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

The Race for Iran

FLYNT LEVERETT DEBATES OBAMA’S IRAN POLICY WITH DENNIS ROSS

Today, Flynt appeared on Public Radio International’s To The Point, hosted by Warren Olney, to discuss U.S.-Iranian tensions.  The other guests on the segment, which starts 7:33 into the program, click here to listen,were Dennis Ross, recently separated from the Obama Administration, Barbara Slavin, and Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council.  Flynt’s major themes were that the Obama Administration was never serious about strategically-grounded rapprochement with the Islamic Republic, that it was fundamentally duplicitous in its approach to the Tehran Declaration, and that is now seems divided between those who believe a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation is inevitable and those who support regime change—even if they are not yet prepared to say so publicly—as the alternative to (overt) war against Iran. 

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Share
 

151 Responses to “FLYNT LEVERETT DEBATES OBAMA’S IRAN POLICY WITH DENNIS ROSS”

  1. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Ineresting post. Annie should be able to comprehend that Philip Weiss does not identify with Israelis who seek to continue the oppression of the Palestinians, and even make that oppression worse if possible.

  2. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    A good percentage of younger American “Jews” apparently are not all that keen about supporting Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.

  3. Castellio says:

    Well, Fiorangela, I thought you had gone over the boundary. Not all Zionists hate Christians. Some do. Some do not. But you know that.

    As you also know, the roots of Zionism, and its exceptionalist-racist underbelly, have been tied to some of the more upsetting movements in East European history. The works of Michael Stanislawski come to mind, and he’s quite secure in his conclusions, being one of the few who has worked through the original documents in the original languages.

    There was a real fight within the North American Jewish community against Zionism and its expectations of American Jews. I would like that history to be better known, but I am not the one to tell it. While it is a bit simplistic to say the Zionists won, they certainly took advantage of the disorganization and weakness of the non-Zionists. Might that disorganization and weakness of the non-Zionists change? Well, yes, it might.

  4. Fiorangela says:

    I thought I might have overstepped bounds with an earlier post, but this sharp and revealing exchange taking place on Mondoweiss kinda supports my point —
    Israeli nationalism is a religio-political identity that ALL Jews are expected to subscribe to, and that zionists will attack Americans to protect,

    the characters:

    eee is a zionist, likely a settler, living in Israel
    American is an American (retired midwesterner, I think)
    Phil is Phil Weiss, who runs the blog
    Dan Crowther is a former US Marine, lives on the East Coast
    Annie, from California, writes for the blog from time to time.

    QUOTE

    #
    eee says:
    January 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Annie,

    When Phil says about the Jewish state that “they ain’t my people” how else can one interpret this except Phil saying he is not Jewish? If he meant what you think he meant he would have said that he disapproves of the policies of the Israeli government, not that Israelis aren’t his people. Furthermore, he is answering Cowther’s statement that Israelis are his people and he goes out of his way to say they are not.
    Log in to Reply
    #
    American says:
    January 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    You know by eee previous statements that he would like to see the US Jews collectively come under fire so they would all flee to Israel don’t you?

    Although where he thinks Israel would put all of them is beyond me.
    Log in to Reply
    #
    eee says:
    January 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    “You know by eee previous statements that he would like to see the US Jews collectively come under fire so they would all flee to Israel don’t you?”

    Yeah sure, as if I want to harm American Jews in any way. But what is really behind your nastiness is your implied threat that if American Jews do not get Israel “under control” they will be harmed. Do not worry about American Jews, if anyone lays a finger on them me and thousands of others will quickly come to help them set up militias and fight along side them to protect them. You can bet on it.
    Log in to Reply
    #
    Froggy says:
    January 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    I thought Phil Weiss was an American.
    Log in to Reply
    #
    Dan Crowther says:
    January 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    eee’s comments are worth taking seriously – and they also speak toward the point I was attempting to make earlier.

    “Do not worry about American Jews, if anyone lays a finger on them me and thousands of others will quickly come to help them set up militias and fight along side them to protect them. You can bet on it.”
    —–
    Now, we can feel any number of ways about the E’s statement here. But I would say, why is it unacceptable for Americans to feel that way about Americans when Israeli aggression is involved? The Israeli’s are unabashed about their willingness to resort to violence, but here we voluntarily neuter ourselves, why?

    I think part of the reason is– and this is what I was getting at with my question to Phil earlier– most of the I/P discourse in this country is lead by Jews.

    If an ally like Indonesia for example was threatening to start a war with its neighbors, knowing that the retaliation would be directed at US installations etc – would we even be discussing what the US response would be? Of course not. the US –with the support of most everyone here I would assume– would have an aircraft carrier group over there in an instant, and there would be a declaration that Indonesia risks military engagement with the US if its continues its course. But where Israel is involved, that is completely off the table.

    So, even among non zionist jews there seems to be somewhat of a double standard for Israel. Israel can kill, maim, exploit etc – we can only discuss it. Or we can plead with them to stop, plead with american jews for them to stop etc – but again, would mexican americans even be involved in a conversation about Mexico actively endangering americans? To ask the question is to answer it.

    So, when my main man phil posts a “israel is trying to start a war between the US and Iran” – I have to wonder, would Phil Weiss support (at least the threat of) military “intervention” in Israel? And I also have to wonder whether the Rome”just war” Slaters of the world would support such a thing. I think not. (at least slater wouldn’t, honestly dont know about phil)”

    END QUOTE

  5. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    The idea of having diplomatic relations in part is so that the sort of chanting you mention does no harm. Rick Steves mentioned (in his Iran programme) that the “death to America” goes hand in hand with “death” to all sorts of things.

  6. Sassan says:

    “James Canning says: A country benefits from having diplomatic relations with another country, even if there are disputes of one sort or another. This is the reason the ISRAEL LOBBY labors incessantly to block restoration of normal relations between the US and Iran.”

    Is it the U.S. stopping relations or Iran? Would you want to have a relationship with someone who every Friday chants “death to America”, “death to Israel”? Would you want a relationship with fanatical religious zealots whose professed aims and goals is to bring the return of their “hidden savior” and an end to the world? Would you have a relationship with a regime who funds and supports suicide bombers for religious purposes?

    That was quite comical. You don’t commit suicide in doing such a thing. Maybe you are a sadomasochist; but the rest of us are not.

  7. Irshad: “RSH – your predictions of war happening this year, and an attack on Syria been a prelude to an attack on Iran is shared by Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s NSC”

    As I quoted Paul Craig Roberts, one has to be blind not to see the way things are going…

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of blind people around…

  8. fyi says:

    kooshy says: January 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    If US is involved, there will not necessarily be any pronouncements by Iran.

    But since a high level offical such as US Secretary of State has denied US involvement, may be they are telling the truth.

    The things is, this is an act of provocation, like the other 4.

  9. Fiorangela says:

    Settman, quite coincidental that a report that Israel is running a false flag impersonating US operatives should be released just at this time. Prolly author Mark Perry was up all night cranking out those 2000 words in perfect sentences.

    Or has the deodorant been in a sealed can waiting to be deployed to counteract a stinkbomb, should one hit the fan?

    Wonder if there are any other cans of deodorant on the shelf.

    I think I smell a war going on right there in Washington, DC USA.

  10. kooshy says:

    Rd. says:

    January 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Rick Santorum Warns American scientists…

    With these assassination acts Americans and their lap dogs Israel and UK have unconditionally declared an open season on scientist anywhere in the world, if one decided to change curriculum and not to become a scientist it seems now is the time not to regret his/her prior decision.

  11. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    January 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    “The actual url to the National Interest article on Israel & Jundullah:”

    I think this story was spread around today to hedge for what will come out of Iran later, because probably soon there would be a big story coming out of Iran with regard to the recent assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist, otherwise Ayatollah Khamenei would not have so explicitly (this time) would have pointed directly at US/Israel in his condolence note which made Panetta to go on and completely deny US involvement twice in one speech. See Panetta says we have some idea who did it and at the end video the Iranian analyst says we have documents that we are going to turn in. basically the Americans administration is saying one someone wants to deny when it’s cut “ it was not me, it was my hand, it was all my sleeve fault”

    US did not kill Iranian nuclear scientist, claims Leon Panetta – video

    “The US defense secretary, Leon Panetta, denies his country was behind the assassination of a nuclear scientist in Tehran. Iran blames the US and Israel for the murder of Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, 32, but says the killing will not derail its nuclear programme, which has raised fears of war and threatened world oil supplies”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/jan/13/us-iranian-nuclear-scientist-panetta-video

  12. Fiorangela says:

    Rd. says:
    January 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    “BiBiJon says:
    The oil sanctions thing is unraveling because no forethought was given to the lame idea
    USAtoday apparently does not realize, if the congress had any forethought, they wouldn’t have put their own country on a course to financial ruin. !!!!”

    In the Vali Nasr conversation with Kreisler, Nasr explained that his attempt is to analyze Islam as a political movement as distinct from its religious/cultural/aesthetic expression.

    US Congress and citizens, those Christian citizens, would do well to give some forethought to the political/mythical overtones of Judeo-zionism.

    One example, to keep it simple: the entire thrust of zionism as it emerged from the (fevered) late 19th century writings of Theodor Herzl, is to reclaim for Judaism that which was lost to Rome when Roman legions quashed the Maccabean uprisings of the first century, ie. the era of Jesus (the Persian). Herzl’s concluded Der Judenstaat, his alarum call and plan for zionism, with the cry, “Maccabees will live again!”

    American Christians should disabuse themselves of their warm fuzzy feelings about Jews, and their relentlessly reinforced feelings of guilt about relations with Jews dating back over a thousand years, and recognize that in the minds and intentions of zionists and especially of neocons, the United States of America IS the Roman empire, and they, the re-enlivened Maccabees, fully intend to destroy the American reincarnation of the Roman empire.

    If it looks like our ‘ally’ Israel is engaging in acts that would harm American interests, it is not by happenstance, it is by intent, however badly executed — for all their Game Theory/Rational Institute/Nobel laureate evil genius Robert Aumann, zionists have almost always been the gang who so utterly couldn’t shoot straight that they had to hyper-arm, hyper-shoot, hyper-kill.

    Little bit of arm-chair psychology: Somebody commented in this forum (I think; maybe Paul?) that zionist thinking is characterized by projection. Slam dunk. When Israelis say they feel they are under existential threat, it is because they are unable to keep buried within their psyches the reality that their keenest intent is to destroy the US.

    Zionists.
    hate.
    Christians.

    Absorb that reality.
    Then behave accordingly.

  13. Empty says:

    Utter nonsense. The United States and the UK are directly involved in aiding and abetting the terrorist regime and are directly responsible for this illegitimate offspring’s actions. They could save their deceptive tactics of so-called “leaked” nonsense for idiots who believe it.

  14. Kathleen says:

    Sure makes one wonder whether Ross left on his own or was shoved?

  15. Unknown Unknowns says:

    For the uninitiated:

    Jund ash-Shaytan = Army of Satan

  16. Unknown Unknowns says:

    All:

    Please be informed that the terrorist grouplet’s name here in the Islamic Republic is Jund al-Shaytan. Nomenclature matters.

  17. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty Jan:

    Indeed. Round and round and round she goes, where she’ll stop, nobody knows. But to answer your specific question, when I want to know What Really Happened, I usually go to

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/

    :D

    Its a great site and a barrel of laughs to boot.

  18. settman says:

    Have you missed the groundbreaking news?

    CIA memos show Israel support Jund-allah!

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag

  19. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Fior says, “but this concerns Israel, and Israel is special.”

    Yeah, I remember back in the day I hit on a Jewess. The conversation went something like this:

    Humpty Dumpty: Are your parents retarded?

    Jewess: Why do you ask?

    Humpty Dumpty: Cause you sure are special.

    Actually, that’s not how it went. It went like this:

    Humpty Dumpty: Does your nose hurt?

    Jewess: NO, why?

    Humpty Dumpty: Cause its killing me.

  20. Empty says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    1. Do you see how when you try to get to the bottom of things they turn out bottomless?
    2. Are you beginning to notice various “foxes” bearing witness to their own “tails”?
    3. Do you want to know what really happened and who did what, grasshopper? (~_~)

  21. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Thanks for that, Fior. And yes, forget the Holy Land Fdn. How about the case of those guys who were sentenced to many years in prison for making a TV station available to the public (al-Minar). They were accused of aiding and abetting terrorists.

    If I were y’all, I’d be careful posting on this site, especially in response to my posts. You might be picked up and charged with aiding and abetting Humpty Dumpty, who as you know is a major dude among ovate Middle East crustaceans.

  22. Castellio says:

    I think many here may have seen this – Ron Paul regarding the sanctioning of Iran – but what is interesting is, at the end, his comparison of Chinese capitalism to American mercantilism.

    From an economic historical perspective, he’s right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMsPuIxyYk&feature=player_embedded#!

  23. Castellio says:

    James: K was a front. You must know that.

  24. Fiorangela says:

    UU, got carried away; intended to respond to “will Israel ever be on terror list.”

    In fact, the Kahane network was among the first to be placed on the State Department terror watchlist.

    But not to worry, nobody is serious about enforcing anything against Kahane network. A few months ago Gershom Gorenberg spoke about his book, “Accidental Empire” (or something like that; too lazy to look it up). In the course of the conversation, he mentioned that Kahane network participates in an annual Jewish pride celebration in New York City. In that event, parties carry placards or banners that are financially supported by event participants. Kahane network always has a banner in the event, signifying that people contribute money to the Kahane network, which is contrary to the terror watchlist mandate.

    but this concerns Israel, and Israel is special.

    and the beat goes on.

  25. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    the Yukos – Khodorkovsky business is very complicated. My understanding is that Putin was hostile because he saw K as a threat.

  26. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Not to harp on this theme, but: Is it me or is there something to the fact that when you drop the obligatory “es” prefix (for the Persian pronunciation of words starting in ‘S’, as in Esteven Jaabs) from escatological, you end up with scatological? Kinda gives a new meaning to the Escaton: when the shit hits the fan.

  27. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    You should read “Carlyle founders share $413m pay-out”, by Dan McCrum in the Financial Times Jan. 12th. David Rubenstein, Bill Conway and Daniel D’Aniello each received $138 million in pay last year from Carlyle. They founded Carlyle 25 years ago.

  28. Fiorangela says:

    Unknown Unknowns, iirc, the letter from Iran was transmitted through the Swiss embassy to Bob Ney’s Congressional office. Trita Parsi was on Ney’s staff at the time; Parsi writes about the incident in his first book, “Treacherous Alliance.”
    :http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/02/17/5971
    and
    :http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/04/25/trita-parsi-bob-ney-and-iran%E2%80%99s-oil-mafia-penetrating-the-us-political-system/

    Interesting that Ney was one of the relatively few congresspersons to serve time in jail in the backwash of Jack Abramoff’s lobbying malfeasance; in an appearance at Harvard, ABramoff said that nearly every congressman in DC has participated in some form of crooked dealing. Ney is struggling to regain his standing; Abramoff has served 3.5 years in jail and is now invited to Harvard to discuss his book on how to reform the US lobby system.

    But more than that — in that Harvard conversation, Abramoff was asked by an audience member to explain his still-deep attachment to Israel, and the fact that he used his lobby skills to funnel $140,000 through a charitable organization to provide arms and military training to settlers in Israel, settlements being against US policy preferences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkvIS5pZ0eI contentious question is about 45 min. into video

    Abramoff fluffed a response to the question except to reaffirm that he retains a special attachment to Israel.

    On the other hand, representatives of the Holy Land Foundation were sentenced to up to 35 years in jail on charges of “providing material support for terrorists;” the judgment and their sentences were recently affirmed by a Florida court. :http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/appeals-judge-upholds-sentencing-for-holy-land-foundation-five.html

    and the beat goes on

  29. Rehmat says:

    Nasser – I enjoyed your “Israeli goat” for sure!

    Chief Rabbi of Palestine Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) in 1930s had equated Zionists with Jesus’ mule: “Consider Zionists as the mule on which the Messiah is prophesized to ride while entering the city of Jerusalem”.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/350000-harijan-jews-in-israel/

  30. James Canning says:

    Nasser,

    Are you kidding? You believe Israel has not done its best to prevent better relations between Iran and the US? Amazing.

  31. Castellio says:

    James, I’m not keen in getting engaged in your one-offs, but yes, I know, we are talking joint companies.

    But in 2005 – 2006 the Russian industry was dominated by Yukos and Lukoil (see http://russianoilcompanies.net/ for the annual figures)

    Carlyle was the corporate vehicule to give Bush Sr and his backers 25% plus one vote in Yukos-Sibneft. Most of us are under the impression that Putin, knowing who the backers were and how that control would be used, closed it down.

    See bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_carlyle13.htm

  32. fyi says:

    James Canning says: January 13, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    US Congress is part of US Government.

    Why or how it operates – indulgence of Israel or whatever other fanatsies obtain there – is irrelevant to foreigners.

    The American electorate has made its choices clear over 4 generations.

    The American Government has dutifully complied – this is all that counts.

  33. James Canning says:

    BoB Marshall,

    Xinhua news agency says stability in the East Asia region, caused partly by the US, is in China’s best interests.

    The idea of a “New American Century” was cover for continued grotesquely high “defence” spending, to shaft the American taxpayers.

  34. Rehmat says:

    Johan Marius Nicolaas Johannes Heesters (1903-2011), was a Dutch-born German singer, actor and entertainer who in the company of Jewish Leo Stein and Viktor Leon, had charmed Adolf Hitler and other Nazi leaders like Joesph Goebbels and Adolf Eichmann for years. In a TV interview in 2008, Heesters called Hitler “a great guy” and brushed aside his 46-year younger second wife, Simone Rethel’s, politically correct comment by saying: “Doll, but he was good to me”.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/johannes-heesters-hitler-was-a-great-guy/

  35. Nasser says:

    James Canning,

    Stop trying to escape goat Israel all the time. The US has no interest at this moment in having any decent relations with Iran. Israel or Iran’s nuclear program has nothing to do with it. Iran would do well to sever its ties with France as it did with the UK.

    The good news for Iran is that the West has done its absolute worst and nothing came of it. There is nothing else short of war that the West can do against Iran. Let them huff and let them puff and Iran should just go about its business. Harassment operations such as assassinations are of no strategic consequence.

  36. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-13/japan-iran-oil/52527870/1
    The oil sanctions thing is unraveling because no forethought was given to the lame idea

    USAtoday apparently does not realize, if the congress had any forethought, they wouldn’t have put their own country on a course to financial ruin. !!!!

  37. Rehmat says:

    Nasser – Despite Crypto-Jewish Sarkozy’s anti-Iran rants – France is still maintaining trade relations. The other idiot, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s government has the minimum diplomatic relations with Tehran since its ambassador smuggled out American hostages in 1980 – but last year, Canada had $10 million trade with Iran.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/canadas-ambassador-in-tehran-was-a-cia-agent/

  38. fyi says:

    Nasser says: January 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    If it helps Iranian nationals there, Iran should keep a very minimal presence.

    Likewise for UK or any other state.

    But as the demand for consular services goes down, Iran should shrink its diplomatic presence accordingly.

    In regards to communication with adversaries – Audi-Video technology is so advanced now that there is minimal reason for physical meetings.

    At any rate, the confrontation of Iran and the Axis powers is not based on misunderstandings – in fact – it is based on nearly perfect mutual understanding:

    Iran wants to be an independent global power while Axis Powers want to destroy it by all means necessary (“everything is on the table”).

  39. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Is there anyone posting on this site who does not believe the US Congress is “owned” by Aipac and other groups devoted to “proteccting” Israel?

  40. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I think we in fact agree? Obama did ask Brazil and Turkey to broker a deal with Iran, and then cancelled the deal due to intense pressure from the ISRAEL LOBBY.

  41. James Canning says:

    Nasser,

    A country benefits from having diplomatic relations with another country, even if there are disputes of one sort or another. This is the reason the ISRAEL LOBBY labors incessantly to block restoration of normal relations between the US and Iran.

  42. Nasser says:

    fyi,

    - Why doesn’t Iran break off relations with France like it did with the UK? Trade relations were minimal to begin with and now with the upcoming oil embargo there is simply no need to have an embassy in Paris.

  43. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Thanks, Castellio. Interesting. You obviously have better googling skills than I do. Empty: at the end of that page, there were these two relevant links:

    http://www.economist.com/node/10015871

    ,http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html

    And as far as your last question, Naaaaaaaaah, that was Captain America who said,
    “Beggin; your pardon, Colonel, but the Iranians did attempt to surrender to the U.S. in 2003″. It couldn’t have been our own Pirouz. LOL.

  44. fyi says:

    James Canning says: January 13, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Rubbish!

    He lied to scuttle the deal.

  45. fyi says:

    James Canning says: January 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    The death campaign against Iranian physicists started after the MI6 head’s speech.

    US will not put Israel on US State Department’s “State Sponsor of Terrorism” list.

    Why would anyone be surprised.

  46. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Thanks for linking the piece, on Mossad’s recruitment of terrorists in SE Iran. Britain is not an “ally” of Israel, howver. The US of course is an ally of the US.

  47. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    It seems almost certain Obama wanted Turkey and Brazil to work out a resolution of the dispute, but that powerful Jewish interests in the US wrecked the effort made by the two countries.

  48. fyi says:

    All:

    The actual url to the National Interest article on Israel & Jundullah:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag

  49. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    Oil assets in Russia, held by non-Russian companies, usually are joint ventures with Russian companies.

  50. James Canning says:

    Kathleen,

    Dennis Ross surely is aware Iran has not threatened to destroy Israel, or even to attack Israel on a first-strike basis. That he would so viciously invoke the “Holocaust” is all too typical of the cr*p he puts out in “supporting” Israel.

  51. Castellio says:

    UU… on the site below they’re asking themselves about that letter from Iran through Switzerland.

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/01/scott-pelley-said-what.html#comments

    A guy named Pirouz is on the hook to prove its exstence and relevance. “Our” Pirouz? I don’t know.

  52. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    If Korea is reunited, there will be no reason for US troops to remain in what is today South Korea.

  53. James Canning says:

    Irshad,

    Policy of US and EU is to support territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Full stop.

  54. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sakineh Bagoom says:
    January 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    I always knew you had a good sense of humor :o)

    Supervisor Scotty Boy has been awful quiet of late about his preventing Reza from catching him weaseling out. But as his revealing autobiographical vignette of a post revealed, he has no shame, and it is only because he is over there inventing more lies, and will be back here when he receives his fresh instructions from his paymasters.

  55. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Russia and China oppose the oil boycott of Iran. In the piece you just linked, Dimitry Rogozin says: “We are definitely interested in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

  56. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: January 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Yesterday, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council (and former head of the FSB, the successor organization to the KGB) warned of the drift in the Middle East towards war.

    Today, Mr. Rogozin stated: “..And if Iran is involved in any military action, it’s a direct threat to our security.”

    Per Mr. Lee’s article referenced on this thread, US cannot refocus on China and East Asia if she is fighting again in the Middle East against Iran.

    I tend to agree with you that Mr. Obama had to call and read the “Riot Act”.

    And Mr. Netenyaho today stated his belief in the efficacy of international economic sanctions on Iran ( see http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-international-sanctions-on-iran-are-working-1.407216)

    I do not think this will disintegrate the US Love Affair with Israel only that the thread of war with Iran and another ten years of death and destruction in the Middle East and the attendand damage to US and the World Economy has concentrated some peoples’ minds in Washington DC.

    In a previous threat I stated that Axis Powers have to de-escalate.

    Perhaps this is the beginning of the beginning of that effort.

  57. James Canning says:

    Kathleen,

    Should Dennis Ross get credit for wrecking Obama’s effort to “reach out” to Iran? Partial credit at least.

  58. James Canning says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    Re: the grand bargain that was being proposed, between Iran and the US, I too understand that one element indeed was effective recognition of Israel within 1967 borders. Israel wanted Iran to arrange for the stopping of all terrorist attacks within Israel proper, and also within the West Bank and Gaza. Iran agreed to the part concerning Israel proper but declined as to the West Bank and Gaza. The Swiss ambassador was the go-between.

  59. BiBiJon says:

    Kathleen says:
    January 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Whoa front page at Huff Po…break through. Can someone link
    SHOCK CLAIM: ISRAELI OFFICERS POSED AS CIA AGENTS

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    Kathleen,

    There were news reports yesterday of Pres. Obama phoning Bibi N. about Wednesday’s murder in Tehran. That conversation cannot have gone very well, for Foreign Policy mag. to have received such a devastating leak.

    I guess it was on the cards. If it wasn’t the Palestinian issue, if it wasn’t the Iraq issue, it just so happened that it was Israel’s bloody-minded attitude towards Iran that eventually broke the ‘special’ relationship.

    I think this is the beginning of the end.

  60. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Scotty Boy says: January 13, 2012 at 11:07 am
    “Maybe you should try a new name, like Shithead or something?”
     
    Unknown Unknowns says: January 10, 2012 at 9:47 am
    “to clean themselves with water, instead of just spreading the stuff around with pieces of tissue paper”
     
    UU,
     
    I think this is the definition of both ends of the stick. :)
     

  61. Fiorangela says:

    The Triple Agent: The AlQaeda Mole Who Infiltrated the CIA

    this video conversation between Joby Warrick of Washington Post and Yochi Dreazan of National Journal is a case study in the psychopathology of dehumanization, as Sanho Tree concisely described how dehumanization not only destroys the humanity of the adversary, in order to make it possible for the aggressor to kill another being, but also the Aggressor is dehumanized, making it impossible for the Aggressor to accurately evaluate the grievances of the Other/Victim/Prey/ Palestinian-Afghani- Iraqi-Iranian. (link to Sanho Tree conversation with John Dower, discussing Dower’s “Cultures of War.” :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Dower Tree’s comment at about 20 minutes)

    The story is about a triple agent, Palestinian Jordanian physician/blogger who offered himself to CIA early in 2009, the beginning of the Obama admin., when a new counterterrorism team was forming, with the passionate goal of “getting bin Laden.” At about 6 min in the video, Dreazan asks Warrick if the CIA team had any concerns about using someone that had not been fully trained, etc. Warrick replies,

    QUOTE
    “It was a bit of a leap of faith to think that this guy with no training might be able to accomplish something, but in a sense, there wasn’t much cost involved. They could send him somewhere, they could put him in place, they could see what he could come up with, and if he gets killed or gets lost or goes to the other side, not that much of a risk. And not much lost. In that sense I think they felt it was worth the gamble even if there were flags raised.”

    END QUOTE

    Those “flags raised” included the facts that the physician turned triple spy had, with his family, first been evicted from their Palestinian home to a Palestinian refugee camp. The left Palestine for Kuwait, seeking greater opportunity to live free, but were evicted from Kuwait in the aftermath of the US-led Persian Gulf war.

    Whatever did he have to be angry about?

    PS worth reviewing Dower’s thesis — the conflation of terms identifying the 9/11 event with Pearl Harbor — in view of dear leader Patrick Clawson’s latest contribution to the exalted art of killing other people’s children: :http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-adversaries-said-to-step-up-covert-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
    Clawson had been quiescent until Rooster Ross returned to ensure the WINEP chickenhawks cease featherbedding and start laying eggs.

  62. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Castellio:

    There are different kinds of franchise contracts. The McDonalds one, for example, does not allow you to change the menu, to buy anything from any other source, or to set pricing. All you get to do is to check the box that states that you’ve cleaned the restrooms 5 times a day :) Methinks South Korea has an Uncle McDonald type franchise.

    By the way, I hope Pirouz and others appreciate my variations on the Uncle Weasel theme. If not, I’m happy to go back to the nothing but Uncle Weasel regimen for a while :D

  63. bkbt says:

    SHOCK CLAIM: ISRAELI OFFICERS POSED AS CIA AGENTS

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag

  64. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty:

    Yes, my understanding is that during Khatami’s presidency, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution penned a short letter to George W. Bush offering a grand bargain, including, it is rumored, recognition of Israel (based on 1967 borders?). The letter was sent via the Swiss embassy here in Tehran, but was rebuffed (just as Ahmadinejad’s letters were ignored).

    The only other thing I know about this letter is that Hosayn Shariatmadari denied its existence in Kayhan, but that 2nd of Khordad papers replied to his denial by printing a copy of it. I have done a google search and not a single relevant entry comes up. I am sure if you did the search in Persian, you will find lots of info on it.

  65. Kathleen says:

    Whoa front page at Huff Po…break through. Can someone link
    SHOCK CLAIM: ISRAELI OFFICERS POSED AS CIA AGENTS

  66. Kathleen says:

    Dennis Ross writes off the opinions of former heads of Israeli intelligence as a “couple of people in Israel”

  67. Kathleen says:

    MHF Ross is great at flipping the script. It is Ross who supports and apologizes for Israel no matter what they do…no matter how many international agreements and Un resolutions that they are in violation of.

    Ross pulls out the Holocaust card “face another Holocaust” when it is Israel and the I lobby in the US congress who has daily threatened Iran.

    Oh yeah Barbara Slavin nails Ross on his choice to use inflammatory language about Iran. She brings up how former heads of Israeli intelligence have said that an attack on Iran would be a huge mistake

  68. Kathleen says:

    Irshad simpatico..glad you put up the link. (huff po has the Foreign Policy one up but no comments for that post up) The one over at Mondoweiss is a good one too

  69. fyi says:

    All:

    As I stated – Islamic Republic of Iran is indispensible to the security of Russian Federation.

    Axis Powers escalted to nowhere; just making things worse.

    http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-threatened-iran-military-action-153640749.html

  70. Kathleen says:

    Ross is gone and Iran is meeting with IAEA Said to Agree to Meeting With Iran at End of January
    January 13, 2012, 10:52 AM EST

  71. Castellio says:

    Yes, Peter Lee’s article, as is usual for him, gets to the central points. Here, for those who didn’t follow FYI’s link to it, is a quote.

    “The assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan by forces unknown serves as a message that the Obama administration will find it difficult to reinvent itself as the savior of Asian peace and prosperity; instead, the United States will find itself reprising its dreary and detested role in the Middle East soap opera as defender of the pro-Israel/anti-Iranian status quo.”

  72. Irshad says:

    Kathleen – jinx!

    We both more or less simultaneously posted the same article!

  73. Irshad says:

    Castellio says:
    January 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    You are welcome!

    I am suprised how openly and frankly he has spoken – something really must be up in the air for the Russians to do this. Is this their way of warning the world that we are in for another round of bloody wars?

    I will assume this was done at the behest of Mr Putin.

    Yes – Russia’s resources and water are target – after Moscow brutally dealt with the USA/West other plan – the dismemberment of the Russian Federation – the rot was supposed to start with Chechnya – see how that was brutally put down. As fyi likes to remind us all – its Yugosalvia all over again!

  74. Kathleen says:

    Flynt “no one in the administration who is really talking seriously about diplomacy with Iran”

    Over at Mondoweiss (unable to link)
    Israel is trying to hook us into a war with Iran– Matthews and Baer speculate
    by Philip Weiss on January 13, 2012

    Over at Foreign Policy
    False Flag
    A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.
    BY MARK PERRY | JANUARY 13, 2012
    Buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives — what is commonly referred to as a “false flag” operation.

  75. Irshad says:

    All:

    Mossad using Jundullah to set up false flag operations. What more proof does one need that all Isreal cares about is the death and maiming not only of Iranians BUT also Americans – who will be blamed for any attack.

    Who needs enemies, when you have friends like Isreal?

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag#.TxBesm4l1VU.twitter

    False Flag

    A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran

  76. Fiorangela says:

    Loyal, MHF, yes, I thought Dennis the menshevik hurled a double insult — that Flynt was an apologist for the Iranian regime, and that Iran is in its essence despicable. Flynt tossed both slimeballs back at Ross, squarely and with sufficient force to have an impact on the audience, if not on Dennis’ firewalled brain.

  77. BiBiJon says:

    Scotty Boy says:
    January 13, 2012 at 11:07 am

    Please relay to all agents immediately.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-13/japan-iran-oil/52527870/1

    The oil sanctions thing is unraveling because no forethought was given to the lame idea of the purpose of the sanctions, i.e. to allow China & India to extract deep discounts from Iran. It turns out that China’s and India’s rivals/competitors would all like a bit of discount of their own. Well clearly this is all going to wind up not reducing Iran’s oil customer pool, which then obviates the need for any discounts.

    Oh dear! We’ve just jacked up oil prices for nothing.

  78. Fiorangela says:
    January 13, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Thanks for the link to that video, Fiorangela. Very interesting.

  79. Castellio says:

    UU… Neither South Korea nor Japan actually control their own military. And both make payments to support foreign troops on their soil. In the larger societies of both countries (not limited to the ruling elite) there are many who are looking for ways “out” of that relationship.

    As of yet, they haven’t found it.

    So while there is resistance, what spurs that resistance into being? We shouldn’t lose sight of this: we are living in a period where the US is extending and formalizing its military hold on the globe.

  80. LOYAL says:

    MHF says:
    January 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    MHF have you not have any shame?
    Denis Ross is a liar and a criminal.

    Thanks you Flynt for exposing dennis the menace.

  81. MHF says:

    Mr. Flynt Leverett, I have a question; is there anything worse than being called “apologist for Iran’s” gangster government (as well as a liar) by a top diplomat of U.S.? That is what Ambassador Dennis Ross called you in the referenced interview– there was no “debate,” why would Dennis Ross debate a liar?

    People like you, without any shame, will not hear such calls. A real diplomat will try to stop selling themselves to a bunch of gangsters, and do the right thing; but not you (by your own admission, Mr. Marandi is your “colleague”)– you have no shame, and will do anything to stay in front of camera and behind a microphone.

  82. BiBiJon says:

    “On the eve of” the morning after (PS)
    ======================================

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/world/20sanctions.html

    “This announcement [agreement to impose further sanctions] is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

    Dear Dennis, Clinton is saying the sanctions was the morning-after answer to the Tehran Declaration. You are saying the Declaration was signed “on the eve of” the sanctions. I tend to believe Clinton.

    Also, her reference to the the efforts “in the last few days” is interesting. She is not saying the final result of those efforts were unacceptable, but the effort itself. But, wait a second. The effort was undertaken because Obama wrote Turkish & Brazilian leaders to go ahead with the “effort.” Was Obama telling the truth in his letters?

  83. fyi says:

    All:

    “We have no other tools. The only alternative would be to make concessions, and we’re not ready to do that,” said a senior French official.

    http://news.yahoo.com/west-options-iran-stand-off-152133090.html

  84. Castellio says:

    Irshad, thanks for the post from the Indian ambassador. The line “There are well-known statements of American politicians about the need to put the energy, water and other resources of Russia under US control” jumps out for me. To understand that is to understand much that happened in the last quarter of the 20th century. I remember Bush Senior representing American-Israeli financial interests claiming they would soon sign a deal to control Russian oil assets.

  85. Fiorangela says:

    for dear boy Sassan, bff n evah, cottage cheese from the mothership.

  86. fyi says:

    Bob Marshall says: January 13, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Yes, of course.

    But that “game’s goals” are unachieveable since US cannot articulate anything positive for these states and people.

  87. Bob Marshall says:

    Google Land Destroyer/ Which Way To Persia This is just a continuation of the plans of the former Plan for New American Century better known as PNAC. Their goal of Pax Americana.

  88. Empty says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    RE: “any articles that treat the issue of the 2003 letter from Ayatollah Khamenei to W.”

    I don’t understand your question. Is there a claim that Ayatollah Khamenei wrote a letter to George Bush (and now you’re looking for an analysis of that)? I’d very much like to see such a letter.

  89. Unknown Unknowns says:

    fyi says: “Axis Powers want to have no nuclear knowledge in Iran… Masters desire illiterate servant races.”

    I don’t think so. Uncle $cam is OK with giving out franchises. Witness Japan and South Korea, for example. Only thing is, as much as Uncle Scam might like to make a grand bargain with the strongest conventional military power in the most important strategic region in the world, Uncle Hijacked is, well… hijacked.

  90. Rd. says:

    Seems, Israel feels their terror act against Iranian scientist have not produced the desired response. So now they boast it publicly too!

    PBS had a segment to promote the israeli terror campaign. It is sad to see the otherwise respectable Robert MacNeil Report has turned to such lows with the newshour, that PBS should consider changing its name to TBS, Terror Broadcasting System.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june12/iran2_01-12.html

  91. BiBiJon says:

    “On the eve of” the morning after
    ===============================

    Just a note to anyone who has the misfortune of debating the flaccid cucumber in the future.

    The Tehran Deceleration was signed late in the night. That is true. But, what made the timing to be “on the eve” of was the Herculean efforts to garner the votes and convene a UUNSC session the next day.

    Think about it for a moment. Were Iran, Turkey and Brazil even aware they are doing something “on the eve of” anything? Of course not. Turkey and Brazil knew time is short, and undoubtedly conveyed that to Iran. However, Turkey and Brazil fully expected that any sanctions would wait until they communicated to the US, whose bidding they were led to believe they were doing, that they’ve given up, that Iran won’t sign.

    There is no doubt that Ross’ “on the eve of” claim is inversion of truth. The truth is the signing of Tehran Declaration prompted the Herculean effort to levy the sanctions, so that Israel’s lawyer could come on a radio show and be able to say with a straight face: they only signed it “on the eve of.”

    Cheesy!

  92. Scotty Boy says:

    Agent Sassan:

    How many times do I have to tell you to check with me first before you open you and blab out the first thing that comes to your so-called mind?

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-13/japan-iran-oil/52527870/1

    If you had checked with me, I would have told you that Yoshihiko Noda’s finance minister, Jun Azumi, is a freakin’ loser, and Prime Minister Noda would put him in his place before you can say “I, Sassan, am nothing but a traitor to the nation of my heritage.”

    So next time, check with your superiors. And remember the training sessions: Chain of Command!

    And another thing: you best stay away from that rascal UU. Are you kidding?? He’ll chew you up and spit you out in a ?ew York Minute! I thought I had gotten away ‘Scott’ free on banning Reza Esfandiari, but he keeps bringing it up. But hey, what do I care? Long as Uncle keeps sending them checks on payday, right? LOL. But after this Japan humiliation, you should probably stop using Sassan for a while and go back to Pak. But no, they’re onto that one too. Maybe you should try a new name, like Shithead or something? You’re a free agent. You decide. Well, not exactly a ‘free’ agent, are you?I guess Cheap agent would be more accurate.

  93. fyi says:

    All:

    An assessment of mr. Obama by Peter Lee.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA14Ak04.html

  94. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty: thanks for those links. When you get time, let me know also about any articles that treat the issue of the 2003 letter from Ayatollah Khamenei to W. Thanks.

    All:
    Any links to those 4 opinion polls would be appreciated. Also, I tried the link that Pirouz posted on the last post (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/65872019/Iran-Public-Opinion-2010), but it required a subscription fee, which as you know, is against my religion. So if a free version is available elsewhere, a link to that location would also be appreciated. Thank you.

  95. fyi says:

    Irshad says: January 13, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Be not concerned Irshad; these policies will all fail precisely because they cannot articulate a credible positive vision of teh future for Muslim people.

    I watched as Israelis triumphantly marched into lebanon, murdering people in the thousands in 192.

    I saw them leave in defeat 18 years later, and defeated again in 2006.

    I saw Axis Powers march throught Iraq in 2003, slaugthering their way f(or oil, for Israel, for power) and saw them leave in defeat in 2010.

    But all these defeats were paid by the death of thousands of Muslims – no doubt.

    If I were a Jew, I would shout: “Shema Israel: for I have lived to see you in defeat.”

  96. fyi says:

    Irshad says: January 13, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Strictly transaction based intercourse between the 2 states that are pursuing inconsistent policies and are playing very different roles in the international system.

  97. Karl says:

    Is the thailand-plot another the saudi-ambassador plot?

    No proof as always and of course the media already take about Hizbollah (read Iran connection).

    Isnt it always interesting that US/Israel always seems to nab people right before they are alleged to attack/ “place the bomb”? Its like they surveil the alleged terrorists up until he is about to place the bomb. THEN they nab him. Its obviously seems they try to portray they are threatened and a victim, while it may be themselves who play apart in it to begin with.

    Lets say its actually true but then note how US and Israel try to blow it out off proportion. If it was intended for a israeli target, why then do they try to sell the news that this alleged terrorist is a threat to all. Just like they try to portray Iran a threat to the whole world.

    Also, we had terrorist act in Iran just days ago but the western world didnt care because they were part of it, just as absurd it would be for Iran to say that that terrorist act threat the world, just as absurd is it to portray Iran as a global threat.

  98. Irshad says:

    @fyi – how do you see Iran-India relations in the coming year – with Mr Singh to visit Iran this year?

    What has India to offer Iran?

    What has Iran to offer India?

  99. Irshad says:

    RSH – your predictions of war happening this year, and an attack on Syria been a prelude to an attack on Iran is shared by Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s NSC – thank you Mr Obama, Mr Cameron and Emperor Sarkozy for bringing death and destruction to more people in the Islamic World – your Dar-al-Harb (side note – please ensure your war dogs not to piss on our dead and photograph it – thank you Western Civilization/democracy/human rights/etc.)

    Russia sees Middle East drifting to war

    The Middle East situation is fast reaching criticality and an eruption of conflict is on the cards. This is the sum and substance of the interviews given by Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council (and former head of the FSB, the successor organization to the KGB) to the Russian media.

    Patrushev is doubtless a key figure in Russia’s foreign and security policy establishment and there can be no two opinions that he spoke with the considered intent to voice the Kremlin’s deep anxiety that a massive, unprecedented regional conflagration in the Middle East might erupt with unforeseen consequences to regional and international security and indeed world politics.
    Patrushev, of course, has access to top-grade intelligence and he would have spoken on the basis of data pouring in from satellites and spies and diplomats. The Kremlin is ringing an alarm bell.
    Since the interviews have been in Russian, I may quote passages out of them. Patrushev said: “There is information that NATO members and some Arab states of the Persian Gulf, acting in line with the scenario seen in Libya, intend to turn the current interference with Syrian affairs into a direct military intervention.”
    He was specific. “The main strike forces will be supplied not by France, Britain and Italy, but possibly by neighboring Turkey.” He said that the first step will be to create a no-fly zone over Syria in order to create a sanctuary on Syrian soil close to the Turkish border for mercenaries who can be labelled as Syrian rebels. In sum, it is a “Libya”-type western intervention charioted by Turkey.
    Patrushev said military escalation is also likely over Iran and there is “real danger” of a US strike, pointing out that tensions over Syria are actually related to the Iran question. “They want to punish Damascus not to much for the repression of the opposition but rather for its refusal to break off relations with Tehran.”
    Patrushev on Iran situation: “There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, and Israel is pushing the Americans toward it. There is a real danger of a US military strike on Iran. At present, the US sees Iran as its main problem. They are trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this, to change the current regime by whatever means.”
    What will be the likely Iranian response? Patrushev assesses: “It cannot be ruled out that the Iranians will be able to carry out their threat to shut exports of saudi oil through the Strait of Hormuz if faced with military actions against them.”
    Patrushev also spoke about US policies toward Russia, China and India.
    He said US is “persistently seeking to sustain its economic, political and military domination in the world.” He put the US’s ABM deployments in Europe in this light. ”Today it [ABM deployments] may not pose a serious threat to Russia, but its long-term objective is to reduce our strategic potential. As far as I know, the plans for a global American missile defence are assessed negatively in Beijing as well.”
    “Despite the radical changes in the global alignment of forces as a result of modernization, the US is persistently seeking to sustain its economic, political and military domination in the world. At present, it is important for the US to eliminate threats to such domination, threats that primarily come from China, as the US believes.”
    This is where India figured in Patrushev’s interview. “The American administration has designated the Asia-Pacific as a foreign policy priority. The Americans are trying to use India as the main counterweight to the growing might of China, and for this purpose they are hyping the idea of especially closely strategic cooperation with Delhi.” [Emphasis added.]
    Alas, as a “time-tested friend” of India, Patrushev, of course, wouldn’t be drawn into dilating on the Indian approach and attitudes to Uncle Sam’s wooing. Instead, he turned to India’s “extended neighborhood” : “Simultaneously, the US would like to gain direct access to the resources and transportation facilities of the vast area of the Caucasus, the Caspian and Central Asia. There are well-known statements of American politicians about the need to put the energy, water and other resources of Russia under US control.”
    Nonetheless, Patrushev didn’t leave out the importance attached by Moscow to Russia-US relations, because the “US leads the western world and it is in Washington that the NATO strategies are shaped”.
    Besides, “Our countries [Russia and US] have serious coinciding interests as regards security. For example, we are combatting terrorism jointly with the US, among other things, by making the northern route available to meet the needs of the US forces in Afghanistan, we are fighting organized crime and illegal trade in weapons, narcotics and psychotropic substances, and we cooperate in trying to maintain information security”, Patrushev concluded with a dash of Russian humor summing up the profound character of contemporary Russia-US “partnership”.

    former Indian ambassador M.K.Bhadrakumar – rediff blog – indian punchline

  100. kooshy says:

    Sassan

    I told you shouldn’t jump too fast, does this now mean, this a bad news for you

    Japan Plays Down Pledge to Cut Iran Oil Imports

    TOKYO—Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said Friday that Tokyo will first hold talks with U.S. officials before deciding on cuts in its crude-oil imports from Iran, backing down from earlier comments by his finance minister that Japan was ready to do so immediately.

    “I think he was giving an explanation on how our country has already cut its imports of Iranian crude by 40% in the last five years and that he was stating his personal forecast of how things would develop going forward,” Mr. Noda said at a news conference, when asked about comments by Finance Minister Jun Azumi.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203721704577158402425672244.html

  101. Rd. says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran – 1, Obama – 0
    UPDATE 2-India to buy Iran oil despite US sanctions -minister

    Nigerian union orders oil shutdown from Sunday

    You guys best fill-up your gas tanks. by monday, we are sure to pay a lot more for gas.. THANK YOU US CONGRESS for idiotic Iran oil sanctions, we all have to pay more for gas.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-nigeria-strike-idUSTRE80B1E320120112

  102. fyi says:

    All:

    Head of MI6 publicly announces the “intelligence operations against Iran” –

    This speech was made in 28 Oct 2010 – after which teh campaign to kill Iranian nuclear scientists began.

    [Acts of a friendly country, no doubt, Mr. Canning?]

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8092419/Sir-John-Sawers-MI6-chief-says-intelligence-is-key-to-curbing-Irans-nuclear-power.html

  103. fyi says:

    All (in particular Mr. Canning):

    The aim of sanctions is to destroy Islamic Republic – the Shia Fortress – make no mistake – this is a religious war.

    http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/are-sanctions-fatwa-iran-6363

  104. Rd. says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    Sassan should read this:

    the following paragraph also has relevance – LOGIC BE DAMNED!

    Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution
    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/letters-from/christmas-is-no-time-for-an-iranian-revolution

    (To add a bit of context, it’s worth noting that one anti-regime Iranian said to me the day after the attack that he thought the British themselves were behind the assault. So obvious, he thought, because it would validate their actions in sanctioning Iran’s central bank. That, plus the fact that the British control the mullahs anyway, he said. Logic be damned, in conspiratorial Persia.)

  105. Rd. says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    Well, that’s a bit premature, at least.
    ;news.antiwar.com/2012/01/

    I hardly ever visit antiwar, but according to Sibel Edmonds, the antiwar site has slowly been becoming more of a prowar site.. thanks to their unnamed mysterious funder angels.

    http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/01/08/antiwar-com-%E2%80%93-your-best-source-for-antiwar-news/

  106. Photi says:

    For real BibiJon, why isn’t Dennis Ross blamed for the FAILURE of American attempts at diplomacy with Iran? On what is founded his relevance? I have failed many times in life and have nothing to show for it, Dennis Ross fails the most basic Diplomacy 101 and he gets the title of Ambassador. Way to go.

  107. BiBiJon says:

    Roses are red, violets are blue, Dennis is … “Israel’s lawyer”
    (according to former State Department official, Aaron Miller)
    ==============================================================

    According to Dennis Ross the Tehran declaration was unacceptable because it acknowledged Iran’s right to enrichment for peaceful nuclear energy purposes and that the ton of LEU Iran was going to send to Turkey remained Iran’s property, not IAEA’s.

    If one redrafted the Tehran Declaration to Ross’ liking we would have had the following on offer to Iran.

    a) Dispossess the bulk of your LEU.
    b) No enrichment
    c) No guarantee for eventually getting fuel for TRR

    Nice deal if you could have it. But, the ‘no enrichment’ idea had been rejected by Iran since the beginning. When EU-3 upped the ante and turned Iran’s voluntary temporary suspension of work in Natanz for confidence building, into a permanent suspension, is when it became clear no compromise was possible.

    To dispossess a country of LEU produced from her own mines, in her own enrichment facility built and paid for by her own resources sounds a little extreme.

    To offer no guarantee of fuel supply other than ‘trust’ your implacable enemy is the kind of ruse our kids started to wise up by the time they were 3.

    RSH has already touched on Ross’ other objection, the timing, “on the eve of the sanctions.” However, the point is worth emphasizing. Brazil & Turkey jumped into the fray because they were motivated by avoiding the sanctions the whole point of which they were led to believe was to get Iran to agree to send out a substantial amount of her LEU. On the eve? Even if it were a nano second before imposition of the sanctions it should have been hailed as a victory without costs and inconvenience of policing sanctions. If you weren’t prepared to let the threat of sanctions work, then why go around threatening sanctions? Cheesy!

    When Ross tossed out the alleged Israeli perception of “existential threat” to Israel and then rebutted Slavin’s Sneh quote by a flaccid cucumber argument that Sneh was just trying to fool Iran, Ross could not be clearer that the entire saga revolves around an utterly irrational (and contrived) sense of insecurity despite having the best military American tax Dollars can buy, and a massive nuclear arsenal, plus the annually repeated pledge of enduring and unshakable super-special bond with the world’s only superpower. Come on. If you still feel insecure, go see a psychiatrist and or review your parenting techniques that generate such generational paranoia.

    Flynt Leverett did a great job. He managed to weave “45 minutes” and the “sincere” attempt at engagement into a toe rag.

  108. fyi says:

    Unknown Unknowns says: January 13, 2012 at 1:27 am

    It is devoid of political content.

    Axis Powers want to have no nuclear knowledge in Iran.

    Just like Germnans in WWII who would execute all men in rural Russian villages who could barely read and write.

    Masters desire illiterate servant races.

  109. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says: January 13, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Yes, they live in dream world in which all the murdered are aliens – just like the mullahs – monsters that came from the Nether World and dragged that magnificient Ancient Iran into the gutter.

    You also have to understand that most of them are native Persian speakers – not Turkish, Gaellic, etc.

  110. Photi says:

    and let’s not forget america’s own covert operations against Iran:

    Preparing the Battlefield by Seymour Hersh

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

  111. Photi says:

    “Wednesday’s attack followed the pattern of previous operations planned by Mossad and carried out over the past two years by Iranians trained and paid by Israel’s spy agency, according to intelligence sources. The targets were chosen from the ranks of scientists seen as crucial to Iran’s nuclear effort — the country’s top physicist, Majid Shahriari, was killed by a magnetized bomb in October 2010 — then shadowed for weeks to determine their routines and points of vulnerability.
    (PHOTOS: 60 Years of Israel)
    A year ago, Iranian television broadcast the confession of one alleged agent who described studying a scale model of the home of the scientist he helped assassinate by hiding a bomb on a motorcycle outside the front door. “It was the exact copy of the real one, even the size, material, its color, the tree next to it, its asphalt, the street curb, the bridge,” said Majid Jamali Fashi on the air. He said he viewed the model in Mossad’s headquarters in Tel Aviv, which he described in detail. Intelligence sources confirmed Fashi’s involvement in a Mossad cell that the sources claim was revealed to Iran by a third country.”

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2104372,00.html#ixzz1jLbHeYwe

  112. Persian Gulf says:

    جالبه که شارلاتانهای ایرانی تبار حقوق بشری در خارج از ایران تو این جور مواقع خفه خون می گیرند(اکثریت که از تهه دل خوشحالند)، دریغ از حتی یک محکوم کردن خشک و خالی. ظاهرا می ترسند حتی یه بیانیه هم کمک کنندگان غربی رو آزرده خاطر کنه و نونشون،اونم تو شرایط بحرانیه اقتصادی، قطع بشه. جالبه ولی عجیب نیست چون تا اون جایی که من دیدم هرچی آدم عوضی، نژاد پرست و رزل شده فعال حقوق بشری در خارج. ایرانی درست و حسابی، معقول و کسی که سرش به تنش بی ارزه اصلا به این سمت نمیره.

  113. Photi says:

    So far I have heard the US government vehemently deny American involvement in the assassination of civilian Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, an academic in Tehran.

    However, i have yet to hear the US government vehemently condemned this clear act of terrorism. My time is limited of late, maybe i missed the condemnation on their part. What good is an “international” system if the rules of justice are unevenly applied?

  114. Photi says:

    Oops, posted this in the other thread:

    **

    Let me get this straight Mr Ross, the lack of diplomacy/open channels of communication between the US and Iran would make Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon too dangerous for the world to bear, and so therefore the US should not seek diplomatic relations with Iran but rather should put more and more pressure on “the regime” until the mullahs either implode or bend over, one of the two. Is this about right Mr. Ross?

    ***

    the interesting thing about Zionists is that so often they project their negative feelings of themselves onto their enemies. one of the reasons i think they do this is to cope with the cognitive dissonance they feel from their self-inflicted double-think worldview. Rather than admit to their hypocrisy, they project it onto their enemy.

    In this context, Mr. Ross’s ad hominem attack on Flynt Leverett gives us insight into Mr. Ross’s worries about himself. He accused Leverett of apologizing for the Iranian regime, so what this means then is that Mr. Ross has (possibly undiscovered) self-doubt surrounding all the apologizing he does for the Israeli regime. Indeed, just a few minutes after his personal attack on Flynt, he goes on to wax eloquently on the existential and righteous violence of Israel, as if they are so innocent.

    How convenient for the Israelis that there are powerful people in the US who see how utterly impossible diplomacy is between the Iranians and Americans. I am sure the Israelis have our back, so “More Pressure!” please!

  115. Empty says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    (See below) and in addition, I believe there are 3 critical pieces that have addressed, quite comprehensively, the main issues that come up with respect to Iran. If I were to make recommendations (which I will hopefully sometimes soon with Part II of the evaluation I’m doing when I get good chunks of time put aside), I think highlighting of these three pieces on the side bar of the site would help meet one of the aim’s of the site itself. One is already highlighted, the other two aren’t. I think all three dismantle large portions of the prevalent myths and disinformation about Iran. Updating and amending them under the original title, too, is a good way to bring them forward:

    1) Obama’s offer of engagement with Iran by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann-Leverett [“Why should Iran Trust President Obama” highlighted on the side bar: http://www.raceforiran.com/why-should-iran-trust-president-obama

    2) The 2009 Election by Eric Brill (linked but could be highlighted and linked which would also meet one of the site’s own goals): ;http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html

    3) Iran’s work with IAEA by Eric Brill titled “The Iran Nuclear Dispute” see the link here: ;http://www.raceforiran.com/the-iran-nuclear-dispute-a-new-approach

  116. Peres denies Israel’s involvement in Iran scientist killing
    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=253497

    We all believe him, right? Right?

  117. Then there’s this:

    U.S. Sends Top Iranian Leader a Warning on Strait Threat
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/middleeast/us-warns-top-iran-leader-not-to-shut-strait-of-hormuz.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

    The “red line” is now the Strait of Hormuz.

    And we all know the next step if the sanctions don’t stop Iranian oil from being sold – which they won’t. The next step is to blockade Iranian oil, a step Obama said during his election campaign he was prepared to do.

    Which leads to the Strait of Hormuz – and war.

  118. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Weaseling for the good:

    Am I imagining things? First we had Leon Panetta float the idea that the red line for the US is not (= is no longer) Iran’s acquiring the nuclear know-how to build nuclear weapons (the so-called nuclear “break-out” capability), but in Iran actually working on building a nuclear weapon. That was two or three weeks ago. Then he talked as if (and the ?YT confirmed) that the line in the oil underneath the sand has in fact shifted, and that [the facts on the ground have made] all the hullabaloo about spinning centrifuges etc into what is technically known as phooey. Then he came out and flat-out stated that Iran was NOT building a bomb. And now we have the host of the radio show linked in Mr. Leverett’s post stating, “US officials say an attack on Iran is not inevitable but the Pentagon IS making contingency plans in case [my emphasis] Iran makes nuclear weapons.” Confirming, in other words, that Team Weasel has weaseled out of its earlier position that Iran was in fact making nuclear weapons, and that the spinning of the centrifuges was proof of this, and as such, was unacceptable, etc.

    This is weaseling for the good. But the question of interest for me is this: is this new stance due to a coming to Jesus moment of that great Eye-talian, Mr. Leon Panetta, as our own dear Fior seems to suggest, or is it because of the facts on the ground that our own dear Supreme Leader seems to have orchestrated, namely, the Fordo enrichment facility, which is built into a mountain and which cannot be destroyed even with bunker-buster bobs Uncle Hijacked weaseled to Israel a couple months back? If the latter (which I doubt), then the tide will turn back, as no Eye-talian will be allowed to interfere with the course of the duly hijacked ship of state. If it is the case of the former, then it is safe to assume that the weasel back-tracking will continue to gain steam, and we will have moved that much further away from war: Uncle Hijacked isn’t going to commit (economic) suicide even if the jew-know-whos have a gun held to his head.

  119. Unknown Unknowns says:

    hans says:
    January 12, 2012 at 6:01 am

    What is the price of silver currently, and what do you think it will be in the coming months between now and December 12, 2021? Is it going to go up? down? remain steady? What is the significance of this? In other words, how and why is the price of silver linked to the apocalypse (the 26,000 year precession)?

    As Mulder used to say, I want to believe! LOL

    I want to sell off at least a couple of my beach-front properties and invest in silver if the Mayan high priests say its price will go up. I’m going with my gut on this one, which says that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  120. kooshy says:

    Russian weapons ship arrives in Syria – paper
    18:30 12/01/2012

    The Russian Foreign Ministry said the ship carried a “dangerous cargo,” but did not elaborate. According to the documents, the cargo sender was the Russian state arms trader Rosoboronexport.

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120112/170725460.html

  121. Castellio says:

    I want to weigh in on the radio panel.

    First, Mr. Leverett was invited. That’s good. He was invited.

    Secondly, he made the point that there was no serious commitment to a US-Iran rapprochement. What sticks is the alleged 45 minutes of meeting time, and the “possibility” that Obama lied to Turkey and Brazil.

    Mr. Ross, extremely relaxed and smooth, not breaking a sweat, does a great job of making it look like our man Flynt is going on much about nothing, as if he were some guy in the office who came to clean the copier machine and stayed to offer an opinion, listened to out of politeness, but ill-informed and worthless.

    However, trotting up the middle came Mr. Parsi who, unusually in my experience, proved extremely useful as he sided, slowly but clearly, with the uninvited non-entity who was supposed to fix the copier and leave. In fact, Mr. Parsi helps our smoothly-gaited Mr. Ross look somewhat ridiculous: why would a negotiator who used pressure to get the deal then “walk away” because he had used pressure to get the deal?

    Something doesn’t add up. Clearly, there are unanswered questions as to why Obama lied to Turkey and Brazil, but the fact that he has done so is no longer in dispute. And the 45 minute claim seems to be holding up, as Mr Ross’s counter claims seem strangely technical given the importance of the issue.

    However Mr Ross, well trained if nothing else, amps up and plays the holocaust card. He changes pace to do this very effectively, hitting the back straight in a full gallop, trying to leave the pack behind.

    But when asked why Iran would commit certain suicide, he stumbles badly and segues into a discussion on how Israelis feel.

    Our man Flynt, non too subtly, pointed out that he was just trying to challenge a wrong handed policy of his own country… (Is American war policy in the Middle East really based on the “feelings” of Israelis, whatever they are? whatever the consequences?)

    Then Ms Slavin hit stride and claimed to be uncomfortable with current levels of unreasonable hostility towards Iran and the unredeemed bellicosity in which it is expressed. Her subtext, too, is “something is wrong with this picture”.

    At this point Mr. Moderator actually says that Mr Ross is “outnumbered” and gives him time to wrap up, hoping to see the champion do his stuff around the last corner. But although everyone else is now handicapped for time, Mr. Ross hasn’t much to say…

    Final tally: Flynt, Slavin and Parsi, all together, win the encounter by making it clear that there was never a serious strategy in the Obama administration to negotiate with Iran, and that the tenor of the issue in America was unhelpfully and unreasonably bellicose.

    Dennis Ross earns half a point for using the holocaust card to prove… well, I’m not sure what it proved, actually.

    And that’s the point, its not just possible, it’s reasonable to be against the holocaust and for effective negotiations with Iran.

  122. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Re: the 4 opinion polls by Western organizations on Iranian views of their own government, the elections of 2009, etc.

    I know I should have made copies of the links as they appeared in this forum over the previous months, but I failed to do so, and am now in the unenviable position to have to demonstrate empirical facts to a died in the wool Greenie. Therefor, I would greatly appreciate it if one of you who has said links handy would kindly repost them. I thank you kindly in advance.

    Another point of contention with my Green friend is the issue of whose fault it is that a dialogue is not taking place. I say it is because while it is in the interest of the hegemon to make deals and establish franchises and vassal states which pay tribute, Uncle Hijacked is incapable of doing so because of jew-know-who… I point to the famous letter of 2003 by Ayatollah Khamanei to W. He rejects that variously as a fabrication, as a ruse, or as non-existent, claiming that the IRI is incapable of coming to the table due to their medieval operating system, fanaticism, millenarianism, etc. Therefore, if there is a good article dealing with this issue that is out there, I would appreciate a link to it.

    And lastly, for the sake of comprehensiveness, I would appreciate links key articles on the nuclear issue and on the 2009 elections by the Leveretts, by Eric Brill, by Arnold Evans, and/ or by whomever else has been good enough to do the necessary work on this.

    With your help, I will throw my friend a sucker punch, inshallah :D

  123. Pirouz says:

    Even though you two have been doing it for some time now, it still amazes me there are two voices of reason in this ongoing discussion. And you seem to be getting more air time, which is encouraging.

    As for Trita, I have yet to give up on the young man, but I;m more and more disappointed with his apparent intellectual compromise. If he persists, I may even have to qualify it as a level of corruption.

  124. Rehmat says:

    Richard Steven Hack – A great majority of political-aware Iranians don’t take TRITA PARSI and NYT seriously. As for as Juan Cole is concerned – he is a CIA mole.

  125. Fiorangela says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    January 12, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Panetta’s double talk suggests to me Br’er Rabbit zigging and zagging thru the brier patch. There are no discernible differences between any of the words and categories Panetta used — and that is the point. It’s confusion for public consumption.

    The Steelers are not in the running for SuperBowl, so nothing matters anyway.

  126. High-Level IAEA Team to Visit Tehran
    http://www.uskowioniran.com/2012/01/high-level-iaea-team-to-visit-tehran.html

    Email me when this results in anything…

  127. Juan Cole on the latest Iranian assassination:

    A Murder in Tehran
    http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/a-murder-in-tehran.html

    He decides it was the M.E.K. recruited by Israel – which makes sense.

  128. The Next War on Washington’s Agenda
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/12/the-next-war-on-washington%E2%80%99s-agenda/

    Quote

    Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran.

    End Quote

    Right on, man!

  129. Sassan should read this:

    Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution
    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/letters-from/christmas-is-no-time-for-an-iranian-revolution

    Especially this line:

    Exile groups had called for protests via social media and various foreign-based Web sites, but on the days leading up to Ashura no one inside Iran seemed to pay any heed. “We’re sick of those exiles telling us what to do,” one young person, still “green,” said to me. “Let them come here and do it themselves.”

  130. From Juan Cole, some history of Iranian nuclear efforts:

    Good Nuclear Iran, Bad Nuclear Iran
    http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/good-nuclear-iran-bad-nuclear-iran.html

    Note the comments where one writer points out how the U.S. and Israel both aided South Africa in obtaining the bomb.

  131. The cited Reuters article:

    Iran lacks avenues for condemning hits on scientists
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-iran-un-idUSTRE80A25P20120111

  132. Well, that’s a bit premature, at least.

    Iran Too Weak to Defend Itself Against West’s Terrorism
    http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/11/iran-too-weak-to-defend-itself-against-wests-terrorism/

  133. Iran – 1, Obama – 0

    UPDATE 2-India to buy Iran oil despite US sanctions -minister
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/india-iran-imports-idUSL3E8CC3ZM20120112

  134. Democracy Now! video interview with Trita Parsi:

    A Path to War? Assassination of Iran Nuclear Scientist, New Sanctions Strain U.S.-Iran Relations
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/12/a_path_to_war_assassination_of

    Quote

    TRITA PARSI: …I think what you’re seeing—I think Panetta’s comments were quite interesting, because it seems as if he’s putting the actual red line at Iran building or testing a nuclear weapon, and then he’s also on the record of saying that the Iranians are not currently building one or they have not made a decision to build one, but they’re going for the capability. That’s quite a different red line from what existed during the Bush years, in which the red line essentially was that the Iranians could not have any enrichment. That is the red line that the Israelis are far more comfortable with.

    And I think over the last couple of weeks we’ve seen some developments that, for the first time, I’m more concerned about the likelihood of an actual Israeli strike. I’ve been quite skeptical about that. I wrote about that in my previous book. And I think I was proven right, because the Israelis so far have not engaged in any direct military action. However, with the Iranians now starting enrichment at the Fordo plant, a plant that is deep underground and which there isn’t that strong of a military option against, then the Iranians are essentially entering into what Ehud Barak calls the zone of the immunity. At that point, the feasibility of a military strike may significantly decline. And as a result, the likelihood of any military action prior to the completion of that plant may increase significantly.

    End Quote

    My take:

    First, I’m not so sure than Panetta’s apparent confusion over the difference between “capability” and “weapon” makes any sort of clear signal.

    The reason I say Panetta is confused is because, as we all know here, Iran BY DEFINITION will have a nuclear capability as long as it has large amounts of LEU lying around matched with a nuclear weapon design – exactly like Japan, Brazil and South Korea.

    Therefore to bring up the point about “nuclear capability” is itself problematical because the only way you can get rid of such a capability is to ban enrichment altogether.

    And this is precisely what Bush and Israel wanted, and it is precisely what Obama wanted during his election campaign. And since Obama is owned and operated by Israel’s supporters in the U.S., this is undoubtedly what he continues to want, and is definitely what any Republican President who comes into power will want.

    Also, bringing up the notion that Iran actually building a nuclear weapon is a “red line”, well, as we also all know here, Iran will never do that, at the very least short of being attacked with a goal of regime change or by nuclear weapons. Since 16 U.S. intelligence agencies has said and has re-iterated as of early 2011 that Iran has made no such decision, why is Panetta even raising the question?

    The only possible answer is that the U.S. intends to continue persecuting Iran over this bogus issue even though it – and Panetta – knows full well that 1) Iran has no nuclear weapons program, 2) can’t derive any benefit from a nuclear weapons program, and 3) will thus never have a nuclear weapons program (short of some internal major Iranian regime and policy change.)

    So why bother making these sorts of distinctions if you’re not trying to either lie or at least be evasive as to the real U.S. motivations?

    Also note that Parsi refers to Iran’s 2009 “fraudulent elections” again…

    As for Parsi’s final remark about Fordo possibly increasing the likelihood of a military attack, while I understand his point about that event both decreasing the feasibility of an attack while simultaneously increasing the motivation to attack, I don’t see that as particularly consistent. I also don’t think it matters much in the Israeli calculus.

    What matters more – and this applies to Parsi’s “I was correct that Israel didn’t attack” – is the cost issue to Israel of having a heavily armed Hizballah – and possibly Syria – on its borders during an Iran war. I think this is the number one reason Israel has not attacked Iran before now.

    The number two reason also relates to Israel cost-benefit analysis. They don’t want to be blamed IN THE U.S. for dragging the U.S. into another war. This I believe applied at least during the Bush administration. I’m not convinced it’s an ultimate dissuader, however, and is not as significant to them today as it was in the past, due to Israel already being condemned for other actions since such as the Lebanon war, Cast Lead and the Marvi Marmara event. I don’t think Netanyahu cares as much about U.S. public opinion as he might have under Bush. Whether that will change if another Republican President gets elected I don’t know, but I doubt it. I think Israel has moved beyond that concern.

    What may still concern the Israeli leadership is the risk of an Iran war causing some internal political blowback within Israel, similar to what happened after the failed Lebanon war. But again, this cannot forever restrain Israel’s fundamental interest in seeing Iran brought down.

    Bottom line: As I’ve argued over and over, there has to be a resolution at some point. Either the U.S. and Israel must blink, or Iran must blink. I don’t agree with fyi that this is a stalemate which will go on for another twenty, thirty years. ALL the evidence is against that.

  135. Iran Signals Revenge Over Killing of Scientist
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-outrage-over-scientist-killing-deepens-as-it-signals-revenge.html?ref=middleeast

    Quote

    “We should retaliate against Israel for martyring of our young scientist,” Kayhan’s general director, Hossein Shariatmadari, who was appointed by the ayatollah, said in an editorial. Referring to the Israelis, he wrote, “These corrupted people are easily identifiable and readily within our reach.”

    End Quote

  136. Karl: “while didnt get as much time as needed to refute the warmongering Ross.”

    Which is why I say it’s a loss. If you can’t refute your enemy because you’re cut off, you lose. Ross’ points stand even if they’re wrong.

    Flynt and Hillary need to find a way to get on shows where it’s one-on-one, not a panel discussion.

  137. Karl says:

    Richard Steven Hack:

    I wouldnt say anyone won.

    While Ross kept doing his ad hominem, unhonest, fillibustering tactic and got the last minute, Flynt came out honest, on topic while didnt get as much time as needed to refute the warmongering Ross.

  138. Karl says:

    Why does abbas accept being pushed around?

    “We are not authorized to speak about what is going on in Amman, but our demands are known, and the Israelis didn’t present something we can accept.”

    Remember why?

    U.S. warns Palestinians: Stop leaking content of Quartet talks
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-warns-palestinians-stop-leaking-content-of-quartet-talks-1.399364

    Read: “Quartet: Palestinians! Israel told us that you are not allowed to leak any information to the world about israeli peace rejectionism, that will hurt our ally Israel and her image”

  139. Dennis Ross gets the last minutes of the program? Not a win for Flynt…

    Ross also continues to try to blunt the basic fact that Obama lied to the Turks and Brazilians over the Tehran Declaration by 1) claiming Iran only went for the deal because of the impending sanctions, and 2) claiming that there were “nine points” to the deal that the Iranian did not agree to. I think this is fundamentally dishonest.

    For one thing, it overlooks the basic trust problem the Iranians had in the fall negotiations over simply shipping out most of their LEU with no guarantees they would ever get their Tehran fuel. This was the core of the issue in the Iranian parliament which Ross characterizes as fueled by Iranian internal politics – which is not the case. Both the Greens and the hardliners were not happy with that arrangement and with good reasons.

    Secondly, it ignores the “take it or leave it” position of the P5 + 1 on the original offer, and ignores the subsequent demand by the Iranians that the P5 + 1 either negotiate further or Iran would begin its own production of the nuclear fuel – which in turn beget the enrichment to 20% over which people like Canning now claim is the main problem.

    It was as a result of that enrichment that the U.S. then began the process of getting enhanced sanctions through the UN. But the U.S. had been threatening sanctions all along anyway.

    It was the attempt by the Turks and Brazilians to avoid the imposition of further sanctions and thus to produce an improvement in the situation that they introduced their offer to Iran – and got it accepted.

    And it was Obama who then reneged and made ZERO effort to try to re-enter negotiations based on the Tehran Declaration. It’s the latter point that is important. Obama was committed to sanctions at that point and made no effort to take advantage of the opening for further diplomacy the Tehran Declaration make available. It was strictly “either-or” for Obama.

    So Ross’ characterization of the events was completely wrong.

    The problem once again is that on shows of this nature, you simply don’t have time to make the kind of coherent, step by step recitation of events that allows one to get a real sense of what happened and who was at fault.

    And the only people who win that game are the people who are pushing the war.

    I view this exchange between Flynt and Ross as a loss for Flynt.

  140. Rehmat says:

    USrael assassinates 4th Iranian nuclear scientist

    Canadian war reporter and author, Eric Margolis told RT that the latest assassination, which he describes as an international crime, will not seriously affect Iran’s nuclear program. “It may slow things down, but it won’t end them because Iran is a big country, it has a large cadre of scientists. It will continue to work.”

    Margolis said he is surprised that no retaliation from Iran been directed against Israeli or American scientific figures or diplomats in the region in the past. “The Iranians are very anxious to get revenge, but they are being cautious because war seems not so far away in the Gulf,” added Margolis. Watch video below.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/usrael-assassinates-4th-iranian-nuclear-scientist/

  141. Rehmat says:

    Warmongers and bigots like Dennis Ross must be ignored by every rational personal. Dennis Ross, like Hillary Clinton, walks only on a ‘one way’ street leading to Israel. Obama’s former Middle East strategist, Dennis Ross (a Zionist Jew), has returned to his mothership – AIPAC’s side-kick WINEP.

    Dennis Ross has been honored by ADL and many Jewish groups for keeping Iranian threat alive at the Capitol Hill.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/jewish-conference-on-islamic-iran/

  142. Karl says:

    Very naive speakers, Flynt excluded. People recognize who tells the correct history.

    Saying that obama was serious just because he put his propaganda mask on is ridiculous, he just talked, made not actions or offers like Flynt said.

    Dennis Ross:

    *Note how he always begin with a immature, nervous grin when adressing Flynt.
    *Note how he instantly made indirect slurs about Flynt excuse Iran for everything instead of adressing the topic. One person that actually is excusing not Iran but Israel is of course Dennis Ross, WINEP is basically a part of AIPAC.
    *Note how he try to find reasons to why US rejected Turkey/Brazil/Iran deal, he reject it right out because it didnt follow US demands. Does Dennis think he doesn need to compromise?
    *Note how he use the absurd Holocaust-card.
    1. Iran havent threatened Israel.
    2. Iran have no nukes and have therefore never threatened anyone with a holocaust.

    The state that actually threat a holocaust is Iran by israeli nukes and american bombardment, however, Ross ethnically-based love for Israel make him blind to his immoral views. Why is it ok to threat others with force but some are immune to even criticize? Dennis Ross deny to recognize israeli nukes, he also refuse to recognize the theory of mutual-assured-destruction. Dennis Ross belive hes own propaganda to the extent he actually think that Iran (if they had nukes) would use them.
    Its the islamophobe, fearmongering attitude that have led the obama administration here.
    Not to mention that Ross surely accept mutual-assured-destruction for Soviet/US, Pakistan/India but when it comes to Iran/Israel oh no….he doesnt seems to think world see his twisted and hypocrite views.
    I am not usually a supporter of Slavin often simplistic views, however I thank her for criticizing Ross warmongering (existential threat, while even Mossad thinks not) is totally uncessary and only benefit the war hawks (which of course is Dennis himself).

    Note also how Ross basically say ‘ if israel feels threatened they have the right to do it’. Well I bet Iran is threatened to today, do they have the right according to Ross to carry out a preemptive strike against Israel? This double standard…..

  143. James Canning says:

    With China encouraging Iran to cooperate with the IAEA in monitoring Iran’s 20% U at the new facility, what chance is there that Iran could achieve a “break-out” without this being advertised to the outside world? Near zero? Assuming Iran continues to cooperate, of course.

  144. James Canning says:

    Does that arch-neocon warmonger, Victoria Nuland, help things when she says the purpose of the sanctions was “to tighten the noose”? Her appalling neocon warmonger husband, Kagan, has advised John “Bomb Bomnb Iran” McCain.

    Barbara Slavin is quite right to say that 2012 elections demand many very stupid statements from American politicians.

  145. James Canning says:

    Who was the bonehead “senior US intelligence official” who was claimed by the Washington Post this week to have said regime change was the purpose of the new sanctions against Iran?

  146. “that is now seems divided between those who believe a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation is inevitable and those who support regime change—even if they are not yet prepared to say so publicly—as the alternative to (overt) war against Iran.”

    In other words, Iran is the target either militarily or economically and there is no one in Washington prepared to suggest diplomacy.

    This is hardly a “frozen” stalemate. It’s a clear recipe for war in the relatively near future, particularly since as we all know there is ZERO likelihood of non-violent regime change in Iran for the foreseeable future, despite Sassan’s hallucinations.

  147. Interesting piece here.

    What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria
    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-in-syria?page=show

    Specifically this point:

    Quote

    The most effective way of legally authorizing a safe area would be through a UN Security Council resolution. But Russia will not forfeit its alliance with Assad, making the Kremlin’s acquiescence at the Security Council unlikely. The other available route, then, is the UN General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which allows for “collective measures” and the “use of armed force” in foreign conflicts. Created in 1950 by the United States to circumvent repeated Soviet vetoes in the Security Council against a Western military response to the crisis in Korea, this seldom used resolution requires a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. Amassing such overwhelming support for intervention would be difficult, but certainly not out of the question. Last November, the General Assembly did what the Security Council was unable to do and passed its own nonbinding resolution — one co-sponsored by Arab and Muslim-majority nations — condemning the Assad regime for violence. If the crisis in Syria continues or escalates, then there may indeed be a moral and political consensus to invoke “Uniting for Peace” in order to establish a safe area.

    End Quote

    And here you see how the U.S. and EU will manage to justify a no-fly zone – and then a total bombing campaign to overthrow Assad.

    Quote

    A safe area in a central region of resistance would provide shelter for internal refugees, who are now reported to number in the hundreds of thousands. It could also serve as a base for the rebels, now largely operating out of Turkey, as well as a communications hub for Free Syrian broadcasting to the rest of the country. The FSA and independent brigades have already established de facto checkpoints and buffer zones deep inside Syria, which have served as the life line to the protests in Homs and elsewhere. Given a fortified logistical headquarters and a steady supply of equipment and arms, the rebels would have their Benghazi in Syria, their base from which to battle Damascus more effectively.

    Any intervention would need to establish a no-fly zone to protect Jisr al-Shughour. Syrian forces used helicopter gunships in their previous attack on the city, and the Assad regime has Soviet-designed surface-to-air missiles stationed up and down the western corridor of the country that are capable of downing fighter jets. Nevertheless, a Western military force would achieve air supremacy with relative ease. The United States’ Sixth Fleet could also easily establish a naval blockade; ancillary air support could come from the United Kingdom’s bases in Cyprus. The question is whether NATO would participate, especially given Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen’s near-categorical rejection of NATO involvement in Syria several months ago. If it does, it could enforce a Libya-style no-fly zone from its base in Incirlik, Turkey. Even if NATO refuses the mission, however, the United States, Britain, and France have the technology and air power to keep the Syrian skies clear for as long as necessary.

    End Quote