From this perspective, the big problem with the Islamic Republic is not that it is irrevocably and aggressively anti-American (it is not). The problem is that the Islamic Republic refuses, as a matter of both principle and strategic interest, to accept and endorse American dominance in the region.
By our reckoning, the evidence of the damage that America’s determination to assert hegemonic dominance over the political and strategic orientation of key states in the region has done to its strategic position, in the Middle East and globally, is already overwhelming. And yet bipartisan attachment to the illusory and demonstrably counter-productive goal of Middle Eastern hegemony persists; currently, its most salient manifestation is the rising crescendo of voices advocating U.S. military action—we will call it what it would be, an illegitimate U.S. attack—against the Islamic Republic, ostensibly over its nuclear activities.
One of the more prominent current specimens of this sort of argument is an article in the forthcoming, January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs; authored by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Matthew Kroenig, the article is entitled, “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option”, see here. Here is the thrust of Kroenig’s argument:
“[S]keptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease—that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.”
Needless to say, as thoroughgoing “skeptics of military action”, we are not persuaded by Kroenig’s piece. His article has already been critically dissected on strategic and military grounds by Steve Walt, see here, in a blog post delightfully entitled “The Worst Case for War With Iran”. As Steve points out, “There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war”, which Kroenig’s article exemplifies:
“First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don’t act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice’s infamous warnings about Saddam’s ‘mushroom cloud’?) All this step requires is a bit of imagination and a willingness to assume the worst. Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren’t that great. If you want to sound sophisticated and balanced, you acknowledge that there are counterarguments and risks involved. But then you do your best to shoot down the objections and emphasize all the ways that those risks can be minimized. In short, in Step 1 you adopt a relentlessly gloomy view of the consequences of inaction; in Step 2 you switch to bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.”
Steve takes it from there, in bracing fashion. We largely agree with his more specific criticisms of Kroenig’s article, although we take issue with his drive-by assertion that some of the Iranians who would be victims of a U.S. attack on their country “despise the clerical regime (and with good reason)”. This uncritical repetition of a seemingly de rigeur acknowledgement that the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy is dubious actually contributes to the case for a U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic, which we do not believe Steve wants to do. Paul Pillar, see here, has also offered an arrestingly sharp critique of Kroenig’s article, describing it as “so far removed from anything resembling careful analysis that one would hardly know where to start in inventorying its flaws”. Paul then performs outstandingly in doing precisely that—inventorying the article’s myriad flaws.
With Steve and Paul’s pieces on the table, we will not devote much attention to reviewing Kroenig’s article ourselves, save to highlight one of its dimensions that is virtually omnipresent in current “bomb Iran” discourse, but does not get discussed nearly as much as it should. This element is noted in passing by Paul, in his critique, when he raises “a further disturbing thought, or rather a question: how did mainstream discourse within the American foreign policy establishment come to include proposals to launch a war of aggression?” Answering Paul’s question takes us back to our opening point about hegemony and the enormous damage that its pursuit has imposed on American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.
Just consider what Kroenig himself writes regarding the real motive for a prospective U.S. attack on Iran: “a nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East.” Let’s translate that into more concrete terms: in the view of many advocates of U.S. aggression against the Islamic Republic, a nuclear Iran might raise anxiety levels in Washington the next time a U.S. administration plans to invade another Middle Eastern country in a quixotic effort to install a secular liberal (and pro-U.S.) political order that its people do not want and, ultimately, will not accept (see Lebanon, post-Saddam Iraq, and Egypt on this point, for starters). Kroenig and others like him argue that, in order to keep those anxiety levels at manageable levels in the future, the United States needs to attack Iran now.
Now that is a hegemonic program, if ever there were one. It’s not about American security or the defense of real interests. It’s about the preservation of imperial prerogatives in the Middle East—prerogatives whose reflexive and persistent exercise actually diminishes American security and makes it harder for the United States to assure its tangible, material interests in the region.
In this regard, we were powerfully struck by, and want to discuss here, a recent article authored by John Yoo. Yoo, currently a University of California law professor, is one of the more striking figures to emerge from the George W. Bush Administration’s assault, in the name of prosecuting its self-proclaimed “global war on terror”, on the U.S. Constitution and American adherence to international law. Perhaps most notoriously, it was Yoo who, as a member of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, authored the so-called “torture memo” in August 2002; this document set the bar for what constitutes torture so high that U.S. government agencies could get away with a lot of stuff that most of the rest of the world (including some brave lawyers serving in the U.S. military) thought was torture.
Yoo has now turned his legal acumen and moral judgment to assessing the optimal American posture toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. On this subject, National Review’s year-end issue features a piece by him, arguing that—as its title proclaims—“Now is the time to make the case for military action against Iran”; see here. It opens as follows:
“Our political calendar and one of our nation’s greatest threats have synchronized. In the upcoming year, the American people will render their judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. Meanwhile, if the International Atomic Energy Agency’s November report is accurate, Iran will soon join the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers. Because of the Obama administration’s reluctance to confront this looming threat, others—such as the Republican presidential candidates—must begin preparing the case for a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.”
In Yoo’s assessment, President Obama’s “reluctance” to confront the Iranian nuclear “threat” has “left the public uninformed about the nature and possible consequences of military action, which must be serious and sustained enough to destroy complex, protected, and dispersed facilities”, for “pinpoint bombing of a single facility will not end Iran’s nuclear program.” He “has also failed to explain the heavy costs of containment, which would involve a constant, significant conventional and nuclear military presence on Iran’s perimeter.” (That strikes us as, more or less, the status quo.) Moreover, “Obama has compounded this political negligence by failing to build the legal case for attacking Iran”, instead tethering “American national security to the dictates of the United Nations.”
On this latter point, Yoo—who lists international law as one of his academic and professional specialties—accurately lays out the current state of international law regarding the use of force and the UN Security Council’s role in international decision-making on this highly consequential matter:
“The UN Charter guarantees the ‘territorial integrity’ and ‘political independence’ of each member nation, and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense, which many scholars and international officials interpret to mean that force is prohibited except when an invader has attacked across a border or is about to do so. It does provide an exception for war to prevent threats to international peace and security, but only if approved by the Security Council…Not surprisingly, UN authorizations to use force are rare.”
Nothing objectionable in this summary, as far as we can see. And by this standard, a U.S. attack on Iran would be blatantly illegal—a point that Steve Walt makes well, in his assessment of Kroenig’s article:
“[L]et’s by crystal clear about what Kroenig is advocating here. He is openly calling for preventive war against Iran, even though the United States has no authorization from the U.N. Security Council, it is not clear that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, and Iran has not attacked us or any of our allies—ever. He is therefore openly calling for his country to violate international law. He is calmly advocating a course of action that will inevitably kill a significant number of people, including civilians…
Kroenig tries to allay this concern by saying that the main victims of a U.S. attack would be the ‘military personnel, engineers, scientists, and technicians’ working at Iran’s nuclear facilities. But even if we assume for the moment that this is true, would he consider Iran justified if it followed a similar course of action, to the limited extent that it could?” Suppose a bright young analyst working for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards read the latest issue of Foreign Affairs and concluded that there were well-connected people at American universities and in the Department of Defense who were actively planning and advocating war against Iran. Suppose he further concluded that if these plans are allowed to come to fruition, it would pose a grave danger to the Islamic Republic. Iran doesn’t have a sophisticated air force or drones capable of attacking the United States, so this bright young analyst recommends that the Revolutionary Guards organize a covert action team to attack the people who were planning and advocating this war, and to do whatever else they could to sabotage the forces that the United States might use to conduct such an attack. He advises his superiors that appropriate measures be taken to minimize the loss of innocent life and that the attack should focus only on the ‘military and civilian personnel’ who were working directly on planning or advocating war with Iran. From Iran’s perspective, this response would be a ‘preventive strike’ designed to forestall an attack from the United States. Does Kroenig think a purely preventive measure of this kind on Iran’s part would be acceptable behavior? And if he doesn’t then why does he think it’s perfectly OK for us to do far more? ”
Aptly put—and, from John Yoo’s description of the current state of international law regarding the use of force, one would think that Steve, though not a lawyer himself, is on impeccable legal footing. But Yoo then provides an answer to Steve’s question as to how one could manage to think that “it’s perfectly OK” for the United States to act illegally.
More specifically, Yoo argues that the United States is entitled to ignore the arrangement he succinctly described—the Security Council and all the rest—on the grounds that it “lacks political legitimacy” and “is contrary to both American national interests and global welfare because it subjects any intervention, no matter how justified or beneficial, to the approval of authoritarian nations.” In other words, America need not consider itself bound by international legal mechanisms that it played a central role in creating because it is a global hegemon:
“The United States has assumed the role, once held by Great Britain, of guaranteeing free trade and economic development, spreading liberal values, and maintaining international security. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, though it would impose costs in human lives and political turmoil, would serve these interests and forestall the spread of conflict and terror. The Republican presidential candidates should begin preparing the case now for this difficult but unavoidable challenge.”
And just in case the next (presumably Republican) president should harbor some residual attachment to the quaint idea that the United States might want to get its wars legitimated by the Security Council, Yoo argues that he should “make a case much like the one that the Bush administration made regarding Iraq. It can argue that destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons is a combination of self-defense and protecting international security” (sic).
Frankly, we are hard put to think of anyone other than on-duty British officials, a few other subservient Europeans, and Israel who would be willing, in public, to hold up the George W. Bush Administration’s legal justification for its illegal invasion of Iraq as a model for future U.S. decisions to initiate otherwise wholly illegitimate wars in the Middle East. But that is exactly what John Yoo has done. And he could end up with a position of considerable importance in the next Republican administration.
We note that John Yoo earned his law degree at Yale. During the 1950s and 1960s, Yale Law School was the locus for what came to be described as the “New Haven School” of international law. Closely associated with long-time Yale law professor Myres McDougal, the New Haven School disdained “positivist” conceptions of international law as a body of rules defined by the consent of sovereign states, which then has some standing apart from individual states’ whims as a guide for and constraint on states’ decision-making and actions. For McDougall and his associates, working in a Cold War context, such a conception of international law might prove unacceptably limiting on the United States.
So, they came up with an alternative: international law, in their version, aims to promote human dignity, by encouraging the development of free, democratic society. Therefore, what matters in determining the legality of any particular international action is not its compatibility with some body of rules that “evil” states as well as “good” states (like the United States) have some say in; what matters are the “values” motivating the action in the first place. (Yes, one could get an endowed chair at one of America’s most prestigious law schools writing this kind of stuff.) And who specifies these values? Those powerful states (like America) that have some capacity for independent international action.
This is, of course, a recipe for the United States doing whatever it wants to and can get away with, without being bothered by trifles like internationally-agreed (including by the United States) rules and norms. Though originally defined in a Cold War context, this perverted notion of international law has gotten a new lease on life in the post-Cold War era, in an America “liberated” from Cold War constraints to intensify its pursuit of hegemonic standing in places like the Middle East. John Yoo is too young to have studied with McDougall, but he has clearly imbibed the “New Haven School” mindset.
We find one additional aspect of note in both Kroenig and Yoo’s articles. If one takes their language literally, their arguments rest on an assumption that the Islamic Republic is going to build nuclear weapons; their analyses then purport to build a case for war against an Islamic Republic in possession of assembled nuclear devices. But what if Tehran never gives the Matthew Kroenigs and John Yoos of the world the satisfaction of actually building atomic weapons? Would they still argue for a U.S. attack against an Iran with what some would construe as, at most, a theoretical nuclear weapons “option”?
One hopes that Kroenig, Yoo, and other advocates of U.S. aggression against the Islamic Republic might be willing to make at least this distinction. But, then, the truth about Iraq’s WMD programs did not seem to matter much to the Administration that John Yoo served so assiduously in 2003.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Castellio,
You will recall that Aipac went virtually berkserk after Obama this past May endorsed the Green Line or “1967″ borders.
Castellio,
I would expect the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs to invest substantial amounts of money in development projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, if Israel agreed to the peace plan. Bringing prosperity to the Palestinians would help make amends for the terrible sacrifices they have made (or been forced to make).
So, okay, lets say the Saudi peace plan isn’t dead, that it is “pending”. (We will ignore for the moment that neither the US nor Israel support it, or give it any time at all)
Is the backing of this “pending” plan the full extent of Saudi action and success in its support of Palestine?
Is that a reflection of Saudi Arabian importance in the oil industry or the armament industry?
R S Hack,
You are quite right to underline the great service to peace in the Middle East, bestowed on the region by Hezbollah, when it resisted Israel’s effort to take it out by smashing Lebanon. Lebanon got smashed (to tune of $7 billion in damage), but Hezbollah remained in place. Preventing Dick Cheney’s conspiracy to have yet another illegal war in the Middle East from succeeding (with crucial help from CIA and the 2007 NIE on Iran).
Castellio,
I do not think the Saudi peace plan is “dead”. Perhaps you would prefer it be dead, but it is not. Again, it is peculiar that you buy into the Zionist extremist narrative that growing colonies of Jews changes borders.
Castellio,
Delusional Israelis think they can carve up the West Bank at will, growing illegal colonies of Jews. Why do you buy into this delusional narrative? Saudi Arabia says Israel cannot change the borders by growing colonies of Jews in the West Bank (or the Golan Heights). Clearly this is the sensible approach.
You’re persistent, James, and that’s a virtue.
Given the lull, I want to ask you a question in the hopes you won’t avoid a straight answer. You often say that the Saudis support Palestine. However Palestine has largely disappeared. Palestinians struggle along in refugee camps and concentration camps without any legal standing, but Palestine as a geographical or national entity is a hodge podge of disconnected bantustans. And Israel has made it quite clear that there will be no Palestine other than civic administration of those ever smaller, more isolated and more deprived camps.
Now, Saudi Arabia is spending huge amounts of momeny on armaments that are being sold by the US, the nation backing the Israelis in their conquest of Palestine. The US is happy knowing that these arms are going to SA, and celebrates the sell. Israel is also content with arms going to SA, knowing that they are no threat.
So, how is it, in any real sense other than verbal rhetoric for its own restless population, that SA supports the Palestinians?
Given SA extraordinary importance in the oil trade, and its extraordinary importance in the American aramaments trade, it has nothing to show for its support of Palestine. Absolutely nothing!
So I do not know how you can honourably repeat your statements that the Saudis support Palestine, and I hope you take this opportunity to convince myself – and others – of why you believe that to be the case.
I expect you to talk of financial support for Hamas, and perhaps of the (very dead) Saudi peace plan, but I’m hoping that you will make a somewhat more inclusive and coherent case for SA’s active and sustained support for Palestine that actually fits with the events of the last 60 years.
R S Hack,
Who are the “US elites” that you claim want Syria and Iran “gone”? Some of the rich and powerful Jews? Some of the rich Christian Zionists? A know a considerable number of rich Americans and virtually none of them wants war in Syria or Iran.
R S Hack,
Iran virtually insisted that the UK seek another round of sanctions.
I have stated a number of times my concern that the Israel lobby increasingly tries to manipulate the UK government in the style they routintely achieve in the US. This is being naive?
Lysander,
Russia and China are unlikely to back a UNSC resolution on Syria that would allow bombing by Nato.
Two Russian ships heading to Syria.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-two-russian-warships-to-visit-syria-1.405938
Not sure if this is serious, but so far it seems Russia is standing by Syria. I’m impressed. I would have thought they would have dropped Assad by now but they seem pretty firm. Russia can’t challenge the western navies, but I don’t think they will want to start a bombing campaign while Russian ships are there. At least, I hope not.
This may all be “previously scheduled visits,” but the perception is nevertheless important.
James Canning: “William Hague and David Cameron seriously disapproved of the Israeli smashing of Lebanon in 2006. I doubt the UK would do anything to encourage or set up a repeat disaster.”
THEY ARE. That’s the bottom line. They have supplied British troops and support to the Syrian dissidents as they did to the Libyan dissidents. This is directly involved in overthrowing the Assad regime, which in turn is directly involved in Israel’s upcoming attack on Hizballah, and in turn deliberately involved in furthering the Iran war.
In any event, the UK will do what the US (and the equivalent of the Israel Lobby in the UK) and the UK military-industrial complex and UK oil companies tells them to do. Just like in the US.
The UK is by no means somehow independent of the US, NATO, and Israel. The UK, as George Galloway likes to remark, is barely keeping its head above water while continuing to push for sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and for starting another Iran war as a result.
You’re far too naive.
Karl: “US are probably more keen on good relations with the arab world more than ever before which stems from 2 things.”
Trust me, US elites couldn’t care less.
“1. Unifying arabs against Iran.”
Like that’s really going to happen. The ONLY way the US could achieve that would be to put Israel in it’s place vis-a-vis the Palestinian situation – and that ain’t happenin’.
“2. Trying to establish good relations with the new, post-revolution, islamist parties which will be harder to bribe than the earlier US-puppets that some already now have been toppled.”
When push comes to shove, the US elites want Iran and Syria gone, regardless of how the Arab street sees things. With Syria and Hizballah weakened, Israel will be much less worried about Egypt, even if Egypt repudiates the peace treaty at referendum (which is very likely).
Israel’s primary concern is and always has been Iran because Iran is too far for Israel to take out militarily (short of nuking Tehran which Israel can’t do for international relations reasons.) Therefore Israel requires the US to take out Iran. But as I said, this can only happen once both of Iran’s allies next to Israel, Hizballah and Syria, are weakened so that neither can be used against Israel during the Iran war.
Israel isn’t worried about Egypt or Jordan at all, regardless of who’s in power. It’s not worried about Hizballah or Syria, either, except for the nuisance value in an Iran war. But that nuisance value IS important if Israel’s leaders want to keep the Israeli population in favor of the leadership’s actions. The Israeli population won’t mind if Israel attacks Iran, but they WILL mind having to spend months in bomb shelters under Hizballah and Syrian missile attacks. So Israel has to avoid that.
And as I’ve said repeatedly, there is only ONE way to do that: push Hizballah further north so its missiles can’t reach Tel Aviv. And there is only ONE way to do THAT: attack the Bekaa Valley via Syria. And there is only ONE way to do THAT: weaken Syria first or at the same time. And the BEST way to do THAT is the Libya model.
“How will they do that? Since China, Russia will veto any intervention.”
Russia and China can veto in the UN all they want. It won’t change things any more than George Bush was dissuaded from attacking Iraq. The UN can still put up a resolution and support that resolution, even if it gets vetoed. The US and NATO can then claim “moral authority” even if they don’t have actual legal authority.
“Do you really think that US soldiers will running from Israel to fight Syria or to fight Lebanon thus even breaching the UN force in the middle?”
I said absolutely nothing about that. What will happen is that US troops will assist Israel with anti-missile protection from Syria and Lebanon from within Israel as well as probably engaging in military intelligence operations (SIGINT) against Syria and covert ops in support of the Syrian dissidents – just as they did in Libya. You do know there were US CIA forces as well as French and British forces on the ground in Libya supporting the dissidents, right? US and NATO air strikes – with no ground troops involved except covert ops forces – will attack Syria. Israel will attack Lebanon with air strikes AND ground troops advancing through Syrian territory while Syrian troops are pinned down by US/NATO air strikes.
And Israel couldn’t care less about UNFIL…UNFIL will be pulled out before the Israeli attack. They’ll be warned in advance. And they’ll run if faced with Israeli armor if they’re not warned.
“Thats not going to happen. Obviously US arent going to do such a dirty work, they have neither the interest nor capability to fight two wars (Syria + Iran, and even Hezbollah).”
Like I said, the US isn’t going to be fighting Hizballah. And the US won’t be fighting Syria and Iran at the same time. Syria goes first (with Israel taking down Hizballah – if they can), THEN Iran.
The strategic plan is so obvious it’s pathetic. One doesn’t need a crystal ball, the progression from Libya to Syria is completely transparent.
They tried this in 2006 already! Israel attacked Hizballah, but failed to drive it north because they tried a frontal assault and badly underestimated Hiaballah’s capabilities. So Bush and Cheney couldn’t pull off an attack on Iran in 2006 or 2007 because Israel balked at starting the war with Hizballah still on their rear (and the 2007 NIE ruined the politics).
THIS is why we had no Iran war in 2006-2007.
Israel had to spend the next couple of years re-evaluating their strategy against Hizballah. Then they had to deal with Cast Lead in 2009.
At some point, someone came up with the Libyan idea, and it was tested out on Libya. Now that model will be applied to Syria, which will enable Israel to deal with Hizballah (they hope, anyway – I’m not so sure it will work.)
After that, it will be Iran’s turn (assuming the Lebanon and Syria wars don’t turn into complete disasters for the US, NATO and Israel – which is quite possible.)
Nasser says:
- I keep failing to post the weblink for some reason.
—————
I have the same problem.. for some reason this site rejects the inclusion of any reference to the ambassadors wen site!?!?!
MK Bhadrakumar writes:
“Momentous turn in India’s West Asia Policy
External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna is most certainly assured of an exciting visit to Israel on Monday. Israel announced Thursday that it is planning to hold its biggest-ever military exercise with the United States. Of course, unannounced, thousands of American troops are also being deployed in Israel.
British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond paid his first visit to the Pentagon and then went on, after meeting with his American counterpart Leon Panetta to express readiness to put the British forces in the Persian Gulf at the disposal of the US in the region. Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper has virtually called for war naming Iran as the “world’s most serious threat to international peace and security.” When Britain and Canada speak out belligerently, clearly, they are acting as choir boys.
Alongside, European Union is moving toward an oil embargo on Iran. The embargo may come into force by end-January once alternate supplies are lined up for Europe. For Iran, the EU is its second biggest consumer of oil after China, but EU can dispense with Iranian oil as the supplies only amount to some 4 percent of Europe’s total imports. The US has already signed into law a decision to target foreign parties that have dealings with the Iranian central bank, a move aimed at putting financial pressure on Iran.
On the diplomatic plane, Iran has put the western powers in a fix by offering to talk on the Iran nuclear issue and also allowing in the IAEA inspectors. Plainly put, western powers are not ready for talks and have put a pre-condition that a letter written by EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in October must be replied to first — of course, in appropriate wording that the west would then have the right to accept or reject. Which means, a stalemate has been reached. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev yesterday.
The problem for the US and its western allies is that the Russian proposal for negotiations (which Iran ahas accepted), mooted first in July last year, envisages an easing and incremental lifting of existing sanctions in parallel with Tehran answering the IAEA’s queries on its nuclear programme. Of course, Russia is firmly opposed to any fresh sanctions on Iran.
What emerges, therefore, is that the US wants to keep the nuclear issue as an alibi (although there is no evidence that Iran pursues a nuclear weapon programme) to create a case for military actions against Iran. The core issue is that the US cannot accept the surge in Iran’s regional influence, which renders ineffectual Israel’s military dominance in the Middle East.
Quite obviously, Krishna’s visit to Israel next week, punctuating a 10-year interlude in such high level visits from India, makes a big statement of solidarity with the US-Israeli game plan vis-a-vis Iran. Amidst the war clouds gathering in the Middle East, India’s West Asia policy is taking a momentous turn, and, unsurprisingly, the government is receiving accolades for standing up and being counted in full view of the Arab world as a friend of Israel.
But it is useful to remind the US and israel that there is nothing like free lunch. It isn’t a small thing that a founding member of the non-aligned movement like India jettisons principles and gets down to realpolitik by fulfilling covertly yet another stipulation spelt out in the Hyde Act that provides the underpinning of the US-India nuclear deal of 2008. Will Barack Obama reciprocate the Indian leadership’s compliance with the Hyde Act? Will the powerful Israeli Lobby in Washington put in a word for India?
The Indian wish list is languishing in the sideboard in the Oval Office — membership of the NSG and other technology control regimes, affirmation of waiver on transfer of ENR technology to India. Then, indeed, there lies the mother of all Indian wishes: India’s UN Security Council membership. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu may have some answers for Krishna.”
- I keep failing to post the weblink for some reason.
Dear All,
See attached Ron Paul’s predictions in 2002.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM
Haaretz interviews General Pervez Musharraf.
Regarding Iran’s nuclear program: “The question is about a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. Do they have it? I don’t know. My knowledge is that proliferation did take place from Pakistan. Yes, unfortunately there was proliferation…But that involved enrichment of uranium. That does not mean possession of a bomb. Because turning uranium into a bomb is a totally different technology. Not only that, but exploding that bomb means you need a trigger mechanism – a totally different technology again. And then that mechanism needs to be of the right size to be fired in a delivery system, another issue because that means reducing its size. So, I really don’t know if Iran has all this.”
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/relations-with-israel-could-help-pakistan-says-former-president-musharraf-1.405846
James Canning,
“Michael Peel of the Financial Times, in a report from Riyadh dated Nov. 21st, said that the Saudis were producing 12 million barrels per day, and that if world markets needed more oil, it should be available from Iraq.”
- My understanding was that 12 mbd is roughly Saudi Arabia’s peak capacity and they are infact producing below that amount (around 10 mbd, I think) as agreed to by OPEC. So they usually have about 2 mbd of spare capacity if they decide to break with OPEC quota.
- It is also my understanding that the Saudis have done a great deal of lobbying at both Asian and European capitals to let purchasers of Iranian oil know that they can wholly make up for any disruption of Iran’s roughly 2 mbd of exports.
- You are right though that without Iraq’s rehabilitation, the West wouldn’t have had the courage to turn against Iran’s energy sector in such a way.
- Fyi pointed out that there still exists some technical complications to replacing Iranian oil so easily. But it seems the Western countries are aware of this and are readying the IEA to balance such temporary shortfalls.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-iea-contingency-idUSTRE8051FV20120106
- It seems a lot of countries, with the Saudis in particular are willing to go well out of their way and in fact do harm to themselves just to hurt Iran.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 7:33 pm
That flexibility got nothing for Iran.
Iran has gone back to the postion she held under the late Mr. Khomeini.
The peace process, the Saudi Plan, the HAMAS Hudna, etc. are all gone.
There is only war and blooshed in the cards.
James Canning says:
January 6, 2012 at 7:33 pm
“Nine or ten years ago, Iran gave signals it will accept the Saudi peace plan if the Palestinians accept it. This to me is obvious way forward.”
Gavener James- almost 1400 years ago Iran offered her own peace plans but the Muslim Arabs didn’t want any of it, as a consequence “way forward” was, that Iran permanently became a Muslim majority country, maybe that’s what’s awaiting to happen in the occupied Palestine.
Don’t they say that the history repeats itself?
“Neocon hysteria over defense cuts falls flat”, by Kelley Vlahos:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
Rehmat,
The “western colonial powers” did not “create” Saudi Arabia or the Saudi royal family. I do not know where you get that idea.
fyi,
Nine or ten years ago, Iran gave signals it will accept the Saudi peace plan if the Palestinians accept it. This to me is obvious way forward.
fyi,
I think the Saudi peace plan would work with an internationalised Old City. Perhaps special rights of Hashemite kings of Jordan could be helpful.
Philip Weiss has great piece Jan. 6th: “Spouse of ‘NYT’ correspondent calls on Israeli gov’t to wage ‘war’ on int’l threat to its image”
http://mondoweiss.net
Hirsh Goodman, husband of NYT reporter Isable Kershner, is agitated that Israel’s existence is, in his own view, threatened by bad PR.
Saudia is the greatest threat to US, not Iran, Stupid!
Says, John Stanton is a Virginia-based journalist, author and writer in security and Jewish matters ….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/saudia-is-the-greatest-threat-to-us-not-iran-stupid/
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Al Quds must be a Muslim city for th war to end.
There is no other way.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm
You do not know the Jews; do you understand the symblism of crushing of tumblers during a Jewsih wedding?
No, Mr. Canning; endless war is in the cards until and unless Isrzel, Iran, US, Lebanon, and Palestine can agree on a settlement.
Nasser,
Michael Peel of the Financial Times, in a report from Riyadh dated Nov. 21st, said that the Saudis were producing 12 million barrels per day, and that if world markets needed more oil, it should be available from Iraq.
Philip Hammond, British defence secretary, says UK opposes any preemptive strike on Iran.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/219646.html
fyi,
I do not expect “regime change” in Iran or the US. But many American Jews are asking themselves if they want endless war or near-war in the Middle East. Due to Israeli stupidity.
fyi,
I think Israel would agree to an international status for the Old City in Jerusalem. Many Israelis, of course, would object strenuously.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm
The Al Aqsa Mosque – where God gathered all prophets from Adam to Mohmammad for prayer is now controlled by Israel – the Jewish Fortress.
The Dome of the Rock, where Mohammad ascended to Heaven, is controlled by Israel – the Jewish Fortress.
They will not give that up; they will use a nuclear bomb first.
As I sated before; tactically, the HAMAS Hudna was a possibility until last year.
Now even that is no longer in the cards.
US and Iran, therefore, will remain antagonistic until regime change in either or both countries.
A few more decades, I should think.
fyi,
Obama inevitably is beholden to the rich and powerful Jews who were responsible for arranging for him to get into the White House. And Jews provide half of all funding for Democrats seeking senate or house seats.
R S Hack,
William Hague and David Cameron seriously disapproved of the Israeli smashing of Lebanon in 2006. I doubt the UK would do anything to encourage or set up a repeat disaster.
Karl,
The Saudis are keenly aware that if oil prices go too high, global recession will bring them down much lower than they are currently.
Another blatant chutzpah by disconnected-from-the-reality-US that still thinks it could control the latin americans will.
“US warns Latin America not to tie itself to Iran”
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1684312.php/US-warns-Latin-America-not-to-tie-itself-to-Iran
fyi:
saudi could have avoided escalation and possible war in the region by just stating that they would not accept another war in the region that is, to say no to export more oil in case an oil embargo is imposed on its neighbour. Instead they play along with US and israeli goals.
Nasser says: January 6, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I think that the crude that Saudi can release is not of the same constituency as that of Iran’s; the refineries in many countries have to be retro-fitted.
I also think that way, OPEC will also be in a bind.
The Saudis will be fools to go that route but those that Gods wish to destry they first make stupid.
Richard Steven Hack:
“US elites couldn’t care less about the US image. Just as Abbie Hoffman used to say that you can’t call cops “Nazis” – because they LIKE that – every time the US is accused of being an imperialist power, the US elites smile. They LIKE that – that’s their intention”
- US are probably more keen on good relations with the arab world more than ever before which stems from 2 things.
1. Unifying arabs against Iran.
2. Trying to establish good relations with the new, post-revolution, islamist parties which will be harder to bribe than the earlier US-puppets that some already now have been toppled.
“So Israel wants the US and NATO to take on Syria while it takes on Hibzallah.”
- How will they do that? Since China, Russia will veto any intervention.
“Says who? There’s always a first time. If the US and NATO intend to attack Syria, where better to stash your forces than in Israel, your “aircraft carrier in the Middle East”. Why do you think US forces stash literally billions of dollars of military supplies in Israel?”
- History tells us. Do you really think that US soldiers will running from Israel to fight Syria or to fight Lebanon thus even breaching the UN force in the middle? Thats not going to happen. Obviously US arent going to do such a dirty work, they have neither the interest nor capability to fight two wars (Syria + Iran, and even Hezbollah).
“A massive war game at this point in time IS. The US has never, to my knowledge, held a war game of this size in Israel. And the timing, when Syria is on the verge of a civil war, clearly fits.”
- Well if we use your rhetoric “there must be a first time”. Its just for war games and deterrence since its as always non-existent. What matter does the ammouth of troops really make? The object is that they are having wargames.
James Canning,
“If Iranian oil exports are cut by, say 1 million barrels per day, oil will go to $125 and this will likely bring global recession if it is sustained.”
- Saudi Arabia has something like 2.5 mbd of excess capacity and has been very vocal in stating that they can make up for any loss in Iranian supplies. US and EU leaders share this view. And Iraq’s rehabilitation has increased the supply in world markets. These facts together lead Western leaders to believe that disruption of Iran’s supply would have negligible impact on the world markets.
- Iran has failed in what should have been its number one strategic priority, which would be raising its oil production capacity. In fact Iran’s production is roughly 2.2mbd less than it was before the revolution.
fyi,
“Marjaiyah will fight tooth and nail to maintain the Shia ascendancy there and the territorial integrity of Irqa – there will be no sectarian federalism there.”
- A dismemberment of Iraq would very much be in Iran’s interest. As would the dismemberment of Afghanistan. This would be the best possible outcome from the people of those countries as well.
Karl says:
“What possible ways of counter-measures could Iran possibly initially use if EU/US oil embargo is getting through or any other provocation/war tactics?”
possible option;
“Now the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) is re-evaluating the use of Iranian waters at the Strait of Hormuz. Legislation is being proposed by Iranian parliamentarians to block any foreign warships from being able to use Iranian territorial waters to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission; the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee is currently studying legislating this as an official Iranian posture on the basis of Iranian strategic interests and national security. “
http://www.voltairenet.org/Would-the-US-be-defeated-in-the
Karl: “Israel could take on any state in the region. Just as Israel couldnt attack Iraq back in the 90s. US dont want its image to erode even more in already troubled times.”
US elites couldn’t care less about the US image. Just as Abbie Hoffman used to say that you can’t call cops “Nazis” – because they LIKE that – every time the US is accused of being an imperialist power, the US elites smile. They LIKE that – that’s their intention.
Also, appearances aren’t relevant when it comes to REAL money and power.
It’s irrelevant whether Israel could attack Iraq OR Iran. What Israel can attack is Lebanon and Syria – and defeat both simultaneously.
But as I said, Israel doesn’t want to fight Lebanon and Syria simultaneously if it doesn’t have to because it means more casualties than it wants to admit to the Israeli public.
So Israel wants the US and NATO to take on Syria while it takes on Hibzallah.
“1. US have never fighten a war, with Israel and will never do.”
Says who? There’s always a first time. If the US and NATO intend to attack Syria, where better to stash your forces than in Israel, your “aircraft carrier in the Middle East”. Why do you think US forces stash literally billions of dollars of military supplies in Israel?
“2. Hizbollah is no threat to Israel.”
Oh, yes, it is. Israel doesn’t want forty thousand rockets landing as far as Tel Aviv in the middle of a war with Iran. While Hizballah can’t ever overthrow Israel, it can definitely cause trouble the Israeli government would prefer to blunt before starting the Iran war.
It’s just stupid to allow an enemy in your rear while you’re engaging a far off enemy. Israel needs to push Hizballah out of southern Lebanon so its missiles can’t reach major Israeli cities. To do that it needs to defeat Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley, which is Hizballah’s “strategic depth”. To do that, it needs to hit the Bekaa Valley from Syrian territory. To do that, it needs to engage Syria. To AVOID that, it needs to have the US/NATO engage Syria.
Q.E.D.
“3. Syria is neither capable to do something, neither a threat to Israel. They have domestic problems.”
Please. Syria isn’t going to attack Israel. Israel and US/NATO are going to attack Syria. It’s not a question of Syria’s decision.
“3. Since actions against Syria will be blocked by China, Russia, there will be no foreign intervention by the US.”
It’s not clear that Russia and China can block US/NATO from attacking Syria, short of actually threatening military intervention. The US and NATO can go it alone without UN authorization. They can put up a UN resolution and once blocked by Russia and China, they can simply declare the resolution’s irrelevance and go ahead. What is Ban Ki-Moon going to do? Declare his disappointment? Whoop-de-do.
China can’t do anything militarily in the region. Russia has warships but Russia will not confront a US Naval Battle Group in the Med over Syria. Russia will denounce the war but be unable to do much more than ship arms to Syria – which will probably be irrelevant in the long run.
To some degree, it depends on what Putin wants to do. I think Putin would like to ratchet up pressure on the US over the European missile defense shield and related matters, so he might be willing to push the envelope in confronting the US. But Russia still has limits on its ability to project power in the region compared to the US. So I don’t see Russia being able to do anything until the situation in Syria has deteriorated to the point where it’s “clear” (to the suckers) that the US and NATO need to establish a “no fly zone” – at which point the situation will be “de facto over”.
“War games between states are not something new.”
A massive war game at this point in time IS. The US has never, to my knowledge, held a war game of this size in Israel. And the timing, when Syria is on the verge of a civil war, clearly fits.
As the Global Research article points out, “The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East.”
Well, what “large scale conflict” in the Middle East is imminent, if not Syria? What “large scale conflict” is likely beyond Syria? Iran.
As you pointed out, Israel can take any country around it by itself. Why would the US need to hold such a large scale war game AT ALL with Israel? For some future war two or three decades from now? With whom?
But in the two-front war scenario I outlined, it makes perfect sense. In the Syria overthrow context that’s clearly in the cards, it makes perfect sense. It’s not the US “protecting Israel” – it’s the US using Israel as a launching point against Syria while ALSO protecting Israel while it takes on Hizballah.
It also makes perfect sense if you expect both Israel and the US to be fighting Iran in the future. Because fighting Iran likely means fighting Syria and Hizballah as well. That’s the whole point. Israel doesn’t want an Iran war until Syria and Hizballah are weakened.
That’s likely WHY we haven’t had an Iran war yet – because Israel has balked at allowing itself to be attacked by at least Hizballah (and possibly Syria) in addition to Iran. Israel wants an Iran war “on the cheap” – with the US doing the heavy lifting and very few casualties from either Iranian or Hizballah missiles.
Israel is the one with “domestic issues”. It couldn’t sustain the 2006 Lebanon war because of the number of casualties it suffered at Hizballah’s hands compared to their relative numbers. There was considerable public criticism of the Israeli military after that war, and some Israeli officers got trounced.
Israel wants to avoid a repeat of that. So it needs to weaken Hizballah decisively and the only way to do that is through Syria. And the best way to do that is to allow the US and NATO to take on Syria.
Note that I’m not saying that Israel will necessarily beat Hizballah. But they have to try, otherwise they have to accept Hizballah’s forces being in the rear during the Iran war (as well as the possibility of Syria being involved in an Iran war.) And that’s unacceptable to Israel, as it would be to any strategic planner.
All:
What possible ways of counter-measures could Iran possibly initially use if EU/US oil embargo is getting through or any other provocation/war tactics?
*Burn its oil fields, thus rising the cost of oil to an even higher price.
*Mine the Hormuz and delay or completely cut off shipping tanks from entering, also this will rise the price of oil.
*Initiate Hezbollah?
*Initiate palestinian groups?
*Create havoc in Iraq?
*Destroying the pipelines running from Iraq?
*Attacking oil tanks in the gulf?
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Mr. Obama is owes too much to the Zionists in US to have much of an independent policy on Iran, on Palestine, or anywhere in between.
Did you know that during the Mavi Marmara incident he was personally involved to limit diplomatic damage to Israel?
unknown unknowns:
“1) China 543,000 10
2) India 341,000 11
3) Japan 251,000 5.9
4) Italy 249,000 13.3
5) South Korea 239,000 7.4
6) Turkey 217,000 30.6
7) Spain 149,000 9.6
8) Greece 111,000 22.6
9) South Africa 98,000 25
10)France 78,000 3.7 ”
Remove in the coming weeks: Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain, Greece, France
“1) China 543,000 10
2) India 341,000 11
6) Turkey 217,000 30.6
9) South Africa 98,000 25
”
I am not sure about them others, also China have began to reduce its ties, starting with their delaying in South Pars area some months ago.
So Iran does indeed face a threat, we could remove the thesis that export will soar this year. Thats for sure.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Let us hope so.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Sunni Arab leaders are doing their best to undermine the Rise of Shia.
They are all fools; playing to US-EU Agenda.
THieu, Shah of Iran, Lon Nol, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Zia all pushed forward the US-EU Agenda to the determient of themselves and their countries.
Caveat Emptor!
fyi,
If Iranian oil exports are cut by, say 1 million barrels per day, oil will go to $125 and this will likely bring global recession if it is sustained.
fyi,
American military leaders are certainly not irrelevant, though of course Obama could order them to launch an idiotic attack on Iran.
Obama was very reluctant to attack Libya, and this came about due to lobbying from France and the UK. William Hague opposed military intervention in Libya, and caught a good deal of flak as a result.
fyi,
Sunnis do not want Iraq partitioned. Nor of course do the Shia. (Kurds have a different take)
Unknown Unknowns (and Empty),
Yes, Iran will do well to diversify its exports, and to seek to achieve as high quality as possible.
fyi,
Is anyone who claims to understand the Middle East actually suggesting the Sunnis could recapture control of the Iraqi central government? Shia control is not in doubt. I do not see this as posing a “threat” to the peace of the Middle East. But perceived unfairness to the Sunnis will of course make it more likely there will be incidents of terrorism against Shia civilians in years to come.
fyi says:
January 6, 2012 at 2:25 pm
You are absolutely correct. The Qom-Najaf-Beirut axis will also fight tooth and nail to maintain Damascus, and with Turkey committing suicide in Syria, and the Weasels imposing sanctions, this will pave the way for the consolidation of Damascus in the Resistance Axis. The Egyptian Brethren’s announcement of their intention to put the Camp David Accords to a referendum is also very welcome news indeed for the good guys. I note also that Khalid Masha’al is in Cairo today. Another very good sign.
Castellio:
Interesting. With regard to this line:
And Pyongyang is flexible about the method of payment as long as it helps the international pariah regime
I believe Hennessey Cognac was the currency of choice for the late Kim Jung Il.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm
The Shia are in power now in Iraq.
Marjaiyah will fight tooth and nail to maintain the Shia ascendancy there and the territorial integrity of Irqa – there will be no sectarian federalism there.
The seat of Marjaiyah, Naja, is the on the other point of the line from Qum – the seat of Marjaiyah in Iran.
These two are the axis that will determine the future of Iraq and Iran – and Entente against all enemies of Shia – domestic or foreign.
Hizbullah already dominates Lebanon; it has the most potent force and the most potent political program.
The Shia have risen and cannot be rolled back.
US-EU States are loath to learn to live with it.
The top 10 buyers of Iranian crude last year were as follows. Figures for OECD countries are from the IEA and for the second quarter. Figures for China, India and South Africa are for the first half of 2011 from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Country Imports bpd Percent Imports:
1) China 543,000 10
2) India 341,000 11
3) Japan 251,000 5.9
4) Italy 249,000 13.3
5) South Korea 239,000 7.4
6) Turkey 217,000 30.6
7) Spain 149,000 9.6
8) Greece 111,000 22.6
9) South Africa 98,000 25
10)France 78,000 3.7
I don’t know how many of these players are going to cry Uncle before the day is done, but what keeps coming to mind is that (1) Iranian non-oil exports have soared under Ahmadinejad (to about $45 billion per year, expected to rise to $60 billion in 1391 (3/2012 – 3/2013) and may well exceed that with the fall of the Rial relative to the Dollar, that (2) we have something approaching $150 billion in Forex reserves, and that we did just fine for two decades when oil prices averaged between $20 to $40 per barrel.
In conclusion, I think you are right, Empty: now is the time for Iran to diversify. I imagine one of our export best-sellers for the second decade of the 21st century will be unmanned aircraft. As our military inductry’s motto goes: First world quality; Third world prices! LOL.
From June, 2009. Perhaps just a strange curiosity, or a piece of deliberate misinformation, or the actual case?
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/NK-quest-for-dollars-part1
“In southern Lebanon following the 2006 war, Israel’s Defense Forces and the United Nations found several of the underground complexes, which by then had been abandoned by Hezbollah militants. By coincidence or not, these tunnels and underground rooms – some big enough for meetings to be held there – are strikingly similar to those the South Koreans have unearthed under the Demilitarized Zone that separates South from North Korea. Under small, manhole cover-sized entrances hidden under grass and bushes were steel-lined shafts with ladders leading down to big rooms with electricity, ventilation, bathrooms with showers and drainage systems. Some of the tunnels are 40 meters deep and located only 100 meters from the Israeli border. North Korea’s possible involvement in digging these tunnels is however, difficult to ascertain. According to Israeli investigative journalist Ronen Bergman, a senior officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who had defected to the West, revealed that, “thanks to the presence of hundreds of Iranian engineers and technicians, and experts from North Korea who were brought in by Iranian diplomats…Hezbollah succeeded in building a 25-kilometer subterranean strip in South Lebanon.”
Beirut sources suggest that it is more likely that Hezbollah has used North Korean designs and blueprints given to them by their Syrian or Iranian allies – both of whom are close to the North Koreans. (Both Iran and Syria have acquired missile technology from North Korea, and what was believed to be a secret nuclear reactor in Syria built with North Korean help was destroyed by the Israeli air force in September 2007.) Either way, North Korean expertise in tunneling has become a valuable commodity for export. And Pyongyang is flexible about the method of payment as long as it helps the international pariah regime.”
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm
US military leaders are irrelevant; they cannot oppose foolish, but otherwise leagal, commands from their Commander-in-Chief.
In case of EU embargo, one should hope for the implosion of Euro or further damage to Spanish, Italian, and Greek economies.
fyi,
Can you elaborate on the “Shia/Iranian power” you expect to see growing signficantly, unless the US and others can roll it back? Do you mean Hezbollah will take complete control of Lebanon? I think this is unlikely.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm
US-EU torpedoed the Russian initiative back in November of 2011.
They need to keep the nuclear file alive to have the option of going to war with iran under the pretext of non-proliferation to roll back the Shia / Irani power.
That is the crux of the matter.
Since the internal politics of US is so degenerated to be dysfunctional, and since the Shia / Irani power shows no sign of implosion or weakness; in spite of the massive harms done to her by US, EU, Saudi Arabia and others, certain circles in US and EU are becoming more and more shrill.
3.5% or 20% are irrelevant – Iran can declare a moratorium on nuclear enrcihment tomorrow; it will not make any difference to the US-EU posture.
Like the war in Palestine that US and Arab leaders kept alive until they lost control – this is another such case.
fyi,
If the EU embargo puts oil up 20%, Iran can sell less oil and earn the same amount of money from the lower sales. Unless China or other buyers can force discounts.
James, are you unaware of powerful Jewish interests backing Obama?
fyi,
American military leaders clearly do not want war with Iran. Certain powerful Jewish interests do want to set up an attack on Iran, to “benefit” Israel. These certain powerful Jewish interests might well back an idiot Republican in the 2012 elections.
fyi,
So, you appear to say Iran enriches to 20%, to trigger an EU embargo on Iranian oil exports, that might be observed by other countries, so Iran can have an insane war?
fyi,
Is the UK trying to “roll back Shia/Iranian power”? UK sought better relations with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, when Hague came into office.
Are you arguing that enriching to 20% enhances Iranian/Shia power? This is a dubious proposition.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 2:02 pm
If Iran cannot sell her oil there will be war.
James Canning says: January 6, 2012 at 1:29 pm
American planners know that the war with Iran will be a land war.
They do not want that.
But they are loath to acknowledge the changed situation in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.
many of them, I have surmised, still have “Hope” that their Iran Problem would disappear (a no-cost foreign policy).
Now, US Congress and Mr. Obama, in their own ways, have hastened to the point where they either have to be ready for war or to de-escalate.
I believe that they will de-escalate.
fyi,
I very much doubt Iran would attack the UAE, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia. And certainly not Oman.
fyi,
Yes, Iran suffered greatly in the Second World War. Soviet tank was indeed excellent. Britain did not expect Stalin to enter into deal with Germany allowing partition of Poland and setting off European war. US supplies were essential to victory of USSR in the war.
Unknown Unknowns says: January 6, 2012 at 12:36 pm
It is not convenient for the Axis Powers to change from Siege warfare to an actual assault at the present time.
Like all Siege Warfare, this one is geared to the erosion of besieged’s power of resistance.
The cresendo of the last 2 months are indicative of some people’s desperation; most likey Israelis and Jews in US.
Now pay attention here:
Americans are sending their troops to Israel to re-assure them of their committment to the defense of Israel. This is clearly Mr. Obama’s own initiative to further discharge his debt to his Zionist supporters in US.
On the other hand, US Congress has pre-empted him and escalated, per their fanatsies, to the strategic Never-Never Land.
Furthermore, US planners doing their best to bolster Arab defenses in the Southern Persian Gulf, as well as their offensive capabilities.
I think the actions against Iran emanating from Axis Powers has had the singular advantage of bringing forward the decision point for the Axis Powers.
Just like the War in Palestine, US (and EU) leaders have lost control of the dynamics of their confrontation with Iran.
Now, they either have to back away from the escalations of the lat 2 months or pursue their current course to the bitter end of war with Iran.
It is their choice now.
Note that they keep on adding to the festering problems in the Middle East. No state or combination of other states has the power or the inclination to oppose them.
Sakineh,
financial Times todaq reports Japan and South Korea have said they will reduce oil imports from Iran. Perhaps not by much, but this remains to be seen. FT commentator said oil may go to $150 if Japan and SK stop importing Iranian oil.
Campaign message by the idiot Republican, Rick Santorum, today:
“I am sick of watching President Obama give the cold shoulder to Israel.”
Iran “wants to see Israel wiped off the map.”
Just the other day, Santorum claimed yet again there were no Palestinians living in the West Bank. Only Israelis.
Sakineh,
Yes, David Gregory is aware that the IAEA monitors Iranian nuclear sites and keeps tabs on nuclear materials. But he lets an idiot like Rick Santorum rant against Iran because this pleases the rich and powerful Jews who ensure his career benefits from promoting such viciousness.
Let us all hope Ron Paul makes a good showing in the New Hampshire primary. The better he does, the more risky it is for the foolish Republican nominee to try to play the Iran card.
Rd.,
Sadly, there is no programme by Obama to cut “defence” spending. In fact, the Pentagon is trying to make it appear such cuts are in store, when the truth is that Pentagon (and other “security” spending) actually will increase. US spent more than $1 trillion on “defence” in 2011.
fyi,
What do you mean when you say American planners do not want war with Iran but they “cannot afford peace”? Do you mean Obama fears the attacks the foolish Republican presidential nominee is likely to make? Romney accuses Obama of trying to appease Iran and claims that is undermining US national security. Rubbis, of course.
Sankineh Bagom & Unknown Unknowns,
They just suffering from two things: کمی خون و گشادی…..”شلوار” [as unknown unknowns would say "large pants"]. :)
Sankineh Bagom & Unknown Unknowns,
I think Iran can do a lot better than just resisting and surviving. It has been a long-standing dream of the Iranian people to move away from an oil-based economy to a non-oil-based one. Now is the time. I am seeing some really promising signs.
For the next 700 years, God willing, Iran doesn’t need to knock at other nations’ door to get energy. It is blessed with one of most remarkable, fertile, and rich (with all sorts of natural resources) geographies. And it has a population with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and creativity. It has the capacity to be self sufficient in all areas it just needs “توکل به خداوند و همت و وحدت” That’s it! God has given all the rest. انشألله.
Europe is falling apart, and it is sanctioning Iran, the strongest nation in the Middle East. Pretty damn stupid. My question is: what are they going to do now that they have played their last card, and we are still standing, completely unaffected? Start a war before the whole thing starts to unravel, no doubt.
AL-ZALZALA (THE EARTHQUAKE)
Total Verses: 8
Revealed At: MAKKA
099.001
YUSUFALI: When the earth is shaken to her (utmost) convulsion,
PICKTHAL: When Earth is shaken with her (final) earthquake
SHAKIR: When the earth is shaken with her (violent) shaking,
099.002
YUSUFALI: And the earth throws up her burdens (from within),
PICKTHAL: And Earth yieldeth up her burdens,
SHAKIR: And the earth brings forth her burdens,
099.003
YUSUFALI: And man cries (distressed): ‘What is the matter with her?’-
PICKTHAL: And man saith: What aileth her?
SHAKIR: And man says: What has befallen her?
099.004
YUSUFALI: On that Day will she declare her tidings:
PICKTHAL: That day she will relate her chronicles,
SHAKIR: On that day she shall tell her news,
099.005
YUSUFALI: For that thy Lord will have given her inspiration.
PICKTHAL: Because thy Lord inspireth her.
SHAKIR: Because your Lord had inspired her.
099.006
YUSUFALI: On that Day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they (had done).
PICKTHAL: That day mankind will issue forth in scattered groups to be shown their deeds.
SHAKIR: On that day men shall come forth in sundry bodies that they may be shown their works.
099.007
YUSUFALI: Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good, see it!
PICKTHAL: And whoso doeth good an atom’s weight will see it then,
SHAKIR: So. he who has done an atom’s weight of good shall see it
099.008
YUSUFALI: And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it.
PICKTHAL: And whoso doeth ill an atom’s weight will see it then.
SHAKIR: And he who has done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it.
Professor Scott, considering the US/EU self-imposed restriction on importing Iranian oil, or frankly said sanctioning their own economies from the Iranian oil market, I thought I should modify this old Persian proverb that can actually become very handy advise to yourself, if and when use of electricity becomes restricted in Birmingham. On the positive side it actually can be very cozy
to review and grade term papers under an Aladdin lamp.
Modified Iranian proverb to fit current situation in the west
“The Lamp (Ali baba Variety) that is needed at home (when electricity is restricted) should not be donated to your local church or Synagogue”
http://www.amazon.com/Pretty-Aladdins-Oil-Table-Lamp-1445/dp/B003JNJFME/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1325870028&sr=8-7
PS: Currently priced at $59.95 and obviously made in china, is still a barging before this coming summer.
fyi: your post is #666, just FYI.
Castellio says: January 6, 2012 at 11:47 am
Iran will not implode; that is a pipe-dream.
This article suggests that waiting for the implosion of Iran is the answer:
http://www.straight.com/article-575421/vancouver/law-prof-says-iran-holds-key-middle-east
Rd. says: January 6, 2012 at 10:44 am
Yes, American planners do not want war with Iran but they cannot afford Peace either. So they need to keep the Siege War against Iran going while hoping something else happen to Iranians.
Internally, US domestic politics is too degenerated to leave any scope for anything else.
Iranians will push their own agenda in Syria and in Afghanistan; their efforts to reach a consensus on Syria with Turkey and on Afghanistan with India has failed.
China will not go out of her way tp help Iran; she is trying to remove any source of friction with US in order to prevent or delay the implementation of US containment strategy against her.
In Iraq, Iranians will prevent the disintegration of Iraq; one way or another.
As US-EU Axis economy deteriorates further in 2012, there will be opportunities for all to revisit their decisions.
The strategic situation, while fluid, has not fundamentally been altered in the Persian Gulfor in the Levant since 2008; the expansion of Shia / Irani power (the Najaf-Qum Axis) etc.
US will be out of Afghanistan and Iranians will wreck NATO project there.
Castellio says:
So, why is Patrick Seale so convinced that there will be no war against Iran? Or, more accurately, does his position make sense?
There is just way too much noise.. If there was war, the noise would be heard after the fact. It is peculiar in the middle of all these noises, Obama is announcing the biggest military budget cuts. Is some of the noise related to that??
The question is, what are the hidden objectives, a complete oil embargo it is not. To reduce Iran’s oil income, perhaps. However, until the chickens come home, it is all noise. It is all conjecture till there is clear evidence Iran’s oil income has been reduced substantially down the road (not barrels exported).
The dynamics on the ground are just far too many to make a simple conclusion because of who said what..
Turkey earlier this week dispatched a team to Syria. Presumably to assess their policy. Given Turkey surrounded by Syria, Iraq and Iran, it is obvious their well being is impacted by events in these three countries. Regardless of disturbances in these countries or the potential for the resistance block gaining the upper hand. Are Turks completely oblivious to that?
The same dynamics hold for EU, China, others. Just to jump up on the noise bandwagon, well, leave that to the Oblivious professor.
Kathlene,
Here is Robert Naiman railing on so-called journalists whom don’t call out politicians for their bogus statements.
”On Sunday, Republican Presidential Rick Santorum told David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press that, unlike President Obama, he would “be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those [nuclear] facilities, you begin to dismantle them and, and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through airstrikes and make it very public that we are doing that.”
David Gregory did not challenge Santorum’s statement. But Gregory knows — or should know — that Iran’s nuclear facilities are already under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/david-gregory-should-tell_b_1186410.html
Rehmat, yes, this was posted on your favorite site.
All:
Sorry, meant to say “110″ dollars per barrel of oil.
Scott Lucas says: January 6, 2012 at 9:58 am
We will have to wait perhaps until the end of 2012 to see tha shape of the World oil market.
I think my assessment has been correct that the confrontation between the Axis Powers and Iran has becpme permanent feature of the international system.
In a way, it is good for Axis Powers and it is good for Iran.
Axis Powers will be delaying the consolidation of Shia / Irani power by harmig Iran while Iranians can continue that consolidation while ignoring US 7 EU.
Sometime in 2015, when oil consupmtion and price is at $ 100 per barrel in 2011 dollars, all of this will be revisited.
Scott Lucas says:
“Publicly, the EU’s spokesman is going to say that no decision has been reached before the Foreign Ministers on 30 January. Privately, the European diplomats — following Greece’s statement this week that it will accept a cut-off of imports,”
——————-
LEAD: No deal yet on Iranian oil embargo, EU sources says
“The devil is in the detail, we are still discussing,’ the EU source said, indicating that a series of exemptions to the embargo were being considered. “
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1684081.php/LEAD-No-deal-yet-on-Iranian-oil-embargo-EU-sources-says
fyi,
“It is not just any oil; the refineris are adjusted for specific type of petroleum – in this case the Iranian one.”
Exactly — which is why there have been months of talks amongst those who want sanctions on Iran with suppliers and customers about the arrangements.
S.
Scott Lucas says: January 6, 2012 at 8:07 am
It is not just any oil; the refineris are adjusted for specific type of petroleum – in this case the Iranian one.
They have to find sources that match that type; elese they refinery has to be retrofitted for a different type of oil – a time consuming process.
Empty,
Pepe discusses all the exemptions, now that the sanctions on ICB are signed into law.
“Show me your balls Apart from that self-defeating, terminally in crisis euro/North Atlantic Treaty Organization bunch, everyone and his neighbor will be bypassing this Israeli-American declaration of economic war”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA07Ak01.html
Castellio says: January 5, 2012 at 11:06 pm
If Iranians cannot sell their oil, there will be war.
It is up to US and EU to decide if they want war now or will they retreat.
One salient fact is that after the war, US will be unable to pay the cost of defending Israel – that much is certain.
James Canning says: January 5, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Siege warfare is not diplomacy, is just another kind of war.
UK will not be able to roll-back Shia / Irani power; you are trying to force people into risking their lives.
James Canning says: January 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm
The Generals were planning a coup against Staling.
Stalin was trying to avoid war at any costs.
The country most responsible for WWII, after Germany, was the United Kingdom.
By the way, the Soviet T-32 tank was the best tank in WWII.
In regards to US material help to USSR; it all went through ocuupied Iran a country that had declared her neutrality.
For Iran, the best course of action was neutrality as her enemies killed and maimed one another.
Alas, it was not to be.
imho says: January 6, 2012 at 2:47 am
Yes, and the Shia/Irani Combine has the potential to neutralize Saudi Arabia.
That is why EU is so shrill and US escalating to strategic nowhere.
That is the problem with them, they cannot roll-back Shia/Irani Power by war and have to try Siege Warfare first.
Richard Steven Hack:
“Wrong. Of course they are. Because they will be defending Israel from Syria (and probably Hizballah as well once Israel attacks Lebanon) – which THE US will be bombing as part of “responsibility to protect”.”
- Israel could take on any state in the region. Just as Israel couldnt attack Iraq back in the 90s. US dont want its image to erode even more in already troubled times.
Its simply makes no sense.
1. US have never fighten a war, with Israel and will never do.
2. Hizbollah is no threat to Israel.
3. Syria is neither capable to do something, neither a threat to Israel. They have domestic problems.
3. Since actions against Syria will be blocked by China, Russia, there will be no foreign intervention by the US.
“The scenario here is so obvious it’s hard to deny. Why does the US need to send “thousands” of US troops to Israel just to hold a “war game” with Israel if they aren’t planning to HAVE “thousands” of US troops IN ISRAEL at some point? For what? Who’s going to attack Israel that the US needs to have troops and missile battalions on the ground in Israel?”
-War games between states are not something new.
And to something else..
Just read between the lines of the standard propagandist shapiro:
“US loves Israel, they love us so much that even their economy crash, they will still give us billions of dollars and protect us uncondtionally, we are so great and people cant anything about it”
The self-rightousness of Israel never stops to amaze.
http://www.radiohc.cu/ing/news/world/3632-us-and-israel-plan-largest-war-games-in-history.html
Unknown Unknowns says:
January 6, 2012 at 7:06 am
Publicly, the EU’s spokesman is going to say that no decision has been reached before the Foreign Ministers on 30 January. Privately, the European diplomats — following Greece’s statement this week that it will accept a cut-off of imports, as alternative supplies are being arranged — have let it be known that the Ministers are ready to proceed with the announcement of the suspension.
What is up in the air is the timing of implementation. It probably will not happen until late spring/early summer, after assurance that southern European states have supplies to cover the loss of Iranian oil.
S.
Meanwhile, back in the ranch, and in keeping with Uncle $cam’s policy of not paying the sand niggers for thier oil in dollars but in projects that benefit the natives not in the least but feed the growling endless pit of a stomach of the multi-national behemouths,
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-spend-over-100bn-on-nuclear-solar-434339.html
Not to worry, though, Gavner. Alhamdu-li’llah, the towel-heads will not be doing any of the spinning themselves, not even to 3.5% let alone 20. Hell, they can barely spin yarn down there. I shit ye knot.
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm
In defense of naivete, idleness, obesity, and love for all peoples
==================================================================
RSH, I do throw in wildly optimistic notions, I admit. I do so just to nudge the stylus out of a war groove for the heck of it. Beyond the mea culpa, there are good reasons for a brief pause for even the most jaded.
Take AP for example, or the offer to stop 20% enrichment, or releasing ‘hikers’, etc. These Iranian initiatives do enter non-western discourse, and do change the parameters of discussions. Iran would have been economically strangulated, and diplomatically isolated a long time ago had it not been for these gestures. So, while not dismissing western jaundiced attitude towards Iran no matter what, one cannot completely ignore the rest of the world’s perceptions that to some degree will shape their less-than-enthusiastic deference to the west vis-a-vis Iran.
To be clearer, I understand any damn thing Iran is willing to say ‘yes’ to will immediately be poo-pooed as insufficient/insincere etc. After all, who could forget the swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil to the exact specifications detailed in Obama’s letters.
But, I think that clumsy let-it-all-hang-out Tehran Declaration fiasco did serve Iran’s purposes. Beyond the immediate Turkish and Brazilian ‘no’ vote at the UNSC, other non-western countries took note of exactly how red the red herring really is.
I think the AP should not be characterized as an 100% something-for-nothing. There are other members of audience. If done right, at the right time, it will shrink western options. It will certainly limit the choice of fragrance wafting out of the west after starting a war: pungent cheesy.
b is on top of everything as usual. He posted this from China Daily:
BRUSSELS – A spokesman of the European Union (EU) on Thursday denied reports that the EU member states have reached agreement over import ban on Iranian oil.
“It’s not true,” Michael Mann, the spokesman of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, told Xinhua over telephone.
“We are still discussing potential sanctions, we are hoping to reach a decision before the next foreign affairs council at the end of the month,” he added.
It was reported on Wednesday [by Uncle $cam's French Foreign Minister Poodle] that European governments have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian crude oil to enhance pressure on the country over its nuclear program.
UU,
Thank you for those engaging remarks — completely off-topic, but delightfully humourous as always!
S.
Scotty Boy & Pak/ Sassan Watch update (Highly informative post by Don Bacon):
The government (together with its MSM friends) has a euphemism for propaganda: Strategic Communications.
from the National Defense Strategy:
Strategic communications will play an increasingly important role in a unified approach to national security. DoD, in partnership with the Department of State, has begun to make strides in this area, and will continue to do so. However, we should recognize that this is a weakness across the U.S. Government, and that a coordinated effort must be made to improve the joint planning and implementation of strategic communications.
DOD definition:
Strategic communication is focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.
from State:
Bureau of Public Affairs: Strategic Communications
The Office of Strategic Communication (SCT) develops and executes the strategic media goals of the Secretary of State. In addition to determining the long-term media goals of the Secretary, the SCT team is responsible for the day-to-day execution of the Secretary’s strategic media plans, including the use of other principals to support the Secretary’s initiatives. In close coordination with the Secretary’s staff, SCT plans and executes all S events with a media component; crafts remarks for all S events with a media component; and, plans and executes the Secretary’s travel and related media.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 5, 2012 10:06:00 PM | 15
“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.” – Voltaire (1765)
Posted by: DakotabornKansan | Jan 5, 2012 8:39:07 PM | 14
Richard:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the Trans-humans and all the King’s men
Couldn’t put Abu Humpty back together again
You know why?
Cause he was pushed, motherfluffer!
In case anyone was wondering what a Cosmic War looks like, you’re looking at it, or better, you’re living through it: Shi’a Islam vs. Liberal Democracy & the Exigencies of Capitalism. And all you Greens, all you followers of that pitiful Mussavite Dupe, who are on the wrong side of history: don’t look to me come the Rapture when the Escaton takes a bite out of your sorry ass, chews you up and spits you out.
Rehmat: “American journalist, editor and author, Tom Engelhardt wrote the other day: “Over the last decade, the US has been taught a repitive lesson when it comes to ground wars on the Eurasian mainland: don’t launch them.”
And he’s quite wrong. The US hasn’t learned a damn thing and couldn’t care less. NO ONE in position of authority has lost anything from the Iraq or Afghanistan wars – unless you count General McChrystal who got fired for bad-mouthing his superiors.
Petraeus has “failed upward” and will probably be running for President in 2016. Bush and Cheney haven’t lost a dime.
The US supposedly was “taught a lesson” in Vietnam. Obviously it didn’t take. And it never will take until the US homeland itself is brought under fire.
Canning: “Looking again at your posts”
Perhaps you can read, after all?
“you seem to claim the US and the EU will attack Syria, from the air, to enable Israel to cross Syrian territory for an invasion of Lebanon.
I doubt this plan would get much support in the EU.”
And that makes you terminally naive. What part of US, British and French military forces ALREADY IN TURKEY ON THE SYRIAN BORDER TRAINING SYRIAN DISSIDENTS AND running SIGINT/PSYOPS campaigns inside Syria don’t you understand?
The war for Syria is ON. It will be happening within the next six months if not sooner. It will involve air strikes from the US, NATO and probably Turkey as well as Turkish forces establishing a “buffer zone” INSIDE Syria, and thousands of Libyan mercenaries aiding however many Syrian dissidents there are.
The only thing that might slow that down would be if the current numbers of Syrian dissidents are just too small, even with Libyan mercenary help, to be effective against the Syrian military even with US/NATO air strikes. All that means is that it might start later rather than sooner.
But the goal is QUITE clear: weaken Syria and preferably overthrow Assad by military force, EXACTLY like Libya and Iraq before that. And that will be taken advantage of by Israel to attack Lebanon to push Hizballah farther north in order to eliminate the threat of Hizballah missiles during the upcoming Iran war.
Which by the way IMPLIES that as soon as the Lebanon campaign is concluded that the war with Iran will be undertaken within a reasonable time afterward – because Israel will not want Hizballah to re-arm and rebuild and move south again within range of major Israeli cities.
Of course, if Syria is badly damaged, it will take longer for Hizballah to re-arm. So the war on Iran might still be a couple years away depending on how long the Syrian and Lebanon campaigns take and how much damage is actually inflicted on both countries.
We can assume Iran will do whatever it can to assist both Syria and Hizballah in re-arming once the situation stabilizes.
Scotty Boy says: Iran Analysis: Why the Currency Fell….And What That Means for Iranians
Puh-leeeeze, knee-grow. Now you are an expert on economics and opine on currency fluctuations??? WTF?! I guess when you are a spiritually destitute presstitute or a sub-moronic card-carrying member of Scholars for Dollars, you should not be expected to have any shame. Still, if you can’t be shamed, you’ll be flamed.
Everyone here hates this guy, and he knows it, and he still comes around. What a complete asshole. Come the revoution, can I please, please, please have the honor of personally putting the noose around his neck? Ta very mooch, I’m sure.
Canning: “Are you suggesting the US and the EU would attack Lebanon?”
Your dyslexia is becoming tiresome. If you can’t read English, stop asking me questions because I’m not wasting any more time answering them when it’s clear you have no clue what I wrote.
Lysander: “Not that it would make a difference but it might make the west feel awkward for a moment and it wouldn’t cost Iran anything.”
Actually it would. The ONLY bargaining chip Iran has over the nuclear program is the demand that its LEU enrichment be officially accepted in exchange for further guarantees such as signing the AP that the program is peaceful.
The situation is now way past that, of course, but the fact remains Iran has that one chip and that one only. So it would be a waste of time and accomplish nothing to throw it away for nothing.
What Iran COULD do at this point would be to retract its demand that the sanctions be lifted in exchange for suspending enrichment and merely demand that the US and EU acknowledge its right to enrich to (to 20% or just 3%) in exchange for implementing the AP.
But I’m pretty sure the US and EU would reject that offer because it would fundamentally undercut their desire to force Iran to suspend all enrichment which is how they keep the cause for war on track. The US and the EU will never give that up because that’s how they keep the pressure on and guarantee that sooner of later there has to be a war – which is their real goal: a war.
Karl: “The US are about to go to Israel for a wargame, of course US arent going to fight side by side with Israel.”
Wrong. Of course they are. Because they will be defending Israel from Syria (and probably Hizballah as well once Israel attacks Lebanon) – which THE US will be bombing as part of “responsibility to protect”.
The scenario here is so obvious it’s hard to deny. Why does the US need to send “thousands” of US troops to Israel just to hold a “war game” with Israel if they aren’t planning to HAVE “thousands” of US troops IN ISRAEL at some point? For what? Who’s going to attack Israel that the US needs to have troops and missile battalions on the ground in Israel?
No one, that’s who – unless of course the US AND Israel are attacking someone else.
For James Canning’s eyes only. Psst, top secret: a vassal’s intellectual honesty
===========================================================================
Tanaka, director of the JIME Center at the Institute of Energy Economics Japan in Tokyo said:
“There are some thorny issues between the U.S. and Japan, but since we’re so dependent on the U.S. forces for our national defense, I don’t think we have any other choice but to follow the lead of Washington.”
On Friday, Japan’s industry minister acknowledged Tanka is saying the bleeding obvious.
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/asian-economies-look-to-keep-iranian-oil-flowing/2012/01/06/gIQAgNgUeP_story_1.html
James, I hope you understand why folks are perplexed here when you keep harping about Saudi’s independent, powerfully influential position in international affairs.
Latest on the currency and economic situations, including the attempt to escalate sanctions against Iran….
The Latest from Iran (6 January): Squeezing the Regime
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/6/the-latest-from-iran-6-january-squeezing-the-regime.html
Iran Analysis: Why the Currency Fell….And What That Means for Iranians
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/5/iran-analysis-why-the-currency-felland-what-that-means-for-i.html
S.
Castellio,
I think that Seale is correct as far as he goes. IN other words, Obama and his administration have decided, like Israel, to continue and intensify the cold war, and to hear it up into a warm one, and to avoid a hot one. Seale is correct to point to the resignation of Dennis Ross as evidence of this. Other evidence too is Obama’s desire to put the brakes on the warm war: he was forced to sign the bill sanctioning Iran’s central bank. Call me an optimist, but I think Obama’s plan is to ride out the election year without going to war, and then do whatever he wants in his last term as president irrespective of Jewish pressures. (Don’t get me wrong, he is still a complete a$$h*le…)
That said, the danger of a hot war that will enflame the whole region and thus the whole world is not diminished. In fact, to the contrary. The rhetoric and brinksmanship increase its chances. With forces thus arrayed – the level of animosity is unprecedented – anything is possible. Like I have said before, sparks will fly, and one of them may land on the tinderbox which is continually being piled up with kindling. Look at how the War of 1914 started: a single gunshot. Add to this the very real danger of a false flag event orchestrated either by zionist traitors within Uncle Flatfoot’s army, by Christian Zionists in same (a la The Family), or by the Israelis themslleves, and we have a situation that is highly explosive.
Someone who has Captain America’s ear – Patrick Seale or whomever – should tell him that it is not sufficient to take the military option off the table and not announce it: he must state explicitly that resorting to military force is NOT an option. Of course, with the Jews having hijacked public discourse in your “democracy” (read Judaocracy), he will not be able to do so until after November 2nd.
James Canning says:
January 5, 2012 at 6:03 pm
“Can you name a single country in Africa where the US has tried to interfere with Chinese business dealings, industrial development schemes, or whatever?”
Libya comes to mind immediately. The “assault” on resource-rich Africa is pretty obvious from China and even Iran (for Uranium) since few years. That was without counting on US. AFRICOM has been set up just for that, to contain China. This doesn’t mean China can’t do business here and there. It’s just that business is done in areas under US control. This is a subject of blackmail in “peace” time and a non-starter if China ever thinks a war with US.
“Saudi Arabia keeps oil prices as high as possible, to benefit Saudi Arabia. It hurts China, and India, and other major oil importers including Japan and South Korea.”
Keeping oil prices high or low has many implications and is another complicated subject. But can you give a single reason why you think Saudis can solely decide on the price, the most important factor on world economy, finance, developments and involving so much interests of powerful circles ?!
Can you imagine a country with few millions people without any industrial and military might could dictate the FED how many Dollars should be printed so countries around the world can buy oil ?!
Controlling the price of oil is much more important than having it. That’s why it is set only in New York and London. That is the basis on which the Dollar and the west’s financial system works.
Scott Lucas,
You’ve brought your sidekick with you today. I guess US sanctions and hardpower need extra soft power these days.
Photi, thanks for your comment. Seale is a good journalist, usually well informed. I’m finding it hard to reconcile his opinion here with the constant upping of US-Israeli provocations/illegal acts.
*I may owe a reference to either Professor Marandi (UU’s link earlier) or Richard Steven Hack, because i think i may have picked up the point of a strategic diversion for a surprise attack from one of them or from some other commentor here at RFI.
Castellio, Seale’s last sentence is:
“If Obama could summon up the political courage for a long-overdue dialogue with Iran — interrupted 32 years ago — the danger of war would be dispelled, to everyone’s relief.”
Until there is a face-to-face dialogue between the Presidents of Iran and the United States i will continue to assume America’s short- to medium-term goal is to wreak havoc on Iran through warfare. It is happening now and continues to escalate. In the absence of genuine diplomacy, i would say Seale’s observations are more wishful thinking than anything else, or possibly a strategic diversion to let the hype die down in the hopes of a future political climate more favorable to war(I know next to nothing about Seale, but if i were a Zionist intent on war with Iran i might decide to delay the war until less tense times to gain the advantage of surprise).
Assuming there will be a war of aggression against Iran is an assumption I am willing to be wrong about.
So, why is Patrick Seale so convinced that there will be no war against Iran? Or, more accurately, does his position make sense?
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2713
*Excuse me, i left out a whole part of a sentence. For Nasr to use those words to describe Iran in the current context is what i meant,.
Irshad says:
January 5, 2012 at 10:25 am
Irshad,
Thanks for the link. For Vali Nasr to use the words “aggressive” and “belligerence” within the context of the current Israeli-American belligerence towards Iran tells us a bit about the clarity with which Nasr sees the Middle East.
Why is Hormoz continually mis-spelled Hormuz? Anyone? Probably those Internatinoal Bankers up to no good again, huh?
Ding.
Zzzzzzzzz.
Ding.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Richard:
Good news! It is now “OK” (as in I’m OK, You’re OK) to copy articles in toto.
http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/04/missionary-church-of-kopimism-approved-as-official-religion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy+%28Falkvinge+on+Infopolicy%29
James Canning says: one object I have in mind is to help the Palestinians to get Israel out of the West Bank. The Saudis are the most important country in seeing to it that this happens.
*
How are the Saudis the “most important country” in seeing to this if they not only have not been able to get Israel out of the Saudi islands it continues to occupy, but seem to be perfectly fine with that endless occupation?
James Canning – Your expert William Hague is much a poodle of “Conservatives Friends of Israel” as is his Boss David Cameron. They all look the world through Israeli prism.
In May 2010 – the idiot told the Jewish Lobby: ““I am a natural friend of Israel”, and to prove it he asserted that “it would be a mistake to ever rule out military action against Iran (Jewish Chronicle)”…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/hague-i-will-fight-iran-for-israel/
Sassan says:
January 5, 2012 at 7:09 pm
“James Canning: Clearly sabotage. There is no doubt the one in Karaj was sabotage and in fact, was aimed at Khamanei as Khamanei was scheduled to appear there.”
Sassan Jaan- With this kind of confirmed information you have, you should become one of Professor Scott’s confirmed sources on the ground. If you have good information like this, possibly like Pak you may qualify to get a scholarship from his organization (DOI).
James Canning:
“To clarify: are you claiming the Iranian announcement of trebling capacity to enrich to 20% made no difference? That EU embargo on Iranian oil would have come anyway?”
Like I said earlier, check the earlier post and get back if you dont understand why your argumentation are flawed.
American journalist, editor and author, Tom Engelhardt wrote the other day: “Over the last decade, the US has been taught a repitive lesson when it comes to ground wars on the Eurasian mainland: don’t launch them. The debacle of the impending double defeat this time around couldn’t be more obvious. The only question that remains is just how humiliating the coming retreat from Afghanistan will turn out to be. the longer the US stays, the more devastating below to its power“.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/qatar-to-help-us-exit-from-afghanistan/
kooshy,
I think the better explanation is simply that Hague, with a strong understanding of British and European (and world) history, is able to see the potential for diplomacy.
Karl,
To clarify: are you claiming the Iranian announcement of trebling capacity to enrich to 20% made no difference? That EU embargo on Iranian oil would have come anyway?
Karl,
When BiBiJon linked story re: Olli Heinonen’s statement that Iran has sufficient 20% U to build plates for TRR sufficient to operate the plant for 4-5 years, you said Heinonen was effectively working for the US and Israel. But other scientists have claimed Iran has enought 20% U to build plates good for 8 to 12 years of TRR operation. Heinonen was in effect defending Iran, by saying the amount is good for only 4 -5 years.
James Canning:
“I’ll look again. To clarify, do you understand that the Iranian announcment of trebling production of 20% U led directly to latest round of sanctions the EU and US are adopting?”
Great, get back if you still dont understand your flawed argumentation on this.
James Canning says:
January 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm
“In fact, William Hague oversees an energetic Foreign (and Commonwealth) Office.”
I agree my jolly dear Gavner, but I wondered if Eric was questioning the source of this hidden energy imbedded in her majesties’ foreign office.
James Canning: Clearly sabotage. There is no doubt the one in Karaj was sabotage and in fact, was aimed at Khamanei as Khamanei was scheduled to appear there.
Karl,
I’ll look again. To clarify, do you understand that the Iranian announcment of trebling production of 20% U led directly to latest round of sanctions the EU and US are adopting?
R S Hack,
Looking again at your posts, you seem to claim the US and the EU will attack Syria, from the air, to enable Israel to cross Syrian territory for an invasion of Lebanon.
I doubt this plan would get much support in the EU.
James Canning:
You could check for yourself where you have missed to reply or do you maybe deny that no one on this site ever have approached you on your argument regarding this?
Check for example my comments to you about this issue.
Angry Anti-Imperialist,
My own opinion is that some of the strongest haters of Iran, wanted Iran to enrich to 20%. So that fact could be employed to set up more sanctions and worsen Iran’s relations with “the West”.
Karl,
I will appreciate your kindly directing my attention to any instance where I “dropped out of the discussion” on any given issue. It was inadvertent, if it happened.
R S Hack,
My understanding is that the Libyan interim government will adhere to the contracts Gaddafi made (re oil & gas). I would be surprised if they were changed to benefit the oil companies, no matter from which country they come.
Russians are worried arms deals with Gaddafi will not be honoured.
James Canning:
“Refuted where? By whom? Timeline, in case you forgot: early June 2011, Iran announces trebling of capacity to enrich to 20%. Later that month, Saudis tell Nato they will build nukes if Iran is not stopped. Hague meets with Saudis. Hague addresses Parliament and warns of danger of the 20% U production. Latest sanctions get underway.”
Many times in this thread for example. Everytime users here approach you, you suddenly drop out of discussion. I recomend you read this thread and also previous ones before you use that flawed argumentation again.
R S Hack,
Discussions of British foreign policy, while Hague is foreign secretary, logically include discussions of Hague.
I think that the Palestinians likely would be major losers, if the US gets dragged into war with Iran.
R S Hack,
You appear to have argued that the purpose of oil deals by western oil companies was to exploit Libyan workers unfairly. If this was not your intent, I stand corrected.
Karl,
Refuted where? By whom? Timeline, in case you forgot: early June 2011, Iran announces trebling of capacity to enrich to 20%. Later that month, Saudis tell Nato they will build nukes if Iran is not stopped. Hague meets with Saudis. Hague addresses Parliament and warns of danger of the 20% U production. Latest sanctions get underway.
kooshy,
In fact, William Hague oversees an energetic Foreign (and Commonwealth) Office.
fyi,
Stalin did industrialise the Soviet Union. He killed many of his senior generals, several years before the Second World War erupted. And he virtually refused to believe that Germany had invaded the USSR, when it happened.
Yes, Soviet manpower was a key element in defeat of Germany. Plus American (and British) war supplies, provided to the Soviet Union and without which defeat was certain.
Eric addressing James
“Why is that not realistic? Doesn’t the UK think for itself every now and then? If not, why not just close down the Foreign Office and save British taxpayers some money?”
Eric- by suggesting that, are you trying to move Gavener James back to her majesties’ colonies on distanced shores. How cruel of you my dear lad.
James: Its getting tiresome since you have been refuted countless of times. So its no need for you to use that flawed argumentation anymore.
Liz2,
To answer your question, one object I have in mind is to help the Palestinians to get Israel out of the West Bank. The Saudis are the most important country in seeing to it that this happens.
Karl,
Why is it tiresome? Clearly the Iranian announcement of trebling capacity to produce 20% U started the latest round of sanctions. And those pending sanctions are the subject of the day.
R S Hack,
Are you suggesting the US and the EU would attack Lebanon?
James Canning:
And stop talking about 20%. This is getting tiresome.
Their business, related to the oil.
US and some western nations got scared straight when Qadaffi said this:
english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx
“West to lose contracts, but not Germany: Gaddafi”
af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72E0FV20110315
Liz2,
Are you arguing that Saudi Arabia is not in effect encouraged to seek common ground with Israel, regarding Iran, as a response to Iranian enrichment to 20%? Do you think the Saudis hate Iran and Israel, and pretend to seek common ground with Israel? Or that they pretend to hate Israel?
Eric,
The UK has taken a public position on Israel/Palestine that is significantly different from that of the US. US is way out on a limb by itself, on some of Israel/Palestine issues. And Hague was furious at the smashing of Lebanon Israel carried out in 2006.
Eric,
All Six Powers (or EU 3+3) try to maintain unity in their public stance regarding Iran. This is a Russian objective as much as that of any other country.
Karl,
I understand China continues to buy oil from South Sudan, but that China is having problems due to disputes between the two Sudans. Other Chinese deals in Sudan are met with no difficulties caused by the US of which I am aware.
What problems did China meet in Libya, due to the US?
Lysander,
I would not expect the UK to take a public position specifically endorsing Iranian enrichment to 3.5% – 5%, at this time, even if Iran said it will stop enriching to 20%. I would expect William Hague to assess whether the P5+1 could agree to approve Iran’s IAEA application to buy the needed plates for the TRR.
I agree with you Iran should do its best to make clear it commenced enriching to 20% because its IAEA application was blocked. (Very stupidly, of course, by the US)
Since Iran offered to stop producing 20% U if its application to buy the TRR fuel is approved, then obviously Iran would do well to follow through.
I continue to think that five of the Six Powers would accept Iranian enrichment to 3.5%.
James Canning:
Libya, Sudan for example.
imho,
Can you name a single country in Africa where the US has tried to interfere with Chinese business dealings, industrial development schemes, or whatever?
Saudi Arabia keeps oil prices as high as possible, to benefit Saudi Arabia. It hurts China, and India, and other major oil importers including Japan and South Korea.
James Canning says:
January 5, 2012 at 1:20 pm
quite to the contrary. The US does actually contain China militarily everywhere, from Africa to the south east Asia. All recent events in Africa were to contain China. Any country needing oil, be it China or Europe, may only get it from areas controlled by US. This is a form of blackmailing the US already did to Europe. No oil, no army and no imperial pretensions. For those countries having oil, the US blackmail them by controlling the price. USSR fell by cheap Saudi oil. Iranian economy depends entirely on oil. The key is controlling the oil. Producing more or less depends on the situation.
RSH,
“Canning: Try this question. Do you REALLY believe that if Iran announced suspension of 20% enrichment PERMANENTLY TOMORROW – upon condition that Hague had to announce UK support for 3.5% enrichment in Iran – that he would do so?”
Of course he never would, but I wonder if it would be a good idea for Iran to make that offer, in public, knowing full well it would be rejected. Not that it would make a difference but it might make the west feel awkward for a moment and it wouldn’t cost Iran anything.
The timing would have to be right though. If Iran did it now, the west would just say they are squirming under sanctions. Anyway, the point is that if war comes, it’s important to not let the west pin the blame on Iran in the eyes of the world.
All,
Regarding sanctions on CBI, I wonder if Iran could retaliate by announcing a 10 day moratorium on all oil sales while they “reassess the situation.” The intended effect would be enhanced if those dastardly Sunni insurgents in Iraq blow up a couple of pipelines halting Iraqi oil sales for a while.
I don’t no if Iran could tolerate the lost revenue for that long, but if it can, it would send oil prices skyrocketing and western stock markets plunging.
They could do this periodically while offering the Chinese oil at a 10-15% discount below whatever the spot price would be at the moment.
I’m thinking that could be a means to retaliate and inflict some pain on western economies without offering an excuse for war.
If they could persuade Hugo Chavez to go along for a couple of days that would be icing on the cake.
James Canning says:
January 5, 2012 at 1:15 pm
No, not officially anymore
James Canning writes:
““It is not realistic for [Richard Hack] to expect the UK foreign secretary to take public position on Iranian enrichment that conflicts with that taken by the US.”
Why is that not realistic? Doesn’t the UK think for itself every now and then? If not, why not just close down the Foreign Office and save British taxpayers some money?
The US are about to go to Israel for a wargame, of course US arent going to fight side by side with Israel.
Fiorangela: “Richard Silverstein: US To deploy troops to Israel”
My guess is this is directly intended to support the US/EU attack on Syria – and perhaps Lebanon. The fact that there’s bringing in anti-missile systems clearly indicates they expect Israel to be attacked by Hizballah and Syrian missile systems and they intend to bolster Israel’s defenses against same.
Syria is not Libya. It has much better defenses and it has missile systems. The US clearly sees it needs to have much bigger support to attack Syria. It also needs to support Israel against Hizballah’s missile arsenal which is allegedly much bigger with more advanced models than it had in 2006. So it’s bringing that support to Israel.
The US has been pre-positioning much larger quantities of military supplies in Israel for some time now, clearly in anticipation of this operation.
Combine that with Sibel Edmonds reporting on US troops training Syrian militants at Incirlik and providing communications support from Incirlik for the militants, and the war with Syria is definitely on.
I now expect the US and EU to be bombing Syria before June of this year, possibly sooner. This provides a time line for the US, EU and Israel to attack Syria and Lebanon before the US election, thus influencing the election and raising the odds that a war with Iran will occur – regardless of who wins the election – in 2012 or later.
JamesCanning>
“Did it make good sense for Iran virtually to insist that more sanctions be brought against Iran? Does it make good sense for Iran to frighten the Saudis and encourage them to cooperate with Israel?”
Oh please man, this is just getting ridiculous.
I think its time James tell what hes agenda really is.
FYI (and others): you have anything you might want to share as I enter into the works of Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari?
James Canning says: January 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Stalin dragged a largely agrarian society into industrial age, knowing that without doing so USSR would be destroyed.
He correctly anticipated the NAZI War against USSR and tried to get UK and France to join an alliance aimed at containing that aggression.
[UK killed that initiative, forcing Stalin to sign a non-agression pact with Germany in order to delay the war.]
And it was Stalin that defeated Hiltler; not US, not UK, and not France.
Canning: “Do you see Libyan oil workers as “slaves”, while Iranian oil workers are not slaves?”
Can you read? I did NOT say they WERE slaves, I said if the West could make them so, it would.
Really, if you can’t even read a sentence intelligently, just shut up.
Canning: “Given that you openly hope for the launch of an illegal war against Iran, it seems just a bid curious you would attack William Hague’s moral standards.”
I don’t even know where to begin on this one…
First of all, I have no moral standards. Morality is a set of rules enforced by guilt for the benefit of the person setting the rules. I have rational principles of behavior which I follow – most of which really aren’t doing me any good because of the utter irrationality of the rest of the world.
Second, the reality is war with Iran is inevitable. The consequences of that war are likely to be negative for the US in general, even if it profits certain US elites. This means the US is going to lose power overall, which is a Good Thing. It might even eventually, as Fyi predicts, result in the destruction of the Israeli state which would also be a Good Thing.
Third, Hague is a cheap politician. I can’t be compared to that even if I were to rape little girls in the street. There’s nothing lower than a cheap politician – except maybe a cheap BRITISH politician.
The ONLY British politician I have even the slightest interest in or respect for is George Galloway, If you want to talk about straight talk from a British politician, I suggest you compare Hague to Galloway. Then stop talking about Hague.
James Canning: “I would appreciate an explanation from you as to why Iran would seek to treble its production of 20% U, when apparently Iran has enough on hand to build the rods/plates for TRR for at least next ten years. How would you explain it to William Hauge?”
I and others here already have:
1) There is a market for 20% LEU.
2) Supply is inconsistent due to political and technical situations.
3) Negotiations over supply may take years.
It’s very simple.
“It is not realistic for you to expect the UK foreign secretary to take public position on Iranian enrichment that conflicts with that taken by the US.”
Yet for you it is “realistic” that the UK will lie about Iran nuclear program in general while being “genuinely” concerned about 20% enrichment.
Not to mention that if the UK can’t tell the truth about Iran’s nuclear program, why the hell should ANYONE care about the UK’s position AT ALL?
Frankly, I think your problem is that you just can’t accept that the UK is STILL – just as it was under Blair – the lap dog of the US.
Give it up. The British Empire was over decades ago.
James Canning: “Why would Libyan leaders need to be “bribed” so sell Libya’s oil. All Gaddafi oil contracts will be honoured by new government. If somehow an insurgent group manages to take power, it will want to sell oil as fast as possible, and it probably would honour existing oil and gas contracts.”
Yes, but on what TERMS? THAT is why you bribe national leaders – to get better TERMS.
And given that the US and EU has just demonstrated their willingness to bomb the country into the Stone Age – again – to get better terms, you can bet the new “government” – which by the way as yet doesn’t control anything – will be happy to give better terms than Gaddafi was.
Canning: Try this question. Do you REALLY believe that if Iran announced suspension of 20% enrichment PERMANENTLY TOMORROW – upon condition that Hague had to announce UK support for 3.5% enrichment in Iran – that he would do so?
Are you that naive?
Canning: “And you seem to claim Iranian production of 20% U is not the triggering event in latest round of sanctions? (Coupled with the latest IAEA report)”
Ah, now you change the context! OF COURSE the IAEA report and 20% enrichment are the tags Hague will claim justify the latest sanctions!
That is NOT the same as claiming that 20% enrichment is THE problem for the UK, let alone the US and Israel. It isn’t.
As I’ve said, it’s just the latest EXCUSE to impose sanctions and move the course for war with Iran.
Where you are sadly naive is believing Hague when he says this is all he cares about – and he doesn’t even say that. The quote I gave makes it clear that he supports the entire process of attacking Iran based on ALL the excuses he gives which have been established as bogus as we all know here.
Stop INTERPRETING what he says and comprehend that the UK is in lock step with the US and Israel on this issue as much as France.
The UK has sent military advisers to Turkey to support the Syrian dissidents. What part of this DIRECTLY supporting the advance to war with Iran don’t you get?
BiBiJon: “Dovatoglu’s visit today on the heals of Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun visit to Tehran last week will convince Iran to sign the AP with China guaranteeing Iran (and Turkey) unfettered economic shelter.
Obama will go for the compromise, claiming his pressure track worked, and he avoided a war.”
Naivity rules. While Iran might indeed make such a “grand gesture” and it’s even possible Obama might – mildly – proclaim that a “victory”, it would change nothing. The US and the EU and Israel would merely continue to proclaim Iran as “intransigent”, that the additional inspections proved nothing, that Iran still has a “secret program” so where, etc., etc.
Nothing would change except Iran would have given up its last bargaining chip.
We discussed all this during my exchanges with Eric many months ago. Since the “nuclear program” is just a red herring, anything having to do with it is irrelevant. The only thing that would happen is a temporary derailing of the rush to war – much like the 2007 NIE (allegedly) derailed Bush and Cheney’s attempts.
Things would be back on track within a year or so. In the meantime, the US, EU and Israel would use the time to attack Syria and Lebanon in any event.
The following two minute video put together by B’tselem is “unlisted”, that is, it can only be found or accessed by those with the specific link.
The video is described this way: In 2011, volunteers in B’Tselem’s camera project filmed over 500 hours of footage in the West Bank. There are two minutes we collected from it, in order to sum up the passing year.
Worth seeing, worth sharing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEukvh_Ajv4&utm_source=
Reply to James Canning
January 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm
“Did it make good sense for Iran virtually to insist that more sanctions be brought against Iran? Does it make good sense for Iran to frighten the Saudis and encourage them to cooperate with Israel.”
I am not advocating for more sanctions or any particular threat to the Saudi Regime, what I`m saying is Iran needs to show the red line to the U.S and EU. These new sanctions ( if indeed they go ahead ) are in my view a national security threat to Iran, in fact an act of war, and hence Iran needs to respond accordingly by showing the willingness of harming key regional western interest. Now as I am writing, I can think of at least 15 key western regional interest ( excluding Saudi ) that Iran can target, and I`m sure the Iranians must have more and better targets than I do.
Ps – Apparently Obama has announced plans for a ” leaner ” U.S military, with main focus on Asia Pacific region. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16430405
fyi: “An Israeli attack on Iran was never predicated on the availability of the Iraqi Air Space; US was never ever going to shoot down Israeli airplanes on their way to Iran. That US is no longer occupying Iraq is not materail to Israeli aerial attacks.”
While you’re correct that the US would not shoot down Israeli aircraft, being removed from “official” control of Iraqi air space (the US is still in “de facto” control, of course) allows the US to claim they don’t have to. This is a value to both Israel and the US – deniability.
“Israel cannot do ANY damage to Iran’s nuclear assets.”
Israel can do SOME damage, but of course can’t fly enough sorties to do any real damage. An Israeli attack has always been just a means to drag the US into the war in any event. So how much damage it can do was always irrelevant.
“Furthermore, an Iran-Israel attack will rally Muslims around Iran (including Arabs) and will almost certainly destroy the latest US-EU sanctions.”
It won’t have any effect on the sanctions except in Middle East countries. The EU will continue the sanctions, and Russia and China are mostly ignoring them now anyway. The one advantage is that Russia and China are more likely to OPENLY supply arms and equipment like the S-300 to Iran once the war starts.
“I am cautiously optimistic that Israel will attack Iran and that US will sit that attack out.”
No chance of that, in my opinion.
“In fact, for Mr. Obama, the failure of Likud attack on Iran will be politically beneficial.”
Since no Israeli attack can “succeed” in any event, it can’t be called a “failure”. And if Obama does not support that attack, his Presidency will be doomed. The Republicans and the Israel Lobby will rip him to shreds – assuming they don’t already intend to do that, which is likely. Whatever Obama believes, he either gets on board fully with an attack on Iran or he’s a one term President. It’s that simple.
“For Israel, the war that they start will be their end; the destruction of Israel will be the Shia project for however long it will take.”
The problem is, it might take a very long time unless Arabs get smart and use Israel’s own nuclear weapons against it.
“In regards to US war with Iran; you know it is in the cards when Mr. Khameneie alludes to it in his speeches. So far he has not done so; he did twice in 2006.”
Perhaps. If he can’t see the progression of war with Iraq, then Lebanon, then Libya, and now Syria on to Iran, he’d better get with the program.
Rd: “The first stage used to be Hezbollah/Lebanon!!! But after they got their noise bleed, now they are looking for another link!”
No, the take down of Syria is required in order for Israel to attack Hizballah successfully.
As Colonel Pat Lang has said, the most effective way for Israel to take out Hizballah is to cross Syrian territory and attack the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon from the right. This necessitates war with Syria since Israel must enter Syrian territory to do this.
However, if Israel engages both Hizballah and Syria by itself, it faces a two-front war with Hizballah engaging in guerrilla war to the front and what’s left of Syrian forces doing the same in Israel’s rear. This is not a good position to be in.
So Israel has now convinced the US and the EU – using Libya as the “demonstration model” – to attack Syria. With Syria thus occupied with US and EU air strikes, Israel can then cross Syrian territory and attack Hizballah.
All of which is intended to weaken both Syria and Hizballah so the war on Iran can proceed without Israel having to “watch its back”.
Rd.,
I doubt Salehi would welcome an insane Israeli attack on Iran. Obviously, Iran in that event would much prefer the US not intervene.
Sassan,
Re: CS Monitor piece you linked. Was the Nov. 12th explosion or explosions an accident? Or was it sabotage? (At the base west of Tehran)
Dubai-based excercise club, Circuit Factory, in Al-Quoz, has been slammed by Jewish groups for using Holocaust images on its promotional poster. The poster in question shows the image of Auschwitz labor camp with the slogan “Kiss your calories goodbye“.
Phil Parkinson, the founder of the Circuit Factory has removed the ad from its Facebook page. However, he claims the company had seen a surge in visits after attracting criticism for the controversial poster.
The Zionist Lobby claims that German Nazis murdered four million Jews at the Auschwitz camp. However, no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/jewish-groups-slam-dubai-auschwitz-diet-poster/
One of the stooges of the Israel lobby seeking the Republican nomination, Rick Santorum, claims that the inhabitants of the West Bank are Israelis. And that there are no Palestinians.
“Santorum: What Palestinians?”, by Jordan Bloom
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
BiBiJon,
Iran has made clear it is willing to purchase needed TRR fuel from a source in the “West”. US quite foolishly continues to block Iran’s IAEA application to re-fuel the TRR. Some US nuclear scientists calculate Iran has enough 20% U to build the plates sufficient for ten years of operation of TRR. But Iran has indicated it might replace the TRR facility.
fyi,
Stalin destroyed the small independent farmers in the Ukraine and elsewhere, and helped to set up the disastrous Soviet failures in agriculture that helped to bring down the USSR. He also liquidated millions of citizens of his own country. Admirable, in your view?
fyi,
The US and the EU want Iraqi oil production to increase as fast as possible.
Rd.,
The Saudis try to keep oil prices as high as possible, over the longer term. They can be expected to reduce production if Iraqi oil production rises substantially, if this is necessary to keep oil at $100 (assuming they see $100 oil as sustainable).
Angry Anti-Imperialist,
Did it make good sense for Iran virtually to insist that more sanctions be brought against Iran? Does it make good sense for Iran to frighten the Saudis and encourage them to cooperate with Israel?
fyi,
The US is not actually trying to “contain” China. Zero interference in Chinese business deals, as a rule.
fyi,
I rather think a majority of the people of the US do not want war with Iran. Wording of question is key. How many say yes when asked if the US should start yet another illegal war in the Middle East on false pretenses?
imho,
Isn’t the US still controlling Iraqi airspace?
Excellent post and comments by ‘b’ & co. over at MoA re the situation in Egypt:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/01/egypts-fight-the-brotherhood-vs-the-military.html#comments
The idea that Israel attacks “without the US” is just silly. The US has armed and financed Israel, shares all intelligence and co-ordinates all military plans in the area with Israel.
Putting US soldiers in Israel is just a small part of the larger plan.
And the recent confirmation of the right of the American military to hold any person anywhere indefinitely without charge is also part of the same plan.
RSH is quite right that Obama only pretends to distance himself, because if he were serious there’s much he could do, starting with straight speech. Right now he is just trying to get the optics right to minimize dissent in the US.
Memo to Obama by McGovern and Murray. The “recommendations” are interesting.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/30/urging-obama-to-stop-rush-to-iran-war/
fyi says:
“IF what Porter reports is accurate, Can Salehi’s comment above be interpreted as Iran’s message to US, stay out of Israeli belligerence, and we will deal with them accordingly?
In other words, so long as US is out of PG and out of the fight, we have no fight with them? Specially coming from a military man?”
That is quite possible. The US leaving Iraq, Israel can attack via Iraqi air space without the need of US authorization. That, together with the leaving of the American warship may be a sign the US cannot dictate Israel to not start a war but doesn’t want to interfere and be seen as associated. The Iranian Central bank embargo has been passed in congress following extensive AIPAC lobbying.
However, I wonder how the US could keep out of a Iran-Israel war unless it is very limited.
Maranci on RT: “War is Hell”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01L7dDntDbA
Rd. & fyi:
Hope you don’t mind if I join your conversation. As to Rd’s question or theory about Iran having no bone to pick with the US if it stays out of the conflict with Israel, I dont think the scenario obtains at all as all of Israel’s materiel is provided, free of charge, by Uncle Asshole. Furthermore, in any war that Israel is involved in that lasts anything more than a couple of weeks, there will be a guaranteed supply line feeding the massacre of the sand-niggers by the European settlers and their aforementioned Uncle. So, my answer would be no; the two are inseparably joined at the hip.
Rather, I think that Iran’s warning to Captain America to go away and stay away from the Persian Gulf comes in light of the fact that we are, after the Velaayat 90 war games and manouvers, 100% certain of being able to sink the flagship of the fifth fleet.
But as to fyi’s statement that there will be war if Iran cannot sell its oil, I would think that’s right. But that is not what seems to be happening. China and Japan and Korea have already stated that they will not cry Uncle, and my gut tells me that India will fall on the same side of that fence. If this holds, then all it means is that Iran, 18% of whose current production is being sold to EU states, will have to find alternate buyers for that 18%. And if the spike in prices holds, it will only have to find buyers for 5% to maintain the same income level. It would not surprise me if Turkey, who currently gets 30% of its supply from Iran and whose Foreigh Minister is in Iran as we speak, following their president’s visit, announces a deal to increase its purchasing of Iranian oil. Or China… At those events then (which are more likely), fyi, I assume you would agree that not only will there not be war, but that Team Weasel would have shot its last load, which has turned out to be a dud.
The implications of the Velayat war games (and the successful test firing of the new medium-range missile), as well as the fact that Uncle Flatfoot’s ace in the hole turned out to be a deuce are giddying, and is not, we can be sure, escaping the attention of the Moslem street: a Moslem country has stood up against the seemingly invincible, and lived to tell the tale.
Allahu Akbar!
Rd.
I cannot answer your question.
I think there is a minority group of people in US who do not want war with Iran.
fyi says:
January 5, 2012 at 10:58 am
Rd. says: January 5, 2012 at 10:56 am
Yes.
So you don’t subscribe to Porter’s assertions of Israeli’s desire to force the issue despite hesitations by obama/US mil? In essence this is strictly US desire?
Angry Anti – Imperialist says: January 5, 2012 at 10:50 am
Not just them, but also China, Japan, India, and others.
The only state that will reap benefits immediately will be Russia.
And this (potential) war will contain US in the Middle East for a few more decades.
And puts to rest all the US efforts (with India) to “contain” China – a foolish undertaking in its own way.
Rd. says: January 5, 2012 at 10:56 am
Yes.
fyi says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Iranians or their allies will not start a war.
————–
fyi says:
January 5, 2012 at 10:32 am
There will be war if Iran cannot sell her oil.
——————–
There will be war vs Iran will not.. there is a bit of ambiguity of language in those two statements? Are you suggesting Iran will take actions that would force their hand??
“Iran has to internationalize the confrontation with US and EU”
I agree, Iran needs a strong response if these sanctions go ahead. The response must hit the U.S and EU interest hard regionally and globally.
Irshad says: January 5, 2012 at 10:25 am
They are not “Sleep-walking”.
There will be war if Iran cannot sell her oil.
“You guys are openly discussing becoming terrorists and supporting a rogue terrorist regime which is among the worst kind of terrorists and oppressors in the entire world and no one is speaking out on it on this website?? What kind of people do you people call yourselves? It appears most of you on here are either fascists or appeasers of fascists.”
Dear Sassan,
No comment to your remarks above. I will just say this :
You really sound a frustrated dissident, a selfish traitor who is under the CIA payroll ! :) What did the CIA promise you ? Humm let see, are you going to be their next puppet president if ( a big if ) they succeed in bringing down the Islamic Revolution ?! :)
Rd. says: January 5, 2012 at 10:24 am
No.
US has escalated to the point of trying to get an effective financial-based embarg of Iranian oil.
Iran has to respond.
In a few months or weeks, war will start if US does not back down.
Iran has to internationalize the confrontation with US and EU – the entire world has to pay for the coming war; and will.
Kark:
Just that the combined Iraq-Iran oil production can neutralize the potential pricing power of Saudi Arabia.
My predictions for 2012 where source of tension or war may erupt
India,Pakistan or just India
Armenia
Qatar, Saudi definitely Saudi
I do not think Iran or Syria will “suffer” a major war rather destabilisation might cause internal tensions. Both countries will survive.
Price of silver will hit $50 then Iran should be on full alert.
Sleep walking to war?:
Hard-line U.S. Policy Tips Iran Toward Belligerence: Vali Nasr
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/hard-line-u-s-policy-tips-iran-toward-belligerence-vali-nasr.html
The Diane Rehm show is discussing escalating tension between the US and Iran. 20 minutes in. Micheal Rubin is one of the guest. They have yet to discuss just which country and which lobby in the US ihas been pushing this excalation. Please call, emall, facebook, twitter your guestions. 1800-433-8850 they love frst time callers. be clear concise…..comment then quesiton. You can also go to the Diane Rehm comment page.
email drshow@wamu.org
Have been trying like crazy to push the Rehm and other MSM outlets to have Flynt and Hillary Man Leverett on their programs…what are they afraid of ….oh yeah the truth
Gareth Porter ;
“At a meeting with Obama a few weeks later, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and the new head of CENTCOM, General James N Mattis, expressed their disappointment that he had not been firm enough in opposing an Israeli attack, according to Sale. “
“Salehi warned Pentagon to avoid military trafficking in the region, and stated, “We advise, warn and recommend them (US Navy) not to return this carrier to its former position in the Persian Gulf.”
IF what Porter reports is accurate, Can Salehi’s comment above be interpreted as Iran’s message to US, stay out of Israeli belligerence, and we will deal with them accordingly?
In other words, so long as US is out of PG and out of the fight, we have no fight with them? Specially coming from a military man?
fyi says:
“Once Iraq’s production of oil is back to 1979 level, together with Iran they will neutralize Saudi Arabai’s oil pricing power.”
can you elaborate on that? given current demand levels, how would an increase in Iraq production , plus Iran plus the Saudi willingness to increase production on demand, help the saudi pricing power?
All:
The closing of the Straits of Hormuz is almost certainly an Iranian deception.
There are far easier ways to prevent oit from being shipped from the Persian Gulf.
And those ways do not involve immediate confrontation with US Navy and Airforce.
The fact of the matter is that the Iran’s position in Iraq – and indeed the region – cannot be rolled back.
Once Iraq’s production of oil is back to 1979 level, together with Iran they will neutralize Saudi Arabai’s oil pricing power.
This is the crux of the shrillness of US and EU.
If US does not backdown, there will be war.
bibijohn:
olli heinonen is just another proponent of US/Israel interests for the region.
Here in this co-written article, he even praise Israel attack on Syria. No mention that such an attack is a sheer violation of international law, no mention that no nukes were found. No mention of israeli nukes.
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20584/break_the_silence_on_syrias_nuclear_program.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F2107%2Folli_heinonen
Here is another fearmongering and myth-filled article that could have been written the lobby iself, although a bit polished.
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21147/us_house_of_representatives_committee_on_foreign_affairs.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F2107%2Folli_heinonen%3Fgroupby%3D1%26hide%3D1%26id%3D2107%26back_url%3D%25252Fexperts%25252F%26%253Bback_text%3DBack%252Bto%252Blist%252Bof%252Bexperts%26filter%3D150
Also, note which ties he have:
“Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Berman, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me back to address this hearing on “Iran and Syria : Next Steps”.”
Isnt it this year that its supposed to be a nuclear summit in Helsinki/Finland (where Heinionen comes from). Is this man going to be there too its bound to be another anti-Iran event just like the washington nuclear summut 2010 with obama.
I think it was in Scott Ritters book that its exposed that Heinonen often met hit israeli intelligence services and was provided document from them.
Sassan says: January 5, 2012 at 6:19 am
One could only hope if Iranian leaders were as ruthless, efficient, competent, and visionary as the late Joseph Stalin.
Olli Heinonen, a former IAEA deputy director general and head of the safeguards department (ie chief inspector):
“ran’s current stock of 20 % enriched uranium should be sufficient to
provide fuel for next 4-5 years for the TRR. And there is no need for Iran to produce more 20 % enriched uranium.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2012/jan/05/iran-nuclear-fuel?newsfeed=true
I don’t see how 4-5 years of supply for TRR is already plenty, unless of course ‘oily’ ignores the fact that Iran has been trying and failed to purchase the fuel for over 2 years, already. Drive-by assertions, and cheesy proclivity to spew nonsense will be recorded as a hallmark of this decade in history books.
Hopes that Iranians will effect regime change appear overstated. …
- IMF data on real per capita income growth show that Iran has the 2nd best results in the region since 1990, behind only Qatar (which spreads its natural gas riches over 1.7 million people). Other factors that might contribute to cohesion: “freedom shares”, handed out as part of a $100 billion privatization program; and the recognition of progress in human development. Since 1990, of the 94 countries in the United Nations Human Development Report ranked as “high” or “very high”, Iran recorded the single largest improvement, reflecting progress in life expectancy and education.
From http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2012/01/05/learning-to-live-with-a-nuclear-iran/
Sassan’s latest regurgitated word salad is more rambling and incoherent than his typical nonsense scrawl.
He has been busy gorging on the jumble emanating from his favorite neo-nonsense outlets so he can come back here to unload.
Mr. Sassan, do you really think the folks here are buying your wares.
By the way, I noticed that you don’t respond to posts that put you in your place.
Cheerios!
A snippet:
“However, the mullahs’ biggest worry is the Revolutionary Guard themselves, the very force that has been the regime’s pillar of support ever since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. A letter written by one of its commanders to Mohammad Nourizad, a conservative journalist who himself continues to criticize Khamenei and the regime despite being jailed, beaten, and threatened, was recently published on Mr. Nourizad’s blog.
The commander, whose name was withheld for security purposes, states that, “Like many millions of suffering Iranians, myself and hundreds of freedom-loving and free-thinking commanders of the Revolutionary Guard do think about the devastation” that Khamenei has forced on the country.
The commander continues, “I can positively assure you and announce to the dear people of Iran that a collective majority of the Revolutionary Guard absolutely despise the regime leadership, but they are stuck in an exceedingly cruel and bloodthirsty system. This authority does not tolerate an alternative approach by the so-called insiders, and so they orchestrate military courts in order to label members of the Revolutionary Guard as traitors and send them to the gallows.”
The Revolutionary Guard are human too, the commander says, and contrary to their military facade, they also have democratic views and are waiting on more favorable conditions so that they can join the people in opposing the regime. He assures the Iranians that the majority of the Guard forces will not participate in any suppression of the people, and the brutality that the people have witnessed is due to those vicious members who fall under the jurisdiction of the Basij auxiliary and security forces.
In criticizing the supreme leader, the commander says that Khamenei is behind the terror machine of the Quds Forces with their assassination and terrorist activities outside the country and the Basij forces as a military and oppressive force inside the country.
The commander brazenly declares, “Without a shadow of a doubt and based on documentation and proof, many of which will be produced and presented in time, the assassinations of Kazem Rajavi, Shahpour Bakhtiar, Dr. [Abdul Rahman] Ghassemlou and the heinous murders of Dariush and Parvaneh Forouhar and many other opposition figures inside and outside of Iran were carried out under the supervision of the Guard Corps and the Intelligence Ministry.”
The commander says the nation is suffering from an epidemic of hopelessness and that the possibility of an uprising like the one of 2009 is not great. He believes that now the only possibility for regime change is an attack from outside, such as the one that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but it would be highly costly for Iran and Iranians.
In a stern warning to Iranians and the world, the commander states that if the regime is not overthrown, it will soon test its first nuclear bomb, becoming essentially untouchable. It will then suppress anyone opposing it just as Stalin did in the Soviet Union.”
And if you know Farsi:
http://nurizad.info/index.php/nurizad/17214
Must Read!:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0104/From-an-ex-CIA-spy-US-must-exploit-new-split-in-Iran-s-Revolutionary-Guard
Sassan says:
January 5, 2012 at 4:31 am
Only idoits like you and perhaps increasingly the more and more perverted and sick “Homeland” Security of your police state would take what I and my interlocutor said seriously. You take what is said half in jest and half as an expression of frustration-without-end seriously, and you fail to take seriously what is said in extreme seriousness by your lying president and his Secretary of State towards Iran, to wit: threats of military force, which are a violation of the UN charter and war crimes as such. Go back under the Kool-Aid barrel you crawled out from under, you pathetic fool.
This morning’s latest on the currency issue and the economy:
The Latest from Iran (5 January): Shaky Currency, Desperate Measures, and An Outright Lie
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/5/the-latest-from-iran-5-january-shaky-currency-desperate-meas.html
Iran Feature: Is Ahmadinejad’s Government Fuelling the Currency Crisis?
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/5/iran-feature-is-ahmadinejads-government-fuelling-the-currenc.html
S.
“Angry Anti – Imperialist says: Right now I wish I could help the Iranians wage a sabotage warfare against the EU ( Britain and France in particular ), I would do it for free !”
“Unknown Unknowns says: I thank you in advance and refer you to the Iranian embassy nearest you. Best case you will become a shahid-e gomnam-e emam and worst case, you’ll get a chay-e qand-pahlou and a smile :o)”
You guys are openly discussing becoming terrorists and supporting a rogue terrorist regime which is among the worst kind of terrorists and oppressors in the entire world and no one is speaking out on it on this website?? What kind of people do you people call yourselves? It appears most of you on here are either fascists or appeasers of fascists.
“Angry Anti – Imperialist says: Right now I wish I could help the Iranians wage a sabotage”
“Unknown Unknowns says: I thank you in advance and refer you to the Iranian embassy nearest you. Best case you will become a shahid-e gomnam-e emam and worst case, you’ll get a chay-e qand-pahlou and a smile :o)”
You guys are openly discussing becoming terrorists and supporting a rogue terrorist regime which is among the worst kind of terrorists and oppressors in the entire world and no one is speaking out on it on this website?? What kind of people do you people call yourselves? It appears most of you on here are either fascists or appeasers of fascists.
Of interest to Arnold, and as a follow-up to my earlier statements regarding the Egyptian Brethren, which in light of this news, were mistaken. The Brethren had stated that they would abide by Egypt’s international treaty obligations, and specifically, the Camp David accords. Based on readings of the misleading Western press and its wishful thinking, I had mistakenly concluded that the Brethren (being in the pay of and under the influence of Saudi and Qatari paymasters) had sold out to the Sauid-Israeli-US triangle in order to gain power. It turns out that this was, thankfully, mistaken. What the Brethren meant was that they would abide by treaty obligations, but would pursue legal means to anull the peace treaty with Israel, including referring the issue to the newly formed parliament (in which they and the Salafi an-Nour party have a majority) and to a general referendum if necessary.
سرویس بینالملل ـ ما به همه معاهدههای بینالمللی پایبندیم، ولی اقدامات حقوقی درباره معاهده صلح با رژیم صهیونیستی را انجام خواهیم داد.
به گزارش «تابناک» به نقل از «الحیات»، «رشاد البیومی»، جانشین دبیر کل (مرشد عام) اخوان المسلمین مصر، آب پاکی را روی دست غرب و اسرائیل ریخته است و روشن کرده که از مصر پس از بیداری اسلامی چه باید انتظار داشت.
پیش از این، منابع غربی مدعی شده بودند که اخوانیها برای جلب اعتماد طرفهای غربی، به پیمان صلح با اسرائیل ـ که در سال 1979 توسط انور سادات امضا شد ـ به عنوان یک سند حقوقی بینالمللی پایبند باقی خواهند ماند؛ اما اظهارات آقای بیومی، نشان میدهد که اخوانالمسلمین ـ که حزب اصلی پیروز انتخابات مصر است ـ زیرکانه و در قالبی دمکراتیک، پیمان ننگین کمپ دیوید را نابود خواهد کرد.
به نوشته الحیات، آقای بیومی، به همراه مخالفت با به رسمیت شناختن رژیم صهیونیستی گفته است: آیا شرط حکومت کردن، به رسمیت شناختن اسرائیل است؟ اصلا چنین چیزی نیست. اسرائیل رژیم اشغالگر، غاصب و جنایتکار است و ما در هیچ شرایطی، آن را به رسمیت نخواهیم شناخت.
بیومی با غیر ممکن خواندن هر گونه تماس گروه اخوان المسلمین با اسرائیل در آینده بیان کرد: من هرگز به خودم اجازه نخواهم داد، با جنایتکاران همنشین شوم و هیچ تعاملی با اسرائیل نخواهیم داشت.
معاون رهبر اخوان المسلمین یادآور شد: ما به همه معاهدههای بینالمللی پایبندیم، ولی اقدامات حقوقی درباره معاهده صلح با رژیم صهیونیستی را انجام خواهیم داد.
بیومی اظهار داشت: ما پیمان را نقض نمیکنیم، اما هر طرفی حق بازنگری در این معاهده را دارد، به ویژه که مردم مصر پیشتر در این باره نظر خود را اعلام نکردهاند. معاهده یاد شده، باید به همه پرسی عمومی گذاشته یا به پارلمان منتخب عرضه شود تا درباره آن تصمیمگیری شود.
به این ترتیب، مردم نظر خود را اعلام میکنند و همه طرفهای مصری، میتوانند دوباره پیمان را بررسی کنند.
Highlights:
Bayumi [Deputy Chief of the Moslem Brethren]: “Israel is a usurping, occupying force and under no circumstances will we recognize it.”
“I will never place myself [lit. permit myself to be] in the company of [these] criminals, and we will never have any interaction (تعامل) with Israel.”
Iran’s current exchange rate is ‘about right’.
http://djavad.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-fall-of-the-iranian-rial-too-much-of-a-good-thing/
Angry Anti – Imperialist says:
January 4, 2012 at 8:17 pm
According to the media EU has agreed in ” principle ” to ban import of crude oil from Iran. As an EU citizen I am really disgusted with those imperialist American puppets in Brussels ! Right now I wish I could help the Iranians wage a sabotage warfare against the EU ( Britain and France in particular ), I would do it for free !
*
I thank you in advance and refer you to the Iranian embassy nearest you. Best case you will become a shahid-e gomnam-e emam and worst case, you’ll get a chay-e qand-pahlou and a smile :o)
I guess Gary Sick knows better than anyone else what language his home country understands best.
http://www.lobelog.com/who%E2%80%99s-afraid-of-the-ayatollahs/#more-10975
In all likelihood Iran will use that language within the next few weeks.
Thanks UU and BiBijon for pointing out RD’s link. I have that site bookmarked now.
Scott Lucas,
A lot of countries have immense resources, not just your’s. Your regime denies others from using them. Your comments speak for themselves. You are clearly an American exeptionalist.
You have no interest in Iran either except to push an American agenda.
According to the media EU has agreed in ” principle ” to ban import of crude oil from Iran. As an EU citizen I am really disgusted with those imperialist American puppets in Brussels ! Right now I wish I could help the Iranians wage a sabotage warfare against the EU ( Britain and France in particular ), I would do it for free !
Zzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Why does Iran enrich to 3.5%?
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Why does Iran enrich to 20%?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Why does Iran enrich?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Why doesn’t Iran stop enriching?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ding.
Enough already! It is NOT about enrichment. Hegemony, YES.
When are people going to get this concept?
2012 – Iran and the Israeli poodles
“The world had witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all (except to please Israel). Had the Iranian not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy,” Martin Van Creveld, Israeli military historian, New York Times, August 21, 2004.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/2012-iran-and-the-israeli-poodles/
James Canning says:
January 4, 2012 at 6:05 pm
“I agree that the Iranian government does not want nukes. At least, that seems clear at this time. So, why enrich large amounts of 20% U when this was virtually guaranteed to bring more sanctions against Iran?”
The ANSWER IS BLOW’N IN THE WIND.
James Canning:
“Karl,
Of the Six Powers (P5+1), which ones do you think would accept Iranian enrichment to 5%?
”
Russia, China would accept any LEU percentage. The UK+EU+US reject them all, they aim for regime change.
James Canning:
“Do you have a plausibe reason for Iran to enrich significant amounts of 20% U, far beyond what is needed to operate TRR for next ten years? Perhaps you think it is a gratifying show of defiance?”
Its not me that are fixiated on enrichment percentage, you got to ask yourself why you constantly make the 3,5% argument without any basis. Like I said LEU is up to 20%.
”
I think the Saudis by this time are aware that having Pakistan build nukes, and for some Pakistanis then to seek profit from nuclear proliferation, was not such a good thing.
”
Why? I dont see saudi urging pakistan to sign the NPT, I also hear that saudi might want to seek nukes themselves, (unless they dont already have them or the technology.)
Karl,
Actually the US will be stronger if it pulls out of Central Asia and reduces its military presence in the Persian Gulf.
Philip Giraldi, “Another Long War”, helps combat foolish drift toward another idiotic war in the Middle East.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
Seems like US are about to shift their agressive foreign policy, an indication of a continuned weaker superpower.
“U.S. to unveil “more realistic” plan for military”
“”We expect to see a strategy that’s driven less by the threats we face than the math we face,” he said.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-military-obamatre8031z0-20120104,0,7797473.story
Karl,
Of the Six Powers (P5+1), which ones do you think would accept Iranian enrichment to 5%?
Karl,
Do you have a plausibe reason for Iran to enrich significant amounts of 20% U, far beyond what is needed to operate TRR for next ten years? Perhaps you think it is a gratifying show of defiance?
I think the Saudis by this time are aware that having Pakistan build nukes, and for some Pakistanis then to seek profit from nuclear proliferation, was not such a good thing.
BiBiJon,
I agree that the Iranian government does not want nukes. At least, that seems clear at this time. So, why enrich large amounts of 20% U when this was virtually guaranteed to bring more sanctions against Iran?
Scott
“If this was a forum devoted to the US, then I would be noting the economic issues in the US. If it was about European matters, then I would be bringing in the latest from the Eurozone.’
Sorry my dearest regime change professor, you are wrong, this site is about US/West- Iran, relations did you ever care to notice the flags on the top banner, as much as the Iranian economy could be an strategic concern for the west with regard to their planning, so is the western US/EU economy for Iran with her concern referencing positions she takes to her plantings.
So you can address both who better than a Birmingham professor to enlighten us with his respective home and residence country economy if there exist any. American exeptionalists always see everything in one direction, their own, you are not excluded although that’s is not your fault it is the fault of the system that has brought you up.
I still can’t figure out if I am living in the LaLa land or you are professor.
Richard Silverstein:
US To deploy troops to Israel
“In a separate development, the U.S. military announced it would hold major war game exercises in Israel during which thousands of U.S. troops would be deployed there. The Jerusalem Post described the size of the operation as “unprecedented.” While I’m not an expert on specific military exercises of this fashion, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of such a large contingent of our troops being based in Israel for such a length of time. This is clearly a warning to Iran not to attack Israel. It also highlights more than almost anything could the symbiotic relationship between our two countries. It isn’t clear whether Israel is our protectorate or whether Israel is actually the tail wagging our dog. But the fact that U.S. troops are stationed now in Israel offers that country the relationship we’ve had with Germany and South Korea for decades.
The difference is that those two countries were always sensitive to the highly flammable nature of relations between the U.S. and its enemies. They strove not to escalate tensions and force the U.S. to clean up the mess they made. Israel is an entirely different matter. Israel will not curb its appetite or perceived interests in order to protect the U.S. from such hostilities. If Israel wants to go to war it will. If it can use the death of U.S. soldiers to manipulate U.S. involvement in such hostilities, it will do that as well. If Israel attacks Iran and the latter retaliates and in doing so kills U.S. troops stationed on Israeli soil, does that become a causus belli? You bet it does in the eyes of national security hawks like Obama.
U.S. troops should not be in Israel. It does not need our troops to defend it. Iran will not attack Israel unless the latter attacks it first. Placing our troops there is yet another escalation on the road to certain war.
Further, the worse this situation becomes the less pressure there will be to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a good part of Bibi’s political calculation here.”
Mondoweiss: “Several thousand US troops headed to Israel for “unprecedented” joint missile drills” :http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/jpost-several-thousand-us-troops-to-israel-for-unprecedented-joint-missile-defense-exercise.html
“The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East.
The US will also bring its THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and shipbased Aegis ballistic missile defense systems to Israel to simulate the interception of missile salvos against Israel.”
A couple analysis on Iran’s ability to close the Straits of Hormuz. Takeaway lesson: Iran should expand its mine laying and surveillance including radar capacity.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf
http:// web.mac.com/caitlintalmadge/Site/Publications_files/isec%252E2009%252E33%252E3%252E190.pdf
kooshy/BiBiJon,
If this was a forum devoted to the US, then I would be noting the economic issues in the US. If it was about European matters, then I would be bringing in the latest from the Eurozone.
This site is ostensibly about Iran and Lysander raised an important question. I offered information to meet that question.
I realise that the Leveretts no longer give much attention to Iran in the sense of what is happening internally, and that many of the current political and economic matters are rarely noted in discussion. But I am genuinely interested in any further information and insight about the internal situation, given the importance of the issues, first and foremost to Iranians but also to others outside Iran.
Best,
S.
Liz,
“Also, I find the statement of yours below to be pretty disgusting: ‘For all the problems that the United States has had, whether we talk about economically or politically, there’s always a point from which you can start again, rebuild, grow. Other countries don’t have that luxury.’”
Thanks for noting this — I didn’t realise the Al Jazeera documentary was out.
The context of that statement was that the US has had the benefit of a lot of resources and land that other countries do not enjoy. It was not an exaltation of US exceptionalism, precisely I am a critic of that concept.
S.
My dear Professor Scott and associated bad news storming entourage.
Now that you have been encouraged to momentarily took off your human rights and color revolution hats, and put on your economic hat, you should really be more interested on the dire state of your own country’s (US or UK, EU) economy, rather than Iran’s, keep in mind no matter what the value of the Iranian currency is, unlike US Iran is still a surplus country on her balance sheet, with almost no long term debt.
Now that you have suddenly became interested on currency devaluation think how much easier would have been for Greece if she had the luxury of devaluating her currency, or for the same reason US had the same luxury, if so we would have been easily able to balance our budget and payoff the mounting Chines loans we took and put back 22 million Americans to work with exports, that’s what you should be interested to ask and promote not the state of Iranian economy which should not be any of interest to you since I don’t believe you have any “interest” vested in Iran other than a mission for a regime change.
Cheers from LaLa land
Scott Lucas,
Your problem is that you have an agenda. Iran obviously has economic problems. We live here and we know, but they are not nearly as bad as you claim, despite the barbaric sanctions. However, people like you merely attempt to weaken the Islamic Republic in the eyes of its enemies and the ignorant.
Also, I find the statement of yours below to be pretty disgusting:
“For all the problems that the United States has had, whether we talk about economically or politically, there’s always a point from which you can start again, rebuild, grow. Other countries don’t have that luxury.”
America is not an exceptional country. Your statement is tribalistic to say the least and clearly implies hierarchies among nations.
James Canning says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm
“The Saudis do not want Iran to build nukes. Full stop. Period. Hard to comprehend?”
James, stop your rancid warmongering, fear-mongering, etc. Iranian government does not want nuclear weapons. That is all that counts.
A double gloucester to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7yLl7qFmSA
poor Saudi guy did an awful job!
Sibel Edmonds over at the Boiling Frog has write up on Syrian coverage and how the MSM reporting is quieting down.. along with Mr zero problems with Turkish FP is visiting Tehran.. one hopes Ahmed D will see the light at the end of tunnel sonner than later..
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/
My connection has been down and so I have been away for a while… but what happened to the boycott of the troll? WEren’t we going to boycott Scotty Boy until he apologized to Reza and reinstated him at Enduring America’s Weaseling Ways? And weren’t we going to boycott him anyway?? All he does is muckrake and put up any slime he can against the Islamic Republic on the flimsiest excuse. He is no different then BBC Persian and the cruder VoA. Nothing but scumbag presstitutes in the service of the enemies of the people of Iran.
James Canning:
Your logic is also flawed on another point.
Whats the thing if saudis reject nukes as you say? Iran doesnt have nukes. So why does saudi accept the oil embargo?
Also you forget that saudiarabia pretty much funded the pakistani nukes, you also forget that back in 2003 pakistan were trading nuclear weapons information maybe even technology to saudiarabia. We are talking about 2003, so were Iran enriching at 20% in 2003 too according to you, if not you must now realize how weak you 3,5% argument really is?
Note to Captain America:
All this rhetoric of war and your picayune brinksmanship only adds kindling to the tinderbox which is your house. How many times do I have to tell you that you live in a house made of wood, whereas we live in mud huts and caves? You should worry that a spark my fly off your rhetorical anvil and bring down your whole way of life all around you.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep my book of matches in my pocket.
Lysander:
The economy here has many problems, not the least of which is the inability of the government to control inflation. But compared to the other countries of the region, we are doing just fine, thank you; and of course, compared to the economies of the West, it is a veritable party – complete with birdy num num.
James Canning:
You seems to miss my point.
1. saudis say they dont want war
2. saudis fully support oil embargo
You cant have both since oil embargo would be an act of war, not to mention the dangerous escalation. saudis doing the bid of US and therefore Israel and dont even know about it.
You should also stop using your “US support 3,5% enrichment”-rhetoric, you have been refuted many times by practically all of the users on this forum. You should also now that LEU doesnt stop at 3,5% but at 20%.
Karl,
I will say it again: the P5+1 are trying to maintain a unified position in public. Do not expect China or Russia to say: Iran can enrich to 3.5% and the US and the Israeel lobby can go stuff themselves.
By definition one needs to assess the wording, phrasing, etc., of the various communications.
R S Hack,
You appear to claim that Italian leaders trying to cut off illegal immigraton from Libya are only pretending to want to achieve this. I surmise you have little understanding of the depth of public anger in Italy, arising from Gypsy immigration from Rumania, sub-Saharan Africans from Libya, etc.
Karl,
The Saudis do not want Iran to build nukes. Full stop. Period. Hard to comprehend?
R S Hack,
It appears you have little understanding of how many well-educated Libyans there are these days, who pursue economic and social improvements in Libya. Huge potential for luxury tourism, just to mention one area.
Do you see Libyan oil workers as “slaves”, while Iranian oil workers are not slaves?
Its also very telling (no surprise though) that oil embargo wouldnt be possible unless US and EU asked saudiarabia etc for help. This is the same regime that constantly say they doesnt want war to be waged on Iran, and now they are once again exposed to be fully part of the scheme.
Scott,
“But there was nothing “planned” about this devaluation.”
Where has there ever been “plans” preceding wild swings and devaluations?
“The causes are multiple — the exacerbating effect of subsidy cuts on inflation; the weakness of the banking system including the large fraud cases; the large gap between official and free-market rates, leading to speculation and profit-taking; weakness in manufacturing; conflicts within the Government bureaucracy”
Did you copy and paste this from an existing analysis of the Russian Ruble fiasco, the British Pound, or did you actually type this parody of bleeding obvious fresh from your mind?
“but none of them are part of Government strategy and none of them should be treated as minor inconveniences.”
You continue to amaze with your grasp of the obvious.
“Of course, other countries have their economic problems. But the invocation of them in this post is no more than an evasion of dealing with the situation in Iran, on which there is no information.”
Not mentioning them, paves the way for attributing context-free uniqueness to a situation for grinding axes.
“Lacking that information, the post falls back on cheesiness and polemic.”
Save some of your hypocrisy for next time you want to complain about others’ polemicisms.
Scott Lucas says:
to have information on what may be a serious economic situation inside Iran.,/b>
Yes the economy is is facing challenges, no doubt given sanctions..
You might want to add to your list the following incredible ‘analysis’.. among many others. please note the dates/./.
“A few weeks before the new government took over, the Tehran Stock Market had begun to drop and since Ahmadinejad formed his [incomplete] cabinet, the indices have kept on nose-diving,” a stockbroker said. Oct 20, 2005
;http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ20Ak01.html
Iran’s economy is so damaged that it is impossible to tell how bad things are. Except perhaps for the oilfields of southern Iraq, and perhaps also northern Saudi Arabia, there is nothing the West can give Iran to forestall an internal breakdown. May 30, 2007
;http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE30Ak03.html
A record boom in Tehran’s stock market will end in a spectacular crash that could trigger a prolonged depression producing multiple bankruptcies, mass unemployment, and acute economic hardship, analysts say. Sep 30, 2010
;http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI30Ak01.html
So if you wish to make a name for your self.. by all means
James Canning:
My point was, Israel got its goal accomplished that is oil embargo and in return Israel engaged in phoney peace talks.
R S Hack,
Given that you openly hope for the launch of an illegal war against Iran, it seems just a bid curious you would attack William Hague’s moral standards.
Karl,
Israel wants the so-called “peace talks”, and so does Obama. The Palestinians were coerced.
R S Hack,
I would appreciate an explanation from you as to why Iran would seek to treble its production of 20% U, when apparently Iran has enough on hand to build the rods/plates for TRR for at least next ten years. How would you explain it to William Hauge?
In case you have forgotten, the UK is very close ally of the US. It is not realistic for you to expect the UK foreign secretary to take public position on Iranian enrichment that conflicts with that taken by the US. There is a need for some subtle communication on what the UK (and other P5+1 countries) would accept.
Interesting that Israel accepted new phoney peace talks this particular week. The same week US made oil embargo publicly. A coincidence? Of course not. Just proves once again that US blindly follow Israel diktat. This is getting absurd.
Scott Lucas says: January 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Yes, and this why interest rates have to be raised.
Rial cannot be defended.
R S Hack,
Why would Libyan leaders need to be “bribed” so sell Libya’s oil. All Gaddafi oil contracts will be honoured by new government. If somehow an insurgent group manages to take power, it will want to sell oil as fast as possible, and it probably would honour existing oil and gas contracts.
R S Hack,
Some idiot neocons may have convinced themselves Iraq would be so stupid as to sell its oil at a significant discount, and that somehow this discount would be passed through to American consumers. Only an idiot could have believed this. Some seem to have been swallowing it on Capitol Hill.
Cheaper oil was a propaganda ploy to dupe the American people. To help sell an illegal war.
fyi,
I agree completely. Iran will not start a war. Nor will Hezbollah.
R S Hack,
Early June, Iran announces intent to treble production of 20% U. Later in month, Nato is told by Prince Turki al-Faisal that if Iran goes forward with nukes, so will Saudis. William Hague then denounces, in House of Commons, Iranian production of excessive amounts of 20% U. And Hague follows up with July 11, 2011 article in the Guardian. And you seem to claim Iranian production of 20% U is not the triggering event in latest round of sanctions? (Coupled with the latest IAEA report)
James Canning says: January 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Iranians or their allies will not start a war.
This is for certain.
R S Hack,
Very interesting piece by Gareth Porter, on top US military disappointment Obama has not been firmer in opposing an insane Israeli attack on Iran.
Obama, of course, is under constant pressure from rich and powerful Jews to treat Netanyahu with kid gloves.
BiBiJon,
“Currency fluctuations recently in Iran came about after a long overdue need for revaluation of the Rial.”
As economists have noted, the rial has long been at an artificially high level, supported by the oil price. And when a country’s inflation rate is 30%, then its currency should fall by a corresponding amount on the open market.
But there was nothing “planned” about this devaluation. The causes are multiple — the exacerbating effect of subsidy cuts on inflation; the weakness of the banking system including the large fraud cases; the large gap between official and free-market rates, leading to speculation and profit-taking; weakness in manufacturing; conflicts within the Government bureaucracy; and some effects from sanctions, especially on financial transactions — but none of them are part of Government strategy and none of them should be treated as minor inconveniences.
Of course, other countries have their economic problems. But the invocation of them in this post is no more than an evasion of dealing with the situation in Iran, on which there is no information.
Lacking that information, the post falls back on cheesiness and polemic. Fair enough, but wishfulness and hurling the word “morons” at those paying the price right now in Iran is a poor substitute for understanding the situation.
One correction on the one fact you propose: the dollar is not at 14,000 rials today — that is the rate the Central Bank tried to impose on open-market exchanges this morning, as well as the rate they put up on Meshgal (blocked inside Iran, but open outside it as a bit of propaganda for foreign eyes). They failed to get vendors in Tehran to use that rate — instead, vendors sold at 15700:1 or 15800:1.
Best,
S.
James Canning says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm
“FYI wrote that an Israeli attack on Iran would give Iran …”
See James here you go again. You even correctly quote fyi’s CAVEAT. But you draw a conclusion nobody else would reading the same sentence.
Oh, what’s the use? Forget about it.
fyi,
One reason some fantatical “supporters” of Israel in the US, helped the conspiracy to set up war with Iraq, is that they feared the 2002 Saudi peace plan and they wanted it swept under the rug.
Hezbollah would be very unlikely to attack Israel unless Israel attacks Lebanon first. I think it is unwise to encourage the Saudis to seek common cause with Israel.
BiBiJon,
FYI wrote that an Israeli attack on Iran would give Iran “the chance to inflict [pain and suffering on Israel” so that “the destruction of Israel will be the Shia project for however long it will take.”
We should remember that some of the neocons who aided and abetted the conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq on knowing false pretenses, did so because they thought taking out Saddam would make it easier for Israel to coerce the Palestinians into accepting the deal Israel wanted to make.
James Canning says: January 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm
There are a few Israelis that do comprehend the significance of Shia Wrath; they are mostly Iranian Jews.
But they are not present in Israeli government.
Mr. Mofaz understood it, but he is a minority of one in a sea of European Jews (Romanians, mostly and now Russians) who do not.
EU have once again showing itself to be a true lackey of US warmongering and Israel warmongering schemes by internally accepting an oil embargo.
fyi,
I do comprehend the utter lunacy of an Israeli attack on Iran. One reason is that an element of the insane Israeli warmongers want an attack on Iran in order to generate an excuse to expel large numbers of non-Jews from the West Bank.
And maybe, by attacking Iran in a reckless and in fact insane fashion, Israel would be making a good case for its termination as a “Jewish” state.
James Canning says: January 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm
You do not understand Shia or indeed all those emotional people with an emotional religion (including Sikhs).
I am telling you what Israelis attacking Iran would cause; leaders of Israel will become, for the Shia, the equivalents of Shmr, Yazid, and other Evil Doers of Krbala.
That just the way it is.
James Canning says:
January 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm
“fyi,
I don’t think you do the Shia a great service when you openly call for what sounds like a military effort to “destroy” Israel.”
James, this is getting tiring. Are you dyslexic or something. Where did fyi suggest such a thing?
Rd.,
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has family connections in Syria that may partly explain his thinking.
One might ask whether concerns about Bahrain, and potential unrest in Shia areas of Saudi Arabia, contribute to the equation.
fyi,
I don’t think you do the Shia a great service when you openly call for what sounds like a military effort to “destroy” Israel.
fyi says:
January 4, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Or, conversely ….
Dovatoglu’s visit today on the heals of Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun visit to Tehran last week will convince Iran to sign the AP with China guaranteeing Iran (and Turkey) unfettered economic shelter.
Obama will go for the compromise, claiming his pressure track worked, and he avoided a war.
BiBiJon says: January 4, 2012 at 12:51 pm
There will be in place a complete or partial embargo of Iranian oil by US, EU and likely Korea before this years is out.
Rial should be devalued even more than it is today.
Scott Lucas says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:59 am
“Thanks for the interesting, if irrelevant, posts.”
Don’t mention it, ever.
Currency fluctuations recently in Iran came about after a long overdue need for revaluation of the Rial. Predictably, self-servingly, and wishfully Iran’s adversaries link this to either internal systemic issues or external influences. While almost anything can be fingered as the catalyst, the fact is the British Sterling, USD, Norwegian Kroner, the Euro, Argentine Peso, etc. have all succumbed to market pressures because of underlying valuation issues, and all have done so with wild swings before settling down. Non of those events were the harbingers of domestic/regional/international revolutionary new political orders.
Scott & co rubbernecking at the scene of every accident, and clutching at any straw is the cheese ala cheese of the cheesies. Morons who listen to them deserve their losses. Amusingly Scott is surprised why nobody is rushing in to sell their Dollars at 14,000 today when they bought them yesterday for 17,800 Rials a piece.
Reason(able) people are with Ron Paul
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/04/ron-paul-should-be-proud-to-be-outside-t
Help please?
Somewhere in the last article or two on RFI a link was posted to an essay by an Iranian author whose name and web location I do not remember.
The essay was a chronological review of sanctions imposed on Iran from 1979 to 1995-96; the author noted that the first sanctions had been planned in 1977 for financial motives.
Does anyone remember the link?
thanks.
__________
Also, yesterday, Michele Bachman said some things about Iran’s Constitution that were probably inaccurate. In an attempt to assess the situation for myself, I read the IRI Constitution. I’m having trouble with some of the concepts in the listed paragraphs. Can anyone help me out, or refer to an online site or book/s that might explain the Constitution in layman’s terms ?
from Article 1: what was this referendum about? –
in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-’Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399″
from Article 2, #5: what is meant by “continuous leadership” — am I correct in understanding it as analogous to the papal line of succession from Peter to the present pope?
“5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; “
also Article 2, #6, 1.: please explain terms –
“1.continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha’ possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Ma’sumun, upon all of whom be peace; “
Please define or explain
“fuqaha’ of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter” in Article 4,
and, in Article 5,
“the wilayah and leadership of the Ummah devolve upon the just (‘adil] and pious [muttaqi] faqih, who is fully aware of the circumstances of his age;”
In Article 8, is it correct to understand
“al-’amr bilma’ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar is a universal and reciprocal duty that must be fulfilled by the people with respect to one another,”
as a combination of the Golden Rule + I Am My Brother’s Keeper?
Article 12 is a little puzzling, but the above is enough for now.
Thanks again.
This essay by law student Jefrey Usman at Vanderbilt — http://www.drsoroush.com/PDF/E-CMO-20020000-The_Evolution_of_Iranian_Islamism-Usman.pdf
is useful (in my uninformed opinion) in that it frames Islamic references in terms Westerners can apprehend. We, westerners & Iranian, have different mental landscapes; Usman makes the connections.
BiBiJon/BiB,
Thanks for the interesting, if irrelevant, posts.
S.
All:
Finally someone who understands that Shia-Sunni sectarianism hurts not Iran but others.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/1/5/worldupdates/2012-01-04T161019Z_1_TRE80318E_RTROPTT_0_UK-TURKEY-REGION&sec=Worldupdates
Arab leaders clearly are too stupid to yet grasp that.
Richard Steven Hack says: January 4, 2012 at 12:31 am
An Israeli attack on Iran was never predicated on the availability of the Iraqi Air Space; US was never ever going to shoot down Israeli airplanes on their way to Iran. That US is no longer occupying Iraq is not materail to Israeli aerial attacks.
At the present moment, attack by Israel is something that Iran can live with; it gives her the chance to inflict pain and suffering on Israel; specially since Israel cannot do ANY damage to Iran’s nuclear assets.
Furthermore, an Iran-Israel attack will rally Muslims around Iran (including Arabs) and will almost certainly destroy the latest US-EU sanctions.
I am cautiously optimistic that Israel will attack Iran and that US will sit that attack out.
In fact, for Mr. Obama, the failure of Likud attack on Iran will be politically beneficial.
For Israel, the war that they start will be their end; the destruction of Israel will be the Shia project for however long it will take.
In regards to US war with Iran; you know it is in the cards when Mr. Khameneie alludes to it in his speeches.
So far he has not done so; he did twice in 2006.
Sakineh,
The report you asked about contains the following statement, which gives a clear idea of the intellectual blinders (spelled BIAS) of the authors: “Since 1979 Washington has tried everything from undeclared warfare to unilateral concessions.” This statement just barely touches the furthest limits of “truth.” After all, the U.S. even tried cake (remember Reagan’s illegal and idiotic efforts to subvert the will of Congress?), so I guess Washington sorta tried “everything.” But in fact this is the type of glib propaganda that right-wingers use to prevent serious evaluation of US policy. What the US did not even once try with Iran was sincerely and consistently listening to Iran’s perception of its place in the world and considering how the US elephant might learn to step more lightly so as to avoid backing Iran into a corner. This comes down, in my opinion, to three issues: Iranian national security, Iranian desire for a respectful inclusion in regional affairs, and recognition that Iran has a right to an independent foreign policy even if Israel expansionist factions happen not to like it.
Bottom line: the report is well worth reading but not to understand how to solve the Iran problem so much as to understand the perceptual biases that cloud the minds of Washington players.
It is utterly amazing how glib people can be in making assurances about things they cannot really know much about but which are life and death matters. Being a reformed naïve country boy, now cynical about everything, I am greatly tempted to read into this the intent to mislead.
You quoted Kroenig saying: “The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could…” The rest of the sentence makes no difference, logically. Of course, an ice cube “could” survive a stay in hell, “if managed carefully.” I wonder how long an ice cube would last in hell if it managed its affairs, say, as well as Washington regulators managed Wall Street as it was cooking up the ‘2008-20?? Financial Crisis’ or as well as the neo-cons managed the delivery of a wrecked Iraq into the arms of Iran? During a quarter century in the Washington bureaucracy and more years analyzing US foreign policy from the outside, I have never seen anything managed that well, but there always “could” be a first time.
And no doubt the first historical example of perfect management will come in the execution of an act of aggression employing all manner of Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps including nuclear, to take out a vast, well-buried nuclear infrastructure consisting of hundreds of sites and slaughter intentionally any number of political and scientific leaders. Back to that ice cube…
Maybe douche bag also has some super-awesome “sources” among Iranian exporters who are absolutely thrilled over the current currency situation.
Don’t get your knickers in a twist…
How devaluation of currency affects import and export of country?
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100528060428AAR2bEB
Scott,
You can only sell your wares to amnesiacs.
,http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nwggAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PWUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3073,2872460&dq=overnight+interest+rates+europe&hl=en
The man who broke the Bank of England
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/229012.stm
Looking forward to ignoring your next bogus sky’s falling warnings.
Irshad,
Re: Has anyone here read the report – Path to Persia?
Yes, I believe it was linked awhile back by fyi. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
It suffers from the usual anemic views of Americans (we own the world) towards Iran.
If I remember correctly it sounded like AIPAC talking points, was self referencing (other articles by the same authors whom wrote the paper), and left out convenient detail, such as Iran’s suspension of nuclear activity for three years while negotiating.
The article offers many scenarios of how a war with Iran may go down (with little attention paid to diplomacy as an alternate course). It offered to change Iranian behavior.
Worth a glance if you have extra time.
Irshad says:
Although not mentioned, the “strategic prize” of the first stage of this war on Iran is Syria; the first campaign in a much wider sectarian power-bid. “Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself,” Saudi King Abdullah was reported to have said last summer, “nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.” [1]
The first stage used to be Hezbollah/Lebanon!!! But after they got their noise bleed, now they are looking for another link!
These are acts of desperation’s, to slaughter as many as you can and hope for the best. Blitzkrieg too at first appeared successful and indefensible. Brutality has its limits.
BiBiJon,
“The last moron who bought dollars….”
You may risk insulting a lot of Iranians with this — from a foreign exchange trader in Tehran today, “Vverybody is coming to buy dollars, but no one is selling.”
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/4/the-latest-from-iran-4-january-if-you-yell-victory-does-it-c.html#1250
S.
Source: Letter #53 to Malek Ashtar, Nahjol-Balagheh, Imam Ali (a.s.); [Translation/Interpretation]:
“Do not turn away from a peace to which your enemy invites and which pleases God because it provides peace of mind to your soldiers and security to your cities. However, once peace is settled, never be unmindful of your enemy. It is quite possible that your enemy has agreed to this peace to disarm and deceive you. On this, err on the side of caution and do not step into the path of wishful thinking and misplaced optimism.”
“If you become a partner in a treaty between you and your enemy, or if you provide a safe haven for him, always honor your promise and execute your pledges fairly and justly. Make yourself a shield that protects your promise for nothing of God’s diverse and multiple orders are as crucial to people as honoring one’s promise. Even the disbelievers, just like Muslims, knew the importance of honoring treaties for they had experienced the bitter taste of broken promises. Therefore, do not betray your pledge and do not break your promise. And do not deceive your enemy. No one would be so arrogantly disobedient to God as a miserable ignorant.”
“God has made promises and treaties safe in God’s bounty and has made the honoring of them required for all people. Pledges and promises are safe havens under which all people could seek refuge with a sense of peace. Therefore, it is never acceptable to betray treaties and break promises. Do not sign treaties which are vague, open to interpretation, and contain elements that open the path for future betrayal and deception. Ensure you write a contract/treaty that is quite clear and solid and free of any double-speaks and double-meaning language. This would prevent you from having to either honor an illegitimate request or disobeying God’s order to break a promise. It is better for you to exercise patience in honoring a difficult treaty and pledge. This is better than betraying your pledge and promise to which you would be answerable to God and for which you would have very little option of asking for forgiveness in this world and the hereafter.”
For the last few days, internet was flooded by Zionist propagandists claiming Iranian agents had murdered a Jewish chemist, Dr. Elie Lalouz in Israel, as revenge for Mossad’s assassination of Iranian military engineer Hassan Tahrani Moqaddam in November 2011.
On January 3, 2012, Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported the good-old Jewish chemist was murdered by two Israeli prostitutes in his Tel Aviv apartment while having sex with them.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/french-chemists-killed-by-israeli-prostitutes/
Richard Steven Hack – The Lebanese Daily Star is owned by anti-Hizbullah Zionist-friendly Opposition family connected to Hariri family. Just visit its Discussin Forum and find out who post there the most – the Israeli propaganda filth.
I have been there…..
The last moron who bought dollars at 17,800 Rials yesterday, is the same moron who rushed out to be part of 100s of 1000s strong Greenies that cheesy Lucas had promised would be there in otherwise empty streets.
Irshad,
Thanks for kind words — I just put up the links for those who want to have information on what may be a serious economic situation inside Iran.
Of course, if you prefer not to have the information and to say “crap”, that’s fine.
Best,
S.
@Sly Lucas
What makes you think people will go to your propaganda sites for information?
You still think your site is credible? Its like me wanting to know the history of the Palestinian people going to the AIPAC website about it!
Crap will always smell like crap no matter how you package it!
lysander says:
January 4, 2012 at 12:29 am
“Can anyone update us on the currency situation in Iran? Is it as serious as portrayed?”
Open-market rate of Iranian rial vs. US $ is 15800:1. That is down from low point on Monday of 17800:1 (a 35% drop in three months and a 15% drop in 48 hours), but Central Bank has failed this morning to impose a rate on exchange traders of 14000:1.
Reports from Tehran claim Central Bank has blocked websites on currency rates — Meshgal (www.meshgal.ir), which publishes the imposed rate of 14000:1, is filtered at moment.
Latest information and analysis:
The Latest from Iran (4 January): If You Yell Victory, Does It Count?
,http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/4/the-latest-from-iran-4-january-if-you-yell-victory-does-it-c.html
Iran Feature: Explaining the Currency Crisis
,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/1/4/iran-feature-explaining-the-currency-crisis-naghshineh-pour.html
Iran Snap Analysis: Finding a Scapegoat in the Currency Crisis
,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/1/3/iran-snap-analysis-finding-a-scapegoat-in-the-currency-crisi.html
S.
MUST READ – RE: Whats going on in Syria
A mistaken case for Syrian regime change
By Aisling Byrne
“War with Iran is already here,” wrote a leading Israeli commentator recently, describing “the combination of covert warfare and international pressure” being applied to Iran.
Although not mentioned, the “strategic prize” of the first stage of this war on Iran is Syria; the first campaign in a much wider sectarian power-bid. “Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself,” Saudi King Abdullah was reported to have said last summer, “nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.” [1]
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA05Ak03.html
Photi – what you were looking for is mentioned in this articles:
“Key aspects for instigating a popular uprising and building a “full-fledged insurgency” are evident in relation to developments in Syria.
These include:
“Funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime” including using “unhappy” ethnic groups;
“Building the capacity of ‘effective oppositions’ with whom to work” in order to “create an alternative leadership to seize power”;
Provision of equipment and covert backing to groups, including arms – either directly or indirectly, as well as “fax machines … Internet access, funds” (on Iran the report noted that the “CIA could take care of most of the supplies and training for these groups, as it has for decades all over the world”);
Training and facilitation of messaging by opposition activists;
Constructing a narrative “with the support of US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent” – “having the regime discredited among key ‘opinion shapers’ is critical to its collapse”;
The creation of a large funding budget to fund a wide array of civil-society-led initiatives (a so-called “$75 million fund” created under former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice-funded civil society groups, including “a handful of Beltway-based think-tanks and institutions [which] announced new Iran desks)” [30];
The need for an adjacent land corridor in a neighboring country “to help develop an infrastructure to support operations”.
“Beyond this,” continues the report, “US economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership.” ”
Has anyone here read the report – Path to Persia? Whats your thoughts on it (I am presuming its the usual trash about different ways to overthrow the Islamic system)
RE: The greed and stupidity of very many Iranian leaders were resposnible for those self-inflicted wounds.
Facts do not support your statement. Some could be safely accused of mismanagement, distrusting of any and all deals with Western companies (especially if they appear too good to be true), and very cautious. Once bitten, twice shy.
But they cannot be accused of either greed or stupidity.
With respect to Shell, review the documents published by the council on foreign relation that evaluated the impact of sanctions on Iran beginning with ILSA in 1996. In them, the US state department’s success in undermining Shell’s contract with Iran is clearly bragged about. Tame your “know-it-all” ego so that your analyses become much more sober.
lysander says:
January 4, 2012 at 12:29 am
“Can anyone update us on the currency situation in Iran? Is it as serious as portrayed?”
Rd provided this worthwhile link yesterday:
Rd. says:
January 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm
The fall of the Iranian rial: too much of a good thing?
http://djavad.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-fall-of-the-iranian-rial-too-much-of-a-good-thing/
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm
“As Noam Chomsky put it recently: “The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world” because “if public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it.” ”
RSH, which IMO makes clear Iran’s warning to US carrier not to return to PG is as much a PR ploy as it is a military posture.
RSH:
“In my view, this is not a desire on Obama’s part to “distance the US from an Israeli attack” but merely to distance HIMSELF from PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY for an Israeli attack. The two are not the same.”
You are of course fully right. Its like a person who want to commit a crime. He get all the guns, support, intelligence and even install the sniper rifle, all this supplied by his friend that is a lawyer. When the man is about to shoot, the lawyer walks away. Just to comeback to celebrate the murderer some seconds later.
He continued Guantanamo, he continued with Bush war in Iraq, even spending more on the military making him a bigger warmonger. Invaded Libya, kept more soldiers coming to Afghanistan. Escalated the drone attacks in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan. Did not push Israel to make peace, instead using his veto and political power to support illegal settlers, annexation and the killings on the freedom flotilla.
And now he want to wage another war? And this man got the peace prize?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofrf2ZEEQtE&feature=player_embedded
“Certainly people who are so indecent as to suggest letting the less fortunate starve, freeze or otherwise die (of preventable causes) while, at the same tyime, supporting the policies that commit US to going abroad searching for monsters to destroy are beneath contempt.”
- American people believe in the law of the strongest. Iranians will do well to realize this and devote more resources to their defense.
Gareth Porter on Obama Seeks to Distance US From Israeli Attack:
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/01/03/obama-seeks-to-distance-us-from-israeli-attack/
Interesting Quotes:
At a meeting with Obama a few weeks later, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and the new head of CENTCOM, Gen. James N. Mattis, expressed their disappointment that he had not been firm enough in opposing an Israeli attack, according to Sale.
Obama responded that he “had no say over Israel” because “it is a sovereign country.”
Obama’s remark seemed to indicate a desire to distance his administration from an Israeli attack on Iran. But it also made it clear that he was not going to tell Netanyahu that he would not countenance such an attack.
End Quote
In my view, this is not a desire on Obama’s part to “distance the US from an Israeli attack” but merely to distance HIMSELF from PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY for an Israeli attack. The two are not the same.
Obama is a serial liar. Nothing he says can be taken as the truth. In this case it is clear to me that he intends to fully back an Israeli attack on Iran, but to be able to cite these and similar statements as “evidence” that he is not to blame for the resulting war.
Quote:
In an interview with CNN in November, Barak warned the international community that Israel might have to make a decision on war within as little as six months, because Iran’s efforts to “disperse and fortify” its nuclear facilities would soon render a strike against facilities ineffective.
Barak said he “couldn’t predict” whether that point would be reached in “two quarters or three quarters or a year.” The new Israeli “red line” would place the timing of an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran right in the middle of the U.S. presidential election campaign.
Netanyahu, who makes no secret of his dislike and distrust of Obama, may hope to put Obama under maximum pressure to support Israel militarily in a war with Iran by striking during a campaign in which the Republican candidate would be accusing him of being soft on the Iranian nuclear threat.
If the Republican candidate is in a strong position to win the election, on the other hand, Netanyahu would want to wait for a new administration aligned with his belligerent posture toward Iran.
Meanwhile, the end of U.S. Air Force control over Iraqi airspace with the final U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq has eliminated what had long been regarded as a significant deterrent to Israeli attack on Iran using the shortest route.
End Quote
I think this is a realistic scenario. What is Obama going to do if Netanyahu attacks Iran in the middle of an election year? Denounce Israel? Really?
Some may recall that I predicted that Bush and Cheney would attack Iran during the 2006 mid-term election year, as a means of promoting the Republican Party candidates, and also before or after the 2008 elections, ditto. This didn’t happen, allegedly because Cheney wanted Israel to do the attack and Israel – at that time – wanted the US to do the attack, believing Bush could be forced into doing so. In 2008 (and possibly in 2006), I suspected that Bush held back partly because he did not want to be blamed for THREE disastrous wars, and in 2008, partly because the 2007 NIE as well as push back from the Pentagon had undercut his capability to start a war as a lame duck President. I’m not entirely sure all of that is true, but clearly there were reasons – possibly including the fact that Iraq was still a major mess in 2006 – that prevented Bush and Cheney from starting their war.
However, in THIS election year, it would be entirely reasonable for Netanyahu to launch an attack and thus FORCE Obama – not to mention WHOEVER gets elected – to start a war with Iran. OR as Porter suggests, if the Republicans look to win, wait until 2013.
I cannot predict that will occur, however, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that 2012 is the most dangerous time yet for an Iran war.
However, we should also keep in mind that there are VERY clear indications that the US and the EU intend to take out Syria first. And I would expect Natanyahu to attempt to take down Hizballah in Lebanon first as well.
So the question now is whether Netanyahu will ratchet up the pressure on Lebanon early this year, and whether the US and the EU will speed up the war on Syria, in order to allow Netanyahu to launch his Iran attack before the election. There is also the suggestion that Netanyahu plans a new, shorter but much more violent, attack on Gaza.
Clearly 2012 is going to see a new Middle East war of some sort, whether it be Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and/or Iran. I don’t see how the year can play out in any way peacefully.
Can anyone update us on the currency situation in Iran? Is it as serious as portrayed?
Ray McGovern on Urging Obama to Stop Rush to Iran War:
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/30/urging-obama-to-stop-rush-to-iran-war/
Good luck with “urging” Obama to do anything, Ray…
The source for the PressTV article:
SYRIA WILL BE BLOODIEST YET
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/227911/Syria-will-be-bloodiest-yet/Syria-will-be-bloodiest-yet
Granted, it’s the Daily Star Sunday, not exactly the Washington Post, but still…
Richard Steven Hack says: January 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Yes, it is frustrating when you expect so much more from your country and her leaders.
I think US is probably still a generation away from GM-like Bankruptcy point (bankruptcy used as a metaphor).
Certainly people who are so indecent as to suggest letting the less fortunate starve, freeze or otherwise die (of preventable causes) while, at the same tyime, supporting the policies that commit US to going abroad searching for monsters to destroy are beneath contempt.
You have to patiently wait for that “bankruptcy” point.
US used to have really competent men in her leadership; like Gen. Marshall, or FDR – not so many now, it seems.
A very sobering article for delusional American exceptionalists, I would have made this article a requirement to American history 101 curriculum
The New Big Show
Iran and Historical Forgetting
By JOHN GRANT
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/03/iran-and-historical-forgetting/
“Official history is limited to antiseptic and patriotic narrative and anything that supports the Myth of American Exceptionalism. All other history is certainly available for those so inclined, but it’s not the stuff of American politics or our mainstream media. It’s not something to be learned from. History is written by winners, and the US is always a winner – even when it loses, as in Vietnam. Then official history focuses on scapegoats and on whom to pin the Stabbed in the Back Myth. “
UK’s secret plots for Syria
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/218938.html
Quote:
A British security official has revealed that Britain’s Ministry of Defence has been drawing up secret plots to secure a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone over Syria as intelligence agents from MI6 and the CIA are examining the situation on the ground in the country, reported the Daily Star.
“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate,” revealed the newspaper.
End Quote
Big surprise…not.
Hey, Canning, tell me how the UK isn’t involved in all this corrupt crap and really just wants everything to be nice in Syria.
All:
Mr. Ali Vaez interviews Mr. Mousavian
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/seyed-hossein-mousavian-the-west-pushing-iran-the-wrong-direction
Juan Cole has not a bad recap of the problem of sanctions on Iran, but why bother worrying about the effect on Obama’s election prospects? Because Cole STILL doesn’t get that Obama is a JAAP – Just Another Asshole Politician.
Will his New Sanctions on Iran Cost Obama the Presidency?
http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/will-his-new-sanctions-on-iran-cost-obama-the-presidency.html
Personally I HOPE Obama goes down to defeat this year, I HOPE some TOTAL butthead like Gingrich or Santorum or Perry gets elected, and the war with Iran starts on January 20, 2013, five minutes after the swearing in ceremony.
Then we can move on with a perhaps more realistic perception of how corrupt the U.S. actually is.
Good piece by Glenn Greenwald which addresses Iran in several paragraphs. He reads in many places like our Arnold Evans! :-)
End of the pro-democracy pretense
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/02/end_of_the_pro_democracy_pretense/singleton/
Quote:
But even more significant is Egyptian public opinion specifically on the issue of greatest concern for American (and Israeli) foreign policy officials: a nuclear Iran. A 2010 Brookings/University of Maryland/Zogby poll found vast, overwhelming Egyptian support for the view that Iran has the right to have a nuclear weapon, and for the view that a nuclear Iran would be a net positive for the region. That, too, tracks general public opinion in the Arab world, which supports Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. In light of these facts, does anyone believe that the U.S. government and its pool of experts that exist to justify what it does — the Foreign Policy Community — have even a slight interest in actual democracy in Egypt specifically or the Arab world generally?
Of course not. As Noam Chomsky put it recently: “The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world” because “if public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it.”
End Quote
Worth checking out…
The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28254
All:
A different view (with which I mostly disagree)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/supreme_loser?page=0,1
“US says doesn’t seek confrontation over Gulf transit”
http://www.xe.com/news/2012/01/03/2378045.htm?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=TL&utm_content=NOGEO&utm_campaign=News_RSS_Art1
Oh so you dont seek confronation, thats ridiculous? Thats why you push for oil embargo, sanctions, assasinations, regime change, lies, warmongering, that is acts of war?
James Canning: “In his July 11, 2011 piece in the Guardian, William Hague said that Iran on June 8th had announced plans to treble production of 20% U, which Hague said “makes even clearer the fact Iran’s programme is not designed for purely peaceful purposes.”
Surely you can see that the UK is putting the emphasis on 20% U as the problem, rather than the enriching to 3.5%.”
No, we don’t need to conclude that at all. From the article in The Guardian by Hague:
Quote:
Iran’s intensified uranium enrichment is envisaged to take place at a previously covert site, buried deep beneath the mountains. That it claims to allow International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring is not a safeguard. Iran has a persistent record of evasion and obfuscation with the IAEA. It has failed to provide the IAEA with access to relevant locations, equipment, persons or documents. It has not replied to questions from the IAEA on its procurement of nuclear-related items and aspects of its work that could be useful only for developing a nuclear weapon – such as multipoint detonation for the initiation of hemispherical explosive charges or, in plain English, detonators for an atom bomb. It has an active ballistic missile programme, including the development of missiles with a range of over a thousand kilometres, and carried out a range of missile tests in June. A reasonable observer cannot help but join the dots.
End Quote
His list of reasons why Iran must be sanctioned does not depend solely on the 20% argument. That is just the most recent veneer he puts on the UK’s opposition to Iran. The list of reasons cited for suspicion of Iran’s nuclear intentions are completely bogus as we all know well here on this site. And if Hague is too stupid to know that, then he shouldn’t be in his position, just as Obama can’t possibly believe what is clear to all of us here is bogus.
Also note this statement:
“This is why there are already six UN security council resolutions that require Iran to suspend enrichment immediately, all ignored by Iran. Iran has so far refused to enter into any negotiations on its nuclear programme until the E3+3 agrees to lift all sanctions and immediately recognise Iran’s right to enrich. But there will remain no rationale for lifting sanctions until Iran engages in negotiations to address what are well-founded concerns about its nuclear programme. So far, Iran has done the opposite.”
In other words, Hague is FULLY on board with forcing Iran to suspend ALL enrichment, not just the 20%, until Iran “proves a negative”.
Finally, Wikipedia quotes this information about Hague:
“He was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA), but was also “convicted of electoral malpractice” in the process.[4] OUCA’s official historian David Blair notes that Hague was actually elected on a platform pledging to clean up OUCA, but that this was “tarnished by accusations that he misused his position as Returning Officer to help the Magdalen candidate for the Presidency, Peter Halley. Hague was playing the classic game of using his powers as President to keep his faction in power, and Halley was duly elected…There were accusations of blatant ballot box stuffing.”[5] On a subsequent visit to OUCA as a guest speaker in the 1990s, Hague was reported to have told them “It is not the election that one needs to worry about…it’s more the tribunal thereafter.”"
And this: “Hague’s reputation suffered further damage towards the end of his leadership, with a 2001 poll for the Daily Telegraph finding that 66% of voters considered him to be “a bit of a wally” and 70% of voters believed he would “say almost anything to win votes”"
This is the guy you’re believing when he says Iran’s 20% is the main reason Iran must be sanctioned.
It’s embarrassing.
In the end of january, EU states are about to meet dicuss Iran amongst other things.
I think that if EU on this meeting also implement an oil embargo, then EU states through nato will join in case of war with Iran. If not, they are not supporting the escalation and wont back a US/Israel assault on Iran, while doing nothing to stop it.
The irrational psychosis by EU/US to follow the will of Israel is getting absurd, do these elected men and women have no shame waging war that are first and foremost not in the western interests? Why would the EU-states, burdend with their weak economies accept an embargo that raises the price of oil, thus hurting them even more? For the sake of what? Preserving the only colonial regime?
Arnold Evans: “Libya has transformed from a mostly pro-Western state to a state that after elections may be mostly pro-Western. I don’t see that as a strategic success.”
I’m not even sure we can count on Libya being “pro-West” either more or less than Gaddafi was at any given point in his rule.
Right now, Libya is a mess of warring factions. No one knows who will come out on top. It’s as likely to descend into permanent civil war as cohere into a viable state. It’s much like Iraq at this point without even the level of a Maliki government. So the question will devolve to: who will be bribed by the U.S. and EU corporations to become the new rulers and sell the oil? And will they be able to hold enough power over the country to enable the oil to be sold?
How Juan Cole can justify this state of affairs in Libya on the grounds of “avoiding a massacre by Gaddafi” is beyond me. Whatever one’s opinion of Gadafi (or Saddam), clearly the results of both Iraq and Libya are worse than the dictatorships that preceded them. And those results clearly only serve the purposes of the U.S. and EU elites and Israel.
Rd: “It is not necessarily a question of arming!!! vs interfering..The Pro-Israel NGO behind NATO’s War on Libya Targeting Syria”
Thanks for the link. It’s no surprise to me that Israel is working against Syria! But just because a guy has an Uzi OR an NGO sponsored by Israel is working for the dissidents doesn’t mean Israel is THE Number One force involved here. Clearly the U.S. and the EU and the Saudis and the GCC are the number one interfering parties.
That NGO may be supporting NATO’s war on Syria, but it’s not “behind” that war. Of course the whole point of taking out Syria is to benefit Israel and set up for the war on Iran, but the U.S. and the EU have equal stakes in that process since it will enable them to continue to control the Middle East region for their benefit. The U.S. supports Israel because the U.S. elites – those who aren’t Jewish, at least, who are more supporters of Israel than the U.S. – believe Israel is a benefit to THEM (note: NOT a benefit to the U.S.’ real interests, but to THEIR interests.)
But the U.S. elites have other more direct reasons for wanting Syria taken down than just to benefit Israel. Syria resists U.S. hegemony. A war on Syria will be profitable. A war with Syria sets up the war with Iran – even more profitable. All of that (supposedly) leads to control of the oil wealth of the Middle East which is even more profitable.
Israel is just another component in the U.S. elites moves to control the world – except, again, for those Jewish members of the U.S. elites who are more Israeli than American.
In other words, once again, like in the Iraq war, what we have is a “perfect storm” of beneficiaries: U.S. elites, EU elites, Israel, Saudis, etc. They’re all working together for their own reasons. Singling any one out as the “leader” or prime beneficiary isn’t particularly useful, although it IS useful to KNOW what their individual reasons are for conducting this process.
James Canning: “Why would the US want Libya to “fracture”? Strong economic growth in Libya is what the US and the EU want.”
GROWTH? Oh, hell, no! They want the OIL! They couldn’t care less about “economic growth” in any country but their own! If they could arrange for the entire Libyan population to be slaves working for free in the oil fields, they’d do it.
Just how naive are you about politicians?
“And Italy and other EU countries want illegal immigration (that transits Libyan territory )stopped.”
Yeah, and how is that going to work now that Libya is fractured into warring factions?
Look, the morons in the UK, France, Germany and Italy are only looking out for themselves. They don’t care about “immigration” except as a political football, just as U.S. politicians have immigrant labor watering their lawns except when they want to complain about it. They don’t care about “economic growth” or “stability” in any country except their own.
They want the MONEY and POWER. Period. And above that, whatever notions of political organization they might “adhere to” as long as it doesn’t get in the way of said MONEY and POWER.
You need to stop taking these people at their word. It’s embarrassingly naive.
R S Hack,
Neocons used to aburd notion that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would bring lower oil prices, to dupe some of the Americans conned into supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq. Totally absurd, that Iraq would sell its oil for lower prices than otherwise would obtain.
Fiorangela,
Rick Santorum is of course an idiot. Has he actually said that states should be allowed to forbid birth control?
Fyi: “When US, pursuant to her revolutionary new Bush Doctrine destroyed the Ba’athist Iraq, she expected to be able to exert indirect political control over the price of oil as well as – in extreme cases – on who gets to get the oil out of Persian Gulf.
Together, Iran and Iraq now could actually have some say in the price of oil (in principle) and the role of Saudi Arabia could be diminished (in principle).
That is why as the scope of Irani/Shia gains have become more and more clear, the expressed hostility of US-EU against Iran has become more and more shrill.
In my opinion, war will not change the geopolitical situation – perhaps that is why we have not seen US attacking Iran yet.”
You make some possibly very valid points.
As Greg Palast established, the Iraq war was intended by the neocons to get cheap Iraqi oil to pay for the wars to destroy Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. However, the oil companies did NOT want cheap Iraqi oil on the market. They wanted Iraq to adhere to OPEC (i.e., Saudi, Iran and GCC) oil price guidelines. And they used Jim Baker and the Saudi influence on the Bush family to insure that is what happened.
So now we have Iraq cooperating with Iran – perhaps in terms of oil prices as well. After all, Iraq’s only revenue is oil, and the higher the oil price the better for Iraq in terms of rebuilding its infrastructure that the U.S. destroyed in the war. So Iraq has every reason to cooperate with Iran and OPEC in terms of setting the oil price.
As a result, of course the neocons get angrier since once again their plans to destroy the Middle East for the benefit of Israeli and U.S. hegemony have been thwarted.
The military-industrial complex, however, is not that concerned about the oil companies desires. So they will continue to push for war with Iran regardless.
And of course, a war with Iran will up the price of oil, and the oil companies won’t mind that, either, even if they never get control of either Iraq’s or Iran’s oil as a result of the war.
So I wouldn’t conclude that the fact that a war on Iran won’t really change things for the better for certain pro-war parties necessarily indicates that such a war won’t happen. It might delay such a war depending on whose political campaign contributions are the largest in a given election year, but overall I think the U.S. elites are still in agreement that a war with Iran is desirable from their standpoint, even if the standpoints may differ in detail.
Certainly the Israel Lobby thinks so, and they have a lot of influence as well, if not more so than the military-industrial complex and the oil companies.
And who has the most influence at any given time or over what period of time is clearly not something that is easy to discern or prove, and probably fluctuates for many reasons.
The old criminal, senile minister of france, keep warmongering, keep lying.
http://presstv.com/detail/219133.html
James Canning:
“Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Rybakov, said last Friday: “We have verified data showing there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a military component” in Iran’s nuclear programme. You should be able to pick this up if you have not already seen it. Translation: Iran’s enriching to 3.5% is OK with Russia.”
I said explicitly. I am not talking what you perceive being stated, but what are actually stated.
On December 31, 2011 – Former MK Uri Avnery posted a column at Gush Shalom website, entiled Shukran, Israel. In his column, Avnery claims that all Islamic movements in the Muslim East owes their existence to the Zionist regime. According to him, had it not been Israel – there would not have been Muslim Brotherhood (established 25 year before the establishment of Israel), Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979), Hizbullah or Hamas…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/israel-the-midwife-to-islamic-resistance/
Cyrus_2 – Neyth. I don’t see any Iranian blunder except another Israeli hasbara crap. China, India, Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey are starving for Iranian oil. Iranian export has increased 500% during the last eight year US-Israel sanctions.
Karl,
Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Rybakov, said last Friday: “We have verified data showing there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a military component” in Iran’s nuclear programme. You should be able to pick this up if you have not already seen it. Translation: Iran’s enriching to 3.5% is OK with Russia.
Karl,
Surely you follow presstv. Any number of reports about Russian or Chinese support of Iranian enrichment to 3.5%, couched in larnguage of support for civilian nuclear power programme.
Russia, it should be noted, originally wanted to maintain control of nuclear fuel cycle for all five Bushehr nuclear power platns. The US foolishly failed to support the Russian initiative. Why? ISRAEL LOBBY.
“Parsi: Issraeli pressure helped scuttle Obama overtures to Iran”, by Alex Kane:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/parsi-israeli-pressure-helped-scuttle-obama-overtures-to-iran.html
James Canning:
“Are you not aware that China and Russia have made robust statements in support of Iran’s domestic civilian nuclear programme, inferring approval of Iran’s enriching to 3.5%?”
When did China and Russia explcitly said they accept 3,5%? Provide sources.
Arnold,
Re; the partial sentence, do you mean you think it was not a blunder for Iran to make it easier for more sanctions to be brought against Iran?
Arnold,
In his July 11, 2011 piece in the Guardian, William Hague said that Iran on June 8th had announced plans to treble production of 20% U, which Hague said “makes even clearer the fact Iran’s programme is not designed for purely peaceful purposes.”
Surely you can see that the UK is putting the emphasis on 20% U as the problem, rather than the enriching to 3.5%.
Arnold,
AFP had a report on William Hague’s statement to MPs about Iran’s nculear programme. The Australian printed in July 1, 2011. It has been linked before on this site, as I recall. Quote: “In a statement to [Parliament], Mr Hague said . . . Iran had announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 per cent enriched uranium.”
Arnold,
How much experience do you have in “decoding” statements by British foreign secretaries? I think fairly little.
Are you not aware that China and Russia have made robust statements in support of Iran’s domestic civilian nuclear programme, inferring approval of Iran’s enriching to 3.5%?
It is unrealistic for you to expect a shouting from the rooftops of a position that is deliberately couched in some vagueness (referring to William Hague’s piece in the Guardian last July).
Did Iran made a blunder here?
[quote]
Iran Crude Oil Exports to China set to Fall in January
The contract dispute with Chinese buyers is one of several likely to face the world’s fifth largest crude exporter: Iran is trying to sell its biggest Asian customers oil at higher prices and on tougher terms, even as it faces the prospect of fewer sales as Western nations mull sanctioning its economic lifeline.
[/quote]
http://www.topcoevents.com/topco/industry-news/industry-news/View.aspx?nid=2919
The answer is “yes”, unfortunately.
Iran is not in a position to loose oil exports to China.
the last sentence fragment to Canning was left accidentally, I hit submit before deleting it.
fyi says:
January 3, 2012 at 4:02 pm
His single strategic success has been Libya.
Libya has transformed from a mostly pro-Western state to a state that after elections may be mostly pro-Western. I don’t see that as a strategic success.
James Canning says:
January 3, 2012 at 2:15 pm
therefor it is not likely that one would see Russia, China, Germany, France and the UK issue a statement saying “we support Iranian enrichment to 3.5%”
If they haven’t said it or can’t say it for whatever reason, then what makes you think it’s true?
That is a very poor and invalid technique of argument. You don’t get to just make up positions for countries after you assert that they have a reason not to say they hold that position.
Iranian enrichment to 20% is the issue that has driven the UK (and Saudi Arabia) to push for more sanctions against Iran.
Again, Saudi Arabia is not an independent country or it would have had some tangible response to Israel’s nuclear arsenal. I know some people here have joked that you speak for Saudi Arabia, but really you do not. Saudi Arabia wants what Barack Obama wants and that is for Iran to stop all enrichment. Not for Arabian reasons but because that government is accountable to Barack Obama and not the population of the country.
I have not read a single UK official statement that even mentions the word “20%” either provide a link that includes that term “20%” or you’re making this up.
it is not I think it is a significant blunder on the part of Iran to make it easier for more
Richard Steven Hack says:
Rd: I don’t know if I’d take one picture of a Syrian dissident with an Uzi as proof that Israel is arming the dissidents.
It is not necessarily a question of arming!!! vs interfering..
The Pro-Israel NGO behind NATO’s War on Libya Targeting Syria
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=37706&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1
Jay says: January 3, 2012 at 3:52 pm
In fact, Mr. Obama has been unsuccessful in other areas of foreign policy such as in Venezuela, in Palestine, in Russia, in Afghanistan, and in China.
His single strategic success has been Libya.
James Canning,
I did not suggest that you argued for a stalemate. I said that “if” you are “suggesting” that we are at a stalemate… You did not use the word stalemate. However, there seems to be an implicit subtheme in your position that unless Iran cedes to the (extralegal) demands of the US/UK/FR block, no progress is possible. I do not accept this argument. Every action by “the block” so far indicates that their demands will continue to surpass the Iranian desire for a sovereign foreign policy.
I reject the notion that actions of the President can be attributed mainly to lobbying. During the health care legislation debate Mr. Obama said in essence that if standing on principle meant a defeat in his rerun for the office, then so be it – he would stand for the principle. If I take the President at his word, and if his principle is to resolve the issues with Iran, then whatever lobby could not stop the President. Was he then not truthful when he suggested that he is willing to loose his second term? Or, is he not truthful when he suggests that he wants to negotiate with Iran? In either case, his statements cannot be accepted as genuine!
My point regarding the cost of energy (Oil) was not to emphasize the benefit to Iran but the harm to “the block”. It is ultimately a self-destructive and self-defeating approach. As some one who points out “low yield” Iranian policies you must recognize this.
Would an oilembargo hurt Europe more than Iran?
If an oilembargo are imposed by Europe/US, Iran would loose clients in the western world no doubt, however, since the price of oil, atleast initially, will rise alot, Iran would still get that money that were lost due the departure of US/EU, right? Not to mention that Iran would probably find other clients that it could export to.
Rd. says:
January 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Thanks Rd.
jay,
I mis-directed last comment to FYI, but it was meant for you.
fyi,
You are quite right to say enormous stresses on the EU, caused by an increase in oil price to sustained $120 from about $100. And the $100 was caused to considerable degree by the military intervention in Libya (assuming Gaddafi otherwise would have crushed the revolt).
And Iran obviously profits from oil at $120, assuming resulting global economic slowdown does not cause oil to drop back to $60 or $70.
jay,
Surely you are aware that Aipac and other Jewish groups virtually “own” the US Congress on matters involving Israel/Palestine. And Iranian issue is 80% Israel/Palestine, even if FYI and others do not like to view it that way.
jay,
I did not argue for stalemate, and I in fact have never made that argument because I do not see one.
If you go back to last summer and read the statements by William Hague and the Saudis, you will be able to ascertain that Iranian enrichment to 20% is the largest problem. Or “problem”, as viewed by the UK, the Saudi, and others.
Rd.,
Thanks for the piece you linked (on falling exchange rate of the rial). Those who keep rial bank accounts obviously get hurt when the value of the rial falls much faster than the interest gained on the deposit.
James Canning,
Repeating the assertion that the Western pressure is the result of “xx”% enrichment by Iran while evidence points more heavily towared desire for hegemony is curious.
Yet more curious is the presentation of a littany of excuses for the President of the United States not being able to do what he thinks is good for the country.
Nonetheless, even if we take your points as given, there is no incentive for Iran to take any steps such as enriching to 3.5% because the President is unable to do anything to reciprocate.
If you are suggesting that we are at a stalemate, you are mistaken. There are yet several levers of power remaining to be exercised by both sides. For example, note that Iran did slow the traffic in the Strait, partially stopping it for a time, oil futures are up, and
“Standard & Poor’s has warned it could soon downgrade the triple-A ratings of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg by one notch and the ratings of other euro zone countries, including top-rated France but excluding Greece and Cyprus, by two notches.” “…the downgrades would reinforce fears the currency union could collapse under the weight of member states’ debt. This could inflict severe damage on even the bloc’s financial powerhouse and perceived least risky country – Germany.”
Speculate on the economic havoc that would wreak from a $120/barrel oil for Europe resulting from jittery insurers’ premium increases.
In his New Year’s Address to the Russian people, Dmitry Medvedev said: “It is our duty to preserve [Russia] and to build a progresssive state, where all of us can live comfortably and do stimulating work.”
BiBiJon says:
I may be exaggerating how bad the CBI sanctions would be, but I’d like to hear reasons why it is nothing to worry about.
Here is one explanation on one of the side effects. perhaps those with more of an economic background can comment.
The fall of the Iranian rial: too much of a good thing?
http://djavad.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-fall-of-the-iranian-rial-too-much-of-a-good-thing/
Writing in the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen claims that the Iraq War “had no real purpose”! What a calculated deception! In fact, the real purpose of the Iraq War was to exploit American fear and anger resulting from “9/11″ to take out an enemy of Israel and attempt to re-fashion Iraq into a stable “ally” of Israel and the US.
Arnold,
You seem to have difficulty understanding that the P5+1 try to maintain unity, and therefor it is not likely that one would see Russia, China, Germany, France and the UK issue a statement saying “we support Iranian enrichment to 3.5%”. Even if those countries would support it.
Iranian enrichment to 20% is the issue that has driven the UK (and Saudi Arabia) to push for more sanctions against Iran. I think it is a significant blunder on the part of Iran to make it easier for more sanctions to be adopted by “the West”.
R S Hack,
Why would the US want Libya to “fracture”? Strong economic growth in Libya is what the US and the EU want. And Italy and other EU countries want illegal immigration (that transits Libyan territory )stopped.
Empty,
I think you are mistaken to believe Obama did not want dialogue with Iran. The truth of the matter is he did not comprehend how strong Aipac and other groups would be in their determination to block any improvement in relations between the US and Iran. To “benefit” Israel. And Obama did not comprehend how he needed to approach the matter. And Obama relied on Hillary Clinton too much, when her primary object is to protect the interests of Democrats in the US Congress by mollifying powerful Jews.
fyi,
I talk to a number of Americans and very few of them want war with Iran.
James Canning says: January 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Under the UN Oil-for-Food program?
I do not know.
But that, even tru, would not mean much; US was calling the shots.
fyi,
Didn’t the US buy more oil from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the 1990s, than any other country?
James Canning says: January 3, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Yes, it is.
Else they would not be able to extract geopolitical concessions from these states.
Look at how Americans (and Arabs) kept alive the Communal War in Palestine until it became a Religious war and thus lost control of that dynamics.
Persian Gulf says: January 3, 2012 at 1:45 pm
There is no formal alliance structure between US and Israel.
This is a dangerous situation since it is not clear what the obligations of each side is to the other – as opposed to NATO where there is no ambiguity as to what would happen if a NATO member state is attacked.
Israel has harmed US a great deal; US support for Israel has poisoned her relaionship with Muslim World.
But US is a sovereign state and her leaders, like those of GM, are entitled to ruin their country.
fyi,
Surely it is not US policy to create insecurity in the Middle East. Foolish American support for Israel right or wrong creates insecurity as an unwanted side-effect.
fyi says:
January 3, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“…(due to the US policies of creating insecurity to sell geopolitical protection [and involvement as well]) are also subject to the same logic.”
isn’t this the underlying logic for Israel being a strategic asset? I think Flynt Leverett is quite right about the question of hegemony. if having hegemony is the U.S goal in the region, which naturally every state would like to maintain that, a strong alliance with Israel makes sense. I slowly came to believe that the emphasis on the unshakable nature of the alliance has some merits.
BiBiJon says: January 3, 2012 at 1:27 pm
I do not think so.
UAE will be committing suicide if it rescinds Iranian trade.
And Turkey, in fact, continued buying Iraqi oil throughout the 1990s.
The Siege of Iran is just what it is; a Siege – with lots of holes in it.
But future would tell.
[Look at what happened in Cyprus; they lost a 550 million Euro power plant which will not be made good.]
fyi says:
January 3, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“Will US-EU make good potential losses here?
I think not.”
On two counts I’m not persuaded.
1) Historically, US-EU have not bothered to make good on losses to other countries. On Iraq for example, Putin was complained that ‘comrade wolf is eating and not sharing’, and Erdogan decried Turkish losses caused by American military adventures. However, ultimately they were both powerless to seek compensation a next time.
2) The trade value between Iran and countries you listed are less impressive when compared to US-EU trade value with the same countries. Again, historically, when push comes to shove, they will all be persuaded to stop crying and imagine something worse.
fyi says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:47 am to BiBiJon says: January 3, 2012 at 11:26 am
“American people are itching for a war with Iran; the same derelict young man who drives a 50-dollar car with “Bush-Cheney 2004″ on it is persuaded that Iran is the greatest enemy of the United States and must be smashed (per the Jewsih/Protestant Propaganda).”
To my double-shame, you must add American Catholics to that list, and prominent Italian-Americans, too.
Rick Santorum, Catholic and the grandson of Italian immigrants to US, enjoys high-profile access to mainstream American media. He uses those opportunities to advocate killing Iranians. No official from the Roman Catholic hierarchy that I am aware of has slammed the hammer on Santorum’s statements advocating the deaths of other human beings, but in 2004, prominent Vatican prelates decreed that John Kerry should be denied Communion based on the thesis that A Catholic may never obey an immoral law, such as legalized abortion:
“Man may never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obligated to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.”[1].
One must assume that the silence of the Church hierarchy gives consent to Santorum’s declarations that Iranians or anyone who participates in nuclear research in Iran should be killed.
BiBiJon says: January 3, 2012 at 12:22 pm
An effective economic strangulation of Iran would require other states to also effectively harm themselves.
One such state is Turkey: trade with Tureky was $ 10 billion in 2010 and $ 15 billion in 2011 with Iran.
With Iraq, trade is close to $ 10 billion.
With UAE it is close to $ 25 billion.
With Afghanistan close to $ 2 billion.
Will US-EU make good potential losses here?
I think not.
Likewise for Korea, China, Russia, Japan, India and many others.
Specifically about rials – that is government’s fault; they should either devalue the currency or raise the interest rates.
Irshad says: January 3, 2012 at 6:37 am
You have to understand that these pipelines are stupid.
US creates insecurity and then persuades these Arab states to undertake costly initiatives.
Qatar, for example, could make a swap deal with Iran or with Iraq for oil delivery to Turkey.
The pipe-line to bypass the Straits of Hormuz (due to the US policies of creating insecurity to sell geopolitical protection) are also subject to the same logic.
As is said in Persian: “Why wrap you head if it is not aching?”
The real source of these troubles is US and EU.
When US, pursuant to her revolutionary new Bush Doctrine destroyed the Ba’athist Iraq, she expected to be able to exert indirect political control over the price of oil as well as – in extreme cases – on who gets to get the oil out of Persian Gulf.
Together, Iran and Iraq now could actually have some say in the price of oil (in principle) and the role of Saudi Arabia could be diminished (in principle).
That is why as the scope of Irani/Shia gains have become more and more clear, the expressed hostility of US-EU against Iran has become more and more shrill.
In my opinion, war will not change the geopolitical situation – perhaps that is why we have not seen US attacking Iran yet.
fyi says:
January 3, 2012 at 12:12 pm
“They have a full-plate of issues to go through:
- Iraq’s political crisis
- Regime change in Syria on terms acceptable to Iran
- Scuttling of US initiative in Afghanistan
- Domestic development issues”
Indeed, and all of those are an anathema to America’s perceived interests, and all of those Iranian agenda items can be scuttled with an effective economic strangulation of Iran. I may be exaggerating how bad the CBI sanctions would be, but I’d like to hear reasons why it is nothing to worry about.
Any thoughts?
BiBiJon says: January 3, 2012 at 12:06 pm
I believe Iranians will do nothing belligerent.
They have a full-plate of issues to go through:
- Iraq’s political crisis
- Regime change in Syria on terms acceptable to Iran
- Scuttling of US initiative in Afghanistan
- Domestic development issues