RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Chomsky writes: "They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region."

Prof. Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and activist. (photo: Va Shiva)
Prof. Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and activist. (photo: Va Shiva)

Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Netanyahu's Goal Isn't Survival - It's Regional Dominance

By Noam Chomsky, Democracy Now

16 March 15


sraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in the United States as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran during a controversial speech before the U.S. Congress on Tuesday. Dozens of Democrats are threatening to boycott the address, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. Netanyahu’s visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the United States, are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31 deadline. "For both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran," says Noam Chomsky, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region." Chomsky also responds to recent revelations that in 2012 the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, contradicted Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb, concluding that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons."

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu will address the lobby group AIPAC today, followed by a controversial speech before Congress on Tuesday. The visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31st deadline. At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Netanyahu’s trip won’t threaten the outcome.

PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: I think the short answer to that is: I don’t think so. And the reason is simply that there is a real opportunity for us here. And the president is hopeful that we are going to have an opportunity to do what is clearly in the best interests of the United States and Israel, which is to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program at the negotiating table.

AARON MATÉ: The trip has sparked the worst public rift between the U.S. and Israel in over two decades. Dozens of Democrats could boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. The Obama administration will send two officials, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, to address the AIPAC summit today. This comes just days after Rice called Netanyahu’s visit, quote, "destructive."

AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also facing domestic criticism for his unconventional Washington visit, which comes just two weeks before an election in which he seeks a third term in Israel. On Sunday, a group representing nearly 200 of Israel’s top retired military and intelligence officials accused Netanyahu of assaulting the U.S.-Israel alliance.

But despite talk of a U.S. and Israeli dispute, the Obama administration has taken pains to display its staunch support for the Israeli government. Speaking just today in Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council for what he called an "obsession" and "bias" against Israel. The council is expected to release a report in the coming weeks on potential war crimes in Israel’s U.S.-backed Gaza assault last summer.

For more, we spend the hour today with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky. He has written over a hundred books, most recently On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. His forthcoming book, co-authored with Ilan Pappé, is titled On Palestine and will be out next month. Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years.

Noam Chomsky, it’s great to have you back here at Democracy Now!, and particularly in our very snowy outside, but warm inside, New York studio.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Delighted to be here again.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam, let’s start with Netanyahu’s visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?

NOAM CHOMSKY: For both president—Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence—don’t see any reason not to—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they don’t know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.

And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, they’ve had to—you can’t get votes that way, so they’ve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. That’s a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. It’s a long history, back to colonial times, of—as an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans have—their nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack on—this is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.

AARON MATÉ: You say that nobody with a grey cell thinks that Iran would launch a strike, were it to have nuclear weapons, but yet Netanyahu repeatedly accuses Iran of planning a new genocide against the Jewish people. He said this most recently on Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, saying that the ayatollahs are planning a new holocaust against us. And that’s an argument that’s taken seriously here.

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s taken seriously by people who don’t stop to think for a minute. But again, Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.

AARON MATÉ: The premise of these talks—Iran gets to enrich uranium in return for lifting of U.S. sanctions—do you see that as a fair parameter? Does the U.S. have the right, to begin with, to be imposing sanctions on Iran?

NOAM CHOMSKY: No, it doesn’t. What are the right to impose sanctions? Iran should be imposing sanctions on us. I mean, it’s worth remembering—when you hear the White House spokesman talk about the international community, it wants Iran to do this and that, it’s important to remember that the phrase "international community" in U.S. discourse refers to the United States and anybody who may be happening to go along with it. That’s the international community. If the international community is the world, it’s quite a different story. So, two years ago, the Non-Aligned—former Non-Aligned Movement—it’s a large majority of the population of the world—had their regular conference in Iran in Tehran. And they, once again, vigorously supported Iran’s right to develop nuclear power as a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s the international community. The United States and its allies are outliers, as is usually the case.

And as far as sanctions are concerned, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s now 60 years since—during the past 60 years, not a day has passed without the U.S. torturing the people of Iran. It began with overthrowing the parliamentary regime and installing a tyrant, the shah, supporting the shah through very serious human rights abuses and terror and violence. As soon as he was overthrown, almost instantly the United States turned to supporting Iraq’s attack against Iran, which was a brutal and violent attack. U.S. provided critical support for it, pretty much won the war for Iraq by entering directly at the end. After the war was over, the U.S. instantly supported the sanctions against Iran. And though this is kind of suppressed, it’s important. This is George H.W. Bush now. He was in love with Saddam Hussein. He authorized further aid to Saddam in opposition to the Treasury and others. He sent a presidential delegation—a congressional delegation to Iran. It was April 1990—1989, headed by Bob Dole, the congressional—

AMY GOODMAN: To Iraq? Sent to Iraq?

NOAM CHOMSKY: To Iraq. To Iraq, sorry, yeah—to offer his greetings to Saddam, his friend, to assure him that he should disregard critical comment that he hears in the American media: We have this free press thing here, and we can’t shut them up. But they said they would take off from Voice of America, take off critics of their friend Saddam. That was—he invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in weapons production. This is right after the Iraq-Iran War, along with sanctions against Iran. And then it continues without a break up to the present.

There have been repeated opportunities for a settlement of whatever the issues are. And so, for example, in, I guess it was, 2010, an agreement was reached between Brazil, Turkey and Iran for Iran to ship out its low-enriched uranium for storage elsewhere—Turkey—and in return, the West would provide the isotopes that Iran needs for its medical reactors. When that agreement was reached, it was bitterly condemned in the United States by the president, by Congress, by the media. Brazil was attacked for breaking ranks and so on. The Brazilian foreign minister was sufficiently annoyed so that he released a letter from Obama to Brazil proposing exactly that agreement, presumably on the assumption that Iran wouldn’t accept it. When they did accept it, they had to be attacked for daring to accept it.

And 2012, 2012, you know, there was to be a meeting in Finland, December, to take steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. This is an old request, pushed initially by Egypt and the other Arab states back in the early '90s. There's so much support for it that the U.S. formally agrees, but not in fact, and has repeatedly tried to undermine it. This is under the U.N. auspices, and the meeting was supposed to take place in December. Israel announced that they would not attend. The question on everyone’s mind is: How will Iran react? They said that they would attend unconditionally. A couple of days later, Obama canceled the meeting, claiming the situation is not right for it and so on. But that would be—even steps in that direction would be an important move towards eliminating whatever issue there might be. Of course, the stumbling block is that there is one major nuclear state: Israel. And if there’s a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone, there would be inspections, and neither Israel nor the United States will tolerate that.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about major revelations that have been described as the biggest leak since Edward Snowden. Last week, Al Jazeera started publishing a series of spy cables from the world’s top intelligence agencies. In one cable, the Israeli spy agency Mossad contradicts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb within a year. In a report to South African counterparts in October 2012, the Israeli Mossad concluded Iran is "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons." The assessment was sent just weeks after Netanyahu went before the U.N. General Assembly with a far different message. Netanyahu held up a cartoonish diagram of a bomb with a fuse to illustrate what he called Iran’s alleged progress on a nuclear weapon.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: This is a bomb. This is a fuse. In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages. By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. A red line should be drawn right here, before—before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2012. The Mossad assessment contradicting Netanyahu was sent just weeks after, but it was likely written earlier. It said Iran, quote, "does not appear to be ready," unquote, to enrich uranium to the highest levels needed for a nuclear weapon. A bomb would require 90 percent enrichment, but Mossad found Iran had only enriched to 20 percent. That number was later reduced under an interim nuclear deal the following year. The significance of this, Noam Chomsky, as Prime Minister Netanyahu prepares for this joint address before Congress to undermine a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the striking aspect of this is the chutzpah involved. I mean, Israel has had nuclear weapons for probably 50 years or 40 years. They have, estimates are, maybe 100, 200 nuclear weapons. And they are an aggressive state. Israel has invaded Lebanon five times. It’s carrying out an illegal occupation that carries out brutal attacks like Gaza last summer. And they have nuclear weapons. But the main story is that if—incidentally, the Mossad analysis corresponds to U.S. intelligence analysis. They don’t know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But I think the crucial fact is that even if they were, what would it mean? It would be just as U.S. intelligence analyzes it: It would be part of a deterrent strategy. They couldn’t use a nuclear weapon. They couldn’t even threaten to use it. Israel, on the other hand, can; has, in fact, threatened the use of nuclear weapons a number of times.

AMY GOODMAN: So why is Netanyahu doing this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Because he doesn’t want to have a deterrent in the region. That’s simple enough. If you’re an aggressive, violent state, you want to be able to use force freely. You don’t want anything that might impede it.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this in any way has undercut the U.S. relationship with Israel, the Netanyahu-Obama conflict that, what, Susan Rice has called destructive?

NOAM CHOMSKY: There is undoubtedly a personal relationship which is hostile, but that’s happened before. Back in around 1990 under first President Bush, James Baker went as far as—the secretary of state—telling Israel, "We’re not going to talk to you anymore. If you want to contact me, here’s my phone number." And, in fact, the U.S. imposed mild sanctions on Israel, enough to compel the prime minister to resign and be replaced by someone else. But that didn’t change the relationship, which is based on deeper issues than personal antagonisms. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+27 # MidwestTom 2015-03-16 10:11
Iranians are far closer to the values of American citizens than our middle east Muslim allies, the Saudi's. Israel wants to dominate the middle east, just like they do American foreign policy, and American politics through AIPAC.
+28 # elizabethblock 2015-03-16 11:12
I've read that the last time Iran invaded another country was 1775.
And remember how, when North Korea got the bomb, the US stopped talking about attacking it. If you were Iran, wouldn't you want a nuclear deterrent?
+15 # Radscal 2015-03-16 13:19
Although I accept the findings of CIA, Mossad and the IAEC that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, I certainly agree that if any country has reason to want a nuclear deterrent, it would be Iran.
-40 # Dennis Newman 2015-03-16 11:50
It's hard to know where to start in demonstating the substantive falsehoods peddled so arrogantly by self-hating Jews (who are virtually all Israel-haters) such as Chomsky, son of a prominent Rabbi. (Anyone thinking I exaggerate should go back in history to the disgusting affair in which Chomsky supported a French Holocaust denier, then after it came out and he was rightly pilloried by many fair-minded thinkers, especially in Europe, dissembled to try to portray himself as only supporting the denier's free-speech rights.) Israel, of course, has never threatened use of nuclear weapons, consistent with its long-held policy of not even commenting on whether it hold them. The concept that Israel wants to thwart Iran obtaining nuclear weapons so that it can wield power oppressively would be laughable if it were not so unfunny that Iran, which is the chief financier of both Hezzbolah and HAMAS, which has inserted itself violently into the affairs of Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, and of course, Iraq, as well as into Argentina as recently as this year -- it was almost certainly an Iranian agent who murdered the Argentian Jew who was aggressively pursuing the mass-murder bombing of the Argentian Jewish community in the 19990s -- were not considered by U.S. State -- hardly a friend of Israel, as any observer knows -- across both GOP and Dem administrations , as the planet's #1 exporter of terror. Chomsky is an unambiguous apologist for violent Islamism and terrorsim.
+24 # Radscal 2015-03-16 13:24
Israel, "which has inserted itself violently into the affairs of Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian territories" repeatedly for seven decades...

The IDF, "who was aggressively pursuing the mass-murder bombing of" Gaza in a series of "mowing the lawn" war crimes.

Dennis Newman, " is an unambiguous apologist for violent [Zionism] and terrorism."

There. Fixed it for you.
+14 # Merlin 2015-03-16 15:02
Dennis Newman 2015-03-16 11:50

Where you been Zionist shill? We’ve missed ya! (Uh, uh! remember the definitions of those words before you go off and make a fool of yourself like you did last time.)

So you being the Zionist expert, tell me about the Yinon Plan. Remember that one? I asked you to teach me about it the last time you showed up here. No answer from you then, You just disappeared. You aren’t scared are you? No? Then proceed:

Teach me about Greater Israel.

Teach me about "Securing the Realm" written for Netanyahu in 1996.

Teach me about the PNAC paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses."

Tell me who the Zionist neocons are who wrote those plans. Name the names. Or do you want me to?

I can hardly wait for your class to begin.
+9 # Radscal 2015-03-16 17:57
Wow! You've got some teeth on ya there when you want.

Great job putting that Hasbara troll in his/her/their/i ts place.
+13 # Merlin 2015-03-16 22:27
Radscal 2015-03-16 17:57
"Wow! You've got some teeth on ya there when you want."

Thanks. Well, the older I get (I will be 80 this year) the more fun tools I add to my tool box. Humor, limericks, questions, serious posts, compliments and approval, challenges, and of course, calling a spade a spade. All have their place and are great fun to use. I respond to the situation, and as such I spew variety. I really enjoy being part of this bright, aware and knowledgable community.

I appreciate all the regulars here, and all you folks have taught me a lot! I thank you all for that.
+9 # ericlipps 2015-03-16 17:30
Quoting Dennis Newman:
Israel, of course, has never threatened use of nuclear weapons, consistent with its long-held policy of not even commenting on whether it hold them.

Israel has never EXPLICITLY threatened to use nuclear weapons, but it's common knowledge that it's prepared to do so if other options seem to be failing. And it may even use them preemptively, if it believes--or can convince other nations, especially the U.S., that it believes--that a nuclear attack on it is imminent.

Israel prefers not to come right out and admit that it has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them, both to let it go on playing the role of besieged island of civilization in a sea of savages and to keep its adversaries guessing and afraid. But its actions provide a powerful incentive for other nations in the region to develop nuclear weapons of their own, which they will call "defensive" just as Israel presents its own military.
+3 # C-SIK 2015-03-16 23:54
ARE YOU A JEW !!! ??? !!!
+2 # C-SIK 2015-03-17 00:08
'tears of gratitude '
+19 # pres 2015-03-16 13:49
Noam 'hits the nail on its head'
The insane click that runs Israel is the worst for the rest of the world!
+14 # WestWinds 2015-03-16 14:37
I believe Mr. Chomsky is correct; that survival is not the end game, regional domination is.

I saw film footage some time ago showing a Palestinian village. When all of the inhabitants had gone off to work, the Israelites brought in backhoes and demolished the whole village. When the Palestinians came home from work, they found nothing but razed earth and rubble. This was done to take over the land.

I have had several personal experiences with American Jewish (professional) people that has made me lose respect for the Jewish community as a whole. My mother always taught us kids to be ultra respectful of the Jewish people because of what happened with the holocaust but it seems that too many Jewish people are using the lessons learned from the Nazi's to now further their own self-interests through nefarious means. I believe this attitude and commensurate behavior is wrong for a global community.
+10 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-03-16 15:50
The neocons and their corporate sponsors make money off of war. Lots of money. Get the neocons out of “our” government.
Those who control the media, control the dialogue.
Pump up fear to justify a militarized police state.
Continuous cycle of problems distracts.
Corporate control of government = corporate control of resources.
Fascism at its finest.
+13 # CragJensen 2015-03-16 15:53
Netanyahu's recent inappropriate performance in front of Congress was bought and paid for by right-wing extremists. Just another example of big money talking through its posterior side. But Chomsky makes a great point in posing the question - "do you think Iran is suicidal?" The same trick was pulled on (and/or by) the US during the Cold War. Russia didn't want to make nuclear war with the West and end up being naught more than a nuclear-active pile of rubble for tens-of-thousan ds-of-years. The right-wing politicians would like us to believe that Iran is much more dangerous than ISIS. Well - ISIS is a way-out-of-cont rol terrorist group who would thoroughly enjoy planting a dirty nuke in New York Harbor. And they know that a nuclear counter-attack would be nigh-unto-impos sible because they are not a country we can launch a horrific counter-attack upon. Iran, however, knows that a nuclear attack on the US or Israel would, as Chomsky mentioned, leave them obliterated in the end. Kudos to Chomsky for stepping up and making more sense than all the major media outlets put together could ever dream of making on this issue.
+3 # geraldom 2015-03-16 23:57
It is my contention that the people involved with these negotiations with Iran are, by design, playing good cop versus bad cop. The Obama administration is playing the good cop and the U.S. Congress under Republican control is playing bad cop, all this as a means of psychologically forcing Iran to give the United States whatever it demands in the final agreement.

If I were Iran, I wouldn’t make any deal with the United States. Once the deal is made and Iran, like what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq when he destroyed his WMD program, will have been rendered toothless, and the U.S. will still continue in its attempts to force regime change in order to replace the current regime with a puppet govt as it did in Iraq and in Afghanistan and as it wants to do in Syria and Venezuela, not to mention Argentina and perhaps Brazil. All of this turmoil over Iran’s nuclear power program with the United States and Israel ultimately has more to do with the U.S.’s energy resources that are unfortunately sitting under Iranian soil, although the U.S. would never ever admit that as the primary reason.

And, if the Republican-cont rolled congress was serious about nullifying this agreement if a Republican president makes it into the White House in 2016, and the Congress remains Republican-cont rolled, then any agreement that Iran signs with Obama now would be totally worthless.

+2 # geraldom 2015-03-16 23:58

John Kerry says that the U.S. now needs to negotiate directly with Bashar Assad whereas before he was proclaiming that the U.S. had to overthrow Assad. How can Assad trust someone who would rather see him removed from office and who represents the very country that is feeding the violence in his country?
+5 # dsepeczi 2015-03-17 11:14
Quoting geraldom:

John Kerry says that the U.S. now needs to negotiate directly with Bashar Assad whereas before he was proclaiming that the U.S. had to overthrow Assad. How can Assad trust someone who would rather see him removed from office and who represents the very country that is feeding the violence in his country?

Kerry's schtick about negotiating with Assad, I believe, is disingenuous. Even as he says they must negotiate with him, he blames Assad for the failed negotiations the last time, stating that he didn't want to negotiate. So, Assad's already the bad guy in all of this, as far as Kerry's concerned. The Geneva I that Kerry refers to was a joke. Although it called on all sides to stop the violence, it also called on Assad to give up his power to a transitional government that includes a Joint Special Envoy, which I can easily assume would be appointed by us. That communique also referred specifically to holding members of all parties (wink, wink) to answer for any war crimes committed during the Civil War. So Assad wasn't stupid enough to surrender his power and risk subjecting himself to a war crimes trial. If those were the terms laid out to me ... I guess Kerry would quickly be stating that I don't want to negotiate either because .... well ... I have a brain.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.