We're posting new material at GoingToTehran.com. Please join us there.

The Race for Iran


The following link, see here, connects to a video clip from the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa last night.  In it, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas—regularly one of the very few members of Congress to vote consistently against Iran sanctions legislation—explains very succinctly what is wrong with America’s Iran policy.  He addresses sanctions squarely, describing them as the product of “pretend free traders” and noting that, among other things, when America sanctions countries it is “more likely to fight them” down the road.  He goes on to note that there is no evidence Tehran is working on fabricating nuclear weapons and that, even if there were, it faces real and legitimate security threats in its immediate environment (including from the United States).  And if that were not enough for a startling dose of realism and good sense in a forum where little of that is expected, Dr. Paul suggests that, even if the Islamic Republic got a nuclear weapon, it would not be that big a problem.  He concludes by observing that, if Americans want “a policy of peace”, that means “free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring our troops home.”   

That was all way too much for former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who, as you will see, interrupts the proceedings after Dr. Paul has finished to demand an opportunity to respond.  Santorum—who, at this point, is much more reflective of elite Republican opinion on the issue than Paul—declares that “Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979”, and accuses the Islamic Republic of “killing more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and Afghanistans have…than the Afghanistanis [sic] have”. 

Dr. Paul does not miss a beat, pointing out that “the Senator is wrong on his history.  We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79.  We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction—the blowback—came in 1979.  It’s been going on and on because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem”. 

Unfortunately, the video clip does not include Senator Santorum’s rejoinder, several minutes later in the debate.  We provide it here: 

“[Dr. Paul] sees it exactly as Barack Obama sees it.  That we have to go around and apologize for the fact that we’ve gone out and exerted our influence to create freedom around the world.  I don’t apologize for that.  I don’t apologize for the Iranian people being free for a long time, and now they’re under a malocracy [sic]…”

This strikes us as a new low in America’s Iran debate:  to describe the period between 1953 and 1979 as a period of “the Iranian people being free for a long time”, because America went out “and exerted our influence”.  But, we may go lower still. Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to declare his candidacy for the Republican nomination tomorrow.  ForeignPolicy.com reports, see here, say that Perry’s foreign policy and national security briefings are being organized by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and feature such Iraq war masterminds as Doug Feith and Bill Luti.  Dr. Paul has his work cut out for him.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett



  1. Come On says:

    “So much for American influence to create freedom around the world.” HAHAHA is that what you really think we are doing Dave McLane?

  2. James Canning says:


    My understanding is that Israel agreed not to attack Iran if Russia did not deliver the S-300 missile defence system. I know the Russians have been emphatic in telling Israel not to attack Iran.

    Russia is a great power and, as a permanent member of UNSC, Iran does well to have Russia as an interlocutor or mediator.

    Rich and powerful Jews in the US will try to block any deal, and they have blocked deals between the US and Iran a number of times. More scrutiny needs to be given to the individual rich and powerful Jews who are subverting the national security interests of the American peopel, to enable continuing oppression of the Pslestinians by Israel. That is the core issue.

  3. James Canning says:


    Perhaps Dreyfuss should have mentioned that G W Bush was initially very much opposed to going to war with Iraq because there was no evidence Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the “9/11” attacks. A conspiracy within the Pentagon to supply knowingly false intel to the White House, to dupe the president and his national security adviser, is what made the illegal war possible. But Dreyfuss perhaps does not want to dwell on that aspect of the disastrous policies of the US in the Middle East.

  4. James Canning says:


    So, Dreyfuss in effect says it is OK to ignore the viewpoint of 16 US intelligence agencies, and to argue Iran is building or about to build nukes, and press for policies based on that unwarranted assumption.

  5. James Canning says:


    The Russians comprehend that the US has weakened itself by squandering trillions of dollars on ill-considered military adventures, unnecessary weapons, etc. But they are not pleased to see continuing instability in Afghanistan, or Iraq.

    Vladimir Putin has observed that spending too much money on the military was one major reason for the collapse of the USSR.

  6. kooshy says:

    Eric A. Brill says:

    August 18, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Eric – you make a very sensible analysis, just as a reminder, I think you forgot to mention the recent failure by US and EU to draw a UNSC resolution against Syria, which was opposed by the entire BRICS and not just the Russians. As you might have fallowed, the failure at the UNSC resulted in US and some of her allies to going it alone with sanctions.

    I think the majority of the world by now is becoming tired of the continued condemnations and sanctions for various reasons, which if true it will result to an eventual stress on western financial system, like what was recently announced that Venezuela is in process of doing, recalling her gold and other reserves out of the western financial system.

  7. BiBiJon says:


    Then even better opportunities presented themselves: 9/11 and PNAC. Let the US go on a rampage towards the cliff’s edge all the while benefiting from higher oil prices, and enjoying America’s PR disaster in the world.

    Iran is indeed but a pawn.

  8. BiBiJon says:

    Neo says:
    August 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Regrading Russia I am in general agreement with you.

    I think it has been peculiarly western self congratulatory notion that Russia is finished. Humor them with a seat at G8, and let them observe NATO meetings, and otherwise completely ignore their security concerns.

    Russia may well have more of an audacious ambition than they ever dreamed about during the cold war: vanquish the US military without firing a bullet, while laughing ll the way to the bank.

    They may well have realized the most effective way to lay waste to an $8 trillion US military(1) is to deny it a target. Thereby turn what was an asset into a colossal junk.

    Then even better opportunities presented themselves: 9/11 and PNAC. Let the US go on a rampage towards cliff’s edge all the while be

  9. BiBiJon says:

    Robert Dreyfuss has a piece up at the Nation:

    Iran in Gray, not Black and White

    Dreyfuss is not encouraging folks to try and see Iran in shades of gray. No. He is arguing that fear-mongers should not all be painted with the same brush. Not all fear-mongering is bad, he suggests.


    It’s possible to believe that Iran is plunging ahead on a nuclear weapons program and still be opposed to war. It’s possible to believe that Iran is not making a bomb and still support some sort of preemptive attack. And it’s possible to see shades of gray in all of this. My own view inclines toward the former, that is, that Ayatollah Khamenei wants to oversee a nuclear-capable Iranian military, but I still believe in negotiations and, if that fails, a containment policy that is able to deal realistically with an Iran that has a limited nuclear weapons capability.

    End Quote

    In one respect I agree with him. Way too many labels are tossed around. I just used “fear-monger” twice myself. It is a national/linguistic twitch. However one telegraphically expresses their annoyance, I think the real issue is what it is they’re vexed about.

    In my case, I am annoyed with Dreyfuss because he once again promotes the idea of ‘belief’ and ‘conjecture’, in matters that are already a cause of assassinations, etc. and may come to even more serious blows.

    So, I ask Dreyfuss to respectfully shove his beliefs and regale us with evidence. All I know is that NIE 2007 and 2011, and previous and current heads of IAEA, as well as Putin and Lavrov have said publicly they have seen no evidence.

    Someone please explain to Dreyfuss the difference between long-range, and intermediate-range missiles. If you have further patience, please let him know NY Times is most definitely up to its old Iraq/n tricks.

  10. Neo says:

    Iran will make a decision on the Russian initiative and in accordance with her interests, and that is all that matters. I am simply discussing what I think may be going on behind the scenes, but please believe me that I have no intention of sabotaging anything or aiding the warmongers.

    Iran has stuck with Russia for some good reasons, and I trust the judgement of Iranian leaders on this level. But I think sometimes a go-between – while helping, even sincerely – can get in the way of direct talks. Sometimes other, new go-betweens are needed. The closest we got to a deal was when the Turks and Brazilians stepped in. And the closest before that was when the Europeans were involved with Khatami, but the Americans backtracked on the EU-negotiated settlement that they had asked for! Here was a clear case of the Americans using their European allies as pawns.

    But when push came to shove, what did the Russians do? They dragged their feet on Bushehr for way too long, voted for the sanctions, and withdrew the S300s (I hope I got the code right) from the table. They have treated Iran like a pawn, and rather publicly too. I am sure you remember how upset Ahmadinejad was with the Russians when they failed to deliver the defensive missiles that had been promised and partly paid for. They also backed Saddam against Iran. And they were no friends of the Shah either.

    I think coming from a place that is so much closer to Russia, I am more skeptical of their intentions. Perhaps I am being too harsh.

  11. James Canning says:


    I do agree with you that a NATO war in Syria is unlikely. One reason is that Israel is not going to attack Syria, in effort to set up such a war. And in fact, Israel came close to making the deal with Bashar al-Assad, to get out of the Golan Heights and have peace.

  12. James Canning says:


    Warmongering neocons really do not care that the US cannot afford yet another war to benefit Israel.

    But Eric made a key point, that any attack on Iran would be illegal under international law. No room for the cheating carried out by warmongers in the G W Bush administration.

  13. Neo says:


    do you see NATO members being able to afford any more wars in the current economic and political contexts? some of them at least would be risking regime change at home if they went on with their lavish spending on wars. Some key member states – notably Germany – were (and remained) against the military option in Libya to begin with. A good indicator will be their next moves against Syria. I really don’t think the general population in Europe would tolerate more wars paid for with their taxes. NATO countries are in dire need of job creation. Military industries are too high tech. They won’t do. In short, neither the US nor NATO can afford a war, especially with Iran.

  14. James Canning says:


    Russia has made it clear, on and off the record, that Russia would like to see better relations between the US and Iran. Of this fact there is no doubt. This does not mean that some individual Russians, of an “ultra-nationalist” bent, do not welcome problems between Iran and the US.

  15. James Canning says:


    I think you are quite mistaken to believe Russia does not seek a resolution of the Iranian nuclear dispute. I think Russia is sincere, and that the US is being stupid yet again, in trying to ignore the Russian effort. Warmongering neocons want the Russian initiative ignored and kept out of American newspapers, off US TV news, etc etc. Why would you want to help the warmongering neocons?

    The Iranian economy loses many billions of dollars every year, due to the sanctions. Those losses do not mean the government will change its position, absent a proposal like that advanced by the Russians.

  16. James Canning says:


    And are we going to see an extended civil war in Libya, if the Gaddafi government is overthrown? Another present for the American people from the neocons (and some foolish “liberal interventionists”)?

  17. James Canning says:


    Great post. I would say the US was duplicitous regarding the UNSC resolutions on Libya. And we should remember that the G W Bush administration lied to Germany, France and Russia, regarding the meaning of the UNSC resolution on Iraq. And the moron in the White House, and his grossly incompetent national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, wanted to punish Germany and France for their effort to uphold international law! Arrogance and stupidity almost beyond belief. I stress the “almost”.

  18. Off-topic, but always of interest to many:

    Whether the NATO attacks on Libya end soon (as appears likely to me, given a remark made by the Libyan prime minister earlier today), or end later, many analysts’ attention will soon shift to the effect of this military adventure on the future of UN Security Council resolutions.

    I predict it will be a cold day in hell before Russia (and probably China as well) approves, or even abstains from voting on (which amounts to the same thing), any resolution that can possibly be interpreted as carte blanche for the US or NATO to launch some military attack against the subject country of that resolution.

    I recall well the UNSC debate five years ago, leading up to Resolution 1696, the first Iran-sanctions resolution, when Russia and China adamantly resisted efforts by the US’ John Bolton to include preamble language declaring that Iran’s nuclear program was a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression,” the threshold necessary (or so many close readers of the UN Charter believe, naively or not) to justify military action against the subject country.

    Russia and China still had fresh in their minds the effort by George W. Bush to argue that Resolution 1441, adopted in 2002 regarding Iraq, was sufficient authorization for the US to attack Iraq without obtaining specific authorization from the Security Council to do so. Though Bush ultimately abandoned that argument (in favor of even more imaginative arguments), Russia and China had not forgotten his effort. They resisted “peace threat” language in Resolution 1696, and in later Iran-sanctions resolutions as well.

    Though the US nonetheless has stretched the Iran-sanctions resolutions quite far, there is no practical possibility that it can stretch them far enough to justify an attack on Iran without further UNSC authorization. In light of NATO’s Libya escapade, one wonders whether the US anticipates a warm reception from Russia and China even for tougher Iran sanctions, much less for an authorization to attack Iran.

    Russia and China probably thought they’d adequately reined in the US and its European allies with Resolution 1973 on Libya. Obviously they were quite mistaken about that. But the next time the US comes knocking on the Security Council’s door, it may take a bit longer for Russia and China to answer.

    NATO can always launch another war on some Middle Eastern country all by itself, of course. But I doubt it will do so without the (arguable) blessing of the UN Security Council. NATO strongly prefers to argue that it is merely enforcing the will of “the international community.”

  19. Neo says:


    I meant that the latest Russian initiative may be more designed to raise the nuclear issue back up to the top of the agenda in order to once again make a bargaining chip out of Iran’s nuclear issue for Russia’s benefit. Right now, Iran is managing fine even in the face of sanctions, Bushehr is finally coming on line, and the Americans are remaining relatively quiet, but Russia is not happy with this ‘comfort zone’. They prefer to play ‘negotiator’, keep the nuclear issue ‘hot’, and ensure that Iran and USA do not get a break. And they are doing all of this in the guise of drawing up a new ‘plan’ to ‘resolve’ the issue. This is what I suspect, but of course, can’t know sure…

  20. James Canning says:


    The mondoweiss story I linked 5:59pm Aug. 17 covered CAMERA, and Chernick’s effort to monitor US media to suppress stories favorable to the Palestinians.

  21. James Canning says:


    Don’t Russia and China want Venezuela to take physical control of the gold, to secure the huge loans they have made to Venezuela?

  22. Kathleen says:

    Consensus that America Should Be Like Sweden
    Posted on August 18, 2011 by emptywheel

    Over at Emptywheel.net. Marcy Wheeler is one brilliant and fact based investigative blogger. Led the way on the Plame outing facts

  23. James Canning says:


    That was excellent piece by Kayhan Barzegar that you linked. Writing Aug. 16th, Barzegar noted that “Iran’s active diplomacy should pave the way for further mutual understanding with the EU and help it to understand the realities of Iran’s domestic politics regarding [nuclear programme].”

  24. James Canning says:


    Yes, I doubt very much Maddow will mention the reasons Osama bin Laden hated the US so virulently. Primary reasons were US encouragement of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and the foolish decision to keep permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. That foolish decision was caused largely by Israel. And the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

    Interestingly, George Shultz condemned the illegal Israeli use of American weapons in that invasion. But the Israel lobby worked Shultz over, and he became a convert to the Zionist cause.

  25. James Canning says:


    I think it is incorrect to say that Iran and Russia see the US as a “common foe”. This is far too simplistic. Primakov calls such thinking “primitive”. Russia prefers good relations with the US but does not want an ABM system on its borders that could compromise Russian missile systems. The ABM system is largely a scam in any event, intended to defraud the American taxpayers and demonise Iran into the bargain.

  26. James Canning says:


    I agree with you that the numerous stooges of the government of Israel, found in the US Congress etc., do not want China, India or Pakistan to buy Iranian oil or gas.

  27. James Canning says:


    You make a fair analogy, between disastrous leadership at GM for several decades before bankruptcy, and the pathetic leadership of the US currently to be found in Washington.

  28. James Canning says:


    When you say Russia’s proposal for a phased reduction in sanctions against Iran is “highly suspect”, what do you mean? Are you claiming the purpose of the proposal in fact is not to achieve a phased reduction in sanctions?

  29. Kathleen says:

    MSNBC bascially has Ron Paul blocked out. Little to no mention. Pathetic to think about how our MSM chooses for people.

    Have been thinking about this upcoming special report on 9/11, Al Queda and 10 years after 9/11 being hosted by Rachel Maddow and Richard Engel. I’ll place some bets that both Engel and Maddow do not touch the reasons stated for the 9/11 attacks.

    US support for brutal dictators in the region
    US unconditional support for Israel no matter how many illegal settlements they build and international agreements they break
    US military bases near Muslim holy lands.

    Bet Maddow, Engel will not go near the reason issue. Clearly violence begets violence

    Also would place a bet that Maddow and Engel will use this program to promote unsubstantiated claims about Iran (Maddow has done this a great deal on her program, and Engel has done the same when he is aired all over MSNBC) and will push for US or Israel military action against Iran.

    Anyone want to put some money on this? Well how about a cup of coffee?

  30. Kathleen says:

    Fiorangela says:
    August 17, 2011 at 12:44 pm
    Kathleen at 12:04 — did you notice this comment about censorship of media by the I Lobby?

    I have been trying to bring attention to Cameras project (shutting down the I/P debate on CSpans Washington Journal) for quite some time now at several sites and elsewhere.. Had not read that extensive comment. Thanks

  31. Rehmat says:

    It’s clear now that AKP leadership have been fooled by the US-Israel-Saudi ‘axis of evil’ by pitting Ankara against Libya and Syria. Now, as the western plan of regime changes in both Libya and Syria has failed and Ankara having served its part of a ‘western poodle’ – there is no need to rekindle Turkey-Israel love.


  32. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Rd. says:
    August 17, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    what do you guys have in store for us??


    Agenda 21?


  33. Rehmat says:

    Fiorangela – forget Ziocon Bloomberg propaganda lies about Pakistan.Pakistan don’t have to borrow from any foreign bank $300 million to go-ahead with Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. Both China and Iran will be more than glad to share the cost of the pipeline.

    The multi-billion Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline deal was signed in Istanbul in January 2010. However, it’s being stalled by the ZOG Washington because it’s masters in Israel don’t want Pakistan, India or China to buy Iranian oil/gas.


  34. Neo says:

    bushtheliberator says: August 18, 2011 at 1:27 am

    Indeed you are rolling all the way to bankruptcy, courtesy of bushthewarcriminal.

  35. fyi says:

    bushtheliberator says: August 18, 2011 at 1:27 am

    US does not have that power.

  36. fyi says:

    kooshy says: August 18, 2011 at 2:00 am

    Mr. Barzegar lives in a dreamworld.

    Iran does not need EU.

  37. fyi says:

    James Canning says: August 17, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    In case of GM, the union sabotaged the manufacturing process to create rework to get paid 1.5 over-time.

    And then there was the GM leaders that ground that country down – Roger Smith, for example. They consistently and willfully refused to give people the type of cars they wanted.

    If you ever drive in Iowa and Nebraska, you will see how people are now driving Toyotas rather than GMs.

    Just like US leaders, there were very many people inside and outside of GM that offerred constructive criticism of GM and urged it to mend its ways.

    It well on arrogant deaf ears.

    In 20 years, GM leaders managed to take GM from 42% of US market to 17%.

    This is what passed as corporate leadership in US.

    You are witnessing the equivalent in Washington DC.

  38. Fiorangela says:

    Neo wrote: “You know that oil per se does not explain what has happened in Libya.”

    in the Ellen Tauscher speech linked earlier on this thread, Tauscher said that “we got all the nuclear material out of Libya 15 years ago.”

    That worked out well for Libya, didn’t it.

  39. Fiorangela says:


    Pakistan plans to borrow $300 million from local banks to build a pipeline that will carry natural gas from neighboring Iran, easing its worst energy crisis that is curbing economic growth.

  40. Neo says:


    You know that oil per se does not explain what has happened in Libya. The Europeans were sweet on that oil, but were the ones pushing hardest for war in that case.

    Iranian-Russian rivalry and mistrust go back a long way. That the US is a common foe does not bring the 2 countries that close. Neither country would be too happy with a fast rising other. I think Russia has been actively blocking an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe for decades now, as have the Americans. And I think the latest Russian moves on the nuclear issue are highly suspect.

    My arguments, however, are not based on a simple zero sum understanding of how things work. I think your argument for a complex relation holds better between Iran and Turkey (as in Iraq and the nuclear issue, and possibly in Syria, but it is hard to read Turkey’s moves in Syria easily at this stage).

    I would see Turkey as a ‘competitor’ to Iran, but Russia as an opportunistic ‘rival’.

  41. hans says:

    “The Bank of England recently received a request from the Venezuelan government about transferring the 99 tons of gold Venezuela holds in the bank back to Venezuela.” The fun begins if Chavez demands physical delivery of more than 10.6 tons of physical because as today’s CME update of metal depository statistics, JPM only has 338,303 ounces of registered gold in storage. Or roughly 10.6 tons. A modest deposit of this size would cause some serious white hair at JPM as the bank scrambles to find the replacement gold, which has already been pledged about 100 times across the various paper markets.”

    The end is near folks!

    Viva Hugo Chavez!

    Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana!

    Viva Stacy y Max!

    Viva el Ejercito de la Liberacion de Plata!

    Viva Ahmadinejado El Magnifico, hermano de Chavez

  42. kooshy says:

    Iran-EU Relations: Time for Restoring Negotiations

    Tuesday, August 16, 2011
    Kayhan Barzegar
    Director, The Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies


  43. bushtheliberator says:

    The assembled Lefties & RonPaulistas seem to blame the MSM for Mr. Paul’s failure to rise in the polls. But the MSM isn’t Paul’s only problem.
    First, Pres’O-Bambi already has the Anti-War,”I’ll bring the troops home” vote > The President can surge troops in Af/Pak, bomb Libya, and maybe modify the Iraq SOFA. and STILL get that vote.Mr. Paul can’t out-Peacenik Obama.
    Secondly, Mr. Paul’s views aren’t accepted by those of us who believe that US Iran policy should be Regime Change, and nothing less than the DESTRUCTION of the IRI as presently constituted.
    And just for fun, I’d like to add “Let’s Roll !”

  44. kooshy says:

    This an eye opener article, regarding the UK riots, which should scare the pants out of the opinion formers in our own Department of Information

    Looting With The Lights On

    We keep hearing England’s riots weren’t political – but looters know that their elites have been committing daylight robbery

    By Naomi Klein

    August 17, 2011 “The Guardian”


  45. Rehmat says:

    Israel proudly market itself being a friendly country towards gay and lesbian communities. Gays and lesbian openly serve in the Jewish Army and same sex couples even receive some extra privileges. Israelis boast Tel Aviv the Pink City. Jerusalem holds an annual gay parade. Israel even has a ‘religious Jewish gay’ group called Havruta which celebrated Purim festival in Jerusalem in March. They read Jewish Megillah, the traditional scroll read on this Jewish religious holiday – reminding themselves how Jews were persecuted in Persia which forced Persian Jewish Queen Esther to order the genocide of 72,000 non-Jewish Persian.

    Homophobia rampant among Jewish Army

  46. Rehmat says:

    kooshy – That White House strategy was authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a US-Israel dual citizen.

    In 2008, in an interview Lieberman gave to Israeli daily Ha’aretz, he said: “Why lovers of Israel should vote for McCain – because he is the candidate most likely to thwart a nuclear Iran“.


  47. BiBiJon says:


    They say when US sneezes, UK comes down with a full blown cold!

    Facebook cases trigger criticism of ‘disproportionate’ riot sentences

    Two men jailed for four years for posting messages inciting riots although no trouble resulted from them

    from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/facebook-cases-criticism-riot-sentences

  48. kooshy says:

    White House: Need to monitor online ‘extremism’
    By: Declan McCullagh August 3, 2011 1:11 PM PDT

    A White House terrorism strategy released today says Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks aid in “advancing violent extremist narratives” and should be monitored by the government.
    Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20087677-281/white-house-need-to-monitor-online-extremism/#ixzz1VKnIsham

    Does anyone know what kind of yardstick is white house using to measure the “online extremism” I really want to what’s Mr. Obama’s yes the same constitutional law scholar from Harvard standards for online extremism is, does the RFI and majority of the posters here will fit this coming presidential order. Is sad to see this country is sinking so fast.

  49. James Canning says:


    The armaments manufacturers and the Israel lobby do not like Ron Paul. Ergo, crappy press coverage in US is guaranteed.

  50. James Canning says:


    Russia continues to deliver weapons to Syria. Report Aug. 17th RussiaToday:


  51. kooshy says:

    The problem Mr. Paul is facing is not that he has to run only against any particular candidate, but rather he has to run against the entire US media, that experience tells me that in current environment this is not achievable; Dean’s campaign experience comes to mind.

  52. BiBiJon says:

    Poll: Ron Paul Bests Bachmann in New Hampshire

    The new Magellan poll of New Hampshire puts Bachmann in fourth place, behind both Perry and Ron Paul.

    Romney – 36%
    Perry – 18%
    Paul – 14%
    Bachmann – 10%
    Cain – 3%
    Huntsman – 3%
    Gingrich – 2%
    Santorum – 1%


  53. James Canning says:


    Philip Weiss had a good piece on Chernick, and his funding of violent illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank etc etc.


  54. James Canning says:


    No, I do not claim GM was not stupid in many decisions taken, prior to bankruptcy. I just said that the costs of healthcare in pensions agreed to forty years ago, virtually made bankruptcy inevitable.

  55. James Canning says:


    Thanks, and great post. The CSP openly seems dedicated to deceiving the American people into equating the “threat” from “militant Islam” with the threat posed by the USSR and its satellites, and Red China! What utter cr*p! Complete rubbish. Part of the scheme of deception, to convince Americans that the US is faced with the same “threats” as Israel. Total cr*p!

  56. James Canning says:


    Russia obviously could see that civil war in Libya would raise the price of oil, but Russia did not want civil war in Libya. Russia did not wish for the current instability in Syria either.

    Wars are dangerous, and the course they take often cannot be predicted in advance with any real certainty.

    I doubt Russia would oppose an Iranian gas pipeline to Turkey that would help Iranian gas compete with Russian gas in the European market.

    I think the entire notion of “zero sum” is unsound. Things in fact are far more complex, and certain trends may favor one country in one way but disfavor that same country in another way.

  57. Fiorangela says:


    re Myron Kaplan, CAMERA’s C Span enforcer: skimming his comments, it appears that SOME “regulars” who call in with pro-Israel comments are also in CAMERA’s focus. One such is “Jeff” of Boca Raton, FL. Jeff echoes Myron’s sentiments. hmmm

    Aubrey Chernick funds CAMERA. Chernick also funds other Islamophobic groups & individuals, such as Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and (it is widely believed) Chernick was the ‘angel’ behind the Obsession DVD and other Raphael Shore- AISH.org productions. Chernick is funding a newer group, the Center for Security Policy, that has held a series of meeting in Boca Raton, Fl, (double hmmm). The mission of CSP is

    “We as a nation must also work to undermine the ideological foundations of totalitarianism and Islamist extremism with at least as much skill, discipline and tenacity as President Reagan employed against Communism to prevail in the Cold War.

    The role of the Center for Security Policy is to help our government, countrymen and other freedom-loving nations conceptualize, conduct and succeed on this front.”

    If Myron Kaplan and CAMERA are any indication, CSP is willing to lie, cheat, and demonize in order to “help” their “government and countrymen” learn to hate Muslims.

  58. Neo says:

    James Canning says: August 17, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    I am interested to learn the reasoning behind your assertion that the Russians want both the nuclear issue resolved and to have stability in the middle east.

    A few counterarguments come to mind. Oil and gas are more expensive due to instability in the ME. A stable ME/Iran would cut both the market price and Russia’s share of these captive markets. But something tells me such arguments seem futile to you. Is it to do with the ‘zero sum’ phrase that one often comes across on these intriguing pages?

  59. Humanist says:


    In my last post I used words such as ‘immaturity’ that could be interpreted as contemptuous or insulting. I thought I better clarify that.

    – The presence of frequent grammatical errors in my comments show that my English is a bit rusty (I am not American) sometimes I have a hard time finding the right words to describe my real thoughts.

    – Philosophically I mainly adhere to principals of ‘Determinism’. Thus from such a perspective no one (even Hitler) is bad, detestable or contemptible since our personalities, thoughts and actions are materialized by forces beyond our control.

    Under the light of Determinism I am convinced removing physical forces behind any crime or destruction eliminates those unfavorable traits.

    – In all kinds of my social interactions I adhere to a single simple rule ‘do not hurt anyone by your words or deeds’ thus I never intentionally try to insult or offend. Just in case anyone was annoyed by my words I apologize, no insult was intended.


    American George Carlin is great, not in the same way as Thoms Paine was. Carlin is a courageous World Figure who exemplifies how some individuals evolve drastically. We all are ever-evolving, ever-maturing and there is hardly any limit to how far we can go.

    Would any American get annoyed or insulted watching the following video on George Carlin’s description of one specific aspect of American life?


  60. Fiorangela says:

    Rd. at 1:36,

    “my worst fear is when I hear someone say, I am from government and I am here to help YOU! well, his vision is coming thru.”

    No, his vision is not coming thru, it is getting even worse; it’s taking on the aspect of Israeli mind control:

    Boston’s Logan International Airport will become the first in the nation this week to require every single traveler to go through a quick interview with security officials trying to spot suspicious behavior.

    Until now, the so-called behavioral profiling — used successfully in Israel — has been used only sporadically in U.S. airports. As the system expands, so are questions about how behavioral profiling works, and how effective it might be in the U.S.

    Unlike the usual security pat-down, the profiling process is what you might call a “chat-down.”

    A blue-uniformed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officer begins with a friendly “Hi, how are you?” and then spends a minute or two peppering passengers with basic questions like where they’re going, for what and for how long.

    Some travelers may not even speak English, but the behavior detection officers care less about answers than affect.

    “We are looking for behaviors that are out of the norm — some kind of indicators of intent to cause a problem,” says George Nacarra, federal security director for the TSA at Logan.”

    I wonder what assessment the friendly TSA twit would make of MY “affect” if I told him, “Where I am going is none of you f*&%ing business, now get out of my way.”

    People who travel thru Boston Logan should practice facial tics; develop sporadic Tourette’s Syndrome. That oughta stump the TSA chumps.

  61. fyi says:

    James Canning says: August 17, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    And you thibnk GM leaders were not stupid?

    They spent billions of dollar on Fiat, on SAAB, etc.

    Not to mention the hydrogen car.

  62. fyi says:

    James Canning says: August 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Ask them.

    Why are they sanctioning Iran?

  63. James Canning says:


    The Russians have been rather clear, regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, that they did not think Iran was trying to build nukes on the sly, or trying to be prepared to build nukes quickly.

    I think you make a mistake by advocating Iranian hostility toward Russia, or undue suspicion, when Russia’s support is so very important to Iran.

  64. James Canning says:


    I think the notion that Russia would prefer the Iranian nuclear dispute not be resolved, is dead wrong. Russia tries to promote stability in the Middle East.

  65. James Canning says:


    Thanks for the link to Yousaf Butt’s Aug. 16th piece at AsiaTimes. Sensible take on the situation (Iranian nuclear dispute). I think we can be sure Butt’s piece will get little attention in American newspapers.

    AsiaTimes also had good piece Aug. 10th, on Hillary Clinton’s effort to stall on Lavrov’s proposal for staged reductions in sanctions. Clinbton’s first priority, of course, is the political benefits to Democrats in the US Congress, from being foolishly hostile toward Iran. And why? It has a good deal to do with the money.

  66. James Canning says:

    Anyone who thinks Michelle Bachmann is every bit as ignorant about the Middle East as was George W. Bush when he first ran for president, will not change their minds from reading Eric Black’s piece on salon.com today. He quotes her as saying in early 2007:
    “Iran is the trouble maker, trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they [sic] want America to pull out [of Iraq]. And do you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided that they’re going to partition Iraq.”

  67. Rd. says:

    so you are worried about syrian army attacking syrian people??!?!?

    Police state coming to a community near you!

    “On Friday, August 5, 2011, Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) announced that it has determined that no state act or permission is required to activate or operate Secure Communities in any jurisdiction. ICE also announced that it plans to activate Secure Communities nationwide by 2013.”

    2013? you mean right after the next election? what do you guys have in store for us??

    who was that idiot who once said, my worst fear is when I hear someone say, I am from government and I am here to help YOU! well, his vision is coming thru.

  68. James Canning says:


    And what a fascinating contention by Myron Kaplan, that the “Apartheid Wall” was built to control illegal immigration into Israel! I would observe at this point that the moron in the White House at the time the wall was built, wandering hither and thither about the West Bank, was George W. Bush, whose grossly incompetent national security adviser (Condoleezza Rice) failed to comprehend what the real purpose of the wall was.

  69. James Canning says:


    You appear to be arguing that the US squanders trillions of dollars on unncecessary wars, unnecessary weapons, unnecessary foreign troop deployments, in order to “remain” the “sole superpower”. In fact, this idiotic squandering of financial resources steadily weakens the US. Even China chides the US for being so stupid.

  70. James Canning says:


    Why do you think Germany would feel it necessary to destroy the Iranian government? Many if not most German businessmen dislike the sanctions and want to operate in the Iranian market. These businessmen are quite prepared to deal with the current government.

  71. James Canning says:


    Thanks for latest news on Iranian production of fuel plates for the Tehran reactor (using 20% U). Current fuel supply apparently good for a number of months into 2012.

  72. James Canning says:


    Very interesting link. Thanks. And what a contention: “There is no occupied Palestine”!

  73. Fiorangela says:

    Kathleen at 12:04 — did you notice this comment about censorship of media by the I Lobby?

  74. JAckaal says:

    Rehmat: Dont forget the smoking gun on STL leader cessase:

    “In october 2008, Antonio Cassese was legal advisor to the European Committee for Delisting the PMOI (People’s Mujahedin of Iran)[1].”


  75. BiBiJon says:

    Of interest to James:

    Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Director Fereydoun Abbasi has said the domestically produced fuel for the Tehran research reactor will be prepared by the end of the Iranian calendar year (March 21).

    “At the moment, the reactor is not faced with any major problem in regard to the supply of fuel, but domestically produced fuel will be prepared by the end of year,” Abbasi told reporters on Wednesday.

    “We are currently trying to keep the Tehran reactor running on the remaining supply of fuel, but we will make every effort to produce initial batches of the required fuel (plates) for the reactor,” he added.

    In June, Abbasi said that it was more than likely that the production of nuclear fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor would begin by September.

    Iran has already announced that it has installed the machinery needed for producing nuclear fuel plates to power the Tehran reactor, which produces radioisotopes for cancer treatment.

    The nuclear plant for converting enriched nuclear fuel into fuel rods was inaugurated in Isfahan in early spring 2009.

    Iranian officials say that the technology for producing nuclear fuel plates does not differ greatly from the technology for producing nuclear fuel rods.

    From http://tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/1707-fuel-for-tehran-reactor-to-be-prepared-by-mid-march-

  76. Kathleen says:

    So many people calling into CSpans Washington Journal about how the MSM has been ignoring Ron Paul and his second place in the Iowa Straw poll. I think Ron Paul’s message is really getting out there. Just not favored by the MSM.

    But Republicans, Dems, Inde’s alike are calling in support for Ron Paul

  77. Kathleen says:

    On the Diane Rehm Show this morning the guest were allegedly talking about Syria.
    Diane allowed callers to bring up protest in Bahrain, Iran, and a few other countries. A female caller brings up Israel and Iraq and Diane cuts off the caller, talks over her totally interrupts her question about the role of Israel in the region. Total contradiction.
    Diane not only allowed a caller to link Syria and Iran she feeds the alleged connection herself by directing the conversation towards Iran.
    But discussion about Israel is not only off limits she cuts the caller off.
    Over at the Rehm site
    Escalating Violence in Syria
    The media blockade on the I/P issue is expanding. The Rehm show used to touch this issue. No longer. Something is going on at the Rehm show. They are not only not covering the Palestinian protest, the illegal and immoral expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank and illegal housing in occupied E Jerusalem. Now Diane is not allowing callers to even mention Israel’s destructive role in the region while unsubstantiated claims about Iran to be endlessly repeated. And she herself is repeating.
    Wondering if the Diane Rehm’s shows funding is being threatened? Periodically she would to shows on the I/P conflict. No longer. Now not only not doing programs on this issue cutting off callers who bring the issue up.

    Hope Flynt, Hillary others go over to the Rehm site and listen to the program on Syria today. So many serious contradictions.

    Escalating Violence in Syria
    Comments (4)ShareWednesday, August 17, 2011

  78. Rehmat says:

    NATO’s mission to bring-in a pro-Israel regime change in Libya has failed. Now, US and its willing-partners in crime (France, Britain, Italy and Canada) are desperately trying to save themselves from further humiliation. Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi has recaptured the city of Misratah and the Western colonialists’ funded rebel/rats are looking for more NATO escorts.

    Ex-rebel: ‘Qaddafi is symbol of national unity’

  79. Rehmat says:

    JAckaal – STL was an ‘Israeli Project’ from day one.

    “One of the great heroes of our field is not able to be here today. His name is Antonio Cassesse. He is a great friend of Israel,”Professor George Fletcher (Columbia Law school) at Herzliya conference. Judge Antonio Cassesse is the President of UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)…..


  80. JAckaal says:

    its obvious that israel is behind the Hariri-killing.


    As previously mentioned in media, israel have control over the telephone lines.

    “Then telecommunications minister Charbel Nahhas confirmed at a press conference held with experts in the field in November that Israel was able to infiltrate Lebanon’s mobile telecommunications network and could manipulate phone calls and short messages.

    Nasrallah has repeated those claims and said Israel bugged the mobile phones of Hezbollah members, allowing it to make false phone calls and send false text messages and track the users’ movements.

  81. fyi says:

    Clint says: August 17, 2011 at 4:38 am

    This is not about Iran’s nuclear’s enrichment or anything nuclear.

    It has to do with the strategic necessity for the Axis Powers to destroy independent Iranian power; Thomas Jefferson could be Iranian President and Nelson Mandela her Supreme Jurisprudent – it will make no difference.

    [A strategic necessity if you define your grand strategic aim as remaining the sole super-power – not US – but US + Allied States.]

    I think the article is useful in helping establishing the facts and pointing out – for example – the Brazilians’ interest in weaponization.

    In fact, the thesis of a Ph.D. Physics student in Brazil was on the topic of design of hydrogen bombs – subsequently classified.

    In my opinion, the Axis Powers had about 20 years to realize their grand strategic aim and they failed. The time for its successful implementation is over. But inertia – mental, bureaucratic, personal – will keep it alive for at least another decade.

  82. Neo says:

    Did you see their recent piece on the crisis of political economy though? I thought it was damn good! One of their free articles.

  83. Bussed-in Basiji says:


  84. Neo says:

    Thanks for that. I should have googled it I guess!


  85. masoud says:

    Neo says:
    August 17, 2011 at 3:58 am

    The SSNP is a leftist-pan-Arabaist-pan-Syrian-anti-Lebanon-as-a-country party in Lebanon.

  86. Pirouz says:

    Neo says:
    August 17, 2011 at 3:58 am

    Neo, please don’t provide links to Stratfor or Debka File.

    For months, Stratfor sent me sales pitches via email. I finally got around to emailing them back, requesting they cease and desist.

    Enough is enough, already.

  87. Clint says:

    fyi, There was a great piece in Asia Times — I am not sure of the legal arcana, but what do other people think?:

    Spinning Iran’s centrifuges
    By Yousaf Butt


  88. Neo says:

    Does anyone else suspect that Russia may not want the Iranian nuclear dispute resolved at all? What is their incentive? USA is nicely distracted and wasting resources on a debilitating wild goose chase around the ME while Iran is also weakened by sanctions and is kept out of the gas market that is cornered by Russia.

  89. Neo says:

    According to Stratfor today:

    “STRATFOR sources linked to Hezbollah claim that there are about 3,000 Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) members, 2,000 Hezbollah fighters, 300 Amal movement supporters and 200 Syrian Nationalist and Socialist Party members in Syria. The IRGC men are allegedly leading pro-regime armed gangs, while Iranians and pro-Syrian Lebanese allies are killing Syrian soldiers who refuse to open fire on protesters. This information has not been verified.”

    Sounds like propaganda to me – of a stupid kind. Why would ‘Iranians’ engage in killing Syrians in their own country? What exactly is supposed to be the net gain for Iran in such a move?

    And what’s with the mention of “200 Syrian Nationalist and Socialist Party members in Syria”? Where else are they supposed to be other than in Syria, and what happened to the rest of them?! Are they in Iran then?!

  90. Pirouz says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    August 17, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Thanks for repeating that link, Eric. I’d have otherwise missed it.

    Too funny and too true.

  91. Binam,

    Thanks for the link to Jon Stewart’s piece on Ron Paul, which I’ll repeat below for others’ convenience. Excellent.


  92. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Hey, whatever happened to the Bussed-in Professor? Jesus Christ, he’s been MIA for almost two months now. Who woulda thought mustering that Qods force and putting down them darn Salafi-Takfiris in southern Syria would take so long?? She-eyete.

  93. Fara says:

    Just see what Saudi Arabia is feeding into the arab street. I laughed reading almost every paragraph (e.g. Egypt used to be a major player in the ME, SA not touched by the arab spring, SA being a prime motor of peace and stability in the Middle East)

    “Arab Spring has replaced Egypt with Turkey as one of the major players in the Middle East

    In the normal course of events, the visit to Jeddah of Turkish President Abdullah Gul this week and his talks with Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah would raise little attention. Relations between the two countries are excellent and have been for a long time. There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that they will do anything other than continue to grow.

    But these are not normal times in the Middle East. No state, apart from the Kingdom and most other GCC countries, have been untouched by the Arab Spring. To that small list Turkey must be added because, although a European state, it is by reason of history, culture and location firmly part of the Middle East. Regrettably, ever since the Ataturk revolution, Turkey has stood facing uniquely westward, its back turned on the Middle East. For the past 60 years, moreover, its eyes have been fixed resolutely on a future in Europe and, since 1963, specifically a future in what is now the European Union.

    That West-only focus began to dissolve with the election nine years ago of the first AKP government led by President Abdullah Gul then as prime minister and, since 2003, under the premiership of Recep Tayyib Erdogan, the party’s founder. It is not that the AKP has dropped Europe from its sights; far from it. It is that it has widened Turkey’s political vision to reflect its geographical position, its history and culture and its strategic interests.

    The opening to the Middle East was noticed by the rest of the world because of Ankara’s far greater support for the Palestinians, especially during the 2009 Gaza war, and a concomitant crumbling in the previously firm relationship with an Israel famously described by Erdogan as the “main threat to regional peace.” In fact, there was far more than empathy with the Palestinians and anger with the Israelis. There was a reaching out to Iraq, seen in dozens of economic agreements with Baghdad but complicated by the presence of anti-Turkish PKK guerrilla bases in northern Iraq. There was also a reaching out to Iran with an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the still burning international row over its nuclear intentions. But it is the Arab Spring that has firmly changed Turkey’s standing in the region.

    Until this year, there were two prime motors of peace and stability in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Arab Spring has temporarily taken Egypt out of the equation although it is still working to promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis; this week’s news of Egyptian-sponsored talks between the Israelis and Hamas over the possible release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is proof of that.

    But it is Turkey that is now the other main driving force for peace and stability in Middle East, alongside Saudi Arabia. It has tried to use its influence in Damascus to persuade the government there to end its bloody crackdown on protests and tried to do the same in Libya and mediate a peaceful solution and with Qaddafi’s exit. That failed because of Qaddafi’s determination to remain in power.

    Like Saudi Arabia, Turkey is a driving force for sanity and peace in the region. It is now seen as such.

    That makes the relationship between the two countries all the more important.”


  94. Rehmat says:

    An old Persian wisdom says:”a friend of your enemy cannot be friend of yours”.

    Russia is one of such “friends”. It believes most of US-Israeli lies about Iran’s civilian nuclear program. It had supported all four anti-Iran illegal sanctions by the ZOGs (the US, Britain and France) at the UNSC. Moscow’s criticism of additional unilateral sanctions by the US, EU, Germany, Canada and France – is nothing but a joke…..

    Tehran should not trust Moscow

  95. James Canning says:


    And any discussion of George Shultz might well mention he called Jimmy Carter’s book on Israeli opprssion of the Palestinians, “Palestine – – Peace Not Apartheid”, a “repulsive analogy” and he also says Israel is “existentially threatened”. Complete and utter rubbish. But it helps ensure many awards, emoluments, etc etc etc etc.

  96. James Canning says:


    Interestingly enogh, I think, George Shultz wants the Israeli spy Pollard released from prison, while Cap Weinberger thought, and perhaps still thinks, that Pollard should have been executed.

  97. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:

    August 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    I think I can be sure, that due to its seriousness with regard to Iran-US relationship, this site is widely and occasionally wildly (SL) is viewed by all sides involved in this dilemmatic relationship, including the Iranian side as well as the official and academic policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic and related bodies of water, if you know what I mean.
    For this reason I tend to post articles, comments and analysis related to this matter that don’t get the opportunity to be widely viewed or discussed on MSM, especially since here, and thanks to the Levretts there is no prescreening process on this site, unlike other known sites of the same subject that are also administered by professors of “Middle Eastern studies”.
    In other words in my way, and since I know, all the opinion heads involved, will often sneak in here, I like to think that they will get to see and read what other narratives are out there which they might have been missing; just like us, hopefully they eventually will be learned.

  98. James Canning says:


    And yes, what utter rubbish, from Ellen Tauscher, that Iran is run by a dictator who cannot feed his people.

  99. James Canning says:


    I know that Tauscher has said that a Middle East free of nukes would be a good thing, but that it is unrealistic to expect Israel to sign the NPT unless there is a peace settlement.

    The anti-Iran propaganda is dismaying, I very much agree.

  100. James Canning says:


    I agree very much it is in the best interests of Iran for an end to the sanctions. The question is how to achieve this, and whether the staged approach put forward by Russia is effectively the only way for it to happen.

    Iran sacrifices many billions of dollars every year in economic output, due to the sanctions. Not many economists calculate otherwise. If any.

  101. masoud says:


    There is nothing strange about the contention at all. Suspending sanctions is absolutely meaningless. The businesses that have made a decision to keep trading with Iran continue to do so clandestinely or circuitously, and hope they stay off the Radar. The businesses who have stopped, the large ones at least(those that matter to Iranians), haven’t stopped because of any particular regulation. They’ve stopped because they believe that if they do invest in Iran, they will face major difficulties in recuperating that investment in the long term. A ‘lull’ in sanction enforcement doesn’t affect the calculation businesses in the second group, which is the group that matters to Iranians. Sanction suspension will bring down costs-to-market of the first group businesses, at the cost of uprooting their embryonic circuitous distribution networks, and putting themselves under the glare of US watchdogs. Bad deal for Iran.

    What Iran needs is a full scale repeal, with strong guarantees that they won’t be ramped back up.

  102. BiBiJon says:


    When I saw this piece on NBC world blog by Courtney Kube, who is a news producer no less, I first laughed, and then felt grateful.

    Audiences/readers who buy this sort of story, bought it a long time ago. So ignore that group.

    But, people who are a little more discerning, and who might have a little background information about Yemen, Shiite Houthies, Wahabism, and al Qaeda, after reading that piece would realize nothing out of Courtney Kube, or the outfit (NBC) that publishes her agitprop about Iran is worth the time to read. For that I am profoundly grateful.

  103. kooshy says:


    Iran Linked to 428th Terrorist Group
    By: David Dayen Tuesday August 16, 2011 12:50 pm

    You have to hand it to US authorities. They have linked Iran to pretty much every terrorist organization on the planet, including Shiite militias in Iraq, Sunni militias in Iraq, the Afghan Taliban, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and on and on and on. There’s always a wealth of unprovided evidence for these claims, despite the logical fallacy of a Shiite Islamic republic supporting Sunni movements.

    Now, we have yet another example of this, with the US government uncovering links between Iran and the Al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen.
    U.S. officials tell NBC News that there is new evidence that Iran may be supplying goods to the terror group that U.S. intelligence officials consider to be the most dangerous threat to the United States — al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

    Over the weekend, the Indian Navy intercepted a ship — the MV Nafis-I — off the coast of Mumbai. Indian sailors found several weapons (including a few AK-47s and a pistol), but mostly just food and supplies on board. The ship had a crew of several Yemeni nationals, along with at least one Somali, and several others from other nearby African countries.

    A U.S. official says that the ship left Iran several days ago and that U.S. assets tracked the ship as a “vessel of interest” for a few days and then provided information to the Indian Navy so they could intercept it.

    U.S. intelligence officials say that the ship was headed to Yemen and they believe it was bringing the goods to AQAP.

    At least this gets somewhat specific. But in essence, you’re talking about an ship that docked in Iran headed to Yemen with food and supplies. That’s the thin reed upon which this conspiracy about Iran/Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ties hangs. The official here surmises that the crew threw all the weapons overboard. This falls on the “Saddam sent the WMD to Syria” scale of theories.

    One defense official admits it would be “highly unusual” for AQAP and Iran to be working together. For one, you have that hundreds-of-years-old fundamental divide of Islam getting in the way. For another, these allegations have a way of fizzling upon close inspection. For a third, this allegation doesn’t even look like it will get to that stage, as it already sound ludicrous.

    If Iran was really as fearsome as the government keeps saying, they’d be akin to the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union.

  104. Fiorangela says:

    James at 1:04 pm:

    What makes you think that Ellen Tauscher would risk her high-power status/career to suggest that Israel join NPT? In her hour-long appearance before Commonwealth Club of California three weeks ago the word Israel did not cross her lips. She DID spend a lot of time bad-mouthing Iran, however, comparing Iran to North Korea, and stating that both North Korea and Iran are “run by dictators who cannot feed their own people.”

    Tauscher appears to be heavily influence by George Schultz and his campaign that masquerades as nonproliferation but is really fear-mongering with a tinge of vendetta against Iran for the Lebanon bombing. Schultz lost a good friend in the Beirut bombing. Schultz’s nonproliferation Dog and Pony Show includes a DVD that features scary Ay-rabs who attempt to steal nuclear material. The plot is 99 44/100% pure Hollywood agitprop. If you have the DVD in the back of your mind as you listen to and assess Tauscher’s remarks, you begin to understand where she gets her information. http://www.nuclearsecurityproject.org/nuclear-tipping-point

    I watched the film with students from a master’s program in international affairs; they were disgusted with the blatant fearmongering that the video represented, but said it is “par for the course” that their instructors teach them. Very depressing to think that young people who will be in charge of foreign policy over then next 30 years are subjected to brainwashing and to the same pressures to conform to a propagandized point of view as are so many academics.

  105. fyi says:

    James Canning says: August 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Yes, Mr. Canning, as GM went so does US.

    GM hired smart people to play politics internally. The idea was that GM is a big corporation and the most successfull political infigher is the most likely to lead her to success.

    While that model may have had its time, clearly by 1978 its successful days were behind it.

    The near bankruptcy of 1991 was a warning that went unheeded; hubris of having been so successful for so long blinded them to the urgency of the actions needed to address the crisis they were facing.

    But that was not how they operated.

    US is the same way; her leadership is now even more interested in fighting internal politics while discounting profound domestic and international challenges that she faces.

    And just like GM, her demise will cause a lot of collateral damage among her allies and friends.

    In my opinion.

  106. James Canning says:


    Powerful unions forced American car manufacturers to accept long-term contracts for health care etc., four decades ago, that ultimately guaranteed bankruptcy of the American car manufacturers. No amount of creative thinking on the part of the executives of those companies is likely to have save them.

  107. James Canning says:


    Are you arguing that the civil war in Libya enhances the power of the US and the EU?

  108. James Canning says:


    You appear to contend that China and Russia welcome budget deficits caused within the EU and of course in the US, due to the cost of the wars in the Middle East. In fact, China scolds the US for wasting so much money on weapons and wars.

  109. fyi says:

    James Canning says: August 16, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Signifies nothing.

    This is a zero-sum multi-dimensional power game.

  110. James Canning says:

    Voice of T,

    Thanks for that link. And again, how remarkable so little comment has appeared (regarding Ahmadinejad’s statements on nuclear weapons)?

  111. James Canning says:

    Voice of Tehran,

    Thanks. And rather astonishing, no? How can American newspapers, and British for that matter, regard Ahmadinejad’s comments as not worth reporting? Or, is the truth simply that the comments are worth reporting, and that the Iranian president’s comments are suppressed the the ISRAEL LOBBY? Suppressed in both North America and Europe.

  112. Voice of Tehran says:

    @ James

    James , but found this one regarding the interview of AN in RT News:


  113. Voice of Tehran says:

    James Canning says:
    August 16, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    You wrote :
    “”In light of Ahmadinejad’s interview with Russia Today Aug. 13th, has any American newspaper even reported his comments?””

    Not a single word , nothing , nada , same as in the European MSM

  114. James Canning says:

    In light of Ahmadinejad’s interview with Russia Today Aug. 13th, has any American newspaper even reported his comments? That nukes are immoral, expensive, wasteful of resources, and dangerous to the country that has them?

  115. James Canning says:


    Yes, the effort of Netanyahu to recruit large numbers of Jewish immigrants from the US, has not achieved great success.

    I continue to point out that Israel was willing to accept, and even to recruit, tens of thousands of Ethiopians, to settle in Israel to beef up the numbers of “Jews” even though the “Jewishness” of most of the 100,000 Ethiopians that were relocated in Israel, was open to dispute. Tens of thousands of the Ethiopian “Jews” were flown to Israel by the CIA.

  116. James Canning says:

    Fred Weir, in a csmonitor.com story June 15th, quoted Georgi Mirsky (after SCO conference): “Iran understands that Russia doesn’t want to see it pushed into a corner and completely isolated. The sanctions against Iran are not working. So there needs to be other avenues.”

    Clearly Mirsky is correct in his assessment.

  117. James Canning says:


    Ellen Tauscher seems to support the notion of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, and having Israel sign the NPT. (She is the Obama admin official who was in St. Petersburg the other day, trying to reassure the Russians that the ABM system is not directed against Russia.)

  118. James Canning says:


    I too think the Lavrov plan is the best way forward, and it may be the only way forward. Is this the reason it gets next to no attention in American newspapers?

  119. James Canning says:


    What a strange contention you make, that Iran would not benefit from a suspension of sanctions. Are you actually claiming that Iran benefits from being unable to obtain parts for Boeing civilian airliners?

  120. masoud says:

    The Lavrov plan has the potential to isolate the US diplomatically, and potentially even scale down some of the sanctions, but make no mistake: it’s a dead end. Iran doesn’t really benefit from a “Suspension” of sanctions, nor does the US benefit from increased inspections. This is strictly to make the US squirm, until it offers up some additional Russian concessions.

    The Iranians know they’re being used, but what of it? After Russia’s extracted it’s pound of flesh, it’ll be China’s turn again. Europe’s too timid to pile on, but if the pace of these sovereign bankruptcy’s keeps up, a cold winter and the predictable Russian profiteering instinct will be able to significantly chill transatlantic ties. The US just isn’t the Hyper power it used to be anymore.

  121. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Ron Paul would be wise to iron out domestic policy issues and then announce (early) Kucinich (sp?) as his running mate. With the disenchanted left behind him as well as the true conservatives, in the age of the internet, he just might have a fighting chance against Zogistani behemoth.

  122. BiBiJon says:

    Once Jon Stewart is onto it, then you have to assume the following article got extraordinary number of hits:


    Well, ladies, gentlemen, boys and girls, establishment media’s role in 2012 elections just got eliminated.

    Ron will be on alternative media and his candidacy will therefore be far more effective. The “top tier”, will be putting up new ‘for sale’ signs (see Humanist) for merchandise folks have already bought. No reason left to follow the election campaigns on TV.

  123. Rd. says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:

    “What am I missing?”

    I was also very enthusiastic about the lavrov plan ever since it was announced. However, Russian have their own interest to milk this cow, just as much as Iran should milk the same cow for all its worth.

    fyi says:

    “Yes, the Axis Powers have painted themselves in a corner with respect to Iran. But from a practical point of view, that means that they are now even less able to do anything “


    But in the mean time, as far as the western decision makers are concerned, I recall bits and pieces of an old story of an Iranian diplomat going to visit an invading army about to attack the home land. The commander of the invading army was not accommodating. Hence, the Iranian diplomat’s response was; “If you ever see any hair in the palm of my hand, you will see Tehran”.

    Now, you need to know, Iranians are rather a hairy bunch, both figuratively and literally speaking!!! And western “thinkers” just don’t get it… even if the cows come home out of milk!!!!!!

  124. fyi says:

    Unknown Unknowns says: August 16, 2011 at 10:02 am

    These are what you are missing:

    – The Axis Powers are bent on regime change and not shoring up NPT.

    – The Russians are making a move to signal US not to take them for granted – throwing a bone to the Iranians. [Iranians know this and are playing along.]

    – “If they were smart” – they are not. If they were, they would have been building Peace Interest and not war interest. They are still thinking of Pol. Sci 101 in US universities – the delud concept of Balance of Power.

    – Chinese and Russians have no incentive to resolve te stalemate of Iran nuclear file. It ties US and EU into a confriontational policy against Islam (and not just the Islamic Republic.] and add to their costs.

    Here is example of the latest wonderfully creative thinking – in a different context – coming out of the United States (where are men like Geroege Marshall gone in US).


    Americans prefer a militaristic form of Keynsianism to that of rebuilding their export economy. The leaders of US, thankfully as far as Iran is concerned, are in the same mental world of 1950s as they leaders of General Motors Corporation had been just before filing for bankruptcy.

  125. Humanist says:

    My subjective thoughts on the question of “Can rep. Ron Paul influence America’s Iran debate?”:

    I think conversationally the answer to that question is ‘yes’ but the main question that follows is: how many Americans are influenced and can that influence play a consequential role to stop the warmongers in their track from tricking America to remder their zealous, revenge seeking and hegemonic war with Iran?

    On that question, at this point in American history, I am not optimistic at all to see the dethroning of the neocons by any type of popular revolt, not now, maybe in the coming years. In my view the overall political maturity of the American masses hasn’t reached to the level of uniting to elect the right individuals to the legislative and executive branches of their government. I simply can’t see those great events in the near terms. However since the neocons are unusually aggressive in using America and Americans I can envision such revolt in not too far future.


    – The first thing that comes to my mind regarding Ron Paul is during the commotion of 2009 Iranian presidential election the US Congress passed a resolution condemning Iran. Only, a single representative, Ron Paul voted against it. This is in a way historic since in the Senate the anti-Iran vote was unanimous.

    – Maybe what attracts the disillusioned Americans to Ron Paul is they sense he is honest and has integrity, features that generally have been missing from the American political scene for quite some time.

    – Many of Ron Paul’s beliefs, ideologies and convictions do not fit to present complex societies. His idea of ‘the role of government’ might be suitable for some simple societies that do not exist anymore. In these times of extreme concentration of powers and secret or overt application of science to control and manage the events, to use Operations Research, Modeling, Simulations, sophisticated Econometrics and Game Theory etc Ron Paul’s versions of government sounds naively idealistic. His less restricted rules are bound to cause further accumulation of wealth for a few and great harms to ordinary people. Furthermore he sounds like he is a religious person, hopefully he is not as religious as G.W.Bush who everyday got his inspirations from the imaginary supernatural beings.

    On the subject of Iran however, many of his assertions make sense and the public is starting to accept them…that is real good news for the antiwar camp.

    – I remember in the last election he was expressing practically the same reasoning / arguments on Iran but those who pull the strings and their enslaved MSM easily managed to stifle his calls. This time it is a bit different. Silencing him this time requires more resources since more Americans are now suspicious of the whole system and are listening more carefully to Ron Paul than the last time.

    At the moment he is no match to the powerful military/industrial/mafia/aipac complex. He even wont get nominated to face Obama (unless extraordinary events evolve from the force of the anger and frustrations of the people over economy, unemployment, corrupt government system, wars etc).

    – Fascinating things are brewing on the US political arena. Maybe Ron Paul’s sincere arguments can act as an spark to start a big fire. If such a fire starts either the establishment manages to divert the rage of the people to absurd directions such as to the likes of TEA Party or the immense power of the emraged people can outmaneuvre the trickeries of the mafia. I am not optimistic at all about the latter scenario.

    (TEA: Taxed Enough Already? Really? How stupid one can be to join to that party especially when he/she is unemployed…or is about to become homeless. For now seems that the mafia knows how to drive the herd toward the nil point but my firm conviction is: as an ascertained historical criteria of ‘you can’t fool everyone forever’ their cruel and sick rule can’t last forever.)

  126. BiBiJon says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    August 16, 2011 at 10:02 am

    “What am I missing?”

    The nail, dear UU, because you just hit it. Iran was gift-wrapped by Zionists for Russia just to avert the possibility of US-Iran detente. Though Russia has had to show utmost decorum, and hide her eagerness, she is carefully unwrapping the gift, all the while relishing all the games she can now play with the new toy in the neighborhood.

  127. Rd. says:

    Fiorangela says:

    “Why does it never occur to these folks that honest is the best policy; that the American people are not as dumb as they appear to be”

    Just to add a slightly different angle to your point of view. I don’t think it is as much a question of how dumb the public opinion may be. Rather, I think the public has been conditioned over the many years to behave as a typical consumer even in the case of politics. Just as much as a consumer of ‘home furnishing, etc’ gets excited about an upcoming sale, the general public in its reaction to their brand of politics too tend to react in the same manner. Hence the media showman’s have learned how to prod their brand of listener’s to get excited or angered (“rationalized emotional”) in respect to their politics.

    Perhaps when we get the public of their consuming mind set, there may a hope for change. Till then, will have to deal with a very excited public reacting to the many for sale signs!!!

  128. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Its my understanding that Lavrov’s plan involves a step by step *reduction* in sanctions for each step Iran takes to “ease concerns” or whatever. Otherwise, why bother. And if China goes along with that step, as they most assuredly will, that is one step towards the unraveling of the whole ball of yarn. And if they are smart, they will chose that crucial step to be an easy one which the weaker of the poodles (England, France & Germany), i.e., the one with the most to gain, namely Germany, will want to go along with.

    What am I missing?

  129. fyi says:

    Unknown Unknowns says: August 16, 2011 at 7:47 am

    The Russians are sending a signal of displeasure to US regarding some of US (EU) policies: Libyan War, Missile Defense in Eastern Europe etc.

    Russia cannot undo the UNSC sanction on Iran, much less the US and EU sanctions that cannot be removed given the internal politics of US and EU countries.

    [Yes, the Axis Powers have painted themselves in a corner with respect to Iran. But from a practical point of view, that means that they are now even less able to do anything positive – no initiative can come out of them anylonger. Just like in regards to War in Palestine.]

    At the most what Iran can get out of this will be the construction of teh Bushehr II Reactor.

  130. BiBiJon says:

    Kaveh jaan’s piece http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH17Ak02.html today came as close as his indefatigable optimism about US-Iran rapprochement would allow, seemed to drop a hint that US-Russia rivalry may force US to make nice with Iran, just to spite Russia.

    I admit I so read things between the lines that would put a short-sighted gynecologist to shame.

    However, to my thinking the world is balanced on a knife’s edge. It will take very little to shake up the tiles on the scrabble board, and momentarily spell a whole bunch of new words with the same tiles. I just hope ‘peace’ lands on a triple word score.

  131. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Thank you both, Kooshy & Reza, for those two articles. It seems that the Russian Bear is finally showing some *ghayrat* (spiritual jealousy) and is on the move toward protecting its natural interests in the area, namely, ensuring a Russophile government is Damascus and the survival of the IRI, which means their acceptance of Iran as a nation with break-out nuclear capability. But because I am a Russo-skeptic, I’m going to note this and hit the snooze button nonetheless. I will wake up and pay attention when the acid test comes, and she passes it, namely, defying the US as Lavrov’s plan will ultimately require her to do, if it unfolds as planned and the US remains recalcitrant, as she undoubtedly will.

  132. Reza Esfandiari says:

    This is really one of the best analyses on the Iranian dilemma regarding how to deal with the situation in Syria.


  133. Kooshy,

    The article by Youssaf Butt was excellent. Thanks.


  134. kooshy says:

    Spinning Iran’s centrifuges
    By Yousaf Butt


    Consider yourself warned – “[I]n the next few years Iran will be in position to detonate a nuclear device,” so writes Ray Takeyh, confidently, in a recent Washington Post OpEd [1]. Why? Because the Iranian government willingly informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it would begin installing additional centrifuges with higher capacity to enrich uranium. [2]

    Just like fertilizer can be used to increase crop yields – or make bombs – uranium is a dual use material.

    Uranium enrichment has been conflated with nuclear weaponization so often that it has morphed into a virtual bogeyman bomb itself – an absolutely impermissible activity for the likes of Iran to pursue. This was not always the case. In irony

    that only history can muster, Iran’s nuclear program was kicked off in the 1950s with the full encouragement and support of the United States, under the auspices of president Dwight D Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. [3]

    In 1970, the US proposed installing 23 nuclear power plants in Iran by the year 2000. A 1976 directive by then-president Gerald Ford offered Iran a US-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel, another key ingredient for making nuclear bombs. [4] This “nuclear fuel-cycle” infrastructure is precisely the type of technology the US is now keen to keep out of Iran.

    While it would be nice if Iran stopped enriching uranium, does the international community have any right to insist on that? Unfortunately, none of treaties and legal agreements that Iran is party to have changed since the time of the shah: what was legal then is legal now. [5]

    Iran is a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and, as such, is entitled to enrich uranium under IAEA safeguards, which it does. Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US all enrich uranium without any fuss.

    In Brazil’s case, there actually ought to be some fuss: their leaders have publicly expressed great interest in nuclear weapons [6] and have – unlike Iran – restricted IAEA inspectors from full access to their main uranium enrichment facility. [6]

    Uranium enrichment is useful for generating the fuel for nuclear power plants, and for making radioisotopes for medical and agricultural uses – and, yes, for nuclear weapons as well. Asking how many years Iran is from making a bomb only makes sense if we know – or suspect that – Iran has a nuclear weapons development program.

    But earlier this year, the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear program that could settle this question. [7]

    This document represents the consensus view of 16 US intelligence agencies. Although the content of the new NIE is classified, Clapper confirmed in senate questioning that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program”. [8]

    This jibes with the Intelligence community’s 2007 NIE, the unclassified version of which publicly stated that Iran wrapped up its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Recent State Department cables provided by WikiLeaks back this up – for instance State Department officials confirmed that some rehashed IAEA reports of suspicious Iranian activities in 2004 were “consistent with the 2003 weaponization halt assessment, since some activities were wrapping up in 2004”. [9]

    To be clear, what the NIE and the State Department cables refer to as Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” (or “weaponization”) pre-2003 was some possible – but disputed – evidence of research by Iranian scientists having to do building and potentially delivering a bomb, not a full-blown actual bomb factory.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA, recently told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that he had not “seen a shred of evidence that Iran has been weaponizing, in terms of building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials … I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” [10]

    Indeed, every year, the IAEA has confirmed that Iran has complied with its nuclear materials’ accountancy. There has never been any diversion of nuclear material into any alleged weapons program. Ever.

    So, unless Iran starts a real nuclear weapons program it will never make the bomb – no matter how much enrichment takes place.

    The only “evidence” of Iran’s nuclear weapons program is its refusal to grant the IAEA completely unfettered access to whatever facilities the IAEA would like to inspect. But since the Iranian government has not ratified the “Additional Protocol” agreement it has no obligation to open every door to the IAEA.

    Pretty much everything the US and its allies have done with regards to Iran’s nuclear program has been counter-productive: the sanctions have improved Iran’s domestic scientific capabilities. [11]

    The assassination of Iranian scientists has led to one of the victims-to-be – Professor Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani – to be named head of the Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and therefore, automatically, one of the vice-presidents of the country. [12] And cyber-warfare, like the STUXNET virus suspected to be the work of US and Israel, [13] has not made a significant dent in Iran’s enrichment capabilities: to the contrary, the Iranians have reportedly begun deploying second- and third-generation centrifuges which may boost their enrichment capability three-fold. [14]

    So what to do?

    Call off the cyber-warfare. Call off the assassinations. Call off the sanctions.

    Not only are United Nations sanctions counterproductive, they are not even legal. The UN charter clearly outlines the conditions needed to kick off such sanctions – only after a determination of “the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” is found, something that has never been done.

    Far from marching towards making a nuclear bomb, Iran has repeatedly offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program well in excess of its legal obligations, including opening the program entirely to joint US participation and limiting the number of centrifuges they operate. More recently they agreed to a Turkish-Brazilian brokered deal to export their enriched uranium for fabrication into reactor fuel abroad. In each case, the US deliberately undermined or ignored these offers.

    The underhanded way in which the US and its allies are misusing the IAEA to issue trumped up reports about Iran’s alleged – and it should be stressed many years’ past – “intransigence” over possible military activities threatens the very legitimacy of that agency.

    The 118 nations that make up the non-aligned movement (NAM) – ie the real “international community” – have raised howls (or, at least, what passes for “howls” in diplomatic circles) about how politicized the agency has become lately [15].

    In a statement read during an IAEA board of governors meeting, representatives of the NAM nations noted “with concern, the possible implications of the continued departure from standard verification language in the summary of the report of the director general [Yukio Amano]”. [16]

    As it turns out, Amano himself comes with some baggage attached. Leaked cables cast him as “solidly in the US court” on Iran. [17]. To save the legitimacy of the IAEA, Amano should give serious thought to gracefully resigning his post.

    Surely, Iran should be stopped – but only when it does things that are illegal. A lot of dust has been kicked up recently because Iran has expressed interest in enriching uranium to 19.75% as fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor so that it can produce medical isotopes. (Normally, reactors used for generating nuclear power use uranium of 3.5% enrichment.) But anything less than 20% is considered low-enriched uranium (LEU) by the IAEA – not highly enriched uranium (HEU) as some have reported.

    And in fact there is nothing in the law stopping Iran from enriching uranium to any level it pleases, so long as it does so under IAEA safeguards.

    The most objective reading of Iran’s intentions is that it may be stockpiling enough LEU to give itself a “break-out” option to weaponize in the future – unfortunately for the US and its allies, there is nothing illegal about that. The fault lies with NPT that allows such behavior – not with Iran. The US may as well insist that Iran also not produce fertilizer since that, too, can be used in bombs.

    Iran could certainly take its stock of LEU and enrich it to a grade required for making bombs, but its LEU is under the surveillance of the IAEA – and has been for decades.

    Diverting this material for military purposes would be discovered by the IAEA. So either Iran could cheat and get caught, or it could kick out the IAEA inspectors. [18] These, then, should be the real “red-lines” for taking any tougher actions on Iran.

    1. The march toward a nuclear Iran Washington Post, August 4.
    2. See here – subscription required.
    3. See America’s on-again/off-again love affair with Iran’s nuclear program. Race for Iran, June 8, 2011.
    4. Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy Washington Post, March 27, 2005.
    5. See America’s on-again/off-again love affair with Iran’s nuclear program. Race for Iran, June 8, 2011.
    5. Jose Alencar, Brazil VP, Says Country Should Build Nuclear Arms Huffington Post. September 25, 2009.
    6. Brazil’s Nuclear Ambitions, Past and Present NTI, September 2006.
    7. See here.
    8. See here.
    9. See here
    10. How real is the nuclear threat? By Seymour M Hersh.
    11. The march toward a nuclear Iran Washington Post, August 4, 2011.
    12. Mossad behind string of assassinations in Iran Froeign Policy, August 2, 2011.
    13. Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay New York Times, January 15, 2011.
    14. Iran Claims Progress Speeding Nuclear Program Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2011.
    15. The IAEA and Syria: A New Paradigm for Noncompliance? Carnegie Endowment, June 17, 2011.
    16. Non-Aligned Movement backs Iran Asia Times Online, September 17, 2010.
    17. WikiLeaks cable portrays IAEA chief as ‘in US court’ on Iran nuclear program Christian Science Monitor, December 2, 2010.
    18. How to Deal with Iran The New York review of Books, February 12, 2009.

    Yousaf Butt is a nuclear physicist and is currently serving as a scientific consultant to the Federation of American Scientists on global security issues. Previously, he was a fellow on the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the US National Academy of Sciences, and on the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

  135. Fiorangela says:

    kooshy at 8:14 —

    “late afternoon while driving I was listening to NPR (National Propaganda Radio)” as they discussed the economic state of the US, and wondered what to call it. Even tho it was acknowledged that the situation was as negative as can be, the consensus was that a “positive” name had to be found for the situation.

    A guy named Sasha something-or-other, who runs a PR firm specializing in branding, said that the masses must be appealed to by persons like the NPR host, who has the ability to sway the masses, and that a “rationalized emotional” name must be repeated by such media personalities, to “synchronize” discussion of the problems and create “positive energy” to solve the situation.

    So expect to hear some new happy-talk vocabulary flood the airways very soon — as soon as Frank Luntz gets a focus group together and feeds them the appropriate amount of motze crumbs.

    Why does it never occur to these folks that honest is the best policy; that the American people are not as dumb as they appear to be; that most people resent being conned; and that ultimately, a strategy of deliberately deceiving the public will bit the propagandists in the arse.

  136. kooshy says:

    This is a realistic read for those who were interested in Iran and Turkey’s curent geostrategic position

    Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan – a pragmatic marriage of common interests

    Written by John Daly
    Monday, 15 August 2011 20:30


  137. kooshy says:

    Ron Paul Is Right on Iran

    Daniel Larison August 15th, 2011


  138. Rehmat says:

    Many people don’t know that when it comse to hatred – the Zionist propagandists have elephant’s memory. The latest example of such species I recently found in Philologos at Jewish daily Forward (Agust 10, 2011). Philologos is still chasing his fellow Jew Dr. Richard Falk for later’s publishing a cartoon showing a dog wearing ‘Star of Zion’ leading Uncle Sam to war on Libya.


  139. kooshy says:

    Off topic, but not off the election topic

    Late afternoon today while driving I listened to NPR (National Propaganda Radio), the program was about the economy and unemployment for the young, the host interviewed 2 young out of job European male, one from Greece and one from Ireland, at the end the conclusion that one would have had to drive at, was supposed to be, that although things are bad in Europe and this 2 young 30 something men are out of job without hope to find a job in near future, still they are happy to live with their parents and not being homeless.

    I start wondering why is it that the NPR is choosing to interview these guys in Europe instead of interviewing millions of out of work recently graduated young Americans here in our own country. Then I came to think that the opinion formers at the Department of Information knowing what happened and is happening in the UK last week, are getting really worried that the same may happen here in the US, therefore they have gone to a preventive mode, by hoping to make the young American listeners to take an example from this two civil out of job Europeans and just be thankful with what they have got.

    2nd conclusion I got, from the reason and the form of this interview was that perhaps we are long long away to find jobs for all who are currently unemployed, never less creating new jobs for people seeking to enter the job market for the first time.

  140. Karl says:

    Looking at the crazied rabiate GOP candidates (Ron excluded) I guess I hope for the lesser of two evils and that is I hope obama gets reelected. I would of course like that a man like Ron win regarding his logical stance about Iran and Middle East but I guess he have no real chance.
    I got kind of scared reading what a man like mitt romney told aipac 2009 about palestinians, iranians etc and the philosemitism and absurd love for israel.
    With that being said, Obama is not great on Iran and the Middle East…or rather the people behind him is not great but obama is not as near as bad as a GOP president (again Ron excluded) would be, because THEN we could expect more military attacks and war in the mideast initiated by america in tandem with israel…

  141. Pirouz says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    August 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    I’ve actually met a few holocaust survivors. Not persons who’ve made a paid career out of their experiences, mind you. Just ordinary people. And you you know how they summarize it? They put it into the context of war, in general.

  142. nahid says:


    Fiorangela says:
    August 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    Such a enlightening coment thank you my dear lady the best Grand ma :)

  143. James Canning says:

    Voice of Tehran,

    I think there is a great deal that Americans can do, to resist ill-considered foreign policy of the US regarding Iran. Problem really is that most Americans cannot bother to pay attention to what has been going on, and is going on now. Most Americans require spoon-feeding for the news of the Middle East, and they do not get that from American TV.

  144. Voice of Tehran says:

    Fiorangela says:
    August 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    You wrote:
    An excellent post , superb.

    World Zionism not only declared war on the US , but foremost WZ has declared war on Iran.
    History repeats itself.
    Ahmadinejad hates Jews , want to wipe them off the map , hates gays , Bahais and other minorities ( Bollinger crap ) is the reincarnation of Hitler , believes in end of times prophecies etc.etc.
    WZ has to stop Iran at any cost , boycott them economically ( let them starve to death ) , must use all media weapons at its disposal to crush Iran , must involve and FORCE as much countries as possible to join the Anti-Iran Club etc.etc. and the ‘naive’ Americans are the most effective tools in the hands of WZ , and it seems that there is little left that the Americans can do , as they are selling/sold thier country out to the Zionists ( 29 standing ovations for BN , I can’t still believe it )
    Now we have to watch carefully how history unfolds this time.

  145. masoud says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    How long would you say you spent reading about the Holocaust before you came to the conclusion that it was a lie? What do you think about progressive Historians/Intellectuals like Norman Finkelstein, who have been some of the most outspoken critics of Israel(they’re far from perfect, but who isn’t), but who don’t dispute the Holocaust. Do you think they are lying or fooled as well?

  146. James Canning says:


    Any discussion of Haim Saban should consider including his formula for success in American politics: Give money to the parties, set up think tanks, and control the media. Saban gave the Democrats $7 million in 2002. And his “greatest concern” is “to protect Israel” by influencing US news reporting and American politics (and “defence” planning etc.). Good profile in The New Yorker May 10, 2010 by Connie Bruck, “The Influencer”.

  147. Neo says:


    I was wondering: would the total population if Jews in Germany before and after WWII be an acceptable indicator?

  148. Neo says:


    Oh I could see the multiple holes in my own approach there even as I posted it :)

    But what makes VoT’s link ‘irrefutable’? It seems to promote a certain view and includes much speculation. Or did I miss something?

  149. Fiorangela says:

    Rehmat @ 11:46 — Murdoch and Haim Saban are birds of a feather, as well. Saban made his fortune on children’s cartoons, not just making them but in very complicated deals involving their syndication (see Frank Ziv :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziv_Television_Programs,_Inc.), mergers, then the 1995 joint venture with Murdoch of Saban’s Power Rangers-dominated brand and Murdoch’s Fox Kids Worldwide, followed in 1997 by the acquisition of the Fox Family channel and entre into 81 million American homes; and ultimate sale of that joint operation to Michael Eisner’s Walt Disney corp for $5.2 billion. :http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/how-haim-saban-pulled-deal-lifetime-16926

    According to Saban’s website, “Mr. Saban (along with Mr. Murdoch) sold Fox Family Worldwide to The Walt Disney Company on October 24, 2001. The deal, spearheaded by Mr. Saban, was notable as the largest cash transaction conducted by a single individual in the history of Hollywood.” :http://www.saban.com/html/team/saban.html

    Saban walked away from that 2001 transaction to Disney with $1.6 billion. In preparation for receiving the proceeds of that transaction, Saban had consulted lawyers and middle men who specialize in avoiding taxation by means of exotic stock transactions involving off-shore tax havens; [ :http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/01/business/fi-saban1 ] the major part of the investment that Saban’s tax advisors had arranged for him was scheduled to take place on or by Sept 11, 2001, but since the markets closed that day, the trades took place on Sept 17, 2011.

    In May 2002 Saban invested $13 million of his boon to purchase a chunk of Washington’s premiere think-tank, The Brookings Institute, creating the Saban Center for Middle East Policy with Kenneth Pollack at its helm :http://www.brookings.edu/saban/about.aspx

    Saban was called to testify about his tax sheltering activities before a US Senate panel chaired by Norm Coleman and :http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/TAXHAVENABUSESREPORT107.pdf

    Saban also owns significant media outlets in Germany as well as in Israel, where Saban claims citizenship. In 2007, Saban purchased Univision, a media outlet with strong brand recognition among the Hispanic population, in a bid to sway Latinos to be more favorably disposed toward Israel :http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268868,00.html

  150. James Canning says:

    The Financial Times said today that the nomination of Rick Perry by the Republicans would be beneficial to Obama because Perry would be virtually certain to lose the election. This assessment seems correct.

    I am very much in sympathy with those who support Ron Paul so that his views on US relations with Iran can get more attention.

    Philip Giraldi has some interesting comments on Rick Perry and his neocons in “George W. Bush Redux” www. amconmag.com/blogs/

  151. James Canning says:


    I think one does better to focus on the individuals and groups, within and without the US government, who conspired to set up an illegal war on the basis of knowingly false intelligence, by literally subverting the function of the CIA. The Office of Special Plans was set up by neocon warmongers to deceive the White House and the Congress, by outflanking the CIA. This is one of the great crimes of the past 50 years. And why does this conspiracy get so little attentioon? Rich and powerful Jews, and others, arrange for it to be suppressed.

  152. James Canning says:


    Wasn’t stuxnet an Israeli creation? And it did not target Iranian agriculture.

    The CIA is an important part of the “brain” of the executive and the Congress. It played an important role in restraining the warmongers in the Bush administration, regarding Iran.

    One reason for the catastrophic Iraq War is that the director of CIA allowed himself to serve as a stooge to Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby.

  153. James Canning says:


    Tauscher in 2005 worked with other Democrats in an effort to end the US war in Iraq, and pull out American troops. That she would now be spouting anti-Iran propaganda is a disappointment. Of course, her East Bay (San Francisco) district supported an end to US war in Iraq.

  154. James Canning says:


    Bravo. And yes, as Kwiatkowski pointed out years ago, the neocon warmongers planted in the Pentagon by Scooter Libby and his crew (working for Dick Cheney), in the Office of Special Plans, made sure that Middle East experts were purged! Fanatical supporters of Israel right or wrong, from think tanks promoting Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, and endless war in the Middle East to assist Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, came in to replace those experts.

    Interestingly, these same primarily Jewish fanatics kept British Arabists from knowing what was going on, in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  155. Fiorangela says:

    Kathleen at 10:13 am, link to Salon article by Karen Kwiatkowski describing the process of creating the Office of Special plans in the Pentagon, staffing it by neocon selectees, and producing neocon policy that was antithetical to American interests.

    Kwiatkowski’s article mentioned David Schenker, a new name in the neocon pantheon. Schenker now resides at WINEP. What a surprise.

  156. Fiorangela says:

    with respect, Neo, you say you have “no basis for commenting” on a banner headline that declares unequivocally that “Judea Declares War on Germany,” but you present NO evidence or documentation to support your assertion that “The Nazis may not have been ‘evil incarnate’ as the West claims, but they did seek to annihilate the Jews in Germany, like they did with German communists, gays and gypsies.”

    Can you present evidence that is as irrefutable as the link VoT posted, to support your claim? Hollywood movies or popular fiction do not count as evidence.

  157. Kathleen says:

    Ron Paul has been one of the only Reps who have been willing to speak truth to power on Iraq, Iran etc.

    Feith, Luti… War criminals heading up Perry’s foreign policy team. Now that is reassuring.

    Retired Lt Colonel Karen Kwiatowski has a few things to say about Feith and Luti her “The New Pentagon Papers”
    link to dir.salon.com

    “To begin with, I was introduced to Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA. A tall, thin, nervously intelligent man, he welcomed me into the fold. I knew little about him. Because he was a recently retired naval captain and now high-level Bush appointee, the common assumption was that he had connections, if not capability. I would later find out that when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense over a decade earlier, Luti was his aide. He had also been a military aide to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years and had completed his Ph.D. at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. While his Navy career had not granted him flag rank, he had it now and was not shy about comparing his place in the pecking order with various three- and four-star generals and admirals in and out of the Pentagon. Name dropping included references to getting this or that document over to Scooter, or responding to one of Scooter’s requests right away. Scooter, I would find out later, was I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff.’

  158. BiBiJon says:

    Another reason why Ron Paul’s views on US-Iran conflict should be heard:

    — It is a reflection of the view of a clear majority of Americans (Democrats, Republicans and Independents).

    (1)The Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ September 2008 polling data showed 65% of Americans on both sides of the aisle endorse talking to leaders of Iran. In an April 2009 poll by NY Times and CBS News(2), 59% of those who gave a yes/no response said yes to the deliberately yes-depressing question:

    “Do you think the United States should or should not establish diplomatic relations with Iran while Iran has a nuclear program?” (Robert Naiman)(3)

    Again, in 2010, the Chicago Council reports “62 percent [of 2,500 Americans polled] favor U.S. leaders meeting and talking with Iran’s leaders.”(4)


  159. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says: August 14, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    It is a contradiction in the soul of lower middle class and lower people of Iran.

    IR only reflects and augments it.

    You must understand IR for what it is; a create of lower middle class Iranian in search of a Shia Utopian Fantasy World in which they can go back to their slumber of unthinking ways.

  160. Fiorangela says:

    Unknown Unknowns —


  161. BiBiJon says:

    Neo says:
    August 15, 2011 at 6:32 am

    “If he had the power, Ron Paul would close all free (state) health and education services, arguing that the market should take care of it. Would you consider that just and acceptable?”

    I regard it as respectfully debate-worthy. But, not any distorted notion of “market” mind you. Not that fallacy of a “market” which is pushed down on our throats.

    Highly recommended read: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/14/business_certainty/index.html

    However, my real point was that whatever one thinks about Ron Paul’s positions, surely he has earned the right to be heard, and his ideas to be debated, refuted, or accepted. But, what do we get?

    “Bachmann wins first poll of Republican contest for 2012 presidential candidate
    ‘I’m a real person, I’m authentic,’ says Tea Party favorite after claiming almost 30% of votes in Iowa straw poll”

    Above is the Guardian’s headline.

    Wait a second. Didn’t Ron Paul garner “almost 30% of votes?” Why is he not etitled to any drippingly gushing praise in the Guardian?

    The media disadvantaging a particular candidate quite so brazenly, I contend is unconstitutional, and should be prosecuted.

  162. Neo says:


    Guten tag!

    I am no historian, and have no basis for commenting on the link you provided. I do appreciate that the history of the background to the war is not properly told or understood yet.

    However, the story is not limited to Jews. If we, for whatever reason, start questioning whether and how many Jews were murdered by the Nazis, then we will have to do the same with the info on even a greater number of Communists who were murdered by the same Nazis. Then there is the gypsies, homosexuals, mental patients etc.

    Their stories are all told in these ‘human slaughterhouse’ museums. Their lessons and warnings are in no way only limited to Jews. It is the Germans who react most strongly against the refutation of Nazi atrocities. Why would they if they didn’t believe it all?

    It is the Zionist propaganda that focuses on the Nazis’ Jewish victims alone – to the point of almost excluding all other victims and their righteous grievances.
    See this example: http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/MauthausenEng.html
    Fact is, Communists were treated worse than Jews in concentration camps, but this is never mentioned.

    You would be falling into a trap to try and refute the whole thing as a reaction to zionists’ propaganda. The Nazis may not have been ‘evil incarnate’ as the West claims, but they did seek to annihilate the Jews in Germany, like they did with German communists, gays and gypsies.

    The exact numbers involved can be challenged, but that is a futile debate. The core crime against humanity remains.

  163. Voice of Tehran says:

    Neo says:
    August 15, 2011 at 6:24 am

    You wrote :
    Have you ever visited one of the old Nazi concentration camps that are open today as museums? A pretty harrowing experience…

    Neo , I came to Germany when I was 3 ( Now I am 50 ) , thus I know the ‘bs’ inside out.

    Btw, do you think this article in the DAILY EXRESS dd. 24 Mrch , 1933 is authentic ?


  164. Neo says:

    BiBiJon says: August 14, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    BiBiJon,I would say that ultimately, a case such as Rwanda’s is the UN’s business, not USA’s. Same with all such international security issues.

    If he had the power, Ron Paul would close all free (state) health and education services, arguing that the market should take care of it. Would you consider that just and acceptable?

  165. Neo says:

    Have you ever visited one of the old Nazi concentration camps that are open today as museums? A pretty harrowing experience…

  166. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sakineh Khanum:

    Right on, sister! You GO, girl! Tell it like it IS. Hallelujah, Praise the Lord!

  167. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    I keep telling myself, don’t do it!
    Don’t, as they still believe.
    Don’t, as they still believe in the lesser of two evils.
    Don’t, as they still believe in many other fantasies, like the belief that some cave duelers from Afghanistan planned the 9/11.
    Don’t do it Sakineh! Well, I can’t hold back any longer. If I could shout it from the rooftops, I would. Americans, your vote does not select a president
    So, save it! This perpetual race for the presidency of the US turns out to be the greatest jobs program where billions of dollars are spent on anywhere from the talking head pundits on TV to the advertisers, to the carpenters that set up the stage for the debates to the camera men, to the bookmen in Vegas, to the journalists that sell papers etc. etc. etc.
    The president of the US is selected in some back room deal (5-4, decision in Y2K) or some corporate boardroom meeting. Or, you have some people that would outright rig the system so that their candidate would win (as if the votes count). For example, the head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a fund-raising letter said that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm
    I know how now you think Ron Paul has hit the nail on the head and got it exactly right with regards to all things Iran, but remember how a Democrat (U-ba-must + water = U-ba-dough) wanted to engage Iran in 2008. Now think, how far did that go.
    So, keep debating he said, she said. It won’t change a thing until America has woken up from its deep slumber and modified its foreign policy, wresting it away from Israel-firsters that keep stealing the taxpayer’s money in the name of security. As we’ve seen recently in London, one can create all the [other] enemies without, but the enemy is within.

  168. moshe says:

    James Canning,

    What about stuxnet?

    But yes, from what I can gather the CIA has for several years now used every channel it can think of to make sure everyone understands that they are against a military attack on Iran under the current circumstances, from Robert Baer to the NIEs and beyond. The point however is that the CIA does not make policy on its own – they’re not the brain of the National Security State but its eyes and fists.

  169. Unknown Unknowns says:

    I’m in NYC now, if you are referring to me, PG. Got here 2 weeks ago, and leaving for SF on Wednesday for a week, then down to LaLa Land.

    Sorry Fior, don’t have time to stop by this trip, but maybe next time around.

  170. Persian Gulf says:

    I guess it’s 6 in the morning in Iran. ;)
    we used to sleep after Sahari, and that was winter time. LOL

  171. Unknown Unknowns says:

    The criterion I found interesting to apply when it comes to this obsession of the West subject, Iranian women’s hijab, is this:

    go to any town and look at the girls aged 5 to 9 (who are not required to wear hijab): invariably they wear it. This is also the case with at least 50% of girls in upper Tehran. That, at least has been my observation. The parents are more conservative. When the girls grow to be of high-school age in Tehran, things might change, but much less so in lower Tehran and the towns and country.

  172. Persian Gulf says:

    I don’t know whether or not the hot topic these days in Iran, the color of Chador!, is a distraction point or a genuine one. whatever it is, once again it shows the deep contradiction that IR has regarding Hejab. For an absolute majority of the youth, this is a silly discussion, a totally irrelevant one. I have made a prediction of 5-10 year period for it and still stand on my analysis. In my view, IR has unnecessarily made Hejab an achilles’ heel for itself. The social base for this is maximum 5 million, a better evaluation would be 3 million, in fact (which is the base of the right). Once the generation of Mr. Khamenei and alike are gone, or too old to care, this fight will be over.

  173. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Another good interview of our President. Thanks, Rehmat, for posting the link in your blog.


  174. James Canning says:

    PressTV quotes Iraqi VP Tareq al-Hashimi as saying continued US military presence in Iraq is “a problem, not a solution.” Bravo, and very true indeed.

  175. James Canning says:


    I think you need not worry about any effort by the CIA to sabotage Iranian agriculture. The strange schemes dreamed up to hobble Cuba in the 1960s are not about to be repeated.

    You might be heartened by the fact the CIA opposes any attack on Iran, and has opposed any such attack for years now.

  176. moshe says:

    Reza Esfandiari

    What frightens me is the fact that it’s not at all improbable that the CIA and other like minded organizations would try to sabotage Iran’s agricultural production – they did that in Cuba in the ’60s.

  177. James Canning says:


    Thanks, and bravo Barney Frank! Yes, the US taxpayers should not be screwed good and hard to “protect” Germany or France from a nonexistent “threat” from Iran. The ABM system is a scam that has continued for decades now.

  178. James Canning says:

    Voice of Tehran,

    Henry Merritt Paulson, Jr. (aka Hank Paulson), was raised as a Christian Scientist.

  179. Voice of Tehran says:


    …The American people were willing to believe all sorts of lies about the gas chambers that never existed. The American people were willing to believe all sorts of lies about the assassination of President Kennedy. They even elected to the Senate the Jew who invented the Magic Bullet theory. The American people were willing to believe all sorts of lies from the Jew Hank Paulson who said the Banker Bailout would save them from a Second Great Depression. But 30 trillion dollars later we are much closer to an even greater collapse.

    Israel declared war on America on 9-11. Israel and the Jews of Wall Street and the City of London are stealing money by the tens of trillions. They will continue until there is nothing left to steal. They will allowed to do this because Gentiles do not qualify for free speech and other human rights.

    The Jews of America would rather have ten million Americans die of starvation than admit their leaders are insane traitors who killed President Kennedy and took down the World Trade Center on 911. They would rather have Israel start World War III and kill a few billion non-Jews than tell the world that they made up that gibberish about the Holohoax.

    America deserves better from the Jews than this.

    As I have said before, I worked in a medical research facility. 11 Jewish doctors and medical researchers told me they did not believe in the Holohoax. To date not one of the 11 has come forward to say this in public even after 911 made it clear that Israel has declared war against all humanity and not just America.

    As I have said before, Jewish people can no longer support Israel and America. Maybe I should amend this to say that Jewish people can no longer consider themselves fully functioning members of the human race if they are willing to let Israel launch World War III and kill billions of innocent men, women and children…

  180. Voice of Tehran says:

    Liza says:
    August 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    You wrote:
    “zionist regime place drones in kurdistan ”

    Yes I read that today.
    It is time for the IRGC and the military to master the drone technology.
    They showed some prototypes a few months ago , but I guess it’s a long way to go to make them efficient.
    In general drones are ‘dirty ‘ weapons , however under the current circumstances there is no way to spare them in the military arsenal.
    Reminds me of the following:


    “An article by Christian Elia published on the Rebelión website on August 25, 2010, reports that:

    An explosion has killed the father of the “drones” (unmanned planes) – of Iran – but he is just the last of the scientists who have lost their lives in the country.

    “To find a photo of Reza Baruni on the Internet is a mission impossible. However, in the last few days, his name was at the centre of a mystery that has many international aspects…”

    The only thing certain is that Reza Baruni, the Iranian aeronautical engineer, is dead. An air of absolute mystery hangs over everything else. All the industry analysts consider Baruni to be the father of the […] UAVs (unmanned vehicles) of the Islamic Republic […]. On August 1st, 2010, his house was blown up.”

    “On August 17, 2010, Debka (very close to Israeli intelligence) publishes news of Baruni’s death and reveals its conclusions: the Iranian engineer’s home blew up because of the explosion of three very powerful explosive devices. Baruni was murdered.”…

  181. Fiorangela says:

    James, a hat trick!

    Thank you for crystallizing three important points at 1:33, 1:38, and 1:48.

    All – an extremely distressing talk by Ellen Tauscher, under secretary of state for nonproliferation, before the Commonwealth Club of California on July 28 (audio here: :http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/ellen-tauscher-us-under-secretary-arms-control-and-international-security-728

    transcript here: :http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/07/20110729133444su0.446584.html#axzz1UzxJuQtM

    Aside from Tauscher’s mention of Iran ten times in her prepared comments, and each time in a more negative and hateful light, Tauscher’s performance was distressing because she is so completely misinformed, so willing uncritically to accept propagandized talking points as reality rather than explore and research the true nature of Iranian politics and culture for herself.

    Tauscher’s willful ignorance is particularly painful to contemplate because she is a woman in a position of great responsibility, and because she comes from a Catholic background, having attended a Catholic university. Tauscher is an embarrassment to both institutions, she is a dangerous ideologue, and her presence in the State Department bodes ill for the people of Iran as well as of the United States.

    Ellen Tauscher would do well to review the comments Barney Frank made several days ago to Steve Inskeep on NPR —

    There is no justification for America protecting Western Europe against nonexistent threats. There is no justification for us building anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect them against nonexistent attacks from Iran.

    Tauscher might also benefit by paying close attention to the observations of a dean of American foreign policy, Kenneth Waltz:

    The United States has been, since its inception, a very warlike country. . .Dating from 1983 the US fought 6 wars; . . .very few countries fight as many wars as the US; they were not necessary wars. . . .Poor and weak countries we delight in beating up on; America’s behavior is typical of great powers and especially dominant powers. . . . The US is, by consensus, in a period of decline . . .There are many indications that Obama does pursue a more moderate course than has been typical of our history. There is not another country in the world that is as little threatened as the United States is . . .it’s part of the democratic ethos, and part of the two-party system — [the parties goad each other] into spiraling upward in waging war. . . .; Kissinger and Breznev agreed that whatever the outcome of the Viet Nam war, the balance of power would not be affected at all; only the poor, long-suffering people of Viet Nam would be impacted. It was a useless, pointless, reckless war.

    Ellen Tauscher, and every person in US government whose decisions bear life-and-death consequences, should be required to visit the countries they deem an enemy. Demonization destroys the ability to think critically; engaging the Other on a person-to-person, people-to-people basis, is the best antidote to mindless demonization.


    (btw, NPR’s Ombudsman compounded the felony when she sought to explain away how Inskeep cut short Frank’s response. In the explanation, she quoted a long passage in which Frank and Inskeep disagreed about the relative portions of the Defense and Social Security budgets, but she did NOT include Frank’s declaration that “Iran is not a threat.”) :http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2011/08/10/139421927/cut-short-rep-barney-frank-on-morning-edition

  182. Liza says:

    zionist regime place drones in kurdistan


  183. Rehmat says:

    “What we see in Israel is neither a socialist revolution; nor is it a struggle for justice. It is actually a ‘bourgeoisie wannabe revolution’, and the Israelis took to the street because each of them wants to be a landlord, to own a property. They do not care much about politics, ethics, or social awareness, and neither do they seem to care much about the war crimes they are collectively complicit in. Malnutrition in Gaza is really not their concern either. They seem to not care about anything much at all, except themselves becoming property owners…,” Gilad Atzmon.

    Israeli protests: by the ‘privileged ones’


  184. kooshy says:

    UK detains 3,000 people in unrest

    It sounds to me that Mr. Cameron and his regime in London are working hard. That’s a lot or arrest for the so called small gang of criminals

  185. James Canning says:

    Tehran Times Aug. 14th story (on Ahmadinejad’s interview Aug. 13th with Russia Today): “Ahmadinejad says nuclear weapons a thing of the past.” The Iranian president said: “If any country tries to build a nuclear bomb, in fact, they waste their money on [and?] resources and, secondly, they create a big danger to themsleves.”

  186. Reza Esfandiari says:


    The U.S Department of Agriculture has confirmed a marked increase in cereal production in Iran:


    Of course, now this U.S Government will be accused of cheer-leading for Iran just as the IMF is.

  187. James Canning says:


    Those not familiar with Mitchell Bard might want to know that he is an ardent propagandist for a Greater Israel. And for deceiving the American public to acheive this end. In “Carter’s Calumny”, his review of Jimmy Carter’s important book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, Bard wrote that Carter “appears to be giving aid to the new anti-Semites” and that Carter fails to see “the unwillingness of the Palestinians to accept a two-state solution.”

  188. James Canning says:


    I might add that my use of the term “Christian Zionist” is to refer to fanatical Christians who seek greater oppression for the Christians currently living in the Land of Israel, so that they are driven out by the Jews! This vicious, demented religious belief should be condemned by American news media. But it is not, because powerful Jewish entities protect it, in effect, because manipulating ignorant, and rather stupid Christian Zionists, fits into their programme of duping the American people to enable the Israelis to oppress the Palestinians.

  189. James Canning says:


    When I refer to “Christian Zionists”, I mean the fanatics who want to see themselves transported to eternal paradise, while all others on earth go to eternal damnation and hellfire. This means that Anglicans, and Lutherans, and Roman Catholics, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, etc etc etc etc would, in the view of these fanatics, be damned for their beliefs.

    I think you use the term to refer to British and American Protestants who were fascinated with the Holy Land as part of their education, and thus gained a sympathy for the Jews that tied in with romantic nationalist sentiment all over Europe in the 19th century.

  190. BiBiJon says:

    Representative Ron Paul came quite close to beating Mrs. Bachmann, but faces a different sort of problem. I don’t doubt that Mr. Paul could secure 15 or 20 or perhaps 25 percent of the vote in Iowa. (He got 10 percent there in 2008.) But I wonder how much upside his candidacy has beyond his very dedicated core set of supporters. The lowest-ever winning total in Iowa is 26 percent, by Bob Dole in 1988.
    From http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/youve-just-won-the-ames-straw-poll-what-are-you-going-to-do-next/

    Note to Nate Silver:

    Your latest tweak of the formula for predicting candidate performance does not take into account the media culture. Watching various Sunday talk shows I can tell you that despite Dr Paul losing by a whisker, there were almost total absence of mention of his name, let alone ANY in-depth analysis of what it is he is saying, and why it is that it has resonance.

    Had any other candidate been quite as close to the front runner, I guarantee most headlines would be about the ‘two front runners’, given the vanishing insignificance between votes cast for Ms Bachmann vs Dr Paul.

    You don’t have to be among Ron Paul’s “very dedicated core set of supporters” to notice the discrepancy in reporting. (I encourage folks to compare Iranian media coverage of the campaigns of Ahmadinejad’s opponents in 2009 elections).

    I contend the media’s role in influencing politics, in addition to the media’s concentration in very few hands, is disenfranchising the entire electorate, not just Ron Paul’s core supporters. Prima facie media’s behavior is unconstitutional.

    As to Dr Paul’s message, in disagreement with Neo and Eric, let me say that his stridency is politically astute because it taps into a rich and swelling vein of public disregard for gaudier and gaudier lipstick on the pig. Quite frankly, US has as much right to feel indignant about Rwanda as anyone else, and that is the sovereign demarcation that cannot be broken without opening the floodgates of righteous pretense and unjust wars. In short, Dr Paul is talking an absolute spiritual/universal truth, and his truth telling is his only winning card.

  191. Binam says:


    Love it when just repeating the actions of the people you defend boils your blood. You must be afraid to look in the mirror.

  192. Voice of Tehran says:

    Binam says:
    August 14, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    You wrote:

    You are LOST and you are SICK

  193. Binam says:


    Whatever happened to your life for your Leader. Shouldn’t you wear your kafan and pull a jihad on people you disagree with? Oh wait – this year the jihad is in use for the economy, as per the request of the dumbass mentioned below.

  194. kooshy says:

    IMF: why we’re bullish on Iran

    Posted By David BoscoFriday, August 12, 2011


    Earlier this week, I posted about the International Monetary Fund’s surprisingly optimistic assessment of the Iranian economy. A Wall Street Journal article included some tough criticism of the Fund’s methods and noted a discrepancy between the new assessment and an earlier, more gloomy, report on Iran. In a letter published in today’s Journal, the Fund offers some additional detail:

    The lower projections reported in the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook in April were not based on third-party independent analyses, as reported in the article. Rather, they were our estimates based on limited information we had of the Iranian economy at the time.

    [T]wo key factors contributed to our revising the growth numbers upward—statistics we collected in a recent mission which indicated an exceptional agricultural performance in the past two years as well as the positive impact of the high oil prices on a highly diversified Iranian economy.

    Finally—and as in any member country—our projections remain independent of the authorities’ views; indeed, the growth forecasts for 2011-12 are lower than the authorities’ and below past trends despite the higher potential brought about by the subsidy reform. These estimates are balanced by the need to continue with reforms in the corporate and financial sectors and the negative impact of the sanctions.

  195. Unknown Unknowns says:


    Fack off.

  196. Binam says:


    “The ” Iranian ” versions ( as you call it ) of Santorum/Perry , if at all , are restricted to their ” Howzeh , university , neigborhoods etc. ” ”

    I wish. They are ruling Iran and expect to not rule the world – but at least manage it! Modiriat jahani!


    Your beloved Supreme Leader is better off keeping his mouth shut – what part of looting alcohol and porn magazines is an Islamic awakening?! He hasn’t said a wise thing in his entire life – I don’t expect him to start now. He’s just a corrupt dumbass like the far right extremists in the US who does evil in the name of religion.

  197. Unknown Unknowns says:

    What is amazing to me is the prescience of our Supreme Leader when he stated in a speech about a month ago now (it could even have been before the sit-ins in Spain) that the Islamic Awakening will “reach the heart of Europe”.


  198. Voice of Tehran says:

    Binam says:
    August 14, 2011 at 8:12 am

    You wrote:
    “If only you applied the same standards to your coverage of Iranian politics and did not consistently defend the Iranian versions of Santorum and Perry and the likes…”

    Binam , please don’t enlighten us with your astonishing simple-mindedness.
    The ” Iranian ” versions ( as you call it ) of Santorum/Perry , if at all , are restricted to their ” Howzeh , university , neigborhoods etc. ” but people like Santorum/Perry/Bachmann and Co. want to RULE the fu***** WORLD.


    *which argues that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy* – Further down…
    “Bachmann was born in Waterloo, Iowa, “into a family of Norwegian Lutheran Democrats”[8]; her family moved from Iowa to Minnesota when she was 13 years old.[9] After her parents divorced, Bachmann’s father, David John Amble, moved to California, and Bachmann was raised by her mother, Jean (née Johnson), who worked at the First National Bank in Anoka, Minnesota.[9][10] Her mother remarried when Bachmann was a teenager; the new marriage resulted in a family with nine children.[11]

    She graduated from Anoka High School in 1974 and, after graduation, spent time working on a kibbutz in Israel.[12] In 1978 she graduated from Winona State University with a B.A.

    In 1979, Bachmann was a member of the first class of the O. W. Coburn School of Law, then a part of Oral Roberts University (ORU).[11] While there, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, whom she described in 2011 as “one of the professors who had a great influence on me”.[13][14] Bachmann worked as a research assistant on Eidsmoe’s 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which argues that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and should become one again.[11][13][14] In 1986 Bachmann received a J.D. degree from Oral Roberts University. She was a member of the final graduating class of the law school at ORU, and was part of a group of faculty, staff, and students who moved the ORU law school library to what is now Regent University.[15]

  199. Binam says:

    If only you applied the same standards to your coverage of Iranian politics and did not consistently defend the Iranian versions of Santorum and Perry and the likes…

  200. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: August 13, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    “I would expect a candidate coming from Texas to enjoy support from some of the oil companies, but to have a Christain Zionist as a plausible candidate is unsettling.

    Christian zionism may not have been directly invented by AIPAC or its predecessors, but early zionists in the US and in Great Britain, the precursor generation of AIPAC, certainly did exploit certain “freakish sects” within Christianity to create the groundwork for Christian zionism (see Dark Crusade: Christian Zionism and US Foreign Policy).

    Kiracofe’s work concentrates on zionist influence on Christianity in England. In the last decade of the 19th century, zionists took their show to the United States and brought American Christian sects within their orb.
    (see “Leadership of the American Zionist Organization 1897-1930,” by Yonathan Shapiro :http://www.amazon.com/Leadership-American-Zionist-Organization-Yonathan/dp/B000TNZFEO/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313320492&sr=1-5 ) and

    Jewish Virtual Library re Blackstone: :http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/chicago.html and

    See Maidhc Ó Cathail on the relationship between American financier, lawyer, zionist Samuel Untermyer and Cyrus Scofield, producer of the so-called Scofield annotations to the Protestant bible: :http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/zionisms-un-christian-bible/

    see the relationship between Rabbi Yechial Eckstein and Christian Zionism/CUFI/John Hagee :http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/magazine/24RABBI.html

    see Mitchell Bard assure a Jewish audience in California that Jews can count on Christian zionists to block a Palestinian declaration of independence (at 50 minutes) :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ArabLo

  201. Neo says:

    Eric A. Brill says: August 13, 2011 at 12:08 pm


    Thanks for your considered comment. Ron Paul misses the charisma of the likes of Obama, otherwise his rhetoric may have been strong enough to mobilise enough support. Despite the huge gaps in his analysis – e.g. the Soviet Union parallel he draws without acknowledging that the US foreign policy was totally obsessed with containing and eventually defeating the Soviets for the longest time – there are enough truisms and beautiful punchlines in his language to make people sit up and listen with interest. I was very interested in his comments during the previous presidential election round, but the more I learned about his ideology, the more faded became his lustre…

    However, I do agree that much of what he says is pure rhetoric, especially when one considers the separation of powers in USA. He would need the majority of Congress as well as the supreme court on his side to achieve what he really wants. Unlikely to happen, so perhaps he is a safe candidate to vote for if one is after a fresh presidential approach, especially in foreign policy? After all, he would be the commander in chief of the armed forces, and this is pretty much the only area that the US president is truly a commander in chief.

  202. PB says:

    This is all about Israel lobby. They have the congress, and if these guys want to even have a chance to become president they must “author” legislation to condemn Iran is someway, even if it lead this nation to war.

    I wish for “theraceforIran” would have a piece on Rep. Bachman’s legislation on Iran which is an embargo and an act of war.

    It is no coincidence that these candidates suddenly get TV attention and are treated with respect, they are friends of Israel and not of America, as Senator Santorum is quick to point his Israel credentials. That is why they appeal to the lowest denominator, and get lower yet.

  203. Pirouz says:

    Paul just came in second, in the straw poll.

  204. Photi says:

    What is most heartening about the Ron Paul debate is the audience’s reaction. Listen to them boo the zionist delusions of Sanitorium, only then to cheer on the foreign policy prudence of Ron Paul. An astute campaign strategist would try to harness that energy.

  205. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    August 11, 2011 at 9:30 am (from another discussion board)

    “The fake Ph.D.s (very many on the Expediency Council) and assorted other opportunists do wish for more brain drain from Iran because they or their associates will not have to compete against smart and capable people.”

    This is so true. I think I have said this here before. do you think, fake Ph.D. holders like Ahmad Tavakolli, Mohsen Rezaei, Rohani….would allow anyone to take their positions? so long as we have oil, these people don’t need to show competence.

    btw, did you know that one of the easiest Ph.D. degree that you can get in Iran is called “strategic doctorate”?! what a name. probably idiot like Hassan Abbasi are giving the degree in a massive scale (he talked about more than 100 so far!). the system insiders, like people who serve in intelligence offices…, get it in places like Emam Hossein Univ., I guess.

    جمهوری اسلامی یه کار رو خیلی خوب انجام داده اونم شا×××× تو مدرک بوده.

    It is now extending to other areas as well, especially universities as the system has given enough worthless Ph.D. degrees to its associates. people that their degree is hardly equivalent to an undergrad one in terms of value. they don’t seem to be needing capable people. and Ph.D.s from Tajikestan, Ozbakistan, Armenia…. are underway.

    there was time that the system sent thousands to places like the UK. most of them got back illiterate, as we used to call during school time. don’t know what was happening there, but sounds like the good ones in the UK left for north america (still except a few places in the Uk, the rest are not really what their degree show-I think they are taking advantage of their accent!. as a friend used to say few years ago, many of the ones coming from the UK need to do a post-doc, just to be equivalent to what their degree shows). now, Iran even don’t need that. one can get a Ph.D. from Payamenour.

  206. Fiorangela says:

    Gilad Atzmon’s thoughts on the riot in his home country, Great Britain:


    “. . .What we see in Britain is not a political protest. It is not a battle with any coherent call for justice. Neither is it an outburst of mere racial hatred. It is none of those things — and yet, considered in its entirety, it comprises and manifests all of those factors at once. It is actually a rejection of the entire system. It is a clear manifestation and forceful expression of generations who have lost all hope in a society that does not convey any prospect of a future for them — what we now see in British cities is young people who are putting the current system on trial. It is a spontaneous eruption of a demand for recognition. . . .”

  207. Rehmat says:

    In 2006, American Catholic writer, Joanna Francis, called Dr. Ahmadinejad better than her Pope Benedict XVI. Israel-born British Jewish musician and writer, Gilad Atzmon, called Ahmadinejad far better than former British prime minister Tony Blair in justic and dignity. American writer, John Kaminski, had wished America had a President like Ahmadinejad.

    On Saturday, Dr. Ahmadinejad gave an exclusive interview to Russian Television, RT. Watch video here. In the interview, Dr. Ahmadinejad answered questions on Iran’s stand on country’s civilian nuclear program, the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, war on Libya, insurgency in Syria, riots in Britain, Iran’s relations with its neighboring western-puppet rulers and Islam.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admitted that Iran is far from being perfect in terms of freedoms but, he said, his country is “among the best in the world in this respect“. He also said the possibility US-Israel attack on Islamic Republic is real, but Tehran is prepared for that.

    Dr. Ahmadinejad also said tha as Muslims, “We love and respect all human beings, disregarding the language, religion and the color of skin”.


  208. paul says:

    I think more and more lefties are looking to Ron Paul. We disagree with him on a lot of things, but we agree with him on a lot of things too, and we see that he has more backbone than lefties like Dennis Kucinich.

  209. kooshy says:

    Mr. Brill

    So good to see you post again, frankly when you become silent I start getting worried. I became indifferent after the 2000 elections, only in the last 2 elections.

    There was a contemporary Iranian poet (professionally a lawyer and professor of law at the TU) named Hamid Mossadegh (no relationship to the Premier) who’s famous poem is titled “Blue, Gray, Black” a few of couplets in this poem was often used during the Iranian revolution by the young, intellectuals and the revolutionaries which the most famous one translates like this

    If I rise (up)
    If you rise (up)
    Everybody will rise
    If I seat
    If you seat
    Who’s going to rise?

    من اگر برخيزم

    تو اگر برخيزي

    همه بر مي خيزند

    من اگر بنشينم

    تو اگر بنشيني

    چه كسي برخيزد ؟

    When many years ago I asked what you mean by this all, the answer was very simply that you and me, are we.

  210. James Canning says:


    Wasn’t Israel rather unhappy with the Pope, during his visit to Israel/Palestine? The Israelis would not let him address a crowd, using the Apartheid Wall as a backdrop.

    John Hagee looks forward to the day the Jews are consigned to hellfire and eternal damnation. But he wants to use them to drive the Christians and Muslims out of “The Land of Israel”, to facilitate his entry into Paradise. What a real piece of cr*p!

  211. James Canning says:


    I would expect a candidate coming from Texas to enjoy support from some of the oil companies, but to have a Christain Zionist as a plausible candidate is unsettling.

    I don’t think the oil pipeline from Baku to the Turkish Mediterranean coast could have been built, with any route other than that chosen.

    AIPAC’s wrecking of the proposed restoration of normal relations between Iran and the US, in the 1990s, was a significant injury to the national interests of the American people.

  212. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning at 1:39:

    “I wonder how many trillions of American taxpayer dollars Rick Perry is willing to spend, to enable continuing oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis.”

    Rick Perry may represent Ground Zero of the confluence of big money interests behind his campaign — Texas energy concerns will surely support him, and Israeli money interests will, as well, for associated reasons: Texas company Noble Energy is under contract to Israel to develop over a dozen million acres in the Mediterranean. :http://www.diamondoffshore.com/featuredPeople/noble_energy.php

    Conoco, the US corporation that had to back out of a contract to develop Iranian oil fields after AIPAC pushed through an Executive Order, then legislation, sanctioning business with Iran in 1995-96, is also a Texas-based oil concern, but according to Keith Weissman, Conoco did not spend a lot of time wringing their hands over the failed deal. Last June, Weissman explained to a PBS interviewer how he ultimately cemented relations between US oil interests and AIPAC after initially angering the Oils, over sanctions on Iran, and that the active ingredient in that cement was even more punitive measures against Iran:

    “With Weissman’s help, Rosen and a host of congressional staffers got the ball rolling on ILSA. AIPAC helped convince Clinton to cancel a deal that Conoco had struck with Iran, even though doing so angered Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, then Iran’s president, who backed the Conoco arrangement. “Rafsanjani still says, to this day, that canceling that deal ruined relations, [between US and Iran and [continued Weissman] . . .[AIPAC] became the bitter enemies of the oil companies.”

    AIPAC worked to exploit both of those negative aftereffects.

    When the fallout of that American slap in the face eventuated in the election of Mohammad Khatami, and the Clinton administration “backed away from AIPAC’s hard line and sought to develop an opening to the new Iranian government. . . .”

    to the dismay of AIPAC, which responded by concentrating on

    trying to isolate Iran economically, in part by pushing Congress and the White House to support an oil pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan that bypassed Iran and ran through Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. . . .

    Ironically, despite the enmity between AIPAC and the oil industry, the group would manage to work closely with the oil companies, especially BP — and, surprisingly, AIPAC would even pocket financial contributions from the oil companies for its work facilitating what became the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline . . .[in which] BP, Chevron, and other U.S. companies are major shareholders.

    From the start, it was controversial politically, not least since the three transit countries viewed the pipeline as a geopolitical counterbalance to both Iran and Russia, and for that reason they each wanted U.S. backing. And the oil companies, still angry at AIPAC for its role in creating ILSA and blocking the Iran-Conoco deal, realized that they’d be better off cooperating with the group than confronting it.

    Not only did AIPAC and the oil companies cooperate, but according to Weissman the oil companies actually funded the group’s work and AIPAC officials gave John Browne, then BP’s chief executive, a guided tour of Washington’s Holocaust Museum. During these years, one of Weissman’s main preoccupations was the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan deal:

    “So we get ILSA. It passes overwhelmingly. That same year I brought some Conoco guys to AIPAC’s policy conference, where half the House and half the Senate usually attend, and they knew that night that they would never win anything against us. So they began to cooperate. A lot of the oil companies realized, ‘We’re not gonna beat these guys in Congress, so we might as well try to tailor their activities, where we at least have some room to work.’ And I was the go-between. I was the guy. I mean, BP still credits me with being the guy who greased the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, because of my work with them. That was originally designed as an anti-Iran project.”


    Weissman sheds crocodile tears about his work for AIPAC, insisting that he came into the work for AIPAC as a peacenik liberal, but that he persisted in driving a wedge between Iran and the US because he was doing interesting work, people were paying attention to him, he was making good money and “he had two kids in college.”

  213. Kooshy,

    “I came to this same conclusion a long ago. Yes voting for the lesser of the two evils will not accomplish something of value.”

    It’s taken me a bit longer to figure this out: I voted for Obama. But better late than never.

  214. Rehmat says:

    James Canning – So are John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and Pope Benedict XVI – they all profess to be Christians but take their orders from Anti-Christs instead of their Lord Christ. I call all of such bigots ‘Crypto-Jews’.

  215. James Canning says:


    I agree. Ron Paul’s chances of obtaining the Republican nomination for president are zero. But it is good to hear some sense regarding US policy toward Iran, from a Republican politician.

  216. James Canning says:


    Great comment on “wingnut” Republican politicians these days. One wonders if they possibly can be so ignorant, and stupid. Or if it is an act staged to gain financial backing from powerful Jewish interests. Perhaps a combination?

    I wonder how many trillions of American taxpayer dollars Rick Perry is willing to spend, to enable continuing oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis.

  217. Jack says:

    A test is to add a gop’s name + aipac on google,

    like santorum + aipac


    santorum + israel

    Then you clearly see how deeply connected they are to israeli cause.

    Also funny reading santorum sheer xenophobism:

    “I believe we are at war with Islamic fascists and I singled out Iran and Syria as examples of Islamic fascist regimes. Many Muslims say the same thing, and the editors should, too, for it is undeniable.”

    Also note how he thinks that the Assad state is runned by islamic fascists while Syria gov is considered a secular state. The sheer ignorance never stops to amaze these wingnuts.

  218. James Canning says:


    For an American politician to voice hostility toward Iran, and goodwill toward Israel, is to assure himself, almost certainly, of favorable media coverage.

  219. James Canning says:


    Rudy Giuliani is Roman Catholic, and he considered becoming a priest (before studying law).

  220. James Canning says:


    I too am dismayed that Ron Paul weakens his voice in foreign affairs by taking positions on the UN, the Federal Reserve in America, etc. that cannot be supported by most “realists”.

  221. James Canning says:

    Maybe Rick Perry will give us a list of his friends who think justice for the Palestinians is anathema. Who think an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is a bad thing. Who “get chills down their spines” even hearing Obama argue for an Israeli withdrawal from WB.

  222. James Canning says:

    What a complete liar we have in Senator Rick Santorum! Was Iran “at war” wioth the US when it helped to overthrow the Taliban? What about Iran’s efforts to restore normal relations with the US in the 1990s? Blocked, of course, by the ISRAEL LOBBY.

  223. James Canning says:

    The Weekend Financial Times today has an interesting piece on the richest man in Burma, who attributes his wealth to the sanctions against Burma, which prevent effective competition by other Burmese against his own business interests.

  224. kooshy says:


    “…… I don’t see that voting for either major party candidate in 2012 offers any better odds to accomplish something of value.”

    A very valuable observation and indeed by now should be proven true.

    I came to this same conclusion a long ago. Yes voting for the lesser of the two evils will not accomplish something of value

  225. Bremmer says:


    A recent interview after the debate where Ron Paul once again demolish the dumb warmongering and scarmongering rhetoric.

  226. Neo,

    “Ron Paul is a perfect example of how one can come to the right conclusions based on wrong reasoning. He is an isolationist in foreign policy, and would even withdraw from the UN. Despite his welcome attitude against interventionism, his alternative to current policies is unrealistic and rather extreme. There are many shades of grey between the 2 extremes of current interventions and forced isolation.”


    I agree that Ron Paul falls short when he answers the inevitable question from an opponent or debate moderator: “Well, Mr. Paul, you’re great at criticizing others, but exactly what would YOU do?”

    His extreme answers to such questions – abolish the Federal Reserve, for example – do allow him to be dismissed as a crackpot and, frankly, would make me very reluctant to vote for him if I felt he really had a chance to win.

    His ideal situation would be to cast himself as a serious critic without being required to answer questions about what he would do instead. Since he won’t be granted that luxury, the next best thing would for him to recognize that opposing an unwise policy does not necessarily require that he lurch to the opposite extreme – for example, that challenging the US’ inclination to intervene in other country’s affairs does not necessarily require the US to stand by while some African dictator hacks his own citizens into small pieces. It requires only that we be far more selective and consider carefully each time whether the known facts, our own interests, and genuine humanitarian concerns really call for intervention.

    In practice, he does not behave as extremely as his rhetoric suggests he would. For example, when he became chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy (Financial Services Committee), many writers suggested he’d press immediately for an abolition of the Federal Reserve, or at least a severe contraction of its authority. Unless I’ve missed it, he’s done neither. Nonetheless, he does falter when faced with the “Well, what would YOU do, Mr. Paul?” questions – as does any libertarian or tea party type – and, again, his extreme answers to many of those questions would probably make me vote against him if I thought he really had a shot at winning.

    But Ron Paul doesn’t have a shot at winning, and he should use that to his advantage. He may have to maintain some ideological purity while he grinds out the primary campaign, to maintain his base (though I think he’d be surprised to learn his support has broadened enough that he could start rounding off his sharp edges even now). But once he gets past the primaries and shifts into his “independent party” candidate mode, he will be able, and should, sidestep the “What would you do?” questions with answers such as this:

    “I don’t think that rethinking our trigger-happy interventions in Middle Eastern countries means that America needs to look the other way when something like Rwanda comes along. It means simply that we should always consider whether the known facts – not our prejudices, and our own interests – not some ideological vision of world control, and genuine humanitarian concerns – not some trumped-up horror story concocted to dress up an intervention actually motivated by prejudice and ideology – really call for us to spend billions and billions of precious American dollars to send thousands and thousands of young American men and women overseas to fight and die.”

    I guarantee that will sound a lot better to Americans than “I think we have no business intervening overseas, whether we’re talking about Iran or Rwanda.”

    One could add other very good reasons for the US not to intervene so much, of course – such as foreigners’ dislike of American bombs falling on their heads, and the normal human reactions to such displeasure (terrorist attacks, for example, or the strengthening of ties to alternate world powers such as China). But American politicians know that American voters really couldn’t care less whether foreigners dislike American bombs (all they need to do, after all, is start behaving as we like and those bombs will stop falling), and no serious candidate for president would admit to being afraid of a few rag-head terrorists or an upstart like China. And so Paul would be most effective to stick with arguments that appeal to Americans. Those are good enough.

    And if enough of his listeners agree, a major party candidate in the next election may conclude that some of Ron Paul’s thinking on foreign policy should be worked into his own platform.

    A pipe dream, perhaps, but I don’t see that voting for either major party candidate in 2012 offers any better odds to accomplish something of value.

  227. Bremmer says:

    Tts the same damn warmongering we heard about Iraq.

    All these GOP politicians in the vid is all supported and affiliated with AIPAC, so there you have it, they are bribed, they lie to us, to build up an even more bizarre claim than that about Iraq 2003.
    Americans, please wake up, why do you fcking boo’ at Ron Paul? Why do you want wars? why these constant delusional rhetoric?

    I advice all here to ask these GOP politicians, not Paul, whats so beautiful with the occupying regime, with its apartheid, nukes, settlements, rejection of engage in peace and accept binding resolutions from the United Nations. Ask them whats so wonderful with stateterrorism and collective punishment. And ask them why they are being hypocrites and liars when it comes to Iran.

  228. Rehmat says:

    On August 11, the GOP Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, revolved mostly around the non-existent Iranian nuclear bomb which rumored to pose a great threat to not only Israel but also United States. The debate was co-sponsored by you know who – by neocon FoxNews and Washington Examiner!

    Both former Sen. Rick Santorum and the GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney claimed that a nuclear Iran poses a great threat to the security of United States. The latest CNN poll reveals that 17% of Republicans and independents favor former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney followed by the Islamophobe Texas Gov. Rick Perry (15%), Rep. Ron Paul (12%), New York Jewish Mayor Rudy Giuliani (12%) and Israel-Firsters Sarah Palin (12%), Rep. Michele Bachmann (7%), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (5%), the former Utah Black Gov. Herman Cain (4%) and Rick Santorum (2%)…..


  229. Pirouz,

    “I have to say, in a presidential contest between Obama and Paul, I’d be awful tempted to vote for Paul. Awful tempted…”

    You’re not alone.

    Sometimes Americans vote based mostly on whom they think can win, especially if they are very sick of a major party and recognize that it will remain in power if they don’t vote for the other major party’s candidate. But at other times, they just want both major parties to know they’re not happy with either of them — even though they recognize they might end up with the worse of two evils.

    I think the 2012 election might be one of those “other times.”

    I worry that Obama will end up with the same mistaken impression of public approval as Sally Field revealed when she came up on stage to receive her second “Best Actress” Academy Award and gave what was perhaps the most memorable and embarrassing acceptance speech ever. In essence (and almost literally), she said this to the theater audience, all members of the movie industry who had voted her the award:

    “When I won the first time, I wasn’t sure. But now I can’t deny it and it makes me feel so good: ‘You like me! You like me!'”

    The camera panned to the audience, most of whom were cringing and many of whom probably were thinking: “We don’t like you, Sally; we just dislike the other actresses on the ballot more than we dislike you.” I remember thinking as I watched their reaction: “If I were you, Sally, I wouldn’t count on winning a third one.”

    Obama doesn’t have to worry about “winning a third one,” of course. 2012 will be his last election. Rather than have him end up like the delusional Sally Field during his second term, I think American voters should send him a clear message that they are not happy with many of his policies. I can think of no better way to send that message than to vote for someone who painstakingly points out the flaws in those policies — even if that painstaking pointer-outer himself has no chance to win.

    Paul undoubtedly will end up as he did in 2008: surprising the pundits with the depth of his support but nevertheless dismissed as a crank by most of them, not posing a serious challenge to other top Republicans (but lasting far longer than marginal candidates such as Santorum, Gingrich and Cain), and then running as an independent. But this time, I predict, his numbers will be significantly larger each step along the way. Still far from what he needs to pose a serious threat, but large enough that the powers that be will find it difficult to ignore the level of displeasure with how they’re running things.

    Especially with how they’re running foreign policy, and especially foreign policy toward Iran.

  230. Neo says:

    He is brilliant in the debate though.

  231. Neo says:

    Ron Paul is a perfect example of how one can come to the right conclusions based on wrong reasoning. He is an isolationist in foreign policy, and would even withdraw from the UN. Despite his welcome attitude against interventionism, his alternative to current policies is unrealistic and rather extreme. There are many shades of grey between the 2 extremes of current interventions and forced isolation.

    Moreover, he does not appear to realise that while he holds a fundamentalist belief in the ‘market’ to do the right thing as against ‘government’, it is the former that drives the interventionist agenda rather than the latter. He would actually be removing all stops on the interventionism of corporate power without adequate regard for the essential moderating role of government and intergovernmental regulatory bodies.

    It is true that his foreign policy approach appears to be good for Iran and the wider world, at least to begin with, but his type of political isolationism carries very big longer-term risks with it, as it would leave the field open for corporate interventionism, the world over.

    I would prefer a cooperative world where nations treat each other with respect while putting in place proper mechanisms that reflect our growing technological capabilities that are increasingly independent of – even contradict the basis of – national borders.

    Isolationists run against the historical grain. Theirs is a world of reminiscence and longing for a past that did not exist. If successful, they would unleash corporate interventionism based on private armies and independent of any governmental or inter-governmental controls.

    If I have understood them right, Cheney would be very happy with the realisation of Paul’s dream.

  232. Voice of Tehran says:

    Well , well , well , what Must come Will come:

    “5 Reasons Why American Riots Will Be the Worst in the World”


    1. Arrogance
    2. Denial
    3. Narcissism
    4. Drugs
    5. Violence

  233. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Btw, Scott Lucas is on holiday.

  234. Reza Esfandiari says:

    National Interest’s Paul Pillar discusses Ron Paul and the Iran debate.


    Btw, it would have been nice to have Senator Chuck Hagel in the contest. He is also one of the few remaining Republican realists.

  235. BiBiJon says:

    Reza Esfandiari says:
    August 13, 2011 at 6:36 am

    The freak show can still have a function. The disinformation and whoppers that get disseminated have a distinct potential for leading the US by the nose into a war before even the primaries are over.


  236. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Correction: I meant “live in”

  237. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Rick Santorum is a complete idiot. He didn’t even seem to know that the people who love in Afghanistan are called “Afghans”.

    It was a freak show parade and not a debate.

    I suspect Romney will eventually get the nomination, although Rick Perry could make it interesting. Ron Paul is a dark horse.

  238. BiBiJon says:

    The verdict is in – Ron Paul won last night’s GOP Presidential debate in Ames, Iowa. Much to the chagrin of the neo-cons at Fox News, the polls, and applause, overwhelmingly showed that the people thought Ron Paul won the debate. Fox News was even forced to take down its own poll from its website after Paul crushed the competition in a landslide.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/12/benzinga1854956.DTL#ixzz1Uu0cIh1O

    That Fox News Poll results:

    Paul 22610
    Gingrich 5801
    Cain 3136
    Bachmann 2358
    Romney 2337
    Santorum 1018
    Huntsman 411
    Pawlenty 328

    Watching PBS’ NewsHour last night I can report to you that they managed to get through the segment on the Republican debate without a single mention of Ron Paul.

    Our buddy, Juan Cole, has outdone the NewsHour. He is calling Dr Paul an anarchist!

  239. masoud says:

    Pirouz says:
    August 13, 2011 at 2:07 am

    You’re probably right, but we live in a zany world. The party of the solid south put a black man on their ticket not too long ago. He’s got the option of flip flopping on the EPA and running on the green ticket at the last minute. Not very likely, but a fella can dream…


  240. Pirouz says:

    masoud says:
    August 13, 2011 at 1:38 am

    There’s no way Paul will be the Repub candidate. But it’s great to see such exposure for a US politician expressing anti anti-Iran views.

  241. masoud says:

    A vote for Ron Paul is in many ways a vote for the end of the Federal Government, including a vote to end social security, education etc… But folks, we’re getting there anyways, and arguably faster with Obama’s sneak privatization. The most Paul has suggested doing is making signing up optional for future generations. If I were an American, I’d strongly consider converting to the cult of the Paultard.

    But here’s the really exciting news, something I linked to on the previous forum got featured in it’s own post. It’s damn near enough to bring a fella tears of joy…….

  242. Fara says:

    Off topic again,

    Iran exports plasma products to Europe

    Currently over 20 types of highly expensive blood products, such as IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) which has a high price, are being obtained from blood and blood products,” IBTO Director General Hassan Abolqasemi said on Friday, IRNA reported.

    “During the past three years, we managed to produce all the IVIG, [formerly] made of Western blood and imported at a price of over USD 60 million, from Iranian blood and through the Blood Transfusion Organization itself,” he added.
    Currently the index of blood donation in [Iran] is 25 per 1,000 people, which stands in the first place in the region, he noted.

    “After Iran, Turkey stands second with an index of 20 for every 1,000 people while the figure for other regional countries is under 15 and we are proud to be among the five Asian countries to have the highest voluntary blood donation,” Abolqasemi explained.


  243. Fara says:

    Off topic.

    Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee says New Delhi has resolved the payment problem with regards to the purchase of crude oil from Iran and is now paying off its debt.

    “The problem with regard to making payment for the oil bill to Iran has been settled. I would like to dispel this impression that Iran has threatened to stop supplying oil to India. Please do not create scare in the country,” PTI quoted Mukherjee as saying in an address to India’s Lower House of Parliament on Friday.


  244. Pirouz says:

    Take it from an American (of partial Iranian descent) who spent a year as a student living in the Shah’s Iran fron 1975-76: Perry’s vision of Iran during this period is total BS.

    I have to say, in a presidential contest between Obama and Paul, I’d be awful tempted to vote for Paul. Awful tempted…

  245. khurshid,

    Undoubtedly you’re right that Ron Paul will never be president. But more and more people every year conclude he’s heads and shoulders above all the rest on foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

  246. Dave McLane says:

    I love reading these reports even though they are usually way over my head but this I can understand: America is up to its eyeballs in it’s own BS.

    It just so happens that in 1976 I spent a couple of afternoons talking with an Iraninan shoemaker who spoke English with a Texas accent as he had been sent there in the military under the Shah. I also remember seeing a young Iranian woman beating her boyfriend over the head with her high heeled shoe while he tried to escape into his black Mercedes alongside of which ran a ditch filled with what looked suspiciously like sewage in which an old woman was washing her dishes.

    All I could think of at that time was “How can this go on?” and it didn’t.

    So much for American influence to create freedom around the world.

  247. khurshid says:

    I don’t think Ron Paul will be next years prisedential candidate. Any candidate who does not talk tough on Iran is unlikely to get support from AIPAC and therefore will not be US president.