. Robert Gates, his hawkish defense secretary, said this is reckless, provocative, and crazy. If Ukraine was to go into NATO, any Russian leader would probably go to war. That’s the hawkish secretary of defense. It was understood all along the line. Bush went ahead. France and Germany, as Dan pointed out, vetoed it. The U.S. power is strong enough to overcome that, so it stays on the agenda.  Since then, the U.S. has been building up Ukraine as an offensive partner, integrated into NATO. In fact, U.S. military journals call it a de facto member of NATO. The U.S. has announced it would not consider any Russian security concerns. We go on to the situation where we are now, where NATO has changed the global geography. By now, the North Atlantic includes the Indo-Pacific region.  The last NATO summit, for the first time, invited U.S. Asian allies and explained that the realm of NATO now includes the Indo-Pacific region surrounding China. Conflict with Russia is a recipe for disaster. The world can’t go on like that. We will have to quickly find a way to bring, first of all, for Europe to play the role it should in world affairs, not hanging on to U.S. coattails.  Emmanuel Macron is about the only statesman visible in the world right now who’s continuing his efforts, so far in vain, to work towards some sort of way of ending the horrors in Ukraine through a diplomatic settlement and moving on towards better relations. That has to be done. If that isn’t done, we have no hope.  It’s not only Ukraine. The collateral damage, as it’s called, is immense. It means millions of people are facing starvation with the closing off of the Black Sea, food and fertilizer region. The limited efforts to deal with the enormous crisis of global warming have been reversed. We don’t have much time to spend.  The few years that we have, instead of dealing with the crisis, exacerbating it is beyond lunacy. There is a severe and growing threat of nuclear war. It goes way beyond Ukraine. Answer, we have to find ways to move toward Gorbachev’s vision, to cooperate, and work together to overcome problems that have no borders. There are global problems. Nuclear war has no borders. Climate change, of course, has none. Threats of growing pandemics have none. We cannot waste time destroying each other by producing destructive weapons and carrying out mass slaughter. Where we must be working towards quickly is towards accommodation and diplomatic settlement. First of all, move towards the vision that Gorbachev sketched.  Paul Jay  Alright, well, thank you both very much. I’m going to continue my conversation with Noam and Dan. We’re going to talk about U.S. domestic politics and the rise of the far-right and fascism in the United States. So join me for that.  Let me add one other thing. Please don’t forget that we depend on your donations to do this. So click the donate button, and get on our email list. If you’re on YouTube, subscribe. Thanks again for joining us on theAnalysis.  Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_2" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); “Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is an American political activist and former United States military analyst. While employed by the RAND Corporation, Ellsberg precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of the U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other newspapers.” “Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historical essayist, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called “the father of modern linguistics,” Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science.” theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

The overwhelming rejection of Chile's newly drafted constitution represents a devastating blow to the efforts to overcome the legacy of the Pinochet dictatorship, says Chilean political analyst and SUNY Binghamton professor René Rojas.

By opposing deep democratic reforms from below, Gorbachev laid the groundwork for privatization and the looting of the 1990s. Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.

“It’s beyond lunacy,” say Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. In their 90s, the two men tirelessly fight to warn people of the need for urgent action to deal with climate change and the threat of nuclear war. Joining Paul Jay, they discuss the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the war in Ukraine, and the climate crisis.