It is possible that there will another round of nuclear discussions between the P5+1 and Iran in the near future. Given the extent to which Israel, the United States, and America’s European partners are ratcheting up tensions over the nuclear issue, one hopes that additional talks would help the parties find a peaceful and productive way forward. But that is unlikely unless the Western powers are prepared to accept the reality that Iran is enriching uranium, that it will continue enriching uranium, and that it has every right to do so under international law. We want to highlight a few pieces that have come out recently and make this point.
One is from Peter Jenkins, Britain’s former representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Peter has published several pieces on Race for Iran, and we have always benefited from his analysis and insights. Peter’s most recent article, “The Deal the West Could Strike With Iran”, was published in The Telegraph earlier this month, see here. He rightly attributes what he sees as “a big rise in the twin risks of military action and grave damage to the world economy” to “a great diplomatic over bid: the West’s demand that Iran surrender its capacity to enrich uranium.”
Peter charts his personal experience with the Iranian nuclear issue, noting how his own views on the matter have evolved. He states forthrightly that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) “prohibits the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons. But it permits the uranium enrichment that has been at the heart of the West’s quarrel with Iran.” He also notes that, today, “the West is all but isolated in insisting that Iran must not enrich.” The way out, he writes, is
“a deal along the following lines: Iran would accept top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium. In addition, Iran would volunteer some confidence-building measures to show that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons.
This, essentially, is the deal that Iran offered the UK, France and Germany in 2005. With hindsight, that offer should have been snapped up. It wasn’t because our objective was to put a stop to all enrichment in Iran. That has remained the West’s aim ever since, despite countless Iranian reminders that they are unwilling to be treated as a second-class party to the NPT—with fewer rights than other signatories—and despite all the evidence that the Iranian character is more inclined to defiance than buckling under pressure.”
One of the main reasons this sort of deal was not “snapped up” by the Europeans in 2005 is that the United States, in the form of the George W. Bush Administration, was not on board. Since the Obama Administration came to office in 2009, there have been periodic flurries of reports in the media and the work of some commentators on the Obama team’s purported willingness to accept safeguarded enrichment in Iran as a negotiated outcome. The reports are false. While there are some Obama Administration officials who would be prepared to accept safeguarded enrichment inside Iran as part of a solution to the nuclear issue, there has never been a consensus within the Administration or a presidential decision to this effect. U.S. policy, unfortunately, is still “zero enrichment” where Iran is concerned.
But there is another reason the Europeans did not snap up the deal advanced by Iran in 2005. One of the more striking dynamics inside the P5+1, since the United States finally joined in multilateral nuclear diplomacy with Tehran in 2006, is that Britain and France have both been very hardline on the enrichment issue, discouraging any flexibility by the United States on the matter. It seems like London and Paris are both chronically concerned about what the development of potential “threshold” capabilities by important regional powers like Iran would mean for the strategic value of Britain and France’s small nuclear arsenals—and what Iran’s rise portends for the West’s ability to continue dominating the Middle East as it has in the past.
All of this makes us very skeptical that the United States and its European partners will be prepared to take a fundamentally different approach to nuclear talks with Tehran. If they are, Peter’s piece shows what such an approach might look like.
An important element in the current tensions between Iran and the West over the nuclear issue is an extraordinary hyping of the Iranian nuclear “threat” by Western powers and Israel. In this regard, the most recent IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear activities looms very large. Peter offers cogent observations about the report in his article, noting that
“the IAEA has not reported evidence of attempts to produce nuclear weapons, or of a decision to do so. This is hardly surprising, since the key bits of November’s IAEA report were based on material supplied by Western intelligence. For years, the Western assessment has been that Iran seeks the capability to build nuclear weapons, but has not taken a decision to produce them.”
Another richly insightful deconstruction of the IAEA’s recent engagement with Iran’s nuclear program was provided earlier this month by Robert Kelley, see here. Kelley is an American nuclear engineer who worked for 30 years in the University of California’s nuclear weapons laboratories before serving for nine years at the IAEA. In his article, “Nuclear Arms Charge Against Iran Is No Slam Dunk”, published by Bloomberg, he notes that the “evidence” of an Iranian nuclear weapons program
“is sketchy. And the way the data have been presented produces a sickly sense of déjà vu. I am speaking up about this now because, as a member of the IAEA’s Iraq Action Team in 2003, I learned firsthand how withholding the facts can lead to bloodshed. Having known the details then, though I was not allowed to speak, I feel a certain shared responsibility for the war that killed more than 4,000 Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqis. A private citizen today, I hope to help ensure the facts are clear before the U.S. takes further steps that could lead, intentionally or otherwise, to a new conflagration, this time in Iran.”
Turning a critical eye to the 24-page IAEA report, Kelly points out that “all but three of the items that were offered as proof of a possible nuclear-arms program are either undated or refer to events before 2004. The agency spends about 96 percent of a 14-page annex reprising what was already known.” Of the three relatively “new” indications of “possible military dimensions” to the Iranian program, Kelley points out that
“two of the three are attributed only to two member states, so the sourcing is impossible to evaluate. In addition, their validity is called into question by the agency’s handling of the third piece of evidence. That evidence, according to the IAEA, tells u Iran embarked on a four-year program, starting around 2006, to validate the design of a device to produce a burst of neutrons that could initiate a fission chain reaction. Though I cannot say for sure what source the agency is relying on, I can say for certain that this project was earlier at the center of what appeared to be a misinformation campaign.
In 2009, the IAEA received a two-page document, purporting to come from Iran, describing this same alleged work. Mohamed ElBaradei, who was then the agency’s director general, rejected the information because there was no chain of custody for the paper, no clear source, document markings, date of issue or anything else that could establish its authenticity. What’s more, the document contained style errors, suggesting the author was not a native Farsi speaker. It appeared to have been typed using an Arabic, rather than a Farsi, word-processing program. When ElBaradei put the document in the trash heap, the U.K.’s Times newspaper published it.
This episode had suspicious similarities to a previous case that proved definitively to be a hoax. In 1995, the IAEA received several documents from the Sunday Times, a sister paper to the Times, purporting to show that Iraq had resumed its nuclear-weapons program in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The IAEA quickly determined that the documents were elaborate forgeries. There were mistakes in formatting the documents’ markings, classification and dates, and many errors in language and style indicated the author’s first language was something other than Arabic or Farsi. Inspections in Iraq later in 1995 confirmed incontrovertibly that there had been no reconstitution of the Iraqi nuclear program.
I regret now that ElBaradei did not speak out more vehemently, before the U.S. went to war, about the 1995 faked documents, additional forgeries provided to the agency in 2003 and other falsifications. A good man, he had been an international lawyer with years of experience dealing with half-truths and prevarications. But he was trapped between telling the whole story and overtly insulting the U.S., which supplied 25 percent of the IAEA’s funding.
For example, ElBaradei labeled documents provided to the IAEA about Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium from Africa “not authentic.” A better description would have been “blatant and amateurish forgeries.” He provided evidence that aluminum tubes the U.S. said were for nuclear centrifuges were actually for rockets. But he did not supply the supporting engineering details publicly. The truth was lost in the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s scandalous detailing of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, which was wrong in almost every respect.
ElBaradei’s successor also has fallen short by failing to note in his report the earlier doubts that Iran was continuing to develop a neutron-producing device. If Amano has found new reasons to overlook the many questionable aspects of this story, he should present them. Given past doubts about the episode, the agency’s reporting on it should be above reproach. When it comes to accurately accounting for potential diversions of nuclear materials, the IAEA’s main mission, the agency has gone about its work with precision. It needs to be just as exacting when it delves into allegations about Iran’s weapons intentions.”
The third and fourth pieces we want to highlight here are by Iranians, and were written as critical responses to Matthew Kroenig’s recent Foreign Affairs article, “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike is the Least Bad Option”, which we, see here, as well as Stephen Walt, see here, and Paul Pillar, see here, have also critiqued. Kayhan Barzegar, who teaches at the Islamic Azad University in Tehran and whose work has been featured previously on Race For Iran, published “Military Option Is the Worst Possible Scenario” in Iran Review earlier this month, see here, (it was originally published in Farsi in Tabnak; later Sanaz Tabeafshar, a Ph.D. candidate at the Islamic Azad University, published “Attacking Iran is the Least Good Option, Dr. Kroenig!” in Iran Review , see here.
Kayhan zeroes in on the same passage in Kroenig’s article that we did—his warning that “a nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East.” Kayhan rightly links Kroenig’s “hyperbolic stance regarding the peril of Iran’s nuclear program and portrayal of it as an ‘urgent’ danger” to “neo-conservative ideas previously circulating in the U.S. political establishment as well as uncritical conformity with the Israeli perspective on the issue.”
–This perspective undergirds Kroenig’s unsubstantiated insistence that Iran’s nuclear activities are inevitably aimed at weaponization.
–Kayhan notes in response that
“Tehran’s recent measures to move its sophisticated centrifuges to the Fordo site in Qom, announced the opening of a new nuclear site, and recently making nuclear fuel rods and plates for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and so on have been taken with the aim of creating ‘political equality’ in the nuclear negotiations with the West.”
Of course, that is precisely what London, Paris, and Washington do not want—for Iran to achieve something approaching “political equality” in its dealings with the West. Kayhan points out that, if one were really serious about dealing with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, one would embrace the idea of nuclear weapons free zone (NWFZ) in the region, noting that, according to a recent World Public Opinion poll, “64 percent of the Israeli public favors a NWFZ in the Middle East, mostly [as a way] of checking Iran’s nuclear program.” But that idea is not going to get serious consideration by Western governments anytime soon.
As to a possible attack against Iran, by either the United States or Israel, Kayhan graciously recalls that,
“as the Leveretts precisely argue, the military attack is only justified on the basis of the peaceful enrichment activities of Iran, to which it is entitled according to the [NPT]. One should perceive that such a perspective aims mostly to preserve the nuclear monopoly of the Israeli regime in the Middle East.”
More broadly, Kayhan underscores how Kroenig
“once again falls into the trap of traditional and simplistic self-contradiction typical of the neo-conservative way of thinking which holds that the United States enjoys indefinite military power and can advance its objectives by means or war, a conception which has helped to prolong the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…the author conceives that Washington can launch a military offense against Iran successfully and pull out of the conflict easily without having to suffer any dire consequences.”
Kayhan lays out multiple reasons why such a conception is highly fanciful.
Sanaz Tabeafshar, in her critique of Kroenig’s article, picks up on some of Kayhan’s broader strategic themes, noting that
“after the withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq, a strategic deal between the U.S. and Afghan government, the Arab spring and isolation of Turkey from the Middle East, the territorial swath controlled by Iran has extended from western Afghanistan up to the Mediterranean Sea…With or without any so-called nuclear bomb, Iran’s direct or indirect way of pursuing its foreign policy has, according to Greg Bruno of the Council on Foreign Relations, made ‘a veto holding power on Middle Eastern peace’.”
We, of course, have argued for some time that Iran’s rising regional influence bolsters the imperatives for U.S. rapprochement with the Islamic Republic. As Tabeafshar underscores, this also reinforces the sheer foolhardiness of a unilateral strike against Iranian nuclear targets. She points out that, if Iran were attacked, beyond closing the Strait of Hormuz or launching missiles, Tehran could confront the United States and its partners with “the uprising of Shias through the religious decree of jihad which would be extended out of the region and will come off with proxy attacks against U.S. military installations.” Moreover, “even in the best case scenario of a strike that, say, set back the Iranian peaceful nuclear program by 2 or 3 years, the Iranians would reseed it with much legitimacy and urgency that only come from having been attacked by an outside power.”
The case for serious U.S. diplomacy with Iran could not be clearer. But seriousness, in this context, will require very significant changes in U.S. policy and Washington’s overarching attitude about the Islamic Republic. We hope that we are wrong, but we do not think it likely that the Obama Administration will be up for this, especially not at the President continues his re-election bid.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Thank you for the good writeup. It actually used to be a enjoyment account it. Glance advanced to more brought agreeable from you! However, how can we communicate?
Attractive portion of content. I just stumbled upon your site and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing on your feeds or even I fulfillment you get right of entry to consistently quickly.
We have a largest selection of Private Label Rights and Master Resell Rights. Products Find PLR articles, PLR ebooks, Master Resell Rights ebooks, and lots of other PLR products for the LOWEST prices on the net!!
I think the admin of this website is really working hard for his website, because here every stuff is quality based stuff.
Hey There. I discovered your weblog using msn. This is an extremely well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to read extra of your helpful info. Thank you for the post. I’ll definitely return.
It is perfect time to make a few plans for the long run and it is time to be happy. I have learn this put up and if I may I desire to counsel you some interesting things or tips. Perhaps you could write next articles regarding this article. I wish to read even more issues about it!
Eli is good man for his kind words about payton.
Blow backs..
“In the final analysis, the sanctions against Iran adopted by EU foreign ministers to please their Israeli partner are backfiring against European companies and employees. “
Meanwhile, the French refinery owned by Petroplus (with 550 direct employees, 400 subcontractors and 1,000 direct jobs created) is about to close, the troubled Swiss refiner having filed for insolvency for its five European refineries, accounting for 2,500 direct employees (Small Crown in France, Antwerp in Belgium, Cressier in Switzerland and Essex and Teesside in Great Britain as well as the Research and Development Unit in Cardiff).
http://www.voltairenet.org/Europeans-first-victims-of
Castellio: “I don’t think one should push a Shia-Sunni divide to bring down the House of Saud. Such a vocabularly is what the US, Israel and SA promote. One should work on a Sunni-Sunni divide, according to principles well worked out in a local context.”
That will work, too. End result is the same. SA needs to be brought down, as does Israel.
Canning: “Iranian hostility toward Saudi Arabia is ill-advised in the extreme.”
Great – now he’s supporting the worst and most corrupt state in the region. Contrary to the Zionist freak shows like Sassan and Lucas, Iran is a model democracy compared to SA.
Yes, Canning, Iran should be trying to overthrow the Saudis. The entire region would be delirious with happiness should that happen. And why not? The Saudis are trying to overthrow every state in the region that isn’t a vassal state of the US, and supporting every dictator in the region except Assad. For purposes of survival, the Iranians should be trying to destroy the House of Saud in every way possible, right along with the Zionists in Israel.
fyi says:
Russia and China setup Iran and the United States for a war.
“A more far-fectched possibility, is an international conference in the Middle East with Russia, US, Israel, iran, Tureky, IraQ, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia to chart the contours of a stable environment there.
However, the United States is not capable of organizing such a dialogue.
“
How about china? A dragon dance in the Negev
seems like chinese have kept uncle sam busy while developing relations with Iran, persian gul emirates and now israel.
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/NB02Ad01.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufdw21ltc-8
fyi,
As yoou know, Iran appears to have invited more sanctions against itself, by trebling production of 20% U. You may say Iran had every right to do so, but effect was to bring more sanctions.
In 1962, when John Kennedy negotiated with Nikita Krushchev, using the Soviet ambassador in Washington as the conduit. he was not obliged to get approval from Israel for the deal (resolving the Cuban missile crisis).
Alan Cowell in today’s New York Times has a good report, citing several Press TV reports: “Iran offers to extend inspection by UN team”.
fyi,
You overlook the fact warmongering neocons were in control of the White House and hte Pentagon in 2003. Yes, Iran was ready to negotitate. Warmongering neocons thought they could overthow every government in the Middle East that opposed Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.
Sassan: Something your katsa must have missed: http://intelligence.senate.gov/120131/clapper.pdf
And please read it carefully, especially the paragraphs on Iran’s nuclear programme and the one about the success of the sanctions. Or the absence thereof. :-)
“doze off” rather……
BibiJon,
ditto.
Kooshy,
RE; ‘global dictator’, I thought that was a nice touch.
M. Ali,
Depending on who is the most vocal at the time, we get different aspects (Islam or Shi’a or Persian or Iranian, etc.) emphasized.
Fiorangela,
1. You have thoughtfully raised many critical points. I think those points should be raised by anyone and it doesn’t have to be Ayatollah Khamenei.
2. Re; the *bee*, I think the *bee* and I may have two different outlooks about things. I personally do not suggest what people should or shouldn’t say. It doesn’t matter who they are. I hope people, to the best of their abilities, consider all aspects of what they wish to say, are truthful and authentic in presenting their views. That’s it. ‘Considering all aspects’ for someone who is the head of a nation might be different than someone like me who is not the head of anything. I cannot suggest how Ayatollah Khamenei should or shouldn’t think, which angle to take, and exactly how to analyze and present his views. His legacy and success/effectiveness in leading Iran at the time of major turbulence speak for themselves. He knows his audience and he can connect with with at a level which well beyond me. It seems that sometimes he changes his speech even as he is walking to deliver it as he gets new information. I’d be happy if the audiences I work with stop text messaging long enough to hear at least a quarter of what I have to say in a 50-minute session. I consider myself really on fire if I mange to have only 2-3 people dosing off while I’m talking. I am not going to even mention some whose grandpa or great aunt dies several times in the course of 3 months and they have legitimate excuses not to come to hear me. These man’s audience break their bones to find a seat somewhat closer to him.
4. More relevant to the translation/interpretation though, I noticed that someone here had extracted/interpreted a segment out of context that appeared a gross misinterpretation. I decided to translate/interpret the whole speech so that it’s available to those who might wonder about the context and could evaluate the authenticity of that particular interpretation posted here yesterday.
5. I think some of the points your raised were part of the several workshops during the two-day conference. But I also think that this particular youth, his audience, is a bit different than the general “youth” you might have in mind. This particular population (especially the ones who came to this conference) is on top of a lot of issues. He and this particular audience both had similar assumptions about things. Once you know you have similar assumptions, it is appropriate to move beyond it.
6. RE; marketing, I am not a big fan of marketing (be it social or commercial). So, I cannot contribute too much to the points you and M. Ali raise.
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Rubbish!
In 2003, Iran came to the table, US was not interested.
In 2007, the Year of the NIE, US-EU decided to take the path of confrontation.
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm
You are not paying attention.
I suggest you consider others’ opinion with some care; per chance they might have stumbled on some truths.
Again, for your benefit, I repeat, Axis Powers give a very high probability that their Siege Warfare against iran, in addition to military threats, will result in one Iranian faction to overthrow the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad government.
Their hope – and this shows how far they have gone into Strategic Nowhere – is that the resulting government will be more to their liking.
This is the sum total of their strategic thinking at this time: a Hope and a Prayer.
And I repeat again for you: US, UK, France will not accept enrichment on Iranain soil any time soon.
The mechanisms for resolution of the Iranian nuclear case no longer exists in the international arena.
The only possibility, the Russian Step-by-Step Plan, is mortally wounded, first by US-EU and then by Israel.
A more far-fectched possibility, is an international conference in the Middle East with Russia, US, Israel, iran, Tureky, IraQ, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia to chart the contours of a stable environment there.
However, the United States is not capable of organizing such a dialogue.
In the absence of these alternatives, there will be more war and more bloodshed in that unfortunate region of the world.
Sassan says:
January 31, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Ignorant troll has to pretend to be me again below. How pathetic.
“Sassan” Khanoom , you mean that you are NOT “Sussan Khanoom” , this is bad Hasbaras behaviour….
James,
I replied to your question.
Reply to mine now, dont ignore them.
Do you deny that IAEA repeatedly have said that no uranium have been diverted for weaponization?
Do you deny Iran the right to enrich?
Do you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
Ignorant troll has to pretend to be me again below. How pathetic.
Seth, I am in school right now I will respond to you later.
fyi,
During the Cuban missile crisis, a key fact helping immensely toward resolving the matter was simply that the Soviet Union had an accomplished diplomat in Washington who knew many of the key players.
ISRAEL LOBBY does its best to prevent normal relations between the US and Iran. As you are well aware.
fyi,
William Hague thinks war with Iran would be a disaster. Where would the “victory” be found that you think the “Axis Powers” are seeking?
Apparently you see it as a matter of national pride, for Iran to enrich to 20% in order to provoke the Saudis into backing the overthrow of the gvoernment of Syria?
Sassan says:
January 31, 2012 at 3:28 pm
For a good time, call me at 972-2-6706320
Free most anytime.
Richard you are a mature person , would you recommend to call that Hasbara/Zionist Stooge ?
settman,
I asked you what you think would happen if the Saudi monarchy was overthrown.
For a good time, call me at 972-2-6706320
Free most anytime.
RSH, no, I don’t think one should push a Shia-Sunni divide to bring down the House of Saud. Such a vocabularly is what the US, Israel and SA promote. One should work on a Sunni-Sunni divide, according to principles well worked out in a local context.
The failed internationalism of the Salafi movement should be contrasted to the reality of national oppression within the state of SA.
Sassan,
I am still waiting for you do reply to my message.
Also Germany is burdend with a guilt to Israel, merkel approach makes no sense. Why would China cut off trade and loose, just so the occupation could go on in Palestine? Not to mention israeli nukes?
Why do you keep using hateful right-wing israeli sources? Thats not really credible.
Also you might want to check this:
Israeli Intelligence Pimps Discredited Iranian ‘Dissident,’ Peddling Regime Change by Another Name
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/
nahid says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Voice of Tehran says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Did you see with your children that music group, khosh be haletton
I red that poem and cried , but thanks very much
Nahid Khanoom , I do not use facebook ( never used ) , but my kids told me that due to bad weather and heavy snow the appearance of Barobax in Dizin will be postponed to the next week ( I wonder why this Scott Scum never reports about such events ), thus Inshallah in 10 days from today , I can tell you more…
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 2:46 pm
I seem to have to try to explain some basics of usual strategic confrontations to you.
One of the basics is that you never go for extremes; seeking total dominance, total defeat, or some such since it will cause your adversary to fight harder, become more inflexible in his poistion and generlly cause both the cost of achieveing your goal or the goal itself out of your reach.
The obverse is that if you seek negogiations, then you leave room for negogiations; so that the other fellow can leave with something.
For example, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, both the Soviet Union and the United States gained something: Soviet Union succeeded in getting US nuclear wepaons removed from Tureky, US got Russian missiles removed from Cuba (and Cuba was left an independent state).
In case of the confronation between Iran and the Axis Powers, the Axis Powers have left no room for negogiations. US has made the Islamic Republic of Iran illegal (within the legal system of the United States) and is trying to do so world-wide.
There is nothing on the table for Iran except removal of some sanctions (that are not worth much to the Iranians).
The absence of anything tangible for Iranians indicates that Axis Powers claim of readiness for negogiations is a lie.
That is, they have escalated, in strategic sense, to where there is no possibility of negogiations.
This indictates to me, that their goal is “total victory” and they believe it is within their grasps.
Voice of Tehran says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Did you see with your children that music group, khosh be haletton
I red that poem and cried , but thanks very much
BiBiJon,
The Saudis have outstanding oil economists who think $100 oil is now sustainable. Perhaps it is too high, as you suggest is believed by Iran’s oil experts.
You seem to have difficulty seeing that there is in fact a conspiracy to set up an illegal war with Iran, and Iran’s production of excess 20% U is key element in factual presentation made by the liar warmongers who want to hurt Iran to “benefit” Israel.
fyi,
Yes, a slow progression toward disaster, by Egypt. Excess fertility.
20% Agent, James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:34 pm
“Perhaps we can be more specific. China wants oil prices as low as possible. Is this a “western design” China supports? Or one China wishes to “frustrate”?”
As far as I know, Iran continues to set its annual budget based on %50 barrel of oil. That is the price oil fetched back in 2007 when oil-consuming countries’ economies were doing swimmingly well.
A good example is the taxation paradox, where the more you tax after a certain treshold, the less revenue you’ll collect. Oil producers face the same dilema. While they might love higher prices, they cannot exceed the limit of what a consumer may bear.
You have a tendency to talk about China wants this and China wants that, ignoring the fact that more importantly Iran wants exactly the same thing, and more importantly Iran is in the drivers seat of materializing what it is she wants.
In your putrid colonial mindset you just don’t seem to understand China not wanting nuclear proliferation is of little importance when Iran herself for far better reason of self-preservation does not want nuclear weapons, nor unaffordably high oil prices that might shrink the market, and cause expensive Canadian sources to become economical.
I can’t believe I bothered respond to your idiotic one liners. But, I’m sure I’ve committed bigger sins.
fyi,
Your notion of “unconditional surrender”, by Iran, as something “demanded” by the “Axis Powers”, really edges on delusional.
Are you claiming the US has hidden agenda of seeking destruction of Shia power in Lebanon?
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm
What has been more disastrous has been the very many Egyptians’ insitence on having large numbers of children – 7 or more.
James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:41 pm
settman,
I do my best to answer every question anyone raises.
so tellDo you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
Voice of Tehran says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Scott Lucas in action , gathering the latest “Iran-News”.
http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=sadomaso&start=374&um=1&hl=fr&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbnid=I1tLqUthsCGSsM:&imgrefurl=http://black-joker2.skyrock.com/2059272016-Avez-vous-deja-vu-un-nain-sado-maso.html&docid=Y1DLR_4VhkXRRM&imgurl=http://32.img.v4.skyrock.net/324/black-joker2/pics/2059272016_small_1.jpg&w=286&h=400&ei=sLUnT9nuB6ji2QWNpfC9Ag&zoom=1&chk=sbg&iact=hc&vpx
nahid says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Voice of Tehran says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Dear , which one is Scott and which one is sassan, pak ,…. , you are very funny :))
The ‘INCOGNITO’ guy is Scott of course and the little man is one of his ‘well informed sources ‘ and he doesn’t have much time , because his paymasters are very stingy , they need results.
Regarding Sassan/Pak , our most esteemed Fior pointed out correctly that Sassan is in reality a girl , who tries to impress Her IDF stud-boyfriend with Anti-Iran propaganda.
Thus Sassan ( not the GOOD Sassan ) is in reality Sussan Khanoom , Abru Kammon…
خوشکل خانوم / ابرو کمون / چشم عسلی / سوسن خانوم
میخوام بیام در خونتون
نمی خوام بیای
حرف بزنم با باباتون
وای نمی خواد آقا
میخوام بیام در خونتون
حرف بزنم با باباتون
بگم شدم عاشق دخترتون
می خوام بشم من دومادتون
بابا می خوام بیام خواستگاری نگو نه نگو نمیشه
این قلب من عاشقه تازه عاشق تر هم میشه
خوشکل خانوم / ابرو کمون / چشم عسلی / سوسن خانوم
میخوام بیام در خونتون
حرف بزنم با باباتون
بگم شدم عاشق دخترتون
می خوام بشم من دومادتون
بابا می خوام بیام خواستگاری نگو نه نگو نمیشه
میشم فدات / عاشق چشمات / میریزم به پات / تو هرچی بخوای
هالا نمه نمه بیا تو بغلم / سوسن خانوم آره تویی تاج سرم
آی نمه نمه بیا تو بغلم / سوسن خانوم آره تویی تاج سرم
میگم بوس بکن ازم
میگی اسمم سوسنه نه اعظم
حالا سوسنه سوزنه سوزنه موزنه هرچی باشه سوسن باشه
سوسن خانوم یدونه باشه
کفش های سفید پاشه
به چی مینازی بیا پیش ما
بگرد تو ناصردیشنا
این همه و یکیش ما
بیاین بشیم سی دیش ما
شبونه میام دم در خونه
میدزدمت میبرمت زن خونه بشی
سر 2 سال را میندازیم یه نخ زن گنده جوجه کشی
دامن کوتاه برام میپوشی
منم شلوار گل گلی و کشی
نگو نمیشه / نه نمیشه
نگو نمی خوای / نه نمی خوام
نگو نمیشه / نه نمیشه
نگو نمی خوای / نه نمی خوام
خوشکل خانوم / ابرو کمون / چشم عسلی / سوسن خانوم
خوشکل خانوم / ابرو کمون / چشم عسلی / سوسن خانوم
میخوام بیام در خونتون
نمی خوام بیای
حرف بزنم با باباتون
وای نمی خواد آقا
میخوام بیام در خونتون
حرف بزنم با باباتون
بگم شدم عاشق دخترتون
می خوام بشم من دومادتون
بابا می خوام بیام خواستگاری نگو نه نگو نمیشه
این قلب من عاشقه تازه عاشق تر هم میشه
هالا نمه نمه بیا تو بغلم / سوسن خانوم آره تویی تاج سرم
آی نمه نمه بیا تو بغلم / سوسن خانوم آره تویی تاج سرم
هالا نمه نمه بیا تو بغلم / سوسن خانوم آره تویی تاج سرم
آی نمه نمه بیا تو بغلم / سوسن خانوم آره تویی تاج سرم
خوشکل خانوم / ابرو کمون / چشم عسلی / سوسن خانوم
James,
Not sure what you are up to, just give an answer to each question.
Do you deny that IAEA repeatedly have said that no uranium have been diverted for weaponization?
Do you deny Iran the right to enrich?
Do you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
settman,
Are you arguing that Iran needs to stockpile large amounts of 20% U, to facilitate further enrichment to 90%? Should Iran decide to go to 90%?
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm
I am not opposed any negogiations, I just do not think it will ever lead to resolution of this issue.
The world will learn to live with an Iran that is alienated from the “White Christians”.
A world in which the Shia are calling the shots from Hinud Kush to the Mediterranean Sea.
This is largely driven by Axis Powers; they think they can win – and winning is defined here – by the absence of any concrete proposals from Axis Powers – as Iranians’ unconditional surrender.
That is why the negogiations will not lead anywhere.
settman,
I think Mubarak blundered badly in his rule of Egypt. Badly.
I think the overthrow of the monarchy in 1952-53 was a very bad thing. That Nasser’s rule was disastrous for the people of Egypt.
settman,
I do my best to answer every question anyone raises.
My understanding is that Britain told the Saudis Iran will not be allowed to pile up large amounts of 20% U.
BiBiJon,
My best information is that nuclear scientists outside Iran, following this matter, think Iran had enough 20% U to produce fuel plates for TRR sufficient for five or ten years operation. Depending on how fast the reactor is run, etc.
Iran apparently will not have the plates built until later this year.
I have no figures on how much “excess” 20& U is at hand in Iran. I also do not know offhand whether the production rate was in fact trebled.
James,
“I of course am very well aware the IAEA continues to monitor the nuclear materials in Iran. And that it confirms no diversion from civilian programme.”
- Ok so why then do you bring up Saudi arabia all the time when IAEA have proven there is no nukes nor a program nor a factual wish by Iran to produce nukes?
“What do you think would happen in Saudi Arabia, if the monarchy was overthrown?”
A popular movement would have taken power. Or do you deny arabs their will to elect their leaders? Are you pro-mubarak?
“Do you think Iran should pile up large amounts of 20% U, as a demonstration of independence and exercising of rights under the NPT, whatever the risk?”
You set the premises from a western standpoint.
Iran have the right to enrich and stockpile, especially in these hard times with war threat hanging over them.
Now I want you to not ignore my 3 questions I asked you. I repeat them so you cant miss them this time.
“Do you deny that IAEA repeatedly have said that no uranium have been diverted for weaponization?
Do you deny Iran the right to enrich?
Do you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
“
BiBiJon,
Perhaps we can be more specific. China wants oil prices as low as possible. Is this a “western design” China supports? Or one China wishes to “frustrate”?
20% Agent, James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:28 pm
“Did Iran in fact “treble” the production rate of 20% U, after the announcement last June?”
Are you claiming they didn’t?
settman,
I have a primary focus on how the liar warmongers carry out a new conspiracy to set up yet another illegal and idiotic war in the Middle East. So, I watch each step as carefully as possible.
20% Agent, James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“What are the “western designs” in the Middle East you claim Russia and China wish to frustrate?”
Something other than abstinence from interference in the concerns of others, spoken through the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
settman,
I of course am very well aware the IAEA continues to monitor the nuclear materials in Iran. And that it confirms no diversion from civilian programme.
What do you think would happen in Saudi Arabia, if the monarchy was overthrown?
Do you think Iran should pile up large amounts of 20% U, as a demonstration of independence and exercising of rights under the NPT, whatever the risk?
BiBiJon,
Did Iran in fact “treble” the production rate of 20% U, after the announcement last June?
James Clapper, head of US intelligence, told Congress Khamenei “probably” would allow attacks in the US in event of war. Washington Post report just out.
Agent 20%, James C.,
Iran did not treble her capacity for enriching U to 20%. Iran announced she was trebling the production rate.
Another words, dear 20% agent, the capacity was always there.
Voice of Tehran says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Dear , which one is Scott and which one is sassan, pak ,…. , you are very funny :))
James,
I am not sure why you keep repeating to FYI about twenty percent enrichment. Its long overdue and is not even up for debate unless you think western world set the law for other nations, do you?
Isnt NPT like any other legal document supposed to be followed and respected according to you? On the one hand you deny Iran to enrich and argue: “Saudis get concerned”. Well also Israel is “concerned” why do you keep bringing up Saudi arabia? I am not even sure why do you pay so much attention to Saudi arabia at all unless you support the saudi familiy, are you?
Do you deny that IAEA repeatedly have said that no uranium have been diverted for weaponization?
Do you deny Iran the right to enrich?
Do you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
Scott Lucas in action , gathering the latest “Iran-News”.
http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=sadomaso&start=374&um=1&hl=fr&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbnid=I1tLqUthsCGSsM:&imgrefurl=http://black-joker2.skyrock.com/2059272016-Avez-vous-deja-vu-un-nain-sado-maso.html&docid=Y1DLR_4VhkXRRM&imgurl=http://32.img.v4.skyrock.net/324/black-joker2/pics/2059272016_small_1.jpg&w=286&h=400&ei=sLUnT9nuB6ji2QWNpfC9Ag&zoom=1&chk=sbg&iact=hc&vpx=756&vpy=44&dur=1094&hovh=266&hovw=190&tx=129&ty=124&sig=103086260681688826383&page=15&tbnh=129&tbnw=92&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:374
Scott,
I think that is an interesting comment from Khamenei’s office, linking Syrian support for Hezbollah with the current problems the Syrian government is facing.
BiBiJon,
What are the “western designs” in the Middle East you claim Russia and China wish to frustrate?
fyi,
Do I take it you oppose a negotiated resolution of the nuclear dispute?
fyi says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:43 am
“The state actors that you have mentioned cannot prevent a US-EU attack on Iran.
Their aim is to prevent Iran from becoming too weak.”
Fyi, the most ‘indirect’, but effective support for Iran would be to throw her an economic lifeline. And, I think China, Russia, India, Turkey, etc. are all busy doing that.
Interestingly, that economic lifeline is not just a strategic necessity for frustrating western designs in the mid east, but also shields their substantial trade with Iran from the whims US/EU domestic policies. The potential for discounts on oil, and future opportunities for lucrative investments offsets short-term price of going against the western tide.
The dynamics of all this is spinning out of control. West’s quickening pace of sanctions is met by balancing acts by West’s rivals necessitating even quicker adoption of even more stringent sanctions which feed right back into adoption of further counter measures by western rivals. Whatever is at the end of this tunnel is getting nearer at speeds that only leave time for reflexes, rather than thoughtful strategies. I believe at the end of this tunnel there is de-escalation, and western capitulation to the global south.
US’s discomfort is palpable When the Indian FM made the categorical statement while on a visit to the US, one has to put it in the context that demonization of Iran carried by western MSM and beamed into every 4-star hotel room on the globe is being dismissed as blatantly as can be.
fyi,
To be more clear, are you claiming Iran can pile up large amounts of 20% uranium, with no serious risk?
R S Hack,
Why do you see it as “curious” that Israel would worry about Saudi Arabia and the US seeking to pressure Israel to resolve the dispute over Jerusalem, if the Iranian problem goes away?
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 1:56 pm
There is no danger to Iran unless and until her leaders determine that building nuclear weapons are in her national interest.
The game of 20% etc. is over.
US cannot end the Siege of Iran; she has no such power anymore.
Confrontation will continue.
R S Hack,
There seems little doubt that Saudi support for the unrest in Syria owes a good deal to concerns about Iran, and of course the Iranian announcement of a trebling of enrichment of 20% U figures into this.
fyi,
I think both Russia and China are completely sincere in seeking negotiated resolution of the nuclear dispute. China sees numerous business opportunities in Iran that are hampered or blocked by the sanctions. Russia has opportunities too.
Are you predicting Iran could pile up very large amounts of 20% U, without danger?
R S Hack,
Can you be more specific about your objection to David Albright’s statement that Iran does not have sufficient enrichment capacity to build nukes this year? Reuters had a report on his draft report this past Wednesday.
James Canning says: January 31, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Russia and China setup Iran and the United States for a war.
Axis Powers have been foolish enough (arrogant enough) to fall into that trap; thinking that they can extricate themselves at will.
We are the end stages of this game.
Since the Iran nuclear case cannot be settled and Axis Powers cannot afford a war, and the repeat of 1953-Iran/1973-Chile scenaria are unlikey; we are looking at a decades-long period of confrontation and alienation.
I expect a decade from now EU and Iran to be in exactly the same place as US and Iran find themselves today.
settman,
Let me know which item and source and I’ll double-check the entry.
S.
Empty says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:39 am
To me one new phrase by Ayatollah Khamenei’s yesterday speech was very well phrased which will be easier to become common term by the people who are uprising in the region.
This new phrase he used, was calling the US “Global Dictator” instead or along with “Global Arrogance” to me this is more fitting term and easier to be understood by oppressed nations around the world since they can more easy relate their own dictatorial regimes as a direct result of a larger global dictators demands.
Castellio,
How does Saudi Arabia “pay for American foreign policy”, as you contend? The US is the world’s largest oil importer, and the American public is hammered by high oil prices.
Surely you do not expect Saudi Arabia to pay down the American national debt. Or do you?
R S Hack,
Chances Iraq would help Iran to attempt overthrow of Saudi monarchy are near zero. And chances Iran would try to accomplish it are very low. Iranian hostility toward Saudi Arabia is ill-advised in the extreme.
Fiorangela© says:
January 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Dear Fior , you really deserve the copyright sign , and be sure no one can copy you :)
Castellio,
Zbigniew Brezinski points out that there is a gradual shift taking place in the thinking of the majority of Jews in the US, that offers reason for optimism (re: breaking control of Israel lobby over US foreign policy in the Middle East).
Overthrowing the Saudi monarchy almost certainly would achieve what, in your view? Higher oil prices? More power for extremist Muslim clerics?
scott lucas,
do you check your sources before posting them? I checked one of your statement and the source didnt tell what you stated.
fyi,
China and Russia both want a negotiated resolution of the nuclear dispute and both do not want Iran building nukes. I think you tend to underplay the significance of the second part of their programme.
fyi,
Are you in effect claiming the EU would have adopted the latest sanctions against Iran, even if Iran had not announced it would treble production of 20% U?
Empty-
Interesting and inspirational words from Ayatollah Khamenei, thank you.
But with respect, and with M. Ali’s statement in mind, that Iran does not do so well in the marketing department, if I could put a bee in the Ayatollah’s turban, here’s what it would buzz: one-tay own-day the eligion-ray, okay?
In my bumble opinion, Khamenei expects young Muslims to gain an understanding of the assaults on their values, and the nature of their own values, as a derivative function of religious doctrine, rather than by clearly articulating those differences. He would be doing his own audience of young Muslims everywhere a great service by addressing the situation more analytically and in social science terms. He would also give Iran’s antagonists fewer targets for attack, as well as far more sources for embarrassment and possibly self-correction, by defining in social science and economic terms the wrongheadedness of US and zionist Israel’s behavior and thinking errors. The Bee knows that, contrary to Sassan’s assertions, young Islamic scholars in Iran are learned in the full range of liberal arts and sciences — political science, economics, foreign affairs, languages — and not just religious studies.
The speech this Bee would buzz into the ayatollah’s turban would not have called US and zionism “evil” and made the several vague allusions to the materialistic and dictatorial nature of those two regimes — not that those statements are not true; it IS true that US and zionism are behaving in evil, materialistic and dictatorial ways. To say so in the way Khamenei did is to merely poke a stick at a hornet’s nest (hornets don’t make honey; bees make honey). It might be wiser, and more instructive to his audience, if Khamenei explained something along the very astute lines that M. Ali laid out — how the US has deviated from its founding principles and that, as it happens, if US could come to its senses, it would discover that its founding principles relate very closely with those of the IRI.
Khamenei would do well to explain that zionist capitalism seeks to turn every human activity into a profit center, with no regard for the human value of the underlying activity — for example, medical care has been reduced to a commodity. Zionist capitalism seeks to amass wealth but seeks to do so passively, without laboring.
In “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” Thomas Jefferson meditated on this passage from the gospel of Luke, 16th chapter:
“To dig I am not able; to beg I am ashamed. I know what I will do . . .” :http://drbo.org/chapter/49016.htm
It’s a complex passage that I’m still not sure I fully comprehend, but on its face, it relates the thinking process of an unjust steward who has been unfaithful in the tasks his master required of him, and now seeks to protect himself against the pending hardships that may result from his failure by engaging in devious tactics.
Zionized capitalism fails to recognize that labor has a value in itself; the human person NEEDS to expend his human efforts in labor — “If you bring forth that which is within you, what you bring forth will save you; If you do not bring forth that which is within you, that which you do not bring forth will destroy you.” There is a vast difference between the capitalism of Adam Smith that built America’s factories and industries, and the capitalism of Rothschild that insinuated itself into the United States in 1913 and has taken hold, to the detriment of the American people and culture.
The Bee would gently suggest to the Ayatollah that he get over the Marxism schtick; it is SO 19th century. We had friends from Germany who were in US graduate studies in industrial affairs some years ago. They visited us around the time of the reunification of East and West Germany; they were involved as professors in Aachen and consultants in attempting to merge the two economies, a very difficult task. I can still hear Erich saying, “I never read Marx; none of us ever did. We’ve moved beyond that.”
The Bee would also carry on some buzz about the bankruptcy of American popular culture. Since Bibi — not to be confused with Bee — has stated that he thinks it would be a good idea to bombard young Iranians with American television and movies because they would stimulate consumerism and envy and be “subversive,” the Ayatollah should point out to young Muslims how the American family has eroded; how American school children are failing to achieve; how American culture is rudderless, itself having been “subverted” by the very plan Bibi had in mind for Iran.
that’s a lot of spam by israelis on this site…
BiBiJon says: January 31, 2012 at 10:31 am
The state actors that you have mentioned cannot prevent a US-EU attack on Iran.
Their aim is to prevent Iran from becoming too weak.
Several times I have remined readers on this forum that the continued existence of the independent Iranian power is indispensible to the security of the Russian Federation as well as to China.
This power also is germaine to the aspirations of Pakistan and India for being independent power players in the international arena.
I think that Russian, Chinese, Pakistanti, and Indian planners grasp that although may be not all of their political leaders.
One consequence of my observations would be that other states beside Russia & Iran could be assisting the Alawite State in Syria.
They will not let Syria fall to the Axis Powers since it poses a threat to the existence of independent Iran which in turn poses a threat to them.
This is linear thinking.
On the other hand, the latest Axis Power sanctions, and the shot fire last year by Mr. Danilon, indicates that the Axis Powers aim is to crack Iranian resistance through snactions, economic destablization, covert actions, and continuous threats of war – coupled with acts of provocation (to make Iranians do something stupid).
You can clearly see that in the diplomatic posture – there is none.
They have escalated to the Strategic Never-Never Land since they expect Iranians to crack. That is, one faction replacing the other.
Once it becomes clear that that is a pipe-dream, they will be back to the negogiating table.
But not now.
All:
New US sanctions on Iran:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8Ka00kVoWzrLPfv-C5RaCTTrD9w?docId=CNG.bcdec355a00fa740b8ffef84b1330e0c.251
We read:
“And it aims to deny US visas to Iranian students who aim to come study energy-related fields in US institutions if the US State Department finds they plan to return to work in Iran’s energy sector or on Tehran’s nuclear program.”
The way I see it, the aim is to keep Iranians from becoming an industrialized state that US does not control.
Why provoke an inferno in Mid East
=================================
Arab revolt could not have come at a worse time. West doesn’t have what it takes to turn the tide.
But, provoking a war with Iran, and the resulting inferno in the mid east will harm oil-consuming western rivals, while US is cushioned against the oil shock curtsey of the the strategic petroleum reserve.
China, India, Turkey, etc. refusal to go along with the sanctions is based on this calculation, methinks. For them, cornering Iran into a war, must be resisted at any cost, and their likely stance will be to frustrate US/EU naked attempts at provoking a war.
M. Ali says: January 31, 2012 at 9:02 am
You are wasting your time.
US has been on the “Great Power” path since 1880s.
Her leaders care not one whit about late Mr. Adams and others.
test
M. Ali says:
January 31, 2012 at 9:01 am
It is interesting how far away American seems to me from what it was founded on. I have a certain respect for USA’s founding fathers. In the article I posted, here is a quotation from John Adams,
“If wise and learned philosophers of the elder world…. Should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: …She has uniformly spoken among them …the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights; …she has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles through which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.”
M. Ali thank you.
Empty says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:39 am
Translation/interpretation of Ayatollah Khamenei’s full speech delivered at the closing of the “Islamic Awakening and the Youth” World Conference
Empty, thank you.
On Monday, Vienna’s Jewish community demanded an investigation into the remarks made by the Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache and his associate Klaus Nittmann.
On Friday, when the Jews and country’s leaders were attending the annual Holocaust memorial service – White-supremacists held a ball at the Viennese palace which attracts guests who include the anti-Jew fringe. Hundreds of Jews and non-White people gathered against the event.
Heinz-Christian Strache was quoted as saying the protests reminded him of Kristallnacht and the far-right ball-goers were “the new Jews.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/the-new-jews-rant-offends-austrian-jews/
More from Adams,
”
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all… She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication [meaning to dissolve political connections… [The] fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force… She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…”
“
It is interesting how far away American seems to me from what it was founded on. I have a certain respect for USA’s founding fathers. In the article I posted, here is a quotation from John Adams,
“If wise and learned philosophers of the elder world…. Should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: …She has uniformly spoken among them …the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights; …she has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles through which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.”
Our dear Sassan posted an article that attacked Ron Paul for breaking away from attack-Iran party line, and in that article, there was an interesting article linked in the comments:
http://paulcurtman.weebly.com/2/post/2011/12/i-like-the-founding-fathers-except-for-their-foreign-policy.html
Empty, thanks for Khomenie’s speech transcript. It is interesting that Iran, more and more, seems to portraying itself less as a Shia state, than an Islamic state. Iran needs to move forward in this direction. To some of the regional rulers, the PR attack on Iran is always based on Iran’s dedication to it being a shia state. Unfortunately, Iran has usually fallen into this trap.
Clip of the speech of a young man from Bahrain yesterday addressing the participants and Ayatollah Khamenei:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgl6um4uqM
Correction:
It was yesterday afternoon. I had begun the translation yesterday. Sorry about the typo.
Date of the speech was yesterday afternoon, Monday, January 30, 2012 in Tehran.
The conference was attended by 1500 Muslim youth from 73 countries from around the world.
A clip could be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqanS9SHg0s
Translation/interpretation of Ayatollah Khamenei’s full speech delivered at the closing of the “Islamic Awakening and the Youth” World Conference this afternoon. The original Farsi text and audio could be accessed at: http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=18871
“In the name of God the merciful and the compassionate”
[Opening prayer and greetings to Prophet Muhammad (S.A.), his descendents, the pious and the pure]
“I welcome all you dear guests, the dear youth, the carriers of great promises/felicity for the future of Islamic Umma’h. Every single one of you carries a great promise. When the youth in a country awakens, the hope for a public awakening, too, increases. Today our youth all over the world of Islam has awakened. All these traps that have been spread before their feet, yet the young honorable Muslim with magnanimous spirit has freed himself/herself from all these preoccupations. You can see in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Bahrain, you see what is happing. In all Islamic countries what a movement has begun. All these are promises.
What I would like to tell you, my dear young sons and daughters is you must know that today the world history, the human history, has reached to a great historic turn. A new era has begun all over the world. The greatest and clearest signs are an attention to God Almighty and a help from the Almighty and leaning on divine inspiration. The humanity has already crossed the materialistic ideology and doctrines. Today, neither Marxism has an attractive force nor liberal democracy of the west. You can see in the cradle of western liberal democracy, in the US, in Europe what’s going on. They confess to defeat. National secularists, too, do not hold any attractions. Today, among the Islamic Umma’h, the attraction belongs to Islam, to Quran, to the doctrine of divine inspirations that God has promised. That a divine doctrine and divine inspiration and beloved Islam can lead to human happiness. This is a blessed, significant, and meaningful phenomenon.
Today, in Islamic countries there are uprisings against all attaché dictators. This is just a beginning of an uprising against the global dictator, the international dictator. It is a dictatorship of a corrupt and malicious Zionist network and arrogant powers. Today, the international arrogance and the international dictator is embodied in the US dictatorship, its followers, and the evil and dangerous Zionist network. Today, these bunch are using various methods and tools all over the world to enforce their dictatorship. What you did in Egypt, what you did in Tunisia, what you did in Libya, what you are doing in Yemen, what you are doing in Bahrain, and the inspiration that is motivating all other countries, all of these are segments of the fight/struggle against this dangerous and malignant dictatorship that has been putting the humanity under pressure for two centuries. The historical turn that I mentioned, it is an overhaul of this dictatorship toward the freedom of nations and the sovereignty of spiritual and divine values. This will come. Do not doubt its possibility.
It is the divine promise that و لينصرنّ اللَّه من ينصره God Almighty emphasized that if you help God, God will help you. Perhaps based on an ordinary outlook, a perspective based on material calculation, it appears far fetched. However, so many things that appeared far fetched, they happened. A year and a few months ago, did you imagine that the idol of Egypt to become so humiliated and destroyed? When in those days, some people were told that the corrupt regime of Mubarak would be overthrown, very few people believed such possibility. But it happened. If someone was predicting two years ago that certain events would happen in Northern Africa, majority would not have believed it. If someone had said, for example, that a group of believing young people would defeat the Zionist regime and its fully equipped military, no one would have believed it. But it happened. If someone would have said that this Islamic Republic system with all these animosities against it coming from the east and from the west would resist for thirty two years and would get stronger day by day and would progress, no one would have believed it. But it happened. وعدكم اللَّه مغانم كثيرة تأخذونها فعجّل لكم هذه و كفّ ايدى النّاس عنكم و لتكون ءاية للمؤمنين و يهديكم صراطا مستقيما These victories are all signs of God. These are signs of the power of a superior justice that God is showing us. The day that all people come forward, when we bring all of our existence to the battlefield, the victory granted by God is certain. God Almighty shows the way to us, guides us, helps us, and reaches us to our noble goals. It has one condition though: we must be present in the field.
What has happened so far is quite grand. For two hundred years, the westerners, with the help of their scientific progress, ruled over the Islamic Umma’h; they occupied Islamic nations. Some, they did it directly and some others they did it through their appointed dictators. Britain, France, and finally the US –which is the great satan—over powered the Islamic Umma’h. To the degree that they could, they humiliated the Islamic Umma’h. They planted a cancerous Zionist cell in the heart of the middle east –this sensitive region—and strengthened it from every which direction possible. They were so certain that their goals and policies in this critical region of the world are fully guaranteed/insured. However, with the support of a strong belief, with the support of a Islamic will, with an all out presence of people in the scene, all these golden dreams were neutered. They goals came to a stand still.
Today, the global arrogance feels weakened when faced with an Islamic awakening. You are in power. You are victorious. The future belongs to you. What has been done is an enormous task but it is not the end of the work—this is important/critical [to note]—this is the beginning, this is only the beginning. The Muslim Umma’h must struggle and continue the path so that it can nullify the enemy that comes at it from every direction.
The battle is the battle of wills and perseverance. The side that possesses the stronger will, that side is victorious. The one whose heart is linked to God/receives support from God, that side is victorious: ان ينصركم اللَّه فلا غالب لكم If you are able to obtain God’s assistance, no one can rule over you and overpower you. You will progress. We want that all Islamic Umm’ah s that constitute the great Islamic Umma’h to be free, to be independent, to live a life with dignity; not to be humiliated; with the assistance of progressive and divine Islam, to reform their lives. And Islam could afford it. For years, we were held back from scientific progress; they trampled upon our culture; they destroyed our independence. Today, we are awake. We will conquer all fields of science one after another.
When the Islamic Republic was formed thirty years ago, all they enemies were claiming that while the Islamic revolution succeeded, it cannot/doesn’t have the capacity to manage the matters of life. It would back down. Today, our youth, with the blessing of Islam, have been able to do great works in the field of science when it appeared impossible to do in the past. Today, with reliance on God Almighty, the Iranian youth advances in great scientific works: it enriches uranium, it makes progress in stem cell research and development, in bio-technology, it has taken great steps, it ventures into space. All of these are made possible with the blessing of God Almighty and the motto of ‘Allah-o-Akbar’
We should not underestimate our capacities. The greatest wound that the western culture inflicted upon the Islamic nations was two wrong and misleading perceptions: first was the perpetuation and injection of a thought that Muslim Umma’h is weak; they forced upon you a belief that you can’t do much, either in political scene or in scientific scene; they kept on saying ‘you’re weak’. We, the Islamic nations, remained in this false belief for several long decades, and remained behind. The second false belief that injected into us was their own invincibility, their own unlimited powers. They spread the false belief that the US cannot be defeated, that the west cannot be forced to retreat; that we have no other choice but to endure [under these circumstances].
Today, it has become quite evident for Islamic nations that both these beliefs/perceptions are ‘wrong within wrong’. The Islamic nations can make progress; they can indeed rejuvenate and revive the Islamic greatness that was once at the peaks of honor and shined in the areas of science and in social and political scenes. And the enemy has no other choice but to retreat in multiple fields.
This century is the century of Islam. This century is the century of spirituality. This century’s gift to all nations will be a Islam of wisdom, spirituality, and justice all rolled into one. The Islam of wisdom, the Islam of deep thinking and foresight, the Islam of spirituality, the Islam of attention and reliance on God Almighty, the Islam of struggle, the Islam of work, the Islam of deeds; these are the lessons from God Almighty and the lessons from Islam to us.
What is very important today is that the enemy having received a blow in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya and, more or less, all other countries in the region is now busy planning and plotting. Great attention must be giving to these enemy plots. Care must be taken so that they are not stealing away the people’s revolutions and misdirecting them. Use from others’ experiences. The enemy is doing quite a lot to divert the revolutions from their paths, to neutralize these movements, to neutralize all these bloods that have been spilt and struggles that have been undertaken; care must be taken to be fully aware and awake. You, the youth, are the engine of these movements; be awake, and beware.
We, in this thirty two years, have had many experiences. For thirty two years, we have faced the enemy. We have stood up to the enemy, resisted it, and overcome it. There has not been a plot in the book that the west and the US could do against the Islamic Republic and haven’t tried. If there has been anything that they haven’t done, it is simply because they couldn’t do it. If they could, they surely would. And in very step, whatever they did, they were slapped across their mouths and tasted the defeat. It will be the same from this point forward, too. From now on, too, whatever plots the concoct against the Islamic Republic, they will be defeated; this is God’s promise. We have no doubt.
We do not doubt the truth of God’s promise. We are not suspicious of God Almighty; God Almighty chastises those who are suspicious, و يعذّب المنافقين و المنافقات و المشركين و المشركات الظّانّين باللَّه ظنّ السّوء عليهم دائرة السّوء و غضب اللَّه عليهم و لعنهم و اعدّ لهم جهنّم و سائت مصيرا God’s promise is a truthful promise. Because we see it relevant, we are in the battlefield – the Iranian nation has brought all its capacity to the scene—therefore, the divine victory is certain. It is the same in all other countries. But we must be aware. We must all be aware. We must all pay strict attention to the enemy’s plot. The enemy is trying to neutralize the movements, to create division.
Today, the Islamic movement in the Islamic world doesn’t separate the Shi’a, the Sunni; it doesn’t separate the Shaf’ei, the Hanafi, the Ja’afari, the Maleki, the Hanbali, and the Zeydi. It doesn’t separate the Arab and the Persians, and all other ethnicities. In this vast field, everyone is present. Everyone is trying. Let’s make sure the enemy doesn’t create division among us. Let’s foster brotherhood among ourselves. Let’s clarify our goal: our goal is Islam, our goal is Quranic and Islamic path. Certainly, there exist commonalities and distinctions. There is not a unique plan that would fit all Islamic nations. In various countries, there are diverse geographic conditions, diverse historic conditions, and diverse social conditions, but the fundamentals are the same: we are all enemies of arrogance; we are all against the iron grip, dirty tricks, and oppression of the west; we are all against the existence of the cancerous Israeli cell. Everywhere that there is an event that benefits Israel, it is also for the benefit of the US. We must be aware and awake there. We must know that movement is a foreign-imposed movement; it’s an estranged movement; it is not grassroots. Wherever the movement is Islamic, against Zionists, against arrogance and oppression, against corruption, that movement is the correct movement. There, we’re all together: to think that we are Shi’a or Sunni, or from this country or that country, it makes no difference. We must think within the same framework.
Just take a look, today, this very simple example is right in front of our eyes: All global media outlets are trying to isolate the Bahraini people, the Bahraini movement. What is their excuse? Because the question is a “Shi’a-Sunni” question, they claim. They intend to create division, they want to create lines and separate. For them, Muslims and believers of this religion or that religion or this Islamic path or that Islamic doctrine make very little difference. The commonality is Islam. The common thread for all is Islam and Islamic Umm’ah, the unity of Islamic Umm’ah. The secret to victory and strength of the movement is a reliance on God, optimism toward God’s promise, and reliance on God Almighty’s help for unity and interconnectedness.
My beloved! My sons and daughters! Take great care that the enemy does not stop your movement. God Almighty calls the Prophet’s attention in two places: فاستقم كما امرت and و استقم كما امرت ‘Resist/persevere’. Resistance means to persevere, to continue the path, to follow the path, do not stop. This is the key.
We must move forward. This movement is a successful movement. It has a bright horizon. The horizon is quite clear. The future is a bright future. There will come a day that the Islamic Umm’ah, with the help of almighty, will get to the peak of honor and independence. The Muslim Umm’ah, while preserving their own characteristics, while preserving their own distinctions, place themselves under the unified umbrella toward God and toward Islam. All be united together. It is then that the Islamic Umm’ah will find its honor.
We have in our countries vast underground resources, we have strategic and critical regions. We have vast natural resources. We have great people. We have progressive and fertile human power. We must make the effort. And God Almighty will bless us for these efforts.
I must tell you, the youth, the future belongs to you. You, with the will of the Divine, will see that day. And with God’s help, you will transfer your honor to the generations after you.
May the peace and blessing of God be upon you.”
The Latest from Iran — 31 January:
1125 GMT: The Supreme Leader’s Brother Watch. Sayed Hadi Khamenei, a leading member of the reformist Association of Combatant Clerics, has visited the children of the detained opposition figure Mir Hussain Mousavi.
Khamenei expressed his appreciation for Mousavi, saying that “all the issues he raised during the election shows that he was an expert in cultural, economic, and political fields”. He wished “for the bitterness of these times to be sweetened” by the release of Mousavi, his wife Zahra Rahnavard, and fellow opposition figures Mehdi and Fatemeh Karroubi, all of whom have been under strict house arrest since last February.
1115 GMT: Questioning the Supreme Leader. Readers who understand Persian may be interested in a spirited discussion on Voice of America among filmmaker Mohammad Reza Nourizad, analyst Babak Dad, and opposition spokesman Mojtaba Vahedi (Parts 1, 2, and 3).
1110 GMT: Elections Watch. An EA source reports that State broadcaster IRIB is planning, as with the 2009 Presidential contest, to broadcast debates for the upcoming Parliamentary elections, featuring the heads of different parties.
However, after the subsequent controversy over the 2009 election — not only highlighting the debate between President Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi, but also Ahmadinejad’s charges of corruption against former President Hashemi Rafsanjani — the debates will not be television but broadcast through radio channels.
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/31/the-latest-from-iran-31-january-democracy-and-freedom-are-a.html
The Latest from Iran — 31 January:
0935 GMT: Oil Watch. A Turkish Ministry of Energy spokesman has said, “‘We are not bound by EU [European Union] or US decisions, so we will only block Iranian oil imports if the UN decides to impose such sanctions on Iran.”
At the same time, the spokesman said that while Turkey’s private refiner Tupras was free to buy crude from any source it chose, the company had given an undertaking not to import crude from Iran if the Turkish Government opted to impose sanctions.
The spokesman’s statement re-confirms the line put out by Minister of Energy Taner Yildiz on 12 January,”We are not bound by any decision except for the UN decisions.”
Turkey takes almost half its oil from Iran.
0915 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human Rights Watch has called on Iranian authorities to “immediately release dozens of labor and independent trade union activists imprisoned for speaking out peacefully in defense of workers”. The organisation continued, “Convictions solely for the peaceful exercise of freedom of association and assembly should be quashed, and charges should be dropped against others facing prosecution for these reasons”.
Human Rights Watch noted recent arrests Tehran, East Azerbaijan and Kurdistan Provinces. Those detained include Alireza Akhavan, a teacher and labor rights activist; Mohammad Jarrahi and Shahrokh Zamani of Tabriz; Shays Amani, a prominent rights activist and member of an independent trade union in Sanandaj; and Mehdi Shandeez.
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/31/the-latest-from-iran-31-january-democracy-and-freedom-are-a.html
Scott (incognito) and one of his well informed sources exchanging the ‘ latest ‘ Iran-News , in an unknown location :
http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=sadomaso&start=374&um=1&hl=fr&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbnid=I1tLqUthsCGSsM:&imgrefurl=http://black-joker2.skyrock.com/2059272016-Avez-vous-deja-vu-un-nain-sado-maso.html&docid=Y1DLR_4VhkXRRM&imgurl=http://32.img.v4.skyrock.net/324/black-joker2/pics/2059272016_small_1.jpg&w=286&h=400&ei=sLUnT9nuB6ji2QWNpfC9Ag&zoom=1&chk=sbg&iact=hc&vpx=756&vpy=44&dur=1094&hovh=266&hovw=190&tx=129&ty=124&sig=103086260681688826383&page=15&tbnh=129&tbnw=92&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:374
Latest Feature….
Iran Prescription: Oh My God, Tehran Almost Has The Bomb! (Repeat as Necessary)
Josh Shahryar
Iran is about a year away from developing a nuclear bomb! That is not me getting hysterical — it’s USSecretary of Defense Leon Panetta in an interview on American television:
The consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon.
Panetta is not the only Cassandra. His statement echoes that made by Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak last November about the ‘when’ of Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.
All very worrying. Just as it has been worrying on every occasion over the last 7 1/2 years when Iran was on the verge of The Bomb. Here’s a small selection of the declarations:
- July 2004: Israeli military intelligence chief General Aharon Zeevi Farkash tells Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Iran will have a nuclear weapons capacity by 2007.
- February 2006: US National Intelligence Director John Negroponte says Iran could develop a nuclear arsenal as early as 2010.
- December 2007: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert estimates that Iran will have the capability of building a bomb by 2010.
- February 2008: Israel’s Mossad estimates that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon within three years.
- January 2009: The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates Iran will amass enough low-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon by the end of 2010.
- September 2009: Iran experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency believe Tehran has the capability to develop nuclear weapons.
- December 2009: Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak says that Iran will have the technology to build a nuke by early 2010 and produce one by 2011.
– January 2011: British Minister of Defence Liam Fox estimates Iran could develop nuclear weapons by as early as 2012.
There are dozens of others guesstimates, estimates, declarations, and certainties, omitted here for the sake of the reader’s time, in the hive-mind of the internet. They all illustrate that, far from carrying out the essential task of a realistic evaluation of Tehran’s capability, some of those in key positions inside and outside Governments set aside accuracy for polemical warnings.
Analysts might cite Stuxnet, the worm that has supposedly struck Iran’s computers, as the reason why many of these predictions did not come to fruition, but the cyber-attack was not around until 2010 — six years after the earliest estimate posted here, and a full 15 years after predictions of Tehran with The Bomb in 2000. The stern assessments have been churned out, scary-fied, and then thrown at the masses with caveats such as, “The US will not allow Iran to get nukes” or “Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities possibly within months”.
Luckily, the predictions have yet to result in such catastrophe, but they slowly but steadily built an image in the mind of the general public of Iran with nuclear weapons near its grasp. Just a couple of years. No, maybe a year. The “maybe a year”, “two years” pass without predictions fulfilled, but they have already rattled those concerned about the issue, those who may not have the time to go back and check the timeline of false jeremiads.
Iran getting its hands on nuclear weapons may be an ominous prospect. But that scenarios should be based on statements backed by facts. Otherwise, all the rhetoric does is, at best, scare people at, and at worst, build a case for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and possibly a war. Given the fact that the “at worst” is being sought by some on the right and on the left, Panetta and Barak may not be Cassandras. Unwittingly or wittingly, they may be the trumpet-blowers for the tragedy.
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/31/iran-prescription-oh-my-god-tehran-almost-has-the-bomb-repea.html
Castellio: “RSH, honestly, I don’t know who’s thinking about it, but the best way forward is to bring down the House of Saud, not easy to do, but doable.”
I agree. But who’s going to do it? Iran might try, maybe even in concert with Iraq, but I’m not sure how they could proceed. The SA Shia are only 10-15% of the population – which might be enough to cause some real trouble, but unlikely to overthrow the regime without some heavy duty military backing – which would run afoul of the US.
“Breaking control of Israel over American foreign policy is a generational thing, as is countering US banking and trade policies”
Agreed. And I don’t even see a smidgen of progress on those fronts, other than the relatively insignificant Occupy Wall Street thing.
“The tactics that are being used against Syria should be used against SA.”
By which I assume you mean someone bankrolling and supplying weapons and training and manpower support to enough of the Shia in Saudi Arabia to cause some real chaos. I would expect that to happen if the US attacks Iran. But it’s not clear if Iran will be able to continue to export support to the Shia there once the war is in heavy gear. If a Shia rebellion can become self-sustaining, possibly with support from Hizballah as well as Iran, then maybe it could work.
If a war with Iran starts, I’d hope Iran would put some effort into assassinating every member of the Saudi Royal Family they can get their sights on. Which itself will take a while, since there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of those scum. Kill enough of them and the kingdom might well crumble under internal dissension.
For all the morons who still blather about how Iran should be shivering in its boots with fear of a secular uprising among the Arabs(which doesn’t seem like it’s happening anytime soon), or how the progressive Arab spring is the anti thesis to the reactionary Iranian Revolution:
;http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fal-akhbar.com%2Fnode%2F34014&act=url
;http://al-akhbar.com/node/34014
That is how westernized Arab communists look at Iran today.
Nothing really new, just confirming it, apparently.
India says it won’t cut back on Iran oil imports, in defiance of stiffer US and EU sanctions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/worldbusiness/india-says-it-wont-cut-back-on-iran-oil-imports-in-defiance-of-stiffer-us-and-eu-sanctions/2012/01/30/gIQAo6kqbQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop
RSH, honestly, I don’t know who’s thinking about it, but the best way forward is to bring down the House of Saud, not easy to do, but doable.
As long as Israel controls US foreign policy, and SA pays for it, and the US uses its banking and trade policies as global leverage, backed by its military… well, one would think anti-imperialist progress was impossible.
Breaking control of Israel over American foreign policy is a generational thing, as is countering US banking and trade policies, but bringing down the House of Saud may not be. (Sorry, James, I know you feel they’re like cousins to the British monarchy and all, but …)
As we all know, SA is THE most oppressive regime in the Mideast, and has been exporting conservative Islamists and Islamic terror for many years, bankrolling every reactionary movement it can. It’s time to bring it down.
The tactics that are being used against Syria should be used against SA. Sooner, not later.
No big surprise…
Turkey will not block Iran oil imports, official says
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1688157.php/Turkey-will-not-block-Iran-oil-imports-official-says
The Latest from Iran — 31 January:
0755 GMT: Supreme Leader Watch. Ayatollah Khamenei, responding to a question in a meeting with university students, has declared that it is acceptable under Sharia law to kiss his hand.
However, according to an Iran-based correspondent for Tehran Bureau, the Supreme Leader may need to think beyond the issue of kissing his hand.
The correspondent notes the spread of jokes about Ayatollah Khamenei: “Some jokingly refer to him as Farzaneh Khanoum — Lady Farzaneh. Farzaneh is a common female name, and the joke is a play of words on the epithet he is customarily accorded on state television: rahbar-e farzaneh — wise or learned leader.”
And then the correspondent moves from the satirical to the critical:
The criticism voiced by ordinary Iranians is increasingly uninhibited, at times quite personal and laced with loathing. Khamenei is described as stubborn, obstinate, jealous, and vindictive. He is said to hold permanent grudges against his opponents, including those Iranians who did not accept his choice for president, whom he labels seditionists in virtually every speech he delivers.
Babak, a music teacher who was injured in a post-election protests, calls Khamenei “so cruel that, if he could kill all of us, he would so, he would have no opponents.” Marzieh, the daughter of a well-known ayatollah, discusses the way Khamenei has dealt with Rafsanjani as well as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the former presidential candidates who been under house arrest for almost a year: “Mr. Khamenei holds a grudge in his heart against these men both because of the Imam’s [Khomeini's] love and support for them and also because in comparison to these three, in particular Hashemi [Rafsanjani] and Mousavi, he is clearly a second-rate individual.”
And Khamenei’s authoritarian behavior is not the only source of criticism; there is also his support for Ahmadinejad and the president’s policies, the bad economic conditions, and the growing external pressures. An economics professor at Allameh Tabatabai University says, “Unrestrained imports, the destruction of the country’s productive capacity, inflation, and corruption have made people worried about the future of the nation. Without a doubt, many consider him to be responsible for the situation.” He goes on to say that many ordinary people are puzzled over Khamenei’s inclination “to take the country toward ruin. The only answer they have is that he is willing to do it because he wants to maintain power.”
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/31/the-latest-from-iran-31-january-democracy-and-freedom-are-a.html
ISIS: Iran won’t move toward nuclear weapon in 2012
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4181020,00.html
Useless David Albright…
Quote
Iran is unlikely to move toward building a nuclear weapon this year because it does not yet have the capability to produce enough weapon-grade uranium, a draft report by the Institute for Science and International Security said on Wednesday.
End Quote
“Albright is considered a respected expert on the issue.”
Not by a lot of people.
‘Israel sees narrowing window for Iran strike’
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4182990,00.html
Quotes
The officials said that Israel must act by the summer if it wants to effectively attack Iran’s program.
Key Israeli defense officials believe that the time to strike, if such a decision is made, would have to be by the middle of this year.
Complicating the task is the assessment that Iran is stepping up efforts to move its work on enriching uranium deep underground.
Several officials at the heart of the decision-making structure, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing some of Israel’s deepest secrets, said they feel compelled to give the sanctions time.
In this way, somewhat paradoxically, the new economic sanctions the US and Europe are imposing – while meeting a repeated Israeli request – have emerged as an obstacle to military action.
An Israeli strike would risk shattering the US-led diplomatic front that has imposed four additional rounds of sanctions on Iran and jolt the shaky world economy by causing oil prices to spike. Still, the officials said that if Israel feels no alternative but to take military action, it will do so.
End Quote
Now part of this makes no sense at all. If Israel really believes – which we know it doesn’t – that Iran is a real threat to Israel, then what would it matter if an Israeli attacks ruins the diplomatic program? Who would care – it will be war and that’s that.
On the other hand, if Israel really thinks that sanctions might force Iran to back down – which almost no one does, so therefore Israel doesn’t either – then why threaten an attack as soon as summer?
Quote
“What will tip the scales in favor or against an attack is whether we will really be able to do inflict serious damage,” said Yiftah Shapir, an expert in nuclear arms proliferation at Tel Aviv University. “That will be more important than whether we are ready to absorb (the casualties) of an attack.”
Israeli officials believe the Iranian nuclear program is so far advanced that any attack would delay it by two to three years at best, but not destroy it.
“It’s a very advanced program with many facilities, some very large and some very fortified. To destroy them you need a series of massive assaults for two to three weeks, a month, something like that,” Shapir said.
A one-time surgical strike, the most likely attack by Israel, “can’t do more than politically declare that we aren’t willing to tolerate” a nuclear Iran, Shapir said.
End Quote
And this statement makes no sense, either. Israel KNOWS it can’t do the kind of damage needed to stop Iran’s nuclear program. And Israel also KNOWS the entire purpose of an Israeli attack is to get the US involved in destroying Iran.
So all of this stuff is completely bogus. My guess is this article is entirely propaganda intended to push Obama some more. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel really did consider this summer – during the US elections – to be an excellent time to attack Iran, especially if Syria is under attack by then.
So I wouldn’t dismiss this article entirely.
PHOTO ESSAY
Inside free Syria
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB01Ak01.html
They deny they’re getting any foreign support. This is almost certainly a lie.
I’d say the US M-16 the guerrilla is holding might be a counter-argument to their claim…although admittedly those weapons are as readily available as the Uzis some of them were seen to be carrying which implied Israeli support.
The Latest from Iran — 31 January:
0655 GMT: Currency Watch. The leading currency website Mesghal puts the Iranian Rial at 18300:1 vs. the US dollar, a return to its opening level of Monday before it slipped 3% during the day.
This is still nowhere near the declared single rate of 12260:1, put out by the Central Bank on Saturday. Reports indicate that foreign exchanges are refusing to sell “cheap” US dollars at the official level.
0645 GMT: A brief, direct opening to Tuesday’s coverage….
More than 2 1/2 years after his disputed re-election, President Ahmadinejad has said that freedom and democracy are nothing but a “big lie”.
According to State outlet Press TV, Ahmadinejad was not referring to the Islamic Republic but to the US, where he claimed the Democratic and Republican parties are merely two sides of the same coin: ““There is one group behind the curtain that leads the people on, but their objective is one.”
Beyond its borders, the US used bombs and economic sieges, the President continued, “and if any one supports them, it’s because of fear.”
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/31/the-latest-from-iran-31-january-democracy-and-freedom-are-a.html
The consequences of war for Saudi Arabia
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA31Ak01.html
Quotes
Any war on Iran would rely overwhelmingly on US naval and air power, with Saudi forces playing only subordinate roles. Saudi feats of arms will be boldly proclaimed in official media, as they were in the 1991 Gulf War in which Saudi forces hardly distinguished themselves, but the underlying dependence on the US, however, cannot be kept from the public.
It will underscore the ineffectualness of the House of Saud and undermine its aura of legitimacy and claim to be guardian of Islam and its most holy sites.
Perception of weakness will heighten discontent and strengthen demands for reform which were squelched last March through shows of force but which have been kept alive by more audacious movements in the region.
The Saudi rulers may try to counter this perception by building up its armed forces. American, British and Chinese defense contractors will gladly help with the undertaking, but it will pose problems for already strained state coffers which currently dole out immense sums to tribes and family members.
Intelligence reports indicate that Saudi Arabia has granted flyover rights for an Israeli attack on Iran and will help refuel returning aircraft. Reports will merge freely with popular lore and take on greater magnitude.
Conspiracies are very much part of Saudi folklore and foreign manipulation of Muslims is a recurring theme – an unsurprising legacy of Ottoman, British and US intrigues. It will take little encouragement for many to believe that the impetus to war with Iran comes from the machinations of Israeli and American bureaus.
(Curiously, Israelis worry that the US, European Union and Saudi Arabia will, upon settling the Iranian matter, plot to turn their concerted attention to imposing a Palestinian settlement on Jerusalem.)
Iran may look to the Saudi-Yemeni frontier as a base of operations. Already armed and operating there are the Houthis – a Shi’ite tribal movement that fights encroachments by the Yemeni government and its Saudi backers. Several thousand strong, the Houthis raid on both sides of the frontier and will provide sanctuaries for IRGC guerrillas to use for operations just to the north inside Saudi Arabia.
Despite Saudi allegations, there has thus far been little evidence of Iranian influence with the Shi’ites on either side of the Saudi-Yemeni frontier. A war on Iran, however, might make that influence both real and problematic.
End Quotes
Pepe Escobar on What is the GCC up to in Syria?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA31Ak04.html
Quotes
Sounds very civilized – except that it masquerades the real agenda of UN-imposed regime change. A quick look at the draft resolution also reveals a two-week deadline for Assad to get out of Dodge; if not, expect hell, “in consultation” with the Arab League.
“Arab” League is now a fiction; what’s really in charge is the Arab Gulf league, or GCC league; in practice, the House of Saud. Even aspiring regional superpower Qatar plays second fiddle. And everyone else, they are just extras.
So here we have the House of Saud and its Gulf minions detailing a road map for regime change followed by full Western parliamentary democracy, and places like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait defending human rights in Arab lands. It’s as if this whole thing was a joint plan concocted by dadaist Tristan Tzara and surrealist Andre Breton with a Monty Python twist
The Syrian ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja’afari, was even more graphic; “Syria will not be Libya; Syria will not be Iraq; Syria will not be Somalia; Syria will not be a failing state.”
Even though there are no objective conditions whatsoever for a NATO bombing of Syria, the NATOGCC + Israel geopolitical axis will pursue its objectives relentlessly.
Even the venerable stones in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus know that the Syrian National Council (conveniently exiled in NATO members Turkey and France) is being financed by the House of Saud and Qatar. So expect more GCC-financed weapons to continue raising hell in Syria – now even in some Damascus suburbs. No wonder the GCC League had to pull out its “monitors”; they would have to roundly denounce the very people they are arming.
End Quotes
Let’s assume for a second that Russia does agree with a UN resolution calling on Assad to “step aside” (if not step DOWN) and appoint a “deputy” to form a “unity government” which includes one or more of the dissident groups.
There are two scenarios beyond that situation:
1) The armed dissidents continue to sow chaos in Syria in order to fully overthrow the regime. If that happens, things proceed as if the actions taken by Assad never happened. We still end up with a civil war and thus a US/NATO bombing campaign.
2) The armed opposition dissipates and Syria begins a relatively slow regime change toward replacement by a Sunni majority, or a divided government a la Lebanon and Iraq with Sunni And Allawite factions, with the Sunnis dominating (the opposite of Iraq where the Shia dominate.)
The problem with result 2 is that it does nothing to advance the cause for an Iran war, either for Israel or for the US. It does not allow for Israel to take out Hizballah in Lebanon. In fact, it makes it worse for Israel because the Sunni majority in the Syrian government is unlikely to be any more favorable to Israel than the secular Allawites or the new government in Egypt.
Does anyone believe the US wants Assad replaced by a Sunni government which is even more hostile to Israel than Assad’s is?
Let’s even assume that the resultant Sunni government is Muslim Brotherhood or some less radical group that doesn’t intend to make trouble for Israel and in fact is a US or Saudi Arabia client government. The Syrian government is going to be in bed with the US and Israel and the Arab street isn’t going to like that. And Israel still can’t attack Hizballah in Lebanon.
Let’s even assume that the new Syrian government is totally Sunni, totally a Saudi Arabia client state, and that they hate the Shia in Lebanon, so they will actually JOIN Israel is attacking Hizballah at some point.
As comedian Don Rickles used to say, “What, that’s BETTER?”
The end result of every scenario still ends up being Israel attacking Hizballah in Lebanon, which will entail either Syria being attacked and weakened or Syria cooperating with Israel in that endeavor.
And subsequent to that outcome, we get an Iran war. The only difference is in the timing. If Assad fights back now, or the armed Syrian factions continue regardless of his stepping down, we get the Syrian war sooner. If the Syrian situation cools down we get it later.
The bottom line is Israel can’t have an Iran war – which it resolutely wants – until Hizballah is either weakened or until Israel just decides to take the Hizballah hit and attack Iran anyway.
Syria just the minor obstacle in the way of Israel taking out Hizballah. One way or the other that minor obstacle is going to be removed.
Castellio: “Petrushev, head of the Russian Security Council says: “the prospect of further empowering Islamists… ” This is not a nickel and dime security concern for the Russians. They know that the separatist movements in their south are supported by this “turning” of the Islamists.”
I’m aware. But there’s still not much Russia can do to prevent Syria’s regime from eventually being replaced by Islamists if the bulk of the Syrian people can’t prevent the Allawite regime from being overthrown.
“Those who claim to be surprised by the Russian response are either clueless or lying.”
I vote for both, as usual.
“Russia can be formidable when roused.”
But what can they DO if the US and NATO decide to bomb Syria on their own, without UN sanction? Russia is not going to confront both the US and NATO over Syria militarily? Like one of the articles says, all they can do is make sure the actions are illegal under international law. Whoop-de-do…so was Iraq.
RSH, slow down for a second. Petrushev, head of the Russian Security Council says: “the prospect of further empowering Islamists… ”
This is not a nickel and dime security concern for the Russians. They know that the separatist movements in their south are supported by this “turning” of the Islamists.
The Americans, and Israel, work hand in hand with Saudi Arabia to support Islamists willing to fight ’secular’ regimes. The Russians have had true terrorism in their cities caused by Chechen rebels.
Those who claim to be surprised by the Russian response are either clueless or lying.
Russia can be formidable when roused.
US Senate to Expand Iran Sanctions
http://www.uskowioniran.com/2012/01/us-senate-to-expand-iran-sanctions.html
Essentially all trade with Iran by any company listed on the New York Stock Exchange will be banned.
Is Russia being stupid by backing the Arab League resolution?
Russia seeks win-win formula in Syria
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/russia-seeks-win-win-formula-in-syria-1.973508
Quote
For nearly one year, the Saudis had delegated Qatar to take the lead in applying pressure on Syria, with a brief exception last August, when King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz came out with a direct appeal to the people of Syria and withdrew his ambassador from Damascus. Over the past 10 days, however, Saudi Arabia went 10 steps further than what the Syrians expected, raising the tone in diplomatic discourse, implementing sanctions against Damascus, withdrawing its citizens from the Arab League observer mission, and then making sure that the mission is suspended altogether last Saturday.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal even met with members of the Syrian National Council (SNC) in Cairo, and Riyadh is toying with the idea of extending recognition to the coalition of opposition figures as ‘a representative’ of the Syrian people — but not ‘the representative’. Much of this is more about Iran than Syria, after the Iranians recently threatened to block transit through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil transportation route, infuriating both Riyadh and Washington. And if Iran was going to continue supporting the Syrian regime, then Saudi Arabia was certainly going to back anybody who stands in its way, whether it is the SNC or any credible opposition group that can deliver on the Syrian street
End Quote
Again, got that right – this is all about Iran.
Quote
The second major development is Russia welcoming the Arab League initiative, which calls for democratic elections, a new Syrian Constitution, and a cabinet of national unity that represents the opposition, created not by President Bashar Al Assad, but by his deputy, Farouk Al Shar’a. Russia has noted the change of heart in Riyadh and wants to ride it, rather than block it, realising how fundamental Saudi Arabia is to pan-Arab consent for any solution to the Syrian crisis. The League’s initiative, which was immediately rejected by Damascus, does not call for Al Assad to step down. What it asks for is Al Assad to ‘delegate power’ to Al Shar’a, explicitly for the task of forming a government. Russian endorsement of the initiative, which coincided with a visit by Assistant US Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman to Moscow, raised alarm in Damascus. Many feared that a back channel deal was being hammered out by the Americans and Russians, at the expense of the Syrian government. The Russians have also called for the creation of such a cabinet, with real opposition figures from the Coordination Committees, rather than regime-friendly ones, and dismantling the Baath Party’s monopoly over power, which has lasted since 1963.
On the Arab League initiative, Russia and Saudi Arabia apparently see eye-to-eye, although Russia is still opposed to a military strike, more sanctions or an arms embargo on Syria. All other options, as far as Moscow is concerned, are on the table. Neither Moscow nor Riyadh are saying anything about Al Assad stepping down, but gradually relinquishing some of his powers first to Al Shar’a, and then to a democratically elected Prime Minister, who certainly would not be a member of the Baath. Russia’s official news agency Itar-Tass also quoted Mikhail Margelov, a top Kremlin aide and envoy, saying that “Russia could do no more for Syria,” after using its veto at the UN last October. Meaning, a new UN Resolution based on the League initiative might pass in the upper echelons of Moscow.
End Quote
If true, this is not good news. It means Russia will throw Syria under the bus – for what reason I can’t imagine. The end result will still be a US/EU attack on Syria once Assad refuses to agree to the resolution, which is still “regime change in slow motion.”
I can’t believe Putin is stupid enough to allow this to occur.
So here we have two incompatible reports – one says Russia absolutely will veto the resolution, the other says Russia may not veto the resolution.
We will see which is true this week.
Putin Clings to Mideast Sway in UN Snub of Assad Ouster Demand
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-31/putin-clings-to-mideast-sway-in-un-snub-of-assad-ouster-demand.html
Quote
The West is putting pressure on Syria because the country refuses to break off its alliance with Iran and not for repressing the opposition, Russian Security Council head Nikolai Patrushev said Jan. 12.
“Russia appears concerned about heightened instability in the area at large, the prospect of further empowering Islamists, and the West’s typically cavalier attempts to push its agenda under the guise of noble moral values,” Peter Harling, director for Egypt, Syria and Lebanon at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said in e-mailed comments on Jan. 29.
End Quote
Got that right! It’s all about Iran, not Syria.
Quote
“The Russian behavior has taken all Western countries by surprise,” said Jonathan Eyal, director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “It’s not so much that the Russians have objected to Western policy in Syria but the length to which they have gone to support the Syrian regime, especially deliveries of weapons and the presence of Russian naval ships in Syrian ports.”
End Quote
But that’s where it ends. What else can Russia do to prevent Syria from being overthrown? I don’t see anything it can do.
Quote
A spat with the west may also boost Putin’s popularity, said Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow.
“Russia can’t stop Western intervention in Syria but it will do everything to ensure it is illegitimate under international law,” Lukyanov said in a phone interview yesterday. “For Putin, this is a key moment ahead of the presidential elections.”
End Quote
So basically, like Obama is using a Syrian war to boost his image in the US, Putin is using it to boost his in Russia. Lukyanov also clearly states Russia can’t stop US intervention.
Quote
Without a UN mandate, Western powers would be reluctant to get involved militarily in Syria, and the Arab League wouldn’t have the stomach to fight with one of its members, said Eyal at the Royal United Services Institute. Qatar this month suggested sending Arab troops to Syria to halt the violence.
End Quote
Au contraire, mon fraire! Western powers won’t be reluctant at all! It’s the plan!
Russia Faces Onslaught at UN to Back Ouster of Assad in Syria
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-31/russia-faces-onslaught-at-un-to-back-ouster-of-assad-in-syria.html
In short, Russia being demonized as the country holding back “stopping the violence” in Syria…
Quote
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, joined by her U.K. and French counterparts, will attend a 3 p.m. briefing on Syria presented to the UN’s decision-making body in New York by Arab League Secretary-General Nabil El-Arabi. The presence of the top diplomats adds weight to a Western drive to persuade Russia to withhold its veto of an Arab-European draft resolution endorsing an Arab League plan for a power transfer in Syria.
Almost a year into the unrest in Syria, the EU and its allies have yet to overcome Russia’s resistance at the UN to efforts to hold Assad responsible for a crackdown that the UN estimates has killed more than 5,000 people. Today, the Arab speakers plan to present the case for a handover of power within two months, a plan that the Russians say is on par with imposing regime change.
End Quote
TWO MONTHS for regime change – that’s the time table…
Quote
While the Europeans anticipate a Russia veto, their strategy is to weaken Russia and highlight its growing isolation in the 15-member body through repeated votes on Syria, according to Richard Gowan, a UN specialist at the New York University Center for International Cooperation.
“The Russians have talked themselves into a corner, so they have no choice but to block it,” Gowan said in an interview. “If they back down, it will be a diplomatic defeat.”
End Quote
In other words, the US and EU are USING RUSSIA TO SIDELINE THE UN! Once Russia plays its “role” by blocking any regime change resolution, the US and EU will use that as precisely the excuse to “go it alone”. You won’t hear any significant complaint from Ban Ki-Moon since he’s powerless.
Quote
In New York, pressure on Russia is also coming from the political arm of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council, which is making its debut at the UN.
Assurances From Opposition
SNC President Burhan Ghalioun met yesterday with Russia’s UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, to promise Moscow that its interests in Syria, Russia’s most important ally in the Middle East, will be preserved regardless of Assad’s fate.
“We reassured them that we are keen to continue the historic relationship with Russia,” he told reporters in New York in comments made in Arabic and translated into English. “I appeal to Russia, which has long historical ties with the Syrian people, to prevent the Assad regime from exploiting the Russia support in order to continue its oppression.”
Moscow can’t afford to lose its naval base in Tartous, on the Mediterranean Sea, given that it’s “said farewell to all its Mediterranean client states and bases in the past decades — from Egypt, which evicted Russia in the 1970s, to Serbia, which became a landlocked state following the dissolution of the last Yugoslavia in 2003,” according to Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute.
End Quote
Will Russia be suckered into this just for its naval base? It’s hardly likely to trust this Syrian guy that its interests will be looked after. I don’t think Russia is that stupid. I imagine Russia already knows there’s nothing it can do but try to delay the war.
Western pressure on Syria grows ahead of UN debate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16804475
This is very relevant to my concerns over the degree of inability of the regime to control the streets…
Quote
The Syrian army held funerals on Monday for 22 of its members killed in the previous 24 hours. The BBC’s Jim Muir, in neighbouring Lebanon, says on average 20 members of the security forces are being killed each day.
End Quote
Also, this plainly indicates the US is committed to regime change in Syria:
Quote
The White House said countries weighing their options at the Security Council should take into account that Mr Assad would be ousted.
“The regime has lost control of the country and will eventually fall,” said spokesman Jay Carney.
End Quote
And this shows NATO is on board…
Quote
France says 10 of the 15 countries on the Security Council now support the Arab League text. A minimum of nine council members must lend their backing in order for a resolution to be put to a vote.
However, Russia – as one of the five permanent council members – can veto any proposed resolution.
The BBC’s Barbara Plett, at the UN, says Russia views the resolution as a first step towards regime change.
The UK has urged Moscow to reconsider its opposition.
“Russia can no longer explain blocking the UN and providing cover for the regime’s brutal repression,” said a spokeswoman for Prime Minister David Cameron.
On Monday, Russia also offered to mediate talks between the Syrian government and the opposition – a suggestion the opposition rejected out of hand.
End Quote
Note that the text demands Assad step aside and a deputy form a unity government within TWO WEEKS. Once that doesn’t happen, you can count on more stringent resolutions. The point is that Syria is on the fast track to being bombed. The US/EU let the situation build for 11 months and now they see they have enough momentum to get a bombing campaign started within the next six months if not sooner. Plenty of time to boost Obama’s election chances, and move forward Israel’s attack on Hizballah.
The Ten Day Dawn Show has started!
Iran unveils new smart weapons system called “BASIR”
http://presstv.com/detail/223994.html
While it looks impressive, it’s still only talked about as a ‘targeting system’.
Here are a couple of other things that might turn up in the next week and half:
-Unveiling of 20% enriched uranium fuel for TRR.
-Khalij-e Fars missile.
-Something to do with the space program.
-Militarized version of the Bladerunner patrol boat.
-More Ghadir subs.
-A ‘naval surveilance’ craft has been promised. I wonder if this will be an Awac built on top of the Antonov 140?
Where is Syria crisis heading?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/30/world/meast/syria-damascus-q-and-a/index.html
Quote
The U.N. Security Council is considering a draft resolution that would call on embattled president Bashar al-Assad to step down and transfer power.
Russia, which maintains trade relations with Syria, has proposed its own draft U.N. resolution that assigns equal blame for the violence on both al-Assad and the opposition, an option dismissed by the West.
In October, Russia and China issued a rare double veto of a resolution that lacked sanctions but would have condemned the violence in Syria. The draft that will now be considered also lacks sanctions but is tougher than the earlier version, which said nothing about transfer of power.
End Quote
Note that the West has blocked Russia’s resolution but proposes a resolution to force Assad to step down. Russia and China will block that resolution, at which point the US will propose an even harsher resolution. Russia and China will block that, too, at which the US and the EU will “go it alone”, probably using Turkey as the front.
Quote
“The Arab League have now exhausted their own internal options and they can be seen to have taken action themselves to try to resolve the crisis,” said Phillips. “It would now seem legitimate for the Arab League to now turn to larger bodies, certainly the U.N., to take action itself.”
Individual states in the Arab League have called for al-Assad to step down, but the organization as a whole has failed to table a similar resolution — and Phillips says that is unlikely to change anytime soon.
“While it seems likely there is going to be some internal negotiation (on a resolution) taking place, it certainly seems very unlikely Lebanon or Iraq — states who are allied effectively to Iran and Syria — will ever join calls for Assad to stand down,” said Phillips.
End Quote
All this means is that the “senior” members of the Arab League – i.e., Saudi Arabia and the GCC – will call the shots. Iraq and Lebanon will be sidelined.
Quote
“If Russia gave the same kind of green light for Syria that it did for Libya, there’s every possibility that you’d see military intervention, probably coming out of Turkey,” Phillips said. “But Turkey have said they’re highly reluctant to intervene unless they have NATO or U.N. backing.”
End Quote
And all that means is that Turkey will be a proxy for US/NATO once the UN is sidelined. Russia’s veto in the UNSC will be irrelevant once the US and NATO sideline the UN. There’s no way the UN can force the US and NATO not to attack Syria if the violence escalates. And even if that is the case, the US and NATO can still covertly support the armed opposition.
In fact, I’m wondering about the actual military situation in Syria. It appears the Syrian forces are having a hard time destroying the armed opposition in the Damascus neighborhoods. There are conflicting reports about who is in charge at any given time in the disputed areas. I would hope Syria had sufficient military forces to be able to deal with what at this point has to be a relatively small number of armed insurgents. If not, the situation is worse than I expected.
Quote
Many Christians have fled to Damascus as communities begin to divide on sectarian lines. Salafists — Islamic radicals, many of whom have brought terror tactics honed in neighboring Iraq — are moving into Homs.
End Quote
Clearly we see the beginnings of an Iraq-style ethnic civil war, always assuming any of these reports are true.
By the way, speaking of truth, I just watched a CNN video narrated by reporter Arwa Damon which painted a favorable picture of the Syrian opposition, which is predominately Sunni. On a hunch, I looked her up in Wikipedia. Her father is an American, but her mother is Syrian Sunni Muslim. Nice not pointing out how her mother is likely opposed to the Allawite regime…
Spammin’ Sassan strikes again… Ban this asshole for spamming the site.
As an aside, while Ron Paul is incorrect to call the current sanctions a “blockade”, that IS the likely next step.
The rest of the article is so much propaganda.
EXCLUSIVE–Iranian Freedom Fighter: ‘Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Toward the Islamic Republic is Wrong’
by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
Americans aren’t the only ones shocked by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul’s assertion that international sanctions against Iran qualify as an “act of war.”
The Texas Congressman has made the assertion several times during the past few years, and reiterated it last night during the Republican debates in Florida when he argued that the U.S. had committed an act of war by “blockading” Iran (which the U.S. is not doing).
“We’re blockading them,” Paul said to a Tampa audience. “Can you imagine what we would do if someone blockaded the Gulf of Mexico? That would be an act of war–so the act of war has already been committed and this is retaliation.”
But Amir Fakhravar, a pro-democracy freedom fighter who was imprisoned and tortured by the Islamic Republic, disagrees.
Fakhravar, who spoke to Big Government today, says: “Sanctions weaken the government so much it will eventually empower the people of Iran to change their own regime without war,” and added that ”Ron Paul’s foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic is wrong. If we don’t have hard sanctions against the regime they will have more money to buy weapons, and then we will definitely have war.”
Fakhravar was imprisoned in 2002 for calling to rescind the powers of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and the Council of Guardians. During part of his sentence he was taken to a military detention camp where he underwent the first known example of “white torture.” He escaped in 2006 and came to the United States. Fakhravar is now a Research Fellow and Visiting Lecturer at the Center for the Study of Culture and Security at The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C.
“If the United States lifts sanctions and Iran eventually gets the bomb, that means war,” he added.
Paul’s argument presents problems under international law and from a historical perspective. First, under international law sanctions are not considered “acts of war.” Second, if any incident can be pinpointed as the first “act of war” between the blossoming Islamic Republic and the United States it was the November 4, 1979 violent takeover of the American Embassy by pro-revolutionary student radicals.
Ron Paul has argued in the past that the United States is responsible for acts of war against Iran, and even implied during the December Iowa Caucus that Iran was justified in building it’s nuclear program to “gain respect from (Israel).”
Prior to the passage of the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010,” Paul took the floor at the U.S. House of Representatives and argued that America’s threat not to trade with countries that traded with Iran was also an act of war.
Paul said the following:
Sanctions are very serious. Sanctions are literally an act of war–when you prevent certain goods and services going into a country, it’s like a blockade. There’s no advantage to us to do this. The sanction bill literally says that any country that trades or sends oil into Iran, we would no longer trade with them… so often well intentioned foreign policy procedures backfire they have unintended consequences and too often there’s blowback… Sanctions lead to hostilities. If you’re committing to sanctions then you’re committing to the next step… The sanctions on the 1990’s and the year 2000, the sanctions in Iraq eventually led to the hostilities and the war and the invasion.
Yet the United States is not the only entity that has implemented sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
On June 9, 2010, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1929 implementing restrictions on missiles and other materials that could be used to build destructive weapons in the post-revolutionary state.
U.S. sanctions began in 1979 after the embassy takeover when President Carter implemented Executive Order 12170 freezing $12 billion in Iranian assets, and during the 1980’s, President Reagan implemented a number of sanctions against the Islamic Republic ranging from weapons trading bans to the importation and exportation of goods.
Still, Paul blames the United States for responding appropriately to the violent, anti-American hostilities that the fundamentalist revolution has fostered ever since the overthrow of the Shah and the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
The United States of America has not committed an act of war against Iran. Her actions have been cautiously measured in response to violent hostilities and threats repeatedly emanating from a hostile and oppressive regime that has been fundamentally anti-American from its origin. If the U.S. does not enforce sanctions against Iran it only increases the chances of an actual “hot war” since the Islamic Republic has repeatedly made threats against America and Israel.
http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2012/01/24/exclusive-iranian-freedom-fighter-ron-pauls-foreign-policy-toward-the-islamic-republic-is-wrong-sanctions-necessary/
Oh, I see why now…the Kornet Wikipedia link was active as well…
Oops, even though there is only one link, the post was “moderated”.
Richard Steven Hack says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 31, 2012 at 1:17 am
Unknown Unknowns: “If war begins, it will be devastating for Iran. It will set her back decades, just as Iraq has been set back by decades.”
Agreed.
“Iran is betting on her (assumed?) ability to wreck havoc on the world economy (as well as to kill several thousand US soldiers in the first and sink a dozen battleships in the first weeks of conflict as being a sufficient deterrent.”
Right – which it is not certain they will be able to do.
“I base this fear not on the assumption that those are not factors that come into consideration in the minds of “the US elites”.”
But why would they be? The ruling elites can only be threatened by a sufficient antiwar movement that actually forces Congress to de-fund the war. Without that, the war continues, and profits are made regardless of how many US soldiers die or how the rest of the world copes with the oil spike.
“it will either be due to some irrational random element (such as a rogue Israeli false flag event)”
But what is “irrational” about Israel starting the war that way? It’s the smartest way Israel could do it, because then it wouldn’t get blamed for starting the war (unless it gets caught at it, of course.)
“or, it will be because the decision makers decide that as unwanted as the affect of such a war on the world economy might be, they will have to take that hit on the chin, because the alternative, which is a surging independent Iran allied with the SCO and sitting on the most geo-strategic piece of real estate in the world is simply something the US cannot afford in its waning years as the sole superpower.”
That is part of the ruling elites calculus. Which is precisely why factors like Iran’s military preparedness aren’t important.
“I’m thinking that the US might want to get Saudi Arabia and the UAE involved in the attacks, so that roughly $120 billion of airplanes and other arms that the recently sold them can be used up, so that they can sell them another couple hundred billion. After all, a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking some real money.”
I’d agree with that. I’m not sure Saudi Arabia will initiate hostilities or join in with a US attack (still less and Israeli attack) unless 1) Iran does something which involves Saudi Arabia, such as sinking Saudi tankers, or 2) Saudi Arabia fakes a casus belli of that sort to join in the war. But I could definitely seeing either one of those conditions happening. The same with the UAE. Bahrain may do so as well, but I suspect they’ll have their hands full dealing with a Shia uprising at the same time.
“one of those targets would be the Saudi crude oil processing facility, wherever that is. Another would be the deep-sea port facilities at Ra’s at-Tanur. A third would be a hit that would cripple the UAE’s ability to pump and/ or export oil. That way, even if I was not able to control the Straight or the traffic in the Persian Gulf, these three hits would ensure that the doubling and tripling of the price of oil would not be a spike but would be an increase that would last a minimum of 3 to 6 months. Enough, in other words, to bring the world economy to its knees.”
I’d agree with that. Whether Iran can do it for sure is uncertain, but I’d agree with the notion that they’ll try.
“And just going back to the Basir (the laser-guided artillery shell): Iran has stated that it will unveil it officially in the “daheh-ye Fajr” festivities (which is within the next two weeks) and that once it is unveiled, they have a large quantity already mass-produced which they will deliver to the armed forces. I think Hezbollah of Lebanon is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of this technology. They already possess the Kornet anti-tank missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet (given to them by Syria as well as by Iran, and which was the game-changer in the 2006 war). Now they will have yet another fool-proof way of taking out the Israeli-built Merkava, supposedly the most advanced and “invincible” tank in the world. Probably Syria is going to be given a few in a hurry too, to take out those “humanitarian corridors”.”
Very likely. Although the Merkava didn’t do so well in 2006. Every time one entered one of the valleys in southern Lebanon, it would get hit by two or three antitank missiles from the wooded hills surrounding. There was next to nothing Israel could do about it. Some Hizballah would pop out of a bunker, fire off a missile, then disappear back into the bunker which was completely camouflaged.
It reminded me of the movie “Red Dawn”. There was a scene where the Cuban commander was informed that US tanks were rolling up. He told his subordinate to place men in foxholes in the path of the US advance with antitank rockets, and to hold their fire until the tanks were almost on top of them, then pop up and fire into the treads. Of course those men would end up dead, but the tactic would have been completely effective since it would take hours if not a day or more for the tank maintenance battalion to replace those treads. If Saddam had done something similar in 1991, Schwarzkopf’s advance would have been stymied.
The Basij is similar to this Russian version:
:http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4267/krasnopolmpgm.jpg
The main problem for Hizballah is that these weapons are generally fired from towed or mobile cannon and Hizballah doesn’t use many of those, because it’s too easy for them to be detected by Israeli counter-battery artillery systems once the shell is launched and then targeted by Israeli air strikes or counter-battery fire.
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 30, 2012 at 11:36 pm
“This guy is no Iranian, no matter what he claims. He’s some Jewish guy living in Hoboken, New Jersey being paid by AIPAC to spread this crap.”
I would have put him out in Hackensack, but close enough.
Richard:
Thanks for your detailed response to that atimes article. I agree with this statement of yours:
“Unless Iran can inflict an order of magnitude or more casualties on US forces very quickly, i.e., within the first ninety days, the US ruling elites will have no reason to sue for an armistice.”
If war begins, it will be devastating for Iran. It will set her back decades, just as Iraq has been set back by decades. Iran is betting on her (assumed?) ability to wreck havoc on the world economy (as well as to kill several thousand US soldiers in the first and sink a dozen battleships in the first weeks of conflict as being a sufficient deterrent. Your position of course has been that this is not a deterrent. I fear you *might* be right, but I base this fear not on the assumption that those are not factors that come into consideration in the minds of “the US elites”. Rather, I think that if war breaks out, it will either be due to some irrational random element (such as a rogue Israeli false flag event), or, it will be because the decision makers decide that as unwanted as the affect of such a war on the world economy might be, they will have to take that hit on the chin, because the alternative, which is a surging independent Iran allied with the SCO and sitting on the most geo-strategic piece of real estate in the world is simply something the US cannot afford in its waning years as the sole superpower.
But talking about the profit motive (which you correctly pounce on), I’m thinking that the US might want to get Saudi Arabia and the UAE involved in the attacks, so that roughly $120 billion of airplanes and other arms that the recently sold them can be used up, so that they can sell them another couple hundred billion. After all, a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking some real money.
What got me thinking about that is that if I were the Iranian commander in charge of deciding what are my Top 10 strategic targets that I MUST take out once the war begins before my capacity to do so is destroyed by superior US firepower, one of those targets would be the Saudi crude oil processing facility, wherever that is. Another would be the deep-sea port facilities at Ra’s at-Tanur. A third would be a hit that would cripple the UAE’s ability to pump and/ or export oil. That way, even if I was not able to control the Straight or the traffic in the Persian Gulf, these three hits would ensure that the doubling and tripling of the price of oil would not be a spike but would be an increase that would last a minimum of 3 to 6 months. Enough, in other words, to bring the world economy to its knees.
I don’t know this, of course, but my guess is that making those hits is something that Iran is well capable of, and is something that she would do if she was going to have her infrastructure bombed back to the Stone Age anyway.
*
And just going back to the Basir (the laser-guided artillery shell): Iran has stated that it will unveil it officially in the “daheh-ye Fajr” festivities (which is within the next two weeks) and that once it is unveiled, they have a large quantity already mass-produced which they will deliver to the armed forces. I think Hezbollah of Lebanon is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of this technology. They already possess the Kornet anti-tank missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet (given to them by Syria as well as by Iran, and which was the game-changer in the 2006 war). Now they will have yet another fool-proof way of taking out the Israeli-built Merkava, supposedly the most advanced and “invincible” tank in the world. Probably Syria is going to be given a few in a hurry too, to take out those “humanitarian corridors”.
Sassan: “Haven’t I made it plainly clear that I am against Islam as an ideology?”
You’ve made it plainly clear that you’re a Jewish plant.
And the fact that a brainwashed bozo like you can complain about Islamic brainwashing is a joke…
Since people here have complained about my lengthy posts in the past, I’d also note that your publishing full posts from other sites without additional commentary also constitutes “spamming” and would fully justify your being banned along with the “hits leech” Lucas.
Fuck off, hasbara scum.
Richard Steven Hack: Haven’t I made it plainly clear that I am against Islam as an ideology? I am against Islamic extremism and in particular, the brainwashing of youth as is the result clearly with the story I cited.
Your ad hominem and non-sequitar attacks clearly demonstrate your lack of reason and rationality. As I have said on previous occasions, even before I consider myself an Iranian or an American, I consider myself first and foremost a citizen of the world. Human rights and free thought must be demanded and religious bigotry and indoctrination must be stood against vehemently. As long as they teach children at the very age in which they are most impressionable, they are taught to hate Jews. Hence, there will never be peace in the region with generations propagating the mindset to “fight for Allah” against the “dirty Jew” instead of teaching them peace, tolerance, goodwill, and negotiation so that all sides can live in peace and harmony.
fyi: “I am now thinking that the struggle for Syria is over. I think the Axis Powers, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey’s plans have been neutralized.”
Based on what? I see ZERO evidence for that conclusion. What I see is the GCC and Saudi Arabia ratcheting up pressure on the UN to force Assad out and when he doesn’t go to initiate “further measures”.
The fact that Russia and Iran are trying to get the sides to talk is what is being neutered. The Syrian opposition has refused Russia’s invitation to talk. Meanwhile the Free Syrian Army – which is nothing but a bunch of Western-managed mercenaries, are ratcheting up the violence in Syria.
Dan Cooper: “After all, when the US got its nose bloodied by the 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombing and the 1993 Somali ‘Black Hawk down’ incident, Washington withdrew its forces from both countries,” Clawson said.”
Clawson should acknowledge that in neither case was the US in an actual war with a defined objective. The US did not back down in Iraq despite suffering casualties in the three week invasion, nor the casualties over the next five years, nor has it backed down in Afghanistan despite ten years of casualties. It has only backed down in the case of North Korea by not starting a war which would cost scores of thousands of casualties in the first ninety days.
Once the Iran war is launched, unless US casualties are in the thousands almost immediately, the war will go on.
Dan Cooper: “Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico”
I posted the original of that one below, too.
I try to review what’s been posted before I post stuff so I don’t post duplicates. It’s a pain given the number of posts in the threads here, but I try.
Fiorangela: ““An exclusive report from a confidential highly-placed Israeli source says that a booby-trapped drone”
Gilad is just picking up from Silverstein’s report which I posted below. I see no evidence it was anything other than an Israeli drone which crashed.
RSH, I’ve been saying that for a while. He doesn’t only want to interfere with any genuine conversation, he wants to capture the eyes of those who come to read this site for his anti-Iran talking points. Period.
Sassan: “UN Textbooks for Palestinian Children ‘Explosively Anti-Semitic, Anti-American and Anti-Israeli’”
And here this asshole establishes himself as a pro-Israeli partisan, despite previously claiming he had no brief for Israel.
This guy is no Iranian, no matter what he claims. He’s some Jewish guy living in Hoboken, New Jersey being paid by AIPAC to spread this crap.
And doing a bad job of it at that.
Sakineh Bagoom says, “Find another to use as your fire hydrant, you perro cochino.”
Ouch! I resemble that remark!!
BiBiJon: Re Peter Jenkins.
This part…
Quote
Continuing P5+1 insistence on reapplication of the Additional Protocol is entirely reasonable, but is another demand that Iran would almost certainly accept if it felt that the playing-field were level. It must be apparent to Iran’s leaders that the Majles vote to terminate application prior to ratification was a classic own goal.
Had the Protocol remained in force since 2006, the IAEA might well have concluded by now that there are no undeclared “nuclear activities or material” in Iran, greatly complicating the task of any who wish to exploit the nuclear controversy for ulterior purposes. (The alleged nuclear-related studies, which now constitute the only major issue on Iran’s IAEA file, fall outside the scope of IAEA safeguards. The IAEA mandate for investigating them comes from the Security Council, not from Iran’s NPT safeguards agreement. Such studies are “nuclear-related activities”, not “nuclear activities”.)
End Quote
…echoes Eric’s argument that if the Iranians adhered to the AP that the IAEA might find decide to say that there are no “undeclared” nuclear activities, and that thus the rush to war would be undercut.
First, as Eric has pointed out, the IAEA is under no obligation to EVER declare that they ARE NO “undeclared” activities, only that they haven’t FOUND any – which is just as true now after Iran adhered to the AP for two years as it would be had they continued to do so.
Second, even if the IAEA certified that there were no “undeclared activities”, the West ALREADY KNOWS THAT because the US spent million sending in spies to detect such activities and found nothing. And yet nothing has slowed the pressure on Iran.
Third, the West really has not made any explicit accusations of “undeclared activities” other than to assert generally that Iran is “pursuing nuclear weapons.” That assertion is based SOLELY on Iran’s legal domestic enrichment program, NOT on any “undeclared activities.” Therefore, whether Iran adhered to the AP or not HAS BEEN and WOULD BE irrelevant to the West.
Thus, while adhering to the AP would be, as Jenkins says, “complicating the task of any who wish to exploit the nuclear controversy for ulterior purposes”, by definition it would not PREVENT those ulterior purposes from being pursued. As long as the basic issue of domestic enrichment is perceived and promoted by the West as denoting a “nuclear weapons program”, there is NO way Iran can ever get out from under.
Also, given that Eric has made the point that the IAEA is not under the UN, I would be interested if he would comment on the assertion that the IAEA’s investigation of “nuclear-related activities” is based on the UN mandate and if so, is that in any way legal based on the IAEA charter. Because if it’s not, and that is clear, then that makes it clear that the entire purpose of this has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program at all.
M. Ali: “I don’t believe a war with Iran would have happened in 2008/2009 as mention though. The protests in 2009 in Iran probably showed that Iranians were not ripe yet for a war. Aside from their public speeches, the west probably secretly knew that the Green movement would fail, therefore they need not really put much faith or effort in it. But the sanctions combined with the many PR attempts is trying to change the Iranians enough to not strongly resist an attack too much.”
That is possible. I’m not clear on how much the US ruling elites really think or even care whether the Iranian population is or can be persuaded to resist their own government. It’s possible the neocons believe that, as they said about Iraq. However, the neocons lie so much it’s impossible to tell if they really believed that or if they were just saying it to make the Iraq war more likely.
That’s the problem with relying on government statements to predict events – you simply can’t trust them. Actions speak louder than words.
I think it IS possible that Obama might have held off in the hopes that the Green movement would succeed in overthrowing the regime. But again, it’s not clear what advice he was getting at the time or from whom. If he was getting competent reports from the CIA, he would probably know the Greens were too weak. Just as he should be getting the same reports about Syria, since the polls are public knowledge.
I think though it is more likely that the main issue for Obama in 2009 was establishing his Presidency. Starting another war in your first year after you were elected on a promise of peace wouldn’t have been good PR (for McCain, it would have been much easier since everyone knows he’s a hawk). Plus there was his intent to escalate the Afghan war as promised during his campaign. So I think these issues mattered more toward making 2009 an “off” year for an Iran war.
2008 would have been much more likely with Bush wanting to help the Republicans. But again, he appears to have believed the 2007 NIE undercut him, plus Iraq was only beginning to wind down and Afghanistan was a mess, and Israel was still balking at starting the war because Hizballah was not defeated. So he wimped out and decided to wait until the possibility of McCain getting in.
I think Obama’s timing is related more to Afghanistan than anything else. The US has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and they are pretty much useless against Iran, except for the air bases. Obama needs to wind that down and move some of those forces back to the Persian Gulf, probably in support of a blockade against Iran. Supposedly thirty thousand will be returned this year from Afghanistan. I expect to see most of those sent to Kuwait to back up the 20,000 already there. That would put 50,000 US troops in Kuwait – enough to surge back into Iraq if desired or be ferried across to the Iranian coast to supplant the Marines once the Marines have secured the Strait. And by the time the war actually starts, the number could be twice that depending on whether Obama wants to ratchet up the pressure some more before the war.
There’s also the slim possibility that if Israel really gets into trouble when attacking Hizballah in Lebanon that Obama may send some of those troops to assist Israel. I doubt that will happen but anything’s possible.
Faux-Sassan: “The West may not be “desperate,” but Brand Israel and Brand Liberal democracy/USA are certainly showing signs of wear and tear.”
The problem with that thesis is two-fold:
1) The US ruling elites don’t entirely depend on the US electorate buying into every story they sell. They only count on the US electorate not organizing effectively enough to defeat whatever program is behind that story.
2) If you look at the polls I referenced in an earlier post, you’ll see that despite at least 60 percent of the US electorate knowing little or nothing about the Iran issue, still at least 60-80 percent of the US electorate believes Iran HAS nuclear weapons AND is a threat to the US, even if much lower percentages prefer using diplomacy rather than war to resolve the issue – which also shows how stupid the electorate is because there’s no chance of that either.
So I’d say the Iran war marketing has been a resounding success.
Bottom line: Until there is an effective antiwar movement on a par with the one that existed during the Vietnam war, there is ZERO chance of the US electorate reigning in the US ruling elites and preventing a war with Iran.
And note it took ten years for the Vietnam antiwar movement to get anywhere.
“by the way — is anyone else finding him/herself under a cyber attack when posting on this website? something called “welcome to Frontpage” keeps popping up on my browser while I type this. hmmm.”
Sounds like some mis-configuration of the Web site, or a problem with your browser user profile or cache. Or you might have been redirected by some virus to another malware Web site which is not configured right.
I certainly hope the Leveretts aren’t using FrontPage…
Unknown Unknowns: Re the military assessment of Iran in
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA31Ak02.html
That was a nice recap of Iran’s military assets.
The one thing I might disagree with is the author’s assumption that the US will not be able to reduce Iran’s defenses sufficiently to enable the environment to be “permissive”, i.e. that the US will have free rein over the environment. While this is certainly true for the ground situation, and will be to a degree true for the Gulf environment, I still expect the US Air Force to have complete air superiority within a few days or a week at most. This would include the Air Force not being that concerned over antiaircraft batteries or missiles other than man portable ones which will continue to be a threat.
And with air superiority comes the ability to prevent any mass ground movements by enemy forces. Fortunately for Iran, must of its tactics depends on small unit operations. But the problem for Iran is if the US lands those 20-30,000 Marines I’ve indicated will be used to secure the Strait. Iranian small unit operations against those Marines will cause casualties but be unable to deter the Marines from completing the mission. If Iran can manage to hit the Marine positions sufficiently hard from a distance with their smaller missiles, they might be able to blunt the Marines advance but this will not be easy. Marine units are highly mobile and have a high degree of ranged firepower as well. They are the most dangerous forces Iran will face.
The problem with assessments of Iran’s military capabilities is that they assume that once the war has broken out, and Iran has inflicted some significant damage on either US naval forces in the Gulf or US military assets in the region as suggested by the article, that the US will essentially “turn tail and run.”
Well, the US won’t. The US will simply up the ante. The US ruling elites know that a war with Iran will not be a three-week affair like Iraq in 2003. In fact, they’re counting on it because they need it to be drawn out in order to make the profits. As long as the initial US casualties are not in the thousands, they can expect the US electorate to support a continuation of the war for some time. And in any event, there is little to no effective antiwar movement in the US comparable to that for the Vietnam war, so there is little consequence they will suffer if they prosecute the war.
So the US will simply shift more forces into the arena and increase the number of air strikes, Naval bombardments, and other forces needed.
If the US follows the strategy I outlined in an earlier post, and commences its operations from the Arabian Sea, and only surges into the Persian Gulf once the Strait has been secured by the Marines, as well as using Marine and Naval forces from Bahrain already in the Gulf as a sort of “pincer movement”, it stands a good chance of minimizing its naval casualties. The main force at risk will be those forces already in the Gulf deployed from Bahrain. If Iran can find a way to decimate those forces, it will stand a much better chance of resisting the US Navy surge into the Gulf.
The main problem for the US will be its ground operations. The Marines will be subject to unending guerrilla strikes from Iranian small units and these will take their toll. There are only so many Marines the US can field. If the Marines force takes ten percent casualties within the first, say, ninety days of ground operations, this won’t look good for the ruling elites. It will take time for the US to move in regular Army units to back up and take over for the Marines on the coast and establish a more secure perimeter, probably several months, especially if the war starts before the US is fully prepared, as will be the case if Israel decides to attack Iran without warning.
The US may also be hampered by the need to defend its remaining personnel in Iraq, since they will come under attack almost immediately after the war outbreak. The US will have to divert a significant percentage of its forces currently in Kuwait back into Iraq in order to either re-secure those personnel or evacuate those personnel. This will be a costly operation.
This is one reason I suspect we may see an air and naval blockade of Iran established first – because it will offer an excuse for the US to beef up its personnel in the region sufficiently to deal with these contingencies in advance.
But these problems, I repeat, are not enough to PREVENT an Iran war. The US military isn’t designed solely to find enemies it can defeat in a cakewalk. It’s designed to fight the Russian and Chinese military. It has the manpower and the weapons to do so. The US ruling elites aren’t going to turn and run just because the US military suffers significant casualties or even fails to accomplish its mission in the first three weeks. They have what they consider to be too much at stake to allow that. You don’t start a war without being willing to prosecute it as long as you’re not getting creamed.
The Iran-Iraq war went on for eight years of brutal fighting. The US fought a losing battle against Iraqi insurgents for five years, and is still fighting a losing battle with Afghan insurgents for ten years. Unless Iran can inflict an order of magnitude or more casualties on US forces very quickly, i.e., within the first ninety days, the US ruling elites will have no reason to sue for an armistice.
This is why there has been no war with North Korea. Pentagon war games estimate fifty thousand US casualties within ninety days in such a war. That is way over the limit the US electorate will tolerate without some direct attack by the enemy on the US. If North Korea were to attack the US, the electorate would support the war until the US wins it. But not if the war is clearly initiated by the US for its own reasons.
The same applies to Iran. As long as Iran can be blamed for the war – and especially if there is a perceived larger threat than the alleged Iraqi “WMDs” – and the initial casualties are not outrageous, the US electorate will support the war for some time, or at least not oppose it in any way effective in influencing the ruling elites.
Richard Steven Hack says: January 30, 2012 at 10:05 pm
I am now thinking that the struggle for Syria is over.
I think the Axis Powers, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey’s plans have been neutralized.
I think, however, the staus quo ante cannot be recovered and Iran and Russia are trying to find a formula for the change of government is Syria that is acceptable to the opposition and to the Alawites.
Persian Gulf says: January 30, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Yes, there is a lot of waste.
30% of Iran’s budget is consumed in Tehran were the urban population is consitently moaning about how bad they have it.
And then you go to Lorestan and it is a totally different situation there.
As you know, I stand for Liberty and the Rule of Law.
Iran can have a government like Denmark’s but these people will still be complaining.
No wonder the Hebullahis are sp fed up with this social class.
War with Iran would replicate Iraq disaster on a bigger scale but is anyone listening?
The invasion of Iraq could be disastrously replicated in Iran on a much larger scale. But the decision makers and opinion leaders, caught up in their own false narratives, are not listening.
“Iranian leaders might also decide the US and European strategy of escalating pressure leaves them with few options, in which case resistance may offer the best prospects.
After all, when the US got its nose bloodied by the 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombing and the 1993 Somali ‘Black Hawk down’ incident, Washington withdrew its forces from both countries,” Clawson said.
http://www.stopthewar.co.uk/
Women in Egypt Heed Warning From Iranian Women on Rights
by Dina Sadek 01/26/2012
by AJStream
CAIRO, EGYPT – Sanaa Roshdy, 54, a housewife in Cairo, Egypt’s capital, was one of many Egyptians who watched a premonitory YouTube video that began to circulate last year named “Message From Iranian Women to Tunisian and Egyptian Women.”
The video features pictures of the life of Iranian women before and after the Islamic revolution there in 1979. Depicting a reversal of women’s rights with the implementation of Islamic rule after the revolution, the video warns women in Egypt and Tunisia to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen to them after revolutions in both countries a year ago and Islamic groups looking to assume leadership.
“I’ve heard people talking about the resemblance between the Egyptian revolution and the Islamic revolution many times,” Roshdy says. “It never made sense to me until I saw this video.”
The video shows women’s participation just as well as men’s in the overthrow of pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in Iran. But according to the video, the women were the first to be oppressed afterward in a variety of ways, including strict standards of dress.
During the time of the shah, there had been no dress code for women in Iran, as photos in the video portray. But soon after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had been a prominent political leader during the revolution, took over, he made mandatory the hijab, the headscarf worn by Muslim women.
Roshdy says that, like in Iran, women in Egypt were also freer to dress in the past.
“As a woman in my 50s, in my youth things were different,” Roshdy says. “We were all about fashion. How we dress was never about having to cover every piece of our bodies.”
But she says dress has already become more conservative in Egypt throughout the years. Validating the video’s message, she says that this will become more extreme if radical Islamists gain control of Egypt.
“Nowadays, you have to be fairly covered to walk around the streets of Egypt, and that is just because of the social standards, let alone if the country is ruled by radical Islamists,” she says. “Not that we wear scandalous clothes anyway, but it has to be a choice, not a law.”
When the Arab Spring sparked in the beginning of 2011, women’s rights and dress were never the focus. In Egypt, the focus was on what people really wanted and demanded in their protests: “bread, freedom and social justice.”
Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the Egyptian uprising. Islamists celebrated what they deemed was a successful revolution and success in recent Parliament elections. But thousands of protesters voiced disagreement, chanting instead that the revolution isn’t finished yet and demanding the removal of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the body of military officials that has been governing Egypt since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Iranian women warn Egyptian women to learn from what happened after the revolution in their country in order to avoid losing rights, such as freedom of dress, with the growing power of Islamists. The debate over the implementation of Shariah, Islamic law, in the next constitution has already been causing controversy in Egypt. Women worry how this will affect their rights, which they say have declined during the past generation. Still, there are some positive signs of women taking active steps to secure equality as the country’s future takes shape.
The Arab Spring revolution began a year ago in Tunisia, followed by Egypt. In the same order, the Islamists have since won majority in the parliaments of both countries.
The Freedom and Justice Party, Egypt’s leading moderate Islamic political party that was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s most influential Islamic group, won more than 45 percent of Parliament’s seats in recent elections. In second place was the even more conservative Islamic Salafi party, the Al-Nour Party. The liberal Al-Wafd Party came in third place.
Military leaders plan to step down after presidential elections by late June, but protesters are pushing for earlier elections to bring in civilian rule sooner.
With the unprecedented winning of the Islamists in Egypt, some have been using the Iranian revolution as an example for the impact this could have on women’s rights.
Dr. Susan Rakhsh, an Iranian feminist and anthropologist from the University of Oslo, talked at a lecture last month in Cairo about her experience participating in the downfall of the shah in Iran’s revolution. Rakhsh, who was an anti-shah activist, escaped Iran shortly after his removal.
Rakhsh is currently writing a book about the impact of the political changes on women’s movements in Egypt and Iran. She describes the similarities between both revolutions as “uncanny.”
“During the time of the shah, women’s independent movements were banned,” she says. “Then came Ayatollah Khomeini. He was very active and very modernized. People left and right supported him. Then the shah fell, and Khomeini came back with a hijab compulsory order.”
Iranian women fought against the mandatory veil, as 15,000 women protested in Tehran, Iran’s capital.
“We weren’t a part of a revolution that will take us back 200 years back, but people started calling us whores in the streets,” Rakhsh says. “Women’s rights weren’t important at this stage. People from left and right didn’t support us.”
She says that Khomeini’s response to the protests was that Iran was an Islamic country, so women should cover themselves. The fight lasted for a year until it became a law.
In Egypt, Sobhi Saleh, a leading figure of the Freedom and Justice Party, announced in a rally last month that the party would implement Shariah law. This Islamic legal system demands modest dress and prohibits alcohol. Once a girl reaches puberty, she must cover her entire body with the exception of her face and hands.
Mohamed Roshdy, who is not related to Sanaa Roshdy, says this won’t help the country politically. A waiter in a five-star hotel, he also says it would hurt tourism, which is Egypt’s main source of income and has been down since the outbreak of the revolution.
“Yes, banning alcohol and asking tourists to cover up will really help our politics,” he says sarcastically. “If any of Egypt’s political problem was by any chance related to banning alcohol, I’d be the first one to ask for it. But it is not. In fact, it is a source of income to many people in the industry.”
Saleh says that tourism can thrive under Shariah.
“Tourism doesn’t mean nudity and drunkenness,” Saleh says.
The implementation of Shariah has been the most controversial issue between political parties for the past year. Shariah is a part of the current Egyptian constitution, but not all of its clauses are enforced. Islamic fundamentalists want to keep Shariah when a new constitution is written this year to preserve the Islamic frame of the country. But some Liberals are fighting to remove it in order to ensure rights to minorities such as Coptic Christians and women.
Some aren’t waiting for a new president or constitution. A group called the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice emerged last month, modeled after the Saudi Arabian religious morality police, to enforce Shariah. The group was first linked to Al-Nour, but the Salafi party denied any connection to it.
The self-appointed commission announced on its Facebook page the need for male volunteers, preferably strong, bearded ones. According to some reports by Egyptian media, the group has raided shops for selling indecent clothing in its quest to enforce “God’s law” on Earth, a statement that has drawn criticism.
“It is a middle-aged Muslim men society,” says Magy Mahrous, who lost in the recent elections for Parliament. “Most of the politicians who won in this elections are middle-aged Muslim men.”
Mahrous says women have lost their rights throughout the years because the generation of currently middle-aged adults prioritized stability.
“They just didn’t care enough,” she says. “Everyone lived in their own bubble. Every day, something was taken from us until one day we woke up to find that we don’t have anything – no freedom, no dignity, no voice, nothing.”
She says this differs from the older and younger generation who made and are making women’s rights a priority. Mahrous says that women are fed up with everyone telling them how to be religious. She criticized Arab culture, referencing examples such as TV advertisements for Thursdays as “Ladies’ Movie Night” on MBC4 channel.
“I always wondered, Ladies’ Night as opposed to the boys doing what?” she asks. “Girls sitting at home watching a romantic comedy, meanwhile the boys are doing whatever they want in the streets.”
She says that affirmative actions must be taken now by creating new and activating current laws that support women.
“We need a state that guarantees equal human rights, doesn’t matter the differences,” Mahrous says.
There have been some positive signs of women asserting their rights.
Calling for equality between men and women in the society, Nawal Al-Saadawi, a prominent Egyptian feminist established the Egyptian Women’s Union last year. She says that the union’s goals are to unite women and men from all sectors of the society, to establish a secular constitution and to raise awareness on how Egypt can be truly liberated and form a democracy.
“The union wouldn’t get any rights until we are unified,” she says. “Half of the people in the union are men.”
Samira Ibrahim, 25, sued the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces last year for conducting a virginity test on her after arresting her and others for participating in a protest. The military council said the tests were necessary so the women couldn’t accuse officials of raping them in detention. Thanks to Ibrahim, an Egyptian court banned virginity tests on female detainees last month.
She says women are also prepared to fight for their equality on other fronts as well, such as laws on dress.
“Don’t underestimate Egyptian women in the rural areas,” says Ibrahim, who is from one such area. “They would beat up those who asks them how to be religious.”
She says she will defy any future laws that make the hijab mandatory like in Iran post-revolution.
“If the Islamists ever reach power, I will take off my veil,” Ibrahim says. “If it is mandatory, then it will be a case of stubbornness for me.”
http://www.globalpressinstitute.org/global-news/africa/egypt/women-egypt-heed-warning-iranian-women-rights
fyi
we talked about where oil money goes here before. I think you brought the case of inefficient airports.
I realized recently that Iran’s government was providing about 2000$ per person yearly to those Iranians residing in Iran that travel abroad. It is currently 1000$ for Iranians residing abroad I guess. The number might have been bigger in the past which I am totally unaware of. Astonishingly, I realized some of my wealthy friends also used to go for this option. and of course most of the greens that I know of (they now complain it’s getting harder to get this money!).
I don’t have any number. however, I just guess the number of travelers, including the ones for pilgrims, would be something between 2-5 million annually. This is to me an absolute waste of money, and for sure an unjust subsidy that should be cut. why should the government spend much needed dollars for this? and most of the ones who get this for granted waste no time bashing the country outside of Iran. this might be a small amount compared to other channels of getting U.S dollars, but still an obvious misconduct.
I also realized one can get up to 25000$ for the tuition fee if studying abroad. at the time Iran has brain drain issue, I don’t know what is the rationale of having program like this. It’s an act of favoritism for no reason, and without any chance of a pay back.
BiBiJon: “Maybe you think I think ‘de-escalation’ is as a result of some altruistic/wussy inner soul awakening type of thing.”
No, I think it’s simply cognitive dissonance and an inability to learn from history, especially the history of the last ten years.
“I think it is the conclusion of running out of ammunition previously fired through the U-shaped barrel of the rifle in the hands of ‘escalators.’”
And I’ve told you the next logical step – an air and naval blockade. Although it’s quite possible the West will simply skip that step and go straight to direct provocation or a false flag attack – or Israel will simply attack on its own.
As I’ve said, the timing probably depends on how soon Syria and Hizballah can be weakened. But once that is done (or mostly done because I doubt Israel can do it) the Iran war will be started one way or the other.
In fact, my doubts about Israel succeeding in defeating Hizballah leads me to consider yet another point. I suspect that once the US/EU start bombing Syria, and Israel attacks Hizballah under the cover of that bombing, when (not if) Israel runs into trouble with that attack, I suspect the US/EU will also start bombing Hizballah. It would make sense for the US to do so, because the US wants Hizballah nearly as much as Israel does. The US would promote it as payback for the Marine barracks bombing and other alleged Hizballah operations in the past. The real reason will be that the US needs Israel to start the war with Iran and Israel would prefer not to do so until Hizballah is disarmed or weakened, so if Israel has trouble doing that itself, the US will take whatever measures are necessary to assist Israel.
The question then will be whether Hizballah can maintain its threat to Israel (or even northern Israel) in the face of a combined air campaign by Israel and the US/EU. The answer will depend on the degree of preparations Hizballah has made in the Bekaa Valley, and whether Israel will commit at least a full armored division to the assault and whether Israel can absorb the number of casualties it will take to push the bulk of Hizballah forces out of southern Lebanon and the Valley. The conflict will be considerably more brutal than the war in 2006 and Israel can expect several hundred casualties which will be several times more than the casualties then.
But Hizballah has a relatively limited number of actual trained fighters and may be forced to retreat further north in Lebanon. If Israel can then occupy southern Lebanon for a while, it will have accomplished its goal of making it difficult for Hizballah to support Iran by launching missiles at Israel and can then attack Iran. Then it’s a matter of Israel absorbing the guerrilla attacks the remaining Hizballah forces can direct against the Israeli occupation forces while the US/EU pursue the actual Iran war.
Syria, in the meantime, will be in the middle of a civil war with its military badly damaged by US air strikes, and most of Syria’s missile batteries out of action, thus posing little or no threat to Israel.
I wouldn’t be surprised is Israel prosecutes a separate campaign against Hamas either before or during the Lebanon operation. Hamas allegedly has a fair number of better missiles than it used to, and Israel may feel it needs to defang those before attacking Iran as well. But Hamas is not nearly the threat Hizballah is. Hamas did very little to attack Israel during Cast Lead in 2008. While since the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, Hamas has probably acquired more missiles via smuggling, its arsenal is still well short of Hizballah’s.
Scott Lucas says: January 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm
I don’t bother your alias. You don’t bother mine! I am sure dark clouds follow you wherever you go. Apparently you are too stupid to understand that the [shift][space bar] comment was meant as a way to skip your comments, as well as the other troll that has replaced the old ones that used to hang around here. Find another to use as your fire hydrant, you perro cochino.
Fiorangela – Israeli journalist, Dmitry (Dimi) Reider believes that the Islamic Republic cannot be behind this incident.
“Israel has been supremely paranoid about its airspace, with jets scrambling every time an unidentified aircraft comes within a few dozen miles of our borders (you can find several incidents from the past year alone). A few days ago they nearly scrambled to attack a particularly large flock of birds. The idea a foreign aircraft can go in and fly 1,000 miles in broad daylight without detection and crash into one of Israel’s most sensitive military bases is bizarre – to say the least,” wrote Dimi.
“Iran is mostly trying to avoid escalation. Why it would to give Israel a perfect casus belli by launching such a blatant military attack, which causes no significant damage, is beyond me; but I can well imagine plenty of people within the IDF who would dearly like a casus belli to bolster their case for an attack on Iran,” added Dimi.
In September 2004, Israeli English daily Ha’aretz had reported that an “Iranian-made Hizbullah drone had spent about five minutes in space over Israel”, without being detected by the Israel Air Force.
In December 2010, CNN had reported that Israeli Air Force shot down an unidentified flying object over the Dimona nuclear plant in the Negev Desert.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/drone-explodes-at-israeli-missile-base/
Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30381.htm
Stop for a moment the next time you hear of American or Israeli plans for the further destabilization of Iran and think: what would we do if the Iranians were planning something similar for us?
Poll: ‘Anti-Israel Ken may become London Mayor’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/poll-anti-israel-ken-may-become-london-mayor/
“An exclusive report from a confidential highly-placed Israeli source says that a booby-trapped drone crashed and exploded at the top-secret Israeli airbase Sdot Micha. Sdot Micha (also profiled here) is the home of the Israeli missile arsenal including its long-range Jerichos capable of striking Iran. There were civilian and military eyewitnesses to the crash, which happened within the perimeter fence of the facility, which covers a large area just outside Bet Shemesh. . . .”
People might want to see the photos at:
http://cryptome.org/2012-info/femen-wef/femen-wef.htm
Its the Femen demonstration at Davos. They are Ukrainian women, and what I find most interesting is that the anger in Eastern Europe (of which there is much to go around) is no longer aimed at Moscow, but at the Euro-American financial elite.
The dismemberment of the Soviet Union is well and truly “yesterday’s news” to this population.
Battles approaching Damascus…And security enhancements around Presidential Palace.
Alshargolsat
http://aawsat.com/details.asp?section=1&issueno=12116&article=661293
Group funded by Islamophobe monitors school books for “extremist Islamic ideology”
Citizens for National Security (CFNS) is a Boca Raton, Florida-based 501 (c)3 organization that has been funded by Aubrey Chernick, ** California software millionaire who also funds Robert Spencer’s Jihad watch; Pam Geller, who led the battle against the Cordoba Mosque in New York City; CAMERA, a group that censors newspaper and broadcast media reporting for treatment of Israel or US-based Israel advocacy groups that fail to subscribe to CAMERA’s pov; and Daniel Pipes’ long-running Islamophobic organization. (see list of CFNS ‘Task Forces,’ below)
**:http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175334/tomgram%3A_max_blumenthal%2C_the_great_fear_/#more
Jihad Watch, Geller’s website, and Daniel Pipes were mentioned numerous times in the manifesto posted by Norway mass murderer Ander Breivik.
Florida Congressman Allen West has hosted conferences by CFNS on Capitol Hill. :http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/at_allen_west-sponsored_event_group_paints_thousands_of_muslims_as_terrorists.php
As has been mentioned on this forum, at a hearing before the US State Department subcommittee on international religious freedom, Jeffrey Feltman testified and, in the question and answer period, was asked by a committee member (who conflated Saudi Arabian Wahabbism with Iran) requested that Feltman monitor the schoolbooks used by Iranian school children.
US agencies or subcontractors/NGOs also either supply or monitor school books used by children in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And yet, the society in the Middle East that is least subject to outside attack, economic threat, and physical devastation, and is snuggled under the USA security blanket, the state Israel is the very society that its own citizens say “lies to us” in our schools; is psychologically unstable; suffers from government-induced PTSD that is reinforced even in Israel’s architecture and built environment; and whose disparate Jewish communities discriminate one against the other, Jew vs. Jew, to produce a “disintegrating society.” ;http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israel-is-disintegrating.html
Shouldn’t the United States, Israel’s special relation, play the part of a concerned uncle and monitor the harmful education that is producing Israeli young people who are so poorly behaved and who resent the lies they are being taught?
“Task Forces
task force imagesCFNS organizes task forces to focus on, or support, the academic community, Congress, the media, and other establishments and professionals where intelligence and national security issues are in play. These task forces work in teams drawn from CFNS’s citizen members who choose to become active in combating specific dangers posed by radical Islam and other extremist ideologies. They are educated and enabled to undertake research projects which promise to offer enormous resources for individuals and organizations on the ground working daily to resist the threats to our country from militant Islam.
Currently, we have six task forces formed to conduct research. Unlike the numerous sources of implications, innuendos, gossip, blog talk, unconnected dots – and the like – our ultimate objective is to become the paramount repository of universally available credible, factual and irrefutable data on key components of the militant Islamist movement.
While one might think that this material is already available – it isn’t! Not with the depth we are seeking. For one thing, if our intelligence community perchance has it, it is classified and not accessible to others in the public and private sectors. Furthermore, government departments and agencies are not even allowed by law to investigate the types of matters, or ask the kind of questions in their research, that we have in mind. But, as private citizens, we have no such restrictions. And, most significantly, individuals and organizations neither have, nor can they afford, the people they need to do this research. But we have them – our concerned members!
We assemble and organize teams, with team leaders, who will work under our supervision to assemble the pieces. We show team members what to do, how to do it, and monitor their progress. They may put in as much time as they like, anywhere from a few hours a week to “endless” if they become fascinated by what they discover – which we think will often be the case.
Once we have compiled this treasure-trove of persuasive evidence, we will offer it to those who need it most: prosecutors, law enforcement officials, media reporters, judges, congressional staffs, college professors, government at all levels, think tanks, public school administrators – the list is endless. CFNS members can be part of creating these resources in the comfort of their own home or office, usually with their own computer, at times most convenient for them.
If, after reviewing the descriptions of these task forces below, any member is interested in being on one of them, please e-mail info@CFNS.US, or call 561-483-6430.
TASK FORCE 1. Document the organizational extent of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in North America.
1. a. Identify all the major Muslim organizations which directly stem from the MB or the Muslim Students Association.
b. Identify organizations, charities, 501(c)(3)’s, etc. that are offshoots from the primary organizations.
c. Identify all religious organizations, community centers and schools that are controlled by MB organizations, such as NAIT — the North American Islamic Trust.
d. Create charts, maps and diagrams that depict interrelationships, patterns, etc. that accurately portray the info gleaned from a, b, c above.
e. Retain all information underlying the analyses in electronic form, and include footnotes and citations in standard academic form.
f. Retain, catalog and store videos, sounds, speeches and any other form of multimedia data.
TASK FORCE 2. Create a detailed timeline of the MB and its international activities since inception.
1. a. Pay particular attention to documentation of the persons involved in the MB, and the organizations and philosophies they created or espoused.
b. Construct a parallel timeline of terrorist acts which they, or their members, committed.
c. Document a timeline depicting the reaction of Arab States to the MB.
d. Construct a chart depicting the involvement of specific MB members and leaders in the global Jihadist movement.
e. Retain all information underlying the analyses in electronic form, and include footnotes and citations in standard academic form.
f. Retain, catalog and store videos, sounds, speeches and any other form of multimedia data.
TASK FORCE 3. Conduct research leading to full biographies, financial reports and relationship information regarding members of the various organizations, movements, etc. identified in Task Forces 1 & 2 above.
TASK FORCE 4. Identify “Islamic” businesses, social and religious organizations, schools, etc. throughout North America.
TASK FORCE 5. Catalog all known cases of lawsuits brought or threatened by the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against individuals, organizations, government and businesses throughout North America.
1. a. Determine the universe of such actions.
b. Author synopses of each incident, those involved, demands made and outcome.
c. Describe each public position taken by CAIR related to a terrorism case.
TASK FORCE 6. Examine Florida K-12 public school programs to determine the extent of Islamic influence on curricula, student clubs, joint school/community projects, etc.
1. a. Learn the process for how books are selected.
b. See who is on the boards for choosing the books.
c. Determine the book selection criteria.
d. Find out the names of publishing companies and organizations which provide deliberately biased books and teaching materials regarding the Middle East.
e. Find out names and backgrounds of administrators and teachers responsible for initiating, promoting or influencing Islamic student groups.
f. Identify relationships between Islamic student clubs and groups, and Islamic community organizations.”
Israel ‘master of puppets’ in US onslaught” at rt.com today.
Quote: “America’s frenzy over diabolic[al] Iran has its roots not on the Potomac riverside, but rather on the banks of Tel Aviv’s Yarkin river; appeasing the US Jewish community has become an inevitable idiosyncrasy of the US presidential campaign.”
Who would dispute this?
Sassan do you live in Tel Aviv or occupied territories?
Castellio: that was a troll.
Troll at the following time as well:
“Sassan says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:58 pm”
Patrick Foy has some interesting comments about Obama’s Iran segment in his “long-winded pep rally” last week on Capitol Hill (“Wag the Turban”):
http://takimag.com/article/wag_the_turban#axzz1kzKNhMBI
Dispatch | At Low Point, Leader’s Popularity Ebbs
by KAVEH OMID
31 Jan 2012
‘Agha’ Encounters Iranian Humor and Scorn
[ news analysis ] Despite appearing to be solidly in control of the Islamic Republic, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is now faced with the acerbic tongue of the Iranian population. More than ever — in the streets, in taxis, in private conversations, and in public expressions — his words, dictates, and even mannerisms are being criticized and mocked.
To be sure, the Ayatollah — whom many in the country’s political leadership now simply refer to as “Agha,” or Sir — is still deemed fully in charge. But it is precisely his repeated interventions in the running of the country that has earned him the title of dictator and consequent scorn from many Iranians.
While it is difficult to say how prevalent the jokes and derisive comments are across Iranian society, there is no doubt that Khamenei is now targeted much more frequently, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recedes to the background.
This situation is a natural outgrowth of Iran’s post-presidential election circumstances. To avoid responsibility for the country’s economic and political ills, in the past year, various members of the Majles, including Ali Larijani and Gholamali Haddad-Adel — the current and former speaker, respectively — have made clear that it was Agha who wanted Ahmadinejad elected, ordered them to support the president’s cabinet, prevented the investigation of financial corruption when Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran, and now prevents Ahmadinejad from being questioned and subjected to an impeachment process.
Khamenei has even silenced the criticism that had been voiced by clerics in Qom by reportedly placing listening devices in their offices and homes. Recently, he was seen as arranging for the dismissal of Abdollah Jasbi from his post as chancellor of Islamic Azad University, one of the world’s largest higher education systems, with more than 1.5 million students. Jasbi’s replacement is Farhad Daneshjoo, whose brother Kamran Daneshjoo is Ahmadinejad’s minister of science, technology, and higher education. Jasbi is close to former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of Islamic Azad’s board, who has so far refused to sign Daneshjoo’s letter of appointment. Agha, meanwhile, made clear his involvement by allowing the two Daneshjoo brothers to sit by his side during the ceremony of Arba’in, which commemorates the 40th day of Imam Hossein’s martyrdom.
It may seem that everything is going swimmingly for Agha, as public officials keep declaring their allegiance to him and his rule. But his ascent to the position of Supreme Leader, who has the “final word” on every issue, has also been costly, particularly given the popular penchant for wicked humor.
Some jokingly refer to him as Farzaneh Khanoum — Lady Farzaneh. Farzaneh is a common female name, and the joke is a play of words on the title by which he is routinely identified on state television: rahbar-e farzaneh — wise or learned leader.
A retired teacher standing in line to buy bread mischievously uses another name — Nezaam, a male name that means “system.” The Leader’s habit of calling critics of his policies and conduct “opponents of the Islamic system” prompts this designation.
The catchphrases Khamenei repeatedly employs in accusing those who oppose him of perfidy are both mocked and appropriated to express solidarity with those opponents. For instance, his not-so-oblique reference to Rafsanjani as an “elite without insight” (nokhbeye bi-basirat), because of the the former president’s questioning of the 2009 election results and refusal to see the “sedition” behind the subsequent protests, has now been co-opted by the politically incorrect. “Baz bi-basirat shodi” — “again you are without insight” — has been adopted by Tehranis as a jocular, joyful refrain whenever someone says something critical about the way things are being run.
Direct criticisms of the Leader have also become more common. The 20 letters addressed to Khamenei by Mohammad Nourizad, a conservative and former political prisoner, have grown increasingly harsh. In his latest epistles, Nourizad expressly criticizes the corruption in the Revolutionary Guards’ leadership and warns Khamenei that he could face a fate similar to that suffered by Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi. Emad Afrough, another conservative, in an interview with Khabar Online, more politely asked, “Is the leader’s support for the [Ahmadinejad] administration based on expediency or truth [merit]?” Afrough went on to say that given the Leader’s constitutional position, which situates him above all factions, he should not be making decisions based on political expediency. In an appearance on national television, Afrough further called for legal mechanisms to oversee the Leader’s conduct and said that the religious guide (Vali-ye Faghih) can and should be criticized.
The criticism voiced by ordinary Iranians is increasingly uninhibited, at times quite personal and laced with loathing. Khamenei is described as stubborn, obstinate, jealous, and vindictive. He is said to hold permanent grudges against his opponents, including those Iranians who did not accept his choice for president, whom he labels seditionists in virtually every speech he delivers.
Babak, a music teacher who was injured in a post-election protests, calls Khamenei “so cruel that, if he could kill all of us, he would so, he would have no opponents.” Marzieh, the daughter of a well-known ayatollah, discusses the way Khamenei has dealt with Rafsanjani as well as Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the former presidential candidates who been under house arrest for almost a year: “Mr. Khamenei holds a grudge in his heart against these men both because of the Imam’s [Khomeini's] love and support for them and also because in comparison to these three, in particular Hashemi [Rafsanjani] and Mousavi, he is clearly a second-rate individual.”
And Khamenei’s authoritarian behavior is not the only source of criticism; there is also his support for Ahmadinejad and the president’s policies, the bad economic conditions, and the growing external pressures. An economics professor at Allameh Tabatabai University says, “Unrestrained imports, the destruction of the country’s productive capacity, inflation, and corruption have made people worried about the future of the nation. Without a doubt, many consider him to be responsible for the situation.” He goes on to say that many ordinary people are puzzled over Khamenei’s inclination “to take the country toward ruin. The only answer they have is that he is willing to do it because he wants to maintain power.”
Some even go as far as to say that the Islamic Republic is no longer important to its ruler. According to dentist Mohammad Reza, “If he was as concerned about the future of the system as Hashemi and [former president Mohammad] Khatami, the Islamic Republic would never be in the situation it is now.” A political activist argues that Khamenei’s habit of equating himself with the system has led many to perceive that this itself is “treachery to the system.”
Meanwhile, Khamenei himself seems aware of how popular expressions of contempt have shifted away from Ahmadinejad and toward him. There has been a significant transformation in the way he is portrayed on television, with many more images being broadcast of him smiling or kindly holding a child. In the wake of the murder of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who worked at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, he did something unprecedented, which was amply covered by the state media. He went to the home of the victim’s family to express his condolences. He would appear to have been inspired by an unlikely source: Former president Khatami paid many visits to the families of those who were killed during the post-election protests, while previously Khamenei has exclusively received mourning visitors.
There is also a concerted effort to absolve Khamenei of any responsibility for Iran’s economic woes. For instance, on Sunday, a television program aired, The Path Taken, that surveyed various major corruption scandals going back to the Rafsanjani administration and continuing under Khatami and Ahmadinejad, which were attributed to the three presidents ignoring “the directions of the Leader.” Ahmad, a journalist, scoffs at the effort. “It is not at all necessary to analyze the uselessness of these moves. It is obvious that they make people angrier. I myself shut the television as soon as I hear his voice or, for sure, see his image and even curse him under my breath.”
It is a difficult situation for Khamenei. Although he has managed to force out his former friends and suppress any potential challengers, his decisions as the “guide of the nation” during rocky times are increasingly being called into question. He is seen as constantly sliding from one crisis into another. And his allies, real or nominal, are doing him no favors by repeatedly reminding the public that their actions have been not of their own choosing but rather the Leader’s.
This predicament leads a professor of contemporary Iranian history to observe that Khamenei now faces “the fate of all dictators. He is currently the loneliest person in the country.” He considers the argument that Khamenei’s power rests on support from the Revolutionary Guards no more than a “propagandistic claim.”
“If he doesn’t change his ways soon,” says the professor, “other players in Iran’s political arena will reach the conclusion that getting rid of of Mr. Khamenei is the best option both for getting out of the crisis and maintaining the Islamic Republic.”
Kaveh Omid is a pen name.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/01/dispatch-at-low-point-leaders-popularity-ebbs.html#ixzz1kzKpN447
Charles Moore has a very interesting piece in the Spectator Jan. 14th (“The road from Damascus”). It is a short biographical sketch of Wafic Said, plus some comments by him. Wafic Said’s grandfather was an Ottoman general and governor of Damascus. Wafic tried to help Bashar al-Assad open Syria up to foreign investment, tourism, etc.
settman,
Israel seems to be using its threats of attacking Iran to pressure the EU as well as the US. But I think we agree any such attack would not employ nukes. And I don’t see an attack as likely, at least as things stand now.
@Sassan:
Those who are critical of what Palestinian children are learning should try to find out how Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs, and trained to kill them.
Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronot, May 7th 2002, published a letter titled “Dear Soldiers, Please Kill a Lot of Arabs,” that came from Israeli children who sent such letters to Israeli soldiers serving in the Tulkarm area during the so-called “Operation Defensive Shield”. The letters sent by Israeli school students encouraged soldiers to disregard rules and regulations and to kill as many Arabs as possible. According to “Yedioth Ahronoth”, dozens of the letters were sent to soldiers, mostly from children in the 7th through 10th grades, attending religious schools.
Egyptian researcher Safa Abdel-Aal studied the Israeli curriculum and media, and published her findings in a new book (in Arabic) entitled Racist Education in the Israeli Curricula in which she found that Israel’s educational curricula incite the new generation for war, and racism against the Arabs. Abdel-Aal’s book analyses eleven history and five geography books for elementary school from grades three to six.
She thought that these books deliberately paint distorted pictures of the Arabs, giving them such derogatory descriptions as “Arab thieves” or “embezzlers”, and referring to Arabs as “bastards, thirsty for Jewish blood” or that they are “underdeveloped Bedouins” and “vagrant highway robbers,” and using phrases like “house of Arab reptiles”.
Abdel-Aal said that Arabs are maliciously described as murderers and thieves. In one example she quoted the following from one Israeli textbook, “despite a harsh climate and strange environment full of attacks by Arab embezzlers, thieves and terrorists”. And in another citation that refers to the city of Tiberias where “a feeling of insecurity and fear of the Arab murderers spread among the residents of the city.”
Ruth Firer and Sami Adwan, an Israeli and a Palestinian scholar, who conducted research comparing Palestinian and Israeli textbooks, March 2002, wrote that the Israeli books “strongly emphasizing the collective values connected to the history of the Jewish nation in ‘their land’ and God’s promises to the Jews that give them an absolute right on the land. The land of Eretz Israel described in the books includes the territories of the PNA from 1967.” A study by Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel-Aviv University reviewed 124 Hebrew language books approved for use in 1994 by the Ministry of Education. The study concludes that “the majority of [Israeli school] books stereotype Arabs negatively.” In one children’s book, Bar-Tal offers this sampling, “We were lonely… pioneers
surrounded by a sea of enemies and murderers.” In elementary school books, according to Bar-Tal, Arabs are often stereotyped negatively and portrayed as “uneducated people and enemies.”
In a report titled “Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred toward Palestinians and Arabs,” journalist Maureen Meehan concluded that “Israeli school textbooks as well as children’s storybooks, portray Palestinians and Arabs as ‘murderers,’ ‘rioters,’ ’suspicious’, and generally backward and unproductive. Direct delegitimization and negative stereotyping of Palestinians and Arabs are the rule rather than the exception in Israeli schoolbooks.” (Washington Report for Middle East Affairs September 1999)
In a study presented at the hearing of the political committee of the European Parliament, 24 October 2003, titled “The attitude towards Palestinians in Israeli textbooks,” Dr. Nurit Elhanan, of the Hebrew University, revealed that “the Palestinians are absent from all textbooks, The Occupation is never mentioned, and the area where Palestinians live is presented in the maps either as an empty space referred to as ‘an area without data’ (Man and Space maps) or it is incorporated into the state of Israel (The Geography of the land of Israel maps). In both cases use of the term ‘occupation’ is out of the question, since you cannot occupy illegally what is yours anyway and you cannot occupy illegally an empty space.”
Dr. Elhanan added: “When reference is made to date in the West Bank it is only to Jewish colonies or to main cities like Nablus, Hebron or Beth Lehem as Israeli tourist sites…In Israel today there is already a second generation of children who don’t know there are occupation, illegal domination and illegal settlements.”
A report by an Israeli research institution, The New Profile, entitled Child Recruitment in Israel, 29 July 2004, by: Amir Givol, Neta Rotem, Sergeiy Sandler, (worth quoting at length here) reveals the extent of the militarization of the Israeli education system. It states:
“To begin with, militarised education naturally feeds on the militarism prevalent in society at large. In a country where various kinds of weaponry are permanently displayed in public places and the status of the military is used to promote anything from cheese to political candidates, militarised education comes natural. One absorbs militarism at home and on the street. The military is physically present in schools and school activities. Soldiers in uniform are stationed in schools, many of them are actually teaching classes. Other teachers, and especially principals, are recently retired career officers, without proper teacher training. High schools normally have a display on one of the walls in the school building with the names and photographs of “the fallen” among their graduates. School field trips, at all ages, are often made to military memorials set up on former battlegrounds.
“Official curricula and textbooks also reflect the militaristic attitudes inherent in the Israeli educational system, all the way from kindergarten to the last years of high school, where there is a mandatory programme for all Jewish state-run schools called “preparation for the IDF,” that in most cases includes actual military training. Whole curricular subjects are often described to the pupils, and in official documents, as having the aim of preparing pupils, or some of them, to military service. Glorifications of the military and military conquest, and negative or skewed representation of Palestinians, are to be found in many Israeli textbooks.”
Alternate Focus interviews Nurit Peled-Elhanan, author of the forthcoming book Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education.
Nurit Peled-Elhanan argues that the textbooks used in the school system are laced with a pro-Israel ideology, and that they play a part in priming Israeli children for military service.
She analyzes the presentation of images, maps, layouts and use of language in History, Geography and Civic Studies textbooks, and reveals how the books might be seen to marginalize Palestinians, legitimize Israeli military action and reinforce Jewish-Israeli territorial identity.
Sassan at 4.58 writes: “I hope for a future where there are no Palestinian refugees, rather than one with more pro-Israel textbooks for the poor children studying in camps.”
For once, Sassan, you and I agree.
“This is so insane,
“Author David Bedein of the Center for Near East Policy said at the event that the refugee camp schools regularly promote the “Right of Return,” which supports Palestinians’ right to reclaim the property abandoned or lost in the 1948 war, even if that property – or the city or village where it was once located – no longer exists.”
The whole concept on Israel is based on that!! And at least Palestine is about land lost maybe a generation ago (but apparently, the city or village, no longer exists, maybe its because it was bulldozed? Villages don’t just randomly disappear in a few years), but the whole concept of Israel’s Right of Return is on a place that not only no longer exists, but actually may never have existed.
Scott Lucas,
You act like a child, but I think the Leveretts are probably laughing at you for the way you fill up the comments section with your pro-US government propaganda.
Your reporting is warped like your mind, but it’s fun seeing you beg for us to go to your website.
I’m sorry, I just reread what I posted about Palestine. I realize it was about Palestinian refugees, and completely missed the “refugees” part. But rereading it, I have realized that it is unacceptable for there to be Palestinian refugees and think it is laughable that there are people actually concerned about a few lines of poetry in their school books, rather than helping rectify their situations. I hope for a future where there are no Palestinian refugees, rather than one with more pro-Israel textbooks for the poor children studying in camps.
Castellio says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“I just want everyone to know that the Sassan immediately below IS NOT ME.”
I am convinced Scotty and Sassan are having a leech feud and trying to be the only paid agent — tight budgets and all.
Sassan, if that’s you… I don’t appreciate it.
I just want everyone to know that the Sassan immediately below IS NOT ME.
I AM ABOVE THAT. I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO. I AM FAR ABOVE THAT!
Sassan says: January 30, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Your posting does not include Arabic text and one has to assume the veracity of the translations by Partsians of Israel.
Furthermore, even in the translations are not anti-semitic, although the so-called Mr. Smith asserts otherwise.
To the ignoramus who thinks it is amusing pretend to be me: it does not bother me, it simply makes your life as the waste that it is in not being yourself in having to pretend to be someone else.
UN Textbooks for Palestinian Children ‘Explosively Anti-Semitic, Anti-American and Anti-Israeli’
By Penny Starr
January 26, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – The textbooks used to educate Palestinian children who live in refugee camps came under fire at a briefing on Wednesday on Capitol Hill where experts said lessons of intolerance and hatred toward Jews and Israel fill the books’ pages.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the House subcommittee on Human Rights and co-chairman of the Bi-Partisan Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, told CNSNews.com that U.S. donations to the United Nations Refugee and Works Agency (UNRWA) make the federal government accountable for what is in the books.
“We are responsible for the content and the content has been, year in and year out, explosively anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Israeli,” Smith said, at the event he hosted with the Center for Near-East Policy Research, which is based in Jerusalem and which has studied the topic extensively .
Since the UNRWA began operations in 1950 in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the United States has been the largest contributor to the agency. The UNRWA oversees the health, education, and social services of some 5 million registered Palestinian refugees, including those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Since UNRWA’s inception in 1950, the United States has provided the agency with nearly $4 billion in contributions.”
The CRS reports that U.S. contributions to the UNRWA have steadily increased over the past decade, with nearly $228 million given in [fiscal year] 2010.
Arnon Groiss, author of a comprehensive study on Middle Eastern textbooks who has advised the U.S. State Department and testified before the U.S. Congress, brought some of the textbooks to the congressional Rayburn Building on Thursday to share specifics of what the experts consider objectionable.
Groiss’ report on the textbooks, “Teaching the ‘Right of Return’ in UNRWA Schools,” was distributed at the event. The report had been commissioned by the Council for Religious Institutions in the Holy Land, an interfaith association of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders.
textbook
The study shows, for example, that on the cover and on page 7 of the National Education textbook for Grade 2, the image of a Palestinian stamp has a blank square where the Hebrew script that is on the stamp has been removed.
In the same book (p.16), a map is entitled “Arab and Muslim Nations.”
israel
Map of “Arab and Muslim Nations” in textbook that does not include Israel on the map. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“Israel does not exist,” on the map,” Groiss told CNSNews.com.
In a Reading and Texts book (2011) for Grade 9, p.24, the instructions tell the student to “reconcile between the following poetical lines and the feelings they express”:
“The morning of glory and red liberty watered by the martyrs’ blood … the hope for the Liberation of Palestine.”
In the textbook National Education, Grade 7 (2011), pp. 20-21, it says, “The Zionist colonialist greedy ambitions in Palestine started in 1882. … The coming of the Jewish throngs to Palestine continued until 1948 and their goal was taking over the Palestinian lands and then taking the original inhabitants’ place after their expulsion and extermination. …”
In the book, Our Beautiful Language, Grade 7, Part 1, 2001, p.81, there is a poem entitled The Martyr that, in part, reads: “Hearing [weapons'] clash is pleasant to my ear and the flow of blood gladdens my soul/ As we as a body thrown upon the ground skirmished over by the desert predators/ … By your life! This is the death of men and whoever asks for a noble death — here it is!”
In the book Readings and Texts, Grade 8, Part 2, 2003, p. 16, it says, “Your enemies killed your children, split open your women’s bellies, took your revered elderly people by the beard and led them to the death pits ….”
In Our Beautiful Language, Grade 5, Part 1 (2011), p. 50, there is a poem about the Palestinian “Right of Return” entitled “We Shall Return.” It says in part: “Return, return, we shall return/ Borders shall not exist, nor citadels and fortresses/ Cry out, O those who have left:/ we shall return!/ [We] shall return to the homes, to the valleys, to the mountains/ Under the flag of glory, Jihad and struggle/ With blood, sacrifice [fida], fraternity and loyalty/ We shall return/ … To jihad in the hills; [to] harvest in the land.”
In Reading and Texts, Grade 8, Part 1 (2009), p.66, it states: “O brother, the oppressors have exceeded all bounds and Jihad and sacrifice [fida] are imperative ….”
Congressman Smith said the United States should put conditions on the funding the UNRWA receives, including a mandate to clean up the textbooks.
“It would be based on a certification where the president would have to certify that the UNWRA textbooks are completely excised of all anti-Semitic hate,” Smith said, adding that “zero tolerance on hate in those textbooks” should be the benchmark.
“And so, if you teach kids to hate when they’re very, very young and just keep feeding them that kind of formula for violence, why are we surprised when they strap on dynamite and other kinds of explosives to kill themselves and think they’re doing a good thing?” Smith said. “They’ve been taught. And we have to be much more emphatic – zero tolerance on hate in those textbooks.”
textbooks
Author David Bedein of the Center for Near East Policy said at the event that the refugee camp schools regularly promote the “Right of Return,” which supports Palestinians’ right to reclaim the property abandoned or lost in the 1948 war, even if that property – or the city or village where it was once located – no longer exists.”
“This perceived right also applies to the refugee’s descendants with no limit of number, time or place of birth,” Groiss wrote in an essay on the “Right of Return.”
In his conclusion, Groiss said the “Right of Return” is tied to the elimination of Israel and helps “propagate this non-peaceful line, in absolute contradiction to the (UNWRA) declared mission.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-textbooks-palestinian-children-explosively-anti-semitic-anti-american-and-anti
James,
Using nukes/start a war, its basically blackmailing by Israel. Remember back in 2011, it had been pretty silent on Iran this fall/winter, then all of a sudden it was leaked that Israel planned to attack and the israeli leaders talked publicly about it. However one should read that israeli incident as a way to put pressure on the US to do more on Iran, if not Israel will start something…
Sakineh Bagoom says:
January 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Information on the “quiet” go-ahead for US arms sale to Bahrain:
“President Barack Obama’s administration has been delaying its planned $53 million arms sale to Bahrain due to human rights concerns and congressional opposition, but this week administration officials told several congressional offices that they will move forward with a new and different package of arms sales — without any formal notification to the public….The State Department is keeping the exact items in the sale secret, but is claiming they are for Bahrain’s “external defense” and therefore couldn’t be used against protesters. Of course, that’s the same argument that State made about the first arms package, which was undercut by videos showing the Bahraini military using Humvees to suppress civilian protesters.”
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/28/bahrain-feature-obama-administration-quietly-sells-arms-to-r.html
Scott Lucas says:
January 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Now, there’s good boy.
The Latest from Iran — 30 January:
2039 GMT: A Shift in the Awakening. The Supreme Leader has sent a message to an international youth conference in Tehran, centred on the theme of the “Islamic Awakening”.
Much of the message, put out by Ayatollah Khamenei’s Twitter account, is standard rhetoric: “The Zionists, Great Satan (USA), & Western powers are incapable in facing the Islamic awakening, & they’ll fail more & more.”
This, however, catches the eye: “Due to geographical, historical and social differences, there is no single model that can be applied to Islamic countries.”
Hmm… Last year, just after the Egyptian uprising had removed President Mubarak, the Supreme Leader put out a message that Iran’s Islamic Revolution was precisely that model.
So why has the line changed?
2027 GMT: Currency Watch. Gholam-Reza Mesbahi Moghaddam, the head of Parliament’s Economy Committee, has blamed currency fluctuations on “poor Government and poor management by the Central Bank”.
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/30/the-latest-from-iran-30-january-posturing-over-oil.html
Peter Jenkins is optimistic that he could be TOO pessimistic
==========================================================
http://www.lobelog.com/the-latest-offer-to-iran-of-nuclear-talks-don%E2%80%99t-hold-your-breath/#more-11271
This graf was meant for 20% James’ eyes:
“The final causes for pessimism (though my list is not intended to be exhaustive) are called Saudi Arabia and Israel. It ought to be well within the range of Western diplomacy to persuade Saudi Arabia that Iran’s nuclear activities still fall short of constituting a threat to Saudi security, and to remind Riyadh that, as a party to the NPT, it is committed to refrain from seeking nuclear weapons. But I have yet to come across evidence of the West taking such a line.”
US moves ahead with military sales to Bahrain
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/us-moves-ahead-with-1323741.html
Can anybody decipher this? “sale of an undisclosed amount of spare parts” :)
BiBiJon says: January 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm
BiBiJon, I recommend ‘troll keys’
[shift][space bar]
[shift][space bar]
James Canning says: January 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm
US polity is degenerated; necons are just a symptom among many.
Scott Lucas says:
January 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Scott,
get back to posting minutia trivia. Don’t waist time chatting.
Unknown Unknowns says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm
“I might have to invest in stronger anti-filtering software.”
Fortunately, readers in Iran can now access EA WorldView’s Live Coverage and features without that software.
S.
fyi,
A number of British experts on the Middle East and Iraq, advised the Americans planning the illegal invasion of Iraq to get the US army out of sight as fast as possible, and to put forward an Iraqi leader who would be seen by the public as running the country.
Idiot neocons in the Pentagon and the White House put Jerry Bremer in as effectively a Viceroy! Carrying a copy with himself, at all times, of the US Constitution! What an idiot! And what astounding stupidity on the part of the neocons, who currently are busy with their conspiracy to set up an illegal war with Iran.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/155952-iran-claims-has-produced-laser-guided-shells.html#post2542567
fyi,
I can see the argument that God or Allah provided for Iran, by allowing the illegal and idiotic US/UK invasion of Iraq to cause the destruction of the Sunni power structure (and the secular Ba’athist state).
Can the numbskulls at Aipac grasp this?
Or, are they just whores of Zionist expansionists?
fyi,
I do readily see the message of deterrence sent by Khomeini, regarding perils and foolishness of attacking Iran without cause.
Can the numbskulls at Aipac grasp it?
fair and balanced website
James Canning says: January 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm
There were 2 reasons to continue the war:
Destruction of the Ba’ath state that had brought so much misery to Iran, Iraq, and later Kuwait.
And demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that war with Iran will not be short, easy, or decisive.
There was and is a great deterrence value in the second point above.
The Imam of Age, or God, or the Unknown and Unknowlable powers of the Universe, or Providence caused the United States and the United Kingdom to complete Iran’s war aims.
I see the finger of the Almighty in this, don’t you?
Richard, I have been thinking more about your post on January 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm, and I think you are right, and I was making an incorrect assumption.
USA is not desperate. It is not the Cold War anymore, they don’t have to attack anyone in a hurry. They not only need to sell the war within the country (which is easy), not only they need to sell it to other countries (which is less easy), but make it reasonable ready for the public not to resist too much (the hardest). The plans for war against Iraq probably started before the Iran-Iraq war.
I don’t believe a war with Iran would have happened in 2008/2009 as mention though. The protests in 2009 in Iran probably showed that Iranians were not ripe yet for a war. Aside from their public speeches, the west probably secretly knew that the Green movement would fail, therefore they need not really put much faith or effort in it. But the sanctions combined with the many PR attempts is trying to change the Iranians enough to not strongly resist an attack too much.
Sassan says:
January 30, 2012 at 2:02 pm
LMAO!
Keep it up, buddy, whoever you are. Uncle Weasel is sitting beside me nudging me with his elbow and grinning from ear to ear. Pass the Popcorn!
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Many good points, RSH; US/Israel/West are NOT “desperate”, they are proceeding according to plan; Robert Auman is still running the Game out of Hebrew University Rational Institute.
But it might also be argued that the tighter the spot Israel finds itself in, the more dangerous it becomes. M Ali observed that the West’s thinking framework relies on advertising, marketing, consumption, and the emotional appeal that drives those practices. M Ali rightly observed that “Iran does not excel in marketing itself.” Marketing is, today, an emotion-driven business; Iran invented algebra, the essence of applied rational thinking. The West may not be “desperate,” but Brand Israel and Brand Liberal democracy/USA are certainly showing signs of wear and tear. That’s the normal course of a marketing campaign, it goes stale. But algebra never goes out of style, and throughout history, has only led to new and more profound discoveries about the nature of the universe. Iran still holds the superior world view.
In addition, a key element required for the marketing campaigns of the West/USrael to succeed is trust — the trust of the masses in their leader.
Check out this video interview in which John Mearsheimer talks about his book, “Why Leaders Lie.” Mearsheimer explained that leaders lie to two audiences: foreign leaders and their publics, and to their own people. They must lie only rarely, however, because “if you lied all the time nobody would believe you.”
He went on to give examples of leaders who have lied: FDR TRIED to lie to the American people to get US into WWII (the Greer incident); LBJ lied to the American people to get US into Viet Nam; Bush and Blair lied to their people to involve US and Great Britain in war on Iraq.
Those are leader-to-people lies. Next, Mearsheimer dealt with leader-to-leader lies. He said that one foreign leader only rarely lies to another leader because they naturally operate in an atmosphere of distrust. That being so, both leaders will seek outside verification of everything he is told by another leader, and both leaders know this.
The closeness of the relationship might have a bearing on whether one leader lies to another leader, but a more important variable is whether both leaders have the same incentives. FDR and Churchill likely did not lie to each other; they had a “special relationship,” but they also shared an agenda: BOTH were very eager to take reluctant publics to war against Germany, and both were willing and did lie to their publics to do so. A similar dynamic pertained to the relationship between Bush and Blair.
The next obvious question is, why do leaders find it easier to lie to their own public than to other leaders?
This is where we find the Achilles heel of the current situation. Mearsheimer explained that “It’s easiest to lie when there is trust between two people or two groups. In international politics there is not much trust between states, but publics tend to trust their own leaders; they think their leaders are looking out for the good of the people.”
_____
I would argue that today, that trust has been seriously eroded across a broad swathe of the American public. Formerly taboo statements are being voiced in public; the curtain has been pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. That means that it will be much harder for a leader to again lie to the American people because the natural bond of trust has been broken and they will increasingly resort to “trust but verify” mode.
Inasmuch as at least three presidents have lied to three generations of Americans in order to lead them into wars against the will of those people, it’s hard to know how that breach of trust will be leveraged to cause a different outcome in the current campaign of lies-with-the-goal-of-war-on-Iran. Confrontation with facts and evidence is, of course, the ordinary means of defanging a liar, but the leaders who lied their publics into war paid no attention to their public’s protests — democracy in action, heh.
But if the least that has been accomplished so far is to demonstrate that leaders are not trustworthy, then they WILL find themselves in “desperate” straits, and will, perhaps, find themselves compelled to take different actions.
by the way — is anyone else finding him/herself under a cyber attack when posting on this website? something called “welcome to Frontpage” keeps popping up on my browser while I type this. hmmm.
Dear Analysts,
Scott and Sassan are voluminous BS.
If you can only ignore them, you have ignored BS.
And M.Ali do not get bewitched by Sassan!
Sassan does not exist!
Thank you all.
Iranian TV is reporting that Oman is making noises that it wants to cut its supply of natural gas from Qatar and have Iran supply her instead. Probably wishful thinking at this stage, but you never know. And of course the Iran-Pakistan-India gas line will eventually go through despite Uncle Sam’s objections, now that India has walked the gauntlet.
Humming along nicely…
Anyone care to speculate on what will happen if Iran cuts off oil to EU?
1. Liability for damages for violation of contrats
2. The legislation would also ban all imports from EU countries. Can the iranian economy afford to do that?
Overall, it seems it might be a case of a provocation that would be welcomed by Israel (??)
I just want you all to know that I am sorry for my postings. I too have a sense of honor and, in truth, I regret bothering all of you. I am not delusional.
I need a friend.
R S Hack,
Was Khomeini wise to continue the war with Iraq for years, needlessly? “Khomeini never wavered from his faith in the war as God’s will, and observers have related a number of examples of his impatience with those who tried to convince him to stop it.”
[Wikipedia].
Scott Lucas says:Sources are provided for all entries in Live Coverage, with hyper-links to the original locations.
Shux! I can’t get at your site. Its filtered!!
I might have to invest in stronger anti-filtering software.
Unknown Unknowns says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm
It was Scott Lucas.
Sassan says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm
ALERT! The person who posted below at the following time and description was not me!:
Wasn’t me. But good job, whoever it was. LOL.
R S Hack,
Are you claiming Khomeini did not make a number of statements that were rash? Or, do you think provoking Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to back Iraq in its long war with Iran was a sound policy choice?
Leaders make choices that can turn out to be blunders. Was it a great idea to destroy Iran’s own air force, prior to outbreak of long war with Iraq?
Thanks BiBIJon for posting this link to the atimes article
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA31Ak02.html
Richard, I’d be interested to get your read on it. Note that it lends credence to teh story of the infamous Red v. Blue war game that we had talked about a year or so ago.
Add to the article the newly introduced Basir laser-guided artillery shells, which can be used in and around the Straight of Hormoz despite its limited (20 km) range, thanks to the narrowness of the straight.
M. Ali,
Many European leaders seek the best possible relations with Russia, and work towards cooperation in mutual interest of EU and Russia.
Irshad,
The Financial Times today reports that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia may see the need to force Bashar al-Assad from power, due to the difficulties with Iran.
I have thought for many months that the more Iran appeared to threaten Saudi Arabia, the more likely it would be that the government of Syria would be overthrown.
settman,
I think you are misreading Leon Panetta, when you say his facial expressions indicate to you that he does not believe his own statements, that there is no evidence Iran is building nukes. You should applaud Panetta for doing his best to make this point, again and again.
The Latest from Iran — 30 January:
1818 GMT: Protest Watch. The opposition Coordination Council of Green Path of Hope has called for a rally on 25 Bahman (14 February).
The same occasion last year saw one of the last significant public protests by the Green Movement in Tehran. It also brought the house arrests of opposition figures Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.
1808 GMT: Food Watch. Trade sources say European Union sanctions have held up about 400,000 tonnes of grain, held on at least 10 ships outside Iranian ports, for as long as three weeks.
Amidst tougher European Union sanctions, including those passed last Monday, major EU banks have pulled back from financing grain shipments to Iran.
“The myriad of sanctions have worked to the point where the Iranian banking system is virtually defunct, thereby not allowing international trade houses to receive workable letters of credit,” one European grain trader said. “Their ships are stopped while people figure out how to get payment done, it’s a mess.”
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/30/the-latest-from-iran-30-january-posturing-over-oil.html
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:14 pm
“You’re delusional. There will be no “de-escalation.””
Richard, I strongly resemble that remark, with a pinch of pride I might add.
Maybe you think I think ‘de-escalation’ is as a result of some altruistic/wussy inner soul awakening type of thing. I don’t think that. I think it is the conclusion of running out of ammunition previously fired through the U-shaped barrel of the rifle in the hands of ‘escalators.’
From ,http://blogs(dot)rediff(dot)com/mkbhadrakumar/2012/01/30/india-categorically-rejects-iran-oil-sanctions/
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has set at rest firmly and authoritatively all speculative reports that India might buckle under American pressure and fall in line passively with the spirit of the United States’ sanctions against Iran by quietly cutting back its oil imports from Iran. That FM made the categorical statement while on a visit to the US is of added significance.
…
The Beijing daily Global Times featured an editorial today calling on China to coordinate with south and southeast Asian countries and “try its best to form a temporary alliance with them in continuing to buy oil from Iran. Such an alliance is possible, as seen from the hesitation of countries like Japan and India in sanctioning Iran.” The editorial anticipated that at some point Washington might even offer to Beijing some trade-off but China won’t cave in as Iran is far too important a relationship to compromise.
The GT editorial carries forward the train of thought that the paper fleshed out in an earlier article a fortnight ago when it inter alia called for coordinating with Russia – “the two should support each other in this [Iran] matter.”
…
Clearly, the assumption that Iran will be brought to its knees through oil sanctions is flawed. Iran has successfully withstood 30 years of US sanctions. It is also wrong to caricature Iran as a chronic case of the so-called Dutch syndrome. Iran has a diverse economy, its human resources are very substantial and it can progress even with reduced oil income.
That is to say, all this drama is actually geopolitical. Evidently, Iran is keen not to exacerbate the tensions. The latest indications are that Tehran is constructively engaging the IAEA inspectors although holding fast to its principled position on the nuclear issue, namely, that it has every right to pursue a nuclear programme as stipulated under the NPT.
All things taken into account, therefore, Delhi has done exceedingly well by taking such a clear-cut stance on the entire question and its ramifications.
UU,
“Please be good enough to share your source(s).”
Sources are provided for all entries in Live Coverage, with hyper-links to the original locations.
S.
settman,
There is very little concern in the EU or the US that Israel would use nukes in an attack on Iran. Chances are virtually zero.
BiBiJon,
You linked an interesting piece about Dennis Ross, and his direct secure telephone line to the White House from his perch at the Washington Institute for Near East Peace. Should perhaps be “Peace”. WINEP is an offshoot of Aipac, and an important instrument for effort to control US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Richard, you make some good points.
Sassan, I think it is not worth responding to your Iranian points (its pointless talking about propaganda lies). But at least, let me respond to your comments about me personally.
You said, “And you claim you are “open minded” to believe in god? How can you be open minded to something that has ZERO evidence? ” Thats exactly what being open-minded means. I currently claim there is no evidence to support the existence of God, but I have limited knowledge. I am open to the idea that I might be wrong. Fortunately, science is usually based on the idea that what we know currently might be incorrect, so lets expand our knowledge, test, research more, and we might need to rethink our established knowledge. Which is why I am concerned when you consider yourself a follower of science. You assume you know everything there is to know about the way 70 million Iranians think, you assume you know exactly what actions to be taken, you are convinced of the percentage of Iranians based on a limited sampling of people you have met in a non-scientific setting, and you are unwilling to challenge yourself on any of this. And when I claim that I am open to being wrong, you wonder how I can be open-minded about something you are sure you are right about.
Fiorangela,
New York Times says Sheldon Adelson et ux have given Gingrich $17 million.
R S Hack,
“9/11″ was not the casus belli for the illegal and idiotic US invasion of Iraq. It did provide an opportunity for the neocon warmongers to carry out their conspiracy to set up the illegal war, in part due to a certain blood lust and desire for “revenge”.
ALERT! The person who posted below at the following time and description was not me!:
“Sassan says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:57 pm
I endorse this plan of action.”
NOW PEOPLE HAVE TO PRETEND TO BE ME??
Edward Luce has an excellent piece in today’s Financial Times (“The mirage of Obama’s defence cuts”). Ed notes that Mitt Romeny and Newt Gingrich both promise to increase the squandering on unnecessary defence that so steadily erodes the strength of the US.
M. Ali: You are too funny my delusional friend. I am a reader, a student of history and science; and in addition have spent spent a significant period of time (of over 8-months last year) in Iran (and I was born in Iran too). I say what I say not because of “American consumerism” but rather through reason and rationality. I don’t pretend to see the world as “the way” I want to see it but rather “as it is” and this includes all the actors in the political arena.
Before being Iranian, I consider myself a citizen of the world. First and foremost importance for me is human rights, secularism, and freedom as this creates an arena where rational actors are leaders of their respective nations. Otherwise, we are in no longer in an era where we can afford world wars and mass erasure of human beings for both the sake of human rights as well (and maybe more importantly) for the survival and advancement of human civilization itself. This is no guarantee in the era of superstition mixed with such weaponry which can wipe out entire cities creating mass casualties and mass chaos throughout the world.
And let me add “M. Ali”, you are one of the most wishy-wash atheists I have ever come across. I will take you at your word but you definitely do not exhibit the characteristics, morals, or dignity of any free thinker I have come across. How can a free thinker support such a murderous regime that would execute you? How can you defend such a genocidal regime that rapes our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t die as virgins? And you claim you are “open minded” to believe in god? How can you be open minded to something that has ZERO evidence? In addition, you claim Muhammad was a good “moral model”? How can you claim that some genocidal maniac who killed out of impunity and had sex with a 9-year old to be a “good moral character”? A good moral character is the symbol of Jesus (whether he was a real person or not). Muhammad was one of the most evil characters in the history of mankind.
BiBiJon: “The red phone is to communicate back and forth the terms of accommodation at the tail end of de-escalation.”
You’re delusional. There will be no “de-escalation.”
M. Ali-san:
Sassan is worse than an agent; he is an unwitting agent.
M. Ali
Your post regarding the martyrdom, what a sharp perfect zoom on yet another double standard, I appreciate and enjoyed your précised focus.
Laser-guided smart-bombs: Made in Iran
http://rt.com/news/iran-laser-guided-shell-065/
Seems to my military-wise amateurish mind that this is yet another very significant development. Press TV has more on the Basir laser-guided artillery shell.
M. Ali: “but I think, it might be because of desperation…”
I disagree. I hear this “desperation” thing on just about every action taken by the West against Iran. Let me drive a stake through that.
The West is in no sense “desperate” about Iran. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the ruling elites in the West are “desperate” about anything. They are calling the shots and things are progressing as well as can be expected for them.
The West wants regime change in Iran and it knows it won’t get it by any means short of all out war (not even then, in my opinion and the opinion of anyone who knows Iran or history). Everything the West does is intended to progress along a perfectly common path to war: bogus issues, demonization, civil rights violations claims, sanctions, provocations, covert action, etc., etc.
The next step is very clear to the West: an economic blockade enforced by military means. But this step probably won’t be taken until Syria and Hizballah are weakened enough to enable Israel to minimize its losses during the war.
Nothing has impeded the steady march to war over the last eight years except two things: 1) the failure of Israel to defeat Hibzallah in 2006; and 2) the 2007 and 2011 NIEs, to a much lesser degree. Everything has proceeded along the same path as the Iraq war. Had Israel succeeded in defeating Hizballah in 2006 and the 2007 NIE had been spun like the Iraq intelligence, the war would likely have started in 2007 or 2008 in time to help the Republicans win the election.
In the case of Iraq, there was a casus belli needed and 9/11 provided that. Iran is hopefully too smart to provide a casus belli on its own but one can easily be manufactured just as 9/11 probably was. So the only holding up the war is the existence of Syria and Hizballah, especially the latter.
But there is absolutely nothing being done which is in any way indicative of any kind of “desperation”. I suppose it’s possible that one could refer to Netanyahu as “desperate” in the sense that he wants the Iran war to start yesterday and he can’t get it because his military believes Hizballah needs to be taken out first. But that’s about the extent of any “desperation”.
But until Syria is weakened – and that is proceeding along very nicely with the UN now preparing a resolution giving Assad a VERY short time to step aside or “further measures will be taken” – the Iran war cannot proceed. Which means Syria is on the “fast track” to be attacked – by summer, most likely.
Some people claim that Sassan is an agent. I disagree with that. Sassan is the result of the anti-Iranian campaign that the agents have done.
In a way, we should be glad that Sassan is here. It shows what logic is up against. A lot of us think that we will get somewhere if we rationally discuss something. This is what the Leveretts try to day, but it is an uphill battle.
Sassan is a consumer. This is America’s field of expertise. Being soley a capatalist entity, its main talent is creating consumers that act the way the corporation would like it to act due to effective marketing. This is why American marketing companies are being used by politians around the world for their campaign (both the films, fiction “Power” and non-fiction “”Our Brain is Crisis” is about this). This is where Iran might not be that strong in.
I’ve always said that Iran’s main problem on the international scale is that its bad in marketing itself.
When you look at someone like Sassan, you know that its due to a successful marketing campaign. Even simple things, that would look logical, does not seem to make sense to them.
Saying that Sassan is an agent is giving him too much credit. Sassan is merely a byproduct.
I endorse this plan of action.
What You Can Do to Stop a Catastrophic War against Iran
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The US, France and UK prodded by Israel are determined to replay their criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change in Iran this time under the false pretext of the non-existent nuclear weapons programme in the country. The western sanctions and the oil embargo against Iran are an act of war that will lead to a military conflict with catastrophic consequences for the people of Iran, the Middle East and the whole world.
Both the US and Israel’s intelligence agencies and the defense ministers of both countries have confirmed in the past month that there is no indication of a military dimension, nor a decision to develop a nuclear weoponisation programme in Iran. The IAEA Chief I, Yukiya Amano, admitted to German Parliamentarians this week that there was not any credible evidence that Iran’s civilian programme has a military dimension. Despite these admissions, the war drums are beating to the chorus of hawks and their mouthpieces in the media.
We need to act now to avert this lose-lose western strategy and promote the win-win strategy of negotiating in good faith with Iran, without the pre-condition for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment for civilian use, which is its inalienable right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Here is an Action Plan for you to help to defeat the western belligerent lose-lose strategy and promote the peaceful win-win strategy; the aim is to raise awareness and mobilise the public, and bring a motion against sanctions and war on Iran in the House of Commons to defeat the current hawkish stance of the government. A similar action programme with respect to local anti-war organisations should be adopted in the US, France and Germany.
ACTION PLAN TO STOP A CATASTROPHIC WAR ON IRAN
1. Please provide your contact details on the website for CASMII and Stop the War Coalition (STWC).
2. For the full facts of the Iran-West standoff, you can
· study the document:
Key Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
on CASMII’s website http://www.campaigniran.org.
· read CASMII’s website for the latest developments every day.
3. You can organise local meetings with support from CASMII and STWC to raise awareness and call for action against the impending war.
4. You can propose resolutions at your student union, trade union and other organisations to oppose the war drive and promote the win-win strategy against it.
5. You can write letters to newspapers, local and national MPs and politicians, including David Cameron and Nick Clegg, to challenge the anti Iran lies and distortions, question their evidence and hold them accountable.
6. You can organise delegations with your leading figures to the 10 Downing Street and demand an end to sanctions and the war drive on Iran.
7. You can book an appointment to go and see and lobby your MP to raise the issue at the House of Commons and support a motion to halt the sanctions, the war preparations and the covert war against Iran as publicly declared by Sir John Sawyers the head of MI6 in 2010.
Kathleen — dream scenario — Gingrich is forced to disgorge the $5 or $10 million Adelson has paid him.
swwweeeeet.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. – Sun Tzu
** :http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+6&version=NIV **
;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+7&version=NIV
;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%208&version=NIV
;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+9&version=NIV
Scott Lucas says: January 30, 2012 at 11:24 am
Mr. Khamenei will state Iran’s views and policies this Friday.
Adelson bribery of foreign officials
The casino company owned by American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been under federal investigation for the last year for alleged bribery of foreign officials, ABC News reported over the weekend.
Adelson, the main donor to U.S. presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the owner of the Israeli daily Israel Hayom, holds 49% of the Sands casino company, and according to reports, is directly involved in the company’s operations. The casino that the company set up in the Chinese island of Macau turned it into the largest gambling company in the world.
NOW WHEN WILL US OFFICIALS INVESTIGATE ADELSON FOR BRIBING US CANDIDATES FOR A FOREIGN NATION…ISRAEL? WHEN WILL ADELSON AND OTHERS LOBBYING AND BRIBING FOR ISRAEL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN UP AS AGENTS OF A FOREIGN NATION?
India has stood up to the US saying it will not cut its oil imports from Iran despite America and European Union’s sanctions against Tehran. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee boldly made this clarification during his visit to the US on Sunday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0L8MbT4y0k
Adelson under criminal investigation for alleged bribery of foreign officials
link to haaretz.com
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 30, 2012 at 11:23 am
Guess what?
Despite resignation, Dennis Ross isn’t going anywhere
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/despite-resignation-dennis-ross-isn-t-going-anywhere-1.410054
Another “de-escalation” straw floating away on the water…
————————-
Richard,
US continues to have trust in Israel’s trust in her lawyer, Dennis. The red phone is to communicate back and forth the terms of accommodation at the tail end of de-escalation.
Empty-san says, “The only thing about *the letter* I wanted to clarify in our exchange was that it was neither signed by Ayatollah Khamenei nor a clear consent was obtained from him.”
That makes all the difference. It is inconceivable that had our beloved leader wanted to convey a missive to any state, let alone the US, it would have been done on a hrd copy with a wet signature, and delivered by hand through a mutually trusted intermediary (such as the Swiss ambassador). It would be inconceivable because failure to carry any one of these requirements would make the missive suspect to an intermediary recipient…
*
Scotty:
A day or two back someone (“Curious”) asked you what your source for all these stories that you are posting fast and furious here was, and I was looking forward to a response. Is it one source? And if so, is it an open source? It seems to me that with the volume of up to date translations from the daily papers, it can only be an national intelligence agency such as MI6, NSA, CIA or (less likely) Mossad. Am I right? If it is an open source, please be good enough to share your source(s). I guess for my part, failure to do so would strongly tend to confirm that your source(s) are not open, and probably in the line of those suggested by me above.
Cheers,
UU.
I keep getting tempted to engage with Sassan, believing that everyone can be reasoned with, but I doubt it more and more with each post.
why do you even post here, Sasan? You want war on Iranians and believe 95% of Iranians agree with you. So, what exactly do you want to do here?
The coming bloody battles are no longer mainly fought along a a Shi’a-Sunni line. That came and went while Satan was wide asleep. Now, they is mostly fought between the Sunnis of “صوره” [facade/appearance/outward look] with the Sunnis of “معنی” [meaning/essence/deeds]. The signs indicate that the latter group would be increasingly drawing on the (technical/tactical/strategic/theoretical) experiences acquired by the Shi’a in the past ~1300 years. Tangible evidence of this for all to see will begin to show sooner rather than later. Because of this, Egypt is far more critical to KSA than Bahrain and Syria. The importance of Egypt is followed by Algeria, Tunisia, and Jordan. KSA focus on Syria depletes its energy without being too beneficial in extending the kingdom’s life. But, like the scorpion, it just can’t help it and keeps on stinging the frog on the back of which, it had some chance to survive.
Richard Steven Hack: Except the stats released in the west are not fabricated. People conveniently end up missing every single day in Iran and are never again to be seen.
They might also be preparing the public & media for false flag operations. Which might actually be worrying.
Notice that recent news seem to be focused on Iran hatching up terror plans everywhere in the world (of course, none of them succeeding, and all being stopped by Jack Bauer at the last minute). What do you guys think is this recent PR attack?
At worst, it is preparing for war, but I think, it might be because of desperation. They’ve done all they can say about nuclear Iran and Israel-hating Iran, and there is not much they can do with that. I think they’d done so much propaganda on it, that it has started to be ineffective as propaganda. Maybe they’ve decided a new route?
Scott, can you at least post links to your site that at least has important news, rather than minute by minute update of every single thing you can find on Iran? I don’t think many of us need to be instantly updated on the price of meat as breaking news.
Guess what?
Despite resignation, Dennis Ross isn’t going anywhere
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/despite-resignation-dennis-ross-isn-t-going-anywhere-1.410054
Another “de-escalation” straw floating away on the water…
settman — “And now they are in a stalemate, how they got there they dont know due irrational missteps and pressure by warmongers and lobbying.”
right.
one must do a critical analysis of a 100 year old bowl of spaghetti.
which is why my man Panetta is on the job.
has anyone ever tried the spaghetti in an Iranian restaurant?
it’s better than what passes for broiled steak
but worse than library paste.
leave the Iranian spaghetti.
take the Yazd cannolli.
Cakewalk? Don’t get stuck in the icing.
====================================
Iran well prepared for the worst
By David Isenberg
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA31Ak02.html
For the military buffs
And Iran is supposed to be a “police state”?
The rate of incarceration per 100,000 people is: USA 730, Russia 534, Iran 334, China 122, Iraq 101, and Germany 86. Source: International Centre for Prison Studies, University of Essex.
Richard Steven Hack says: January 30, 2012 at 10:41 am
They think they can control religious emtions.
They cannot.
They are setting their own house on fire.
Here we go again…
Al Qaeda in Iran
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137061/seth-g-jones/al-qaeda-in-iran
Arab spring: ‘Western-backed exported Islamist revolution’
http://rt.com/news/arab-spring-islamist-revolution-723/
Interview with John R. Bradley, British author and expert on the Middle East. Worth a view. He thinks basically the Arab Spring has been hijacked by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the intent in most of the countries with revolutions is to bring Sunni radicals to power to counter Iran. Much of what he says agrees with what Pepe Escobar has been reporting.
The Syrian National Council placed an advert in the Saudi newspaper Al-Hayat – thanking the “King” of Saudi Arabia for his support!:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/01/syrian-national-council-issues-official.html
And these people are telling Western and Arab media how many people are being killed in Syria – it will be nothing less then made up to make the Assad govt look ruthless and bloody.
Empty and fyi – thank you for the clarifications!
LOL
Fiorangela says: January 29, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Sarah was the culprit.
Abraham took a younger woman as a wife and had child with her.
Next, Sarah made that man’s life miserable.
Abraham was wimp when it came to dealing with women – apparently.
Instead of telling Sarah where to stuff it (or tell her that if she was unhappy she could pack and leave), he succumbed to Sarah’s machinations and manipulations.
Sarah was the villain and not Abraham – who was just a weak man when it came to women’s cunning and guile.
The Prophet was a stronger man; in an analogous situation, he left all of his wives and sent a message to them that unless they behaved themselves he was not coming back.
They started behaving themselves after that.
The Prophet knew how to treat women.
Irshad says: January 30, 2012 at 7:59 am
Per Mr. Empty’s remark, the late Mr. Khomeini might have been the first to use this phrase.
On the other hand, if you were a Muslim youth at the start of 1980s and interested in your identity as a Muslim, US and her Muslim allies put a lot of effort into painting a different version of Islam than what the late Mr. Khomeini’s views.
That was a different American Islam – it was the concotion of the neo-Salafists that was propogated by the Saudi Arabia’s money in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
This newer “American Islma” succeeded all too well in pushing the late Mr. Khomeini’s views and what the Islamic Republic fo Iran stood for out of the mainstream of Muslim thinking.
[God-forbid that Sunni Msulims take seriously of the Shia Thought.]
That “American Islam” came back, however, to bite Americans and her Mulsim allies back – it gave rise to neo-Salafi jihadists etc.
[Truly, God turns their tricks aginst them.]
In my opinion, for those people who take Islam seriously and believe that any Muslim polity must be predicated on Islam; then the only available framework with any chance of success in dealing with Godless Modernity as well as the necessities of development is the ideas of the late Mr. Khomeini and the students of his thought.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the so-called Sufis, the quietist Shias, the Traditionalists and others of that sort cannot deal with the world as is today.
The alternative to Mr. Khomeini is Mr. bin ladin.
Scott Lucas doesn’t realize the three implications of his consistent images of a dark, gloomy, and collapsing Iran:
1 He is inadvertently admitting that Iran is a very open society with very viberent debates in public.
2 He gradually gets ignored, because for years he has been repeating the same thing.
3 He looks somehow deperate when he constantly “spams” this website.
Unknown Unknowns says: January 30, 2012 at 1:22 am
Rubbish!
There is no way that you can infer spiritual authority inhering from the Imam of Age in the Doctors of Religious Science of (Shia) Islam.
Such a chain of (spiritual/tempral) authority does not exist.
Spiritual authority, to my knowledge, among the Shia, has always been by acclaimation of the people.
Like “Imperator” by the legioners in Ancient Rome.
You are almost positing something like Christianity in which the Spiritual authroity was vested by Jesus in Saint Peter (“On you I will build my Church.”) from which of course follows the spiritual authority inhering in every single priest in the Catholic and Orthdox Churches.
Your ruminations have no existence outside of your mind.
Irshad,
That phrase was first used by Imam Khomeini (1360 h.s./ 1981-1982). Here is a translation/interpretation of an excerpt from Sahifeh Nour, Vol. 21, pages 121 and 145:
“It is unfortunate for many Islamic nations that none of the boundaries of an “American Islam” with an authentic Islam of Muhammad (S.A.), and an Islam of the poor and the oppressed with the Islam of the backward fanatic with a holy façade, and that of an ungodly capitalists who live a pampered life with no pain, these boundaries, these differences are not clarified. And it is political imperative to make clear this truth that these two contradictory/opposite thoughts cannot co-exist in one doctrine, in one unified path.”
“The only art that is acceptable to Quran is that which polishes the authentic Islam of Muhammad (S.A.), the Islam of A’emmeh (A.S.)—the Islam of the oppressed, the Islam of the barefooted, the Islam of those who have been whipped by a bitter history of shameful oppressions. The only art that is beautiful and pure is that undermines modern capitalism, blood-laced communism, and posh/luxury-dressed Islam, the fallacious Islam, the Islam of corroboration and humility, the Islam of the well-to-do without worries/pains, and in one phrase: “the American Islam”
Bibi john,
That is correct.
The propaganda is in the works, every week new statements are made by Israel which try to impose their warmongering views and attitude on not only americans but also europeans. At the same time, of course US nor EU wants a war but are themselves afraid that Israel will even maybe use its nukes or start a new war that will inevitable drag in western forces and since US and EU are incapable of criticizing Israel they have been dragged into a conflict which is not in their strategic interest. And now they are in a stalemate, how they got there they dont know due irrational missteps and pressure by warmongers and lobbying.
Interesting points raised by former Indian ambassador M.K.Bhadrakumr over at his blog on rediff.com (I cannot post the link for some reason):
“American Islam on march in Middle East
The Qatari prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jasem Al Thani is personally leading the charge of the light brigade at Turtle Bay later today, with the Arab League transferring the flag to the United States and its western allies to wage the diplomatic campaign for getting a United Nations mandate for outside intervention in Syria.
A battle royal is about to commence at the UN Security Council later in the evening, which would have all the trappings of a cold war.
Ironically, just before the curtain lifts in the UN Security Council, some fascinating news has begun trickling in from the Libyan deserts. Libya is splitting. The pro-Muammar Gaddafi Warfallah tribe, the domiant tribe in Bali Walid and the most populous in Libya, drove out a pro-government militia (trained and equipped and finaced by Qatar and its western mentors) this week, has formed a tribal-based government and Tripoli has “recognised” it. This is apart from the trouble brewing in eastern Benghazi and elsewhere, as dissatisfaction erupts over the puppet government in Tripoli installed by Qatar and the US-led western powers.
But Sheikh Hamad has no time left for Libya anymore as he did his two bits there already, and he has been told to move on by his western mentors, now that the action turns to Syria. The show is over in Libya as long as western control has been established over the country’s great oil fields. Hamad has been told that the rest of the Libyan deserts could go to dogs. So, Hamad is done with Libya. He removes his blood-stained overcoat and puts on a sparkling white apparel as he emplanes for New York on Saturday.
Isn’t it targic that Hamad and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in tow have arrogated to themselves the role of the flag carriers of democracy in the Muslim Middle East? The tragedy of the Muslims of the Middle East is actually their own petty autocrats who are shivering with fear within their petticoats about their own political survival if an avalanche of genuine reform overwhelms their lands. So, Hamad and Abdullah will do all that they can, no matter what it takes, to perpetuate the western dominance — political, military, economic and cultural — of the region.
The diplomatic battle that is commencing in New York later today is of historic importance. Russia and China are coming under immense pressure as they are standing bang in the way of an overt western military intervention in Syria. If the push comes to a shove, will they use their veto to deny a UN mandate for the western intervention? That’s the big question. We may know the answer in a few days.
Quintessentially, the covert western-Turkish-Arab intervention in Syria so far needs to be legitimised and carried to its logical conclusion.
Why should Muslims blame America for all their woes? They have only themselves to blame for allowing the likes of Hamad and Abdullah to represent their voice.
What is the US’s game plan? Russia Today featured a brilliant analysis of the ABC of the so-called “Arab Spring”, explained succinctly by the British author and Arabist, John Bradley. In sum, the upheaval in the Muslim Middle East and the Shi’ite Sunni divide that has been triggered artificially is lending itself to creating the political environment for the planting of the germane seeds of “American Islam” in the Middle East.
The grand design is to perpetuate the western hegemony over the Muslim Middle East for yet another century under new local political dispensations. Autocrats like Hamad and Abdullah hope to survive in the bargain as the west’s sidekicks. Whether their fervent hopes of survival prove realistic or not, time will tell. My hunch is that as dregs on a plate, they will also be washed away once the west finesses the forces of American Islam in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
This is not about a Muslim or Arab renaissance in the Muslim Middle East. This is not about democracy in Muslim societies. This upheaval known as the Arab Spring is not even indigenous. It’s a Caesarian operation conducted with clinical perfection by the west on the Muslim lands. The result will be that the Koran that the Muslims of the Middle East may end up reading through the coming decades will be printed in the west, financed by Hamad and Abdullah.
The Muslim world indeed deserves far better than this disgusting spectacle. A variant of the tragedy is appearing in the eastern edges of the Greater Middle East also — in Afghanistan. Qatar has been brought in by Washington for a repeat performance in the Hindu Kush. Taliban will be the rulers in Kabul except that they will be rehashed as islamists — after jettisoning their archaic form of traditional Islam and once they begin to practise “American Islam”.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker is right. This is not about breaking up Afghanistan, it is about “Islmaizing” Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan’s unity becomes terribly important for the US geostrategy. Afghanistan should remain in its present form as a single geopolitical entity on the Central Asian chessboard with the ideological underpinnings of an islamic democracy or else the great game runs into cul-de-sac.
Because, once the transformation of the Taliban is complete under the Qatari and American supervision, Taliban will be the avant-guarde of change in the Central Asian steppes to the north and the other outlying Muslim regions of Pakistan (and of the Kashmir regions of India where “American Islam” is straining to find expression).
And if that happens, something like half of China’s vast territorial spaces inhabited by non-Han peoples (much of it Muslims) and Russia’s “soft underbelly” become ripe for change. And Pakistan and India say goodbye to their nascent hopes for retaining their strategic autonomy as independent states. Alas, Hamad and Abudllah have their counterparts among the Pakistani and Indian elites as well.
Paradoxically, therefore, what the US and its allies expect Russia and China (and India and Pakistan) to do in the Security Council is to remain passive onlookers of an enterprise that ultimately can turn out to be their own nemesis — implanting Islamism under American control as the life force in their body-polities.
The grand design of the US is to get deeply embedded in the Greater Middle East in anticipation of a century through which Asia threatens to interrupt the west’s 500-year old exclusive global dominance. The west won’t give up its hegemony without a struggle. Controlling the Middle East is the key to the US global strategy.
Without a weakening of Russia and China and India and Pakistan by exploiting their mutual contradictions (and smashing up the defiant Iranian regime which espouses justice and resistance), this march of history under Asian leadership can’t be arrested. Moscow is dead right, Syria is not a matter for Russia alone when the UN Security Council sits down today to debate a resolution paving the way for western intervention for the overthrow of the regime in Damascus. This matter is also for China — and for BRICS and Pakistan.”
_______________________________________________________________
If I remember correctly, was it not Ay. Khamenie who 1st used the term “American Islam” at the 1st Islamic Awakening conference held last year?
Gary’s Sick of the annual imminent Israeli attack prediction
============================================================
[In the Sunday Times magazine] Bergman’s dramatic statement that “I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012,” is also nothing new — it simply changes the date. We heard the same thing a year ago from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, and two years before that from uber-hawk John Bolton, who confidently predicted that the U.S. and/or Israel would strike Iran before George W. Bush left office. It is becoming almost an annual ritual.
Why do these false alarms keep going off? Bergman suggests an answer with disarming honesty:
“Some have argued that Israel has intentionally exaggerated its assessments to create an atmosphere of fear that would drag Europe into its extensive economic campaign against Iran…”
From http://www.lobelog.com/gary-sick-will-israel-really-attack-iran/#more-11264
Re: all musing about death, dying, and sacrifice….
Here is how I would formulate it: “I do not choose to die but live and struggle for a just cause. If they kill me for that choice, shame on them. Although I continue to live even after death, let it not be said that I died for a just cause but rather that I chose to live for it and it is they who couldn’t tolerate it and killed me.”
Unknown Unknowns,
Not sure what happened there with the post. I’ll try to reformulate it again and post the response later.
Unknown Unknowns,
RE: Religious esoterica alert. This is indeed pretty esoteric, but is still very much “on topic” as it goes to the issue of the legitimacy of the authority of the system of governance current in Iran today.
This is a very loaded statement. I think it’s important to take it apart. I agree with you about the topic’s relevance in the sense that through a systems dynamic lens, at its core, relevant subjects that are seemingly unrelated/off-topic are made transparent. Also, from the very start, I have stated that there is already a war going on between the US, Inc. and Iran. My participation is not for some theoretical intellectual debate/discussion. I think there is a war of “حق و باطل” [truth/justice & falsehood] and also don’t think that all who are on the side of “haq” are all necessarily Iranians and all who are on the side of “batel” are all necessarily non-Iranians. This war goes beyond any ethnicity, religion, and national boundary.
In terms of legitimacy, it has to be clear and be emphasized that even if Iran had a different system of governance, even if it were all rural, even if the entire population had a ratio of 5 or 10% literacy, even if vast majority of the population were living in jungles, and many more “even ifs”, this ongoing war (and any expansion of it) against Iran is illegitimate. This war would still be illegitimate even if the entire US/EU/UK and the world population democratically and freely voted for it. Full Stop.
**Not sure what happened to bits and pieces of the post?!**
Unknown Unknowns,
RE: Religious esoterica alert. This is indeed pretty esoteric, but is still very much “on topic” as it goes to the issue of the legitimacy of the authority of the system of governance current in Iran today.
This is a very loaded statement. I think it’s important to take it apart. I agree with you about the topic’s relevance in the sense that through a systems dynamic lens, at its core, relevant subjects that are seemingly unrelated/off-topic are made transparent. Also, from the very start, I have stated that there is already a war going on between the US, Inc. and Iran. My participation is not for some theoretical intellectual debate/discussion. I think there is a war of “حق و باطل” [truth/justice & falsehood] and also don’t think that all who are on the side of “haq” are all necessarily Iranians and all who are on the side of “batel” are all necessarily non-Iranians. This war goes beyond any ethnicity, religion, and national boundary.
In terms of legitimacy, it has to be clear and be emphasized that even if Iran had a different system of governance, even if it were all rural, even if the entire population had a ratio of 5 or 10% literacy, even if vast majority of the population were living in jungles, and many more “even ifs”, this ongoing war (and any expansion of it) against Iran is illegitimate. This war would still be illegitimate even if the entire U
But even if the debate about these concepts continues (which it will) and even if multiple interpretations of Iran’s system of governance are arrived at, none of these scenarios could themselves serve as a legitimate reason to
About your post [January 30, 2012 at 1:22 am], I think I am realizing that we’re looking at those concepts from different angles (like Molana’s elephant in a dark room)…. I
Relations between Iran and Azerbaijan: What next?
Mon 30 January 2012
Cem Oguz
by Cem Oguz, head of the Turkish Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In the diplomatic arena, the last days are witness to interesting developments in Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. The marathon got underway when there appeared news stories in the international media regarding the murder of Rafig Tagi, an Azerbaijani journalist critical of radicalism and Iranian regime. Although not proven yet, most signs were said to have pointed to Iranian connection, since Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani had called for Tagi’s death for alleged apostasy in a fatwa declared in 2007.
Soon after, Azerbaijani authorities announced Tehran was believed to be involved in hacking attacks on a number of Azerbaijani websites. According to the Iranian Embassy in Baku, however, the Iranian side had nothing to do with these attacks. The Iranian diplomats expressed regret that some media organs has linked them with the Iranian government.
Last, but not least, the Azerbaijani National Security Ministry announced that it detained members of a gang which it said was planning to assassinate foreign citizens working in Baku. According to the Ministry, these figures were in close connection with the Iranian intelligence, a claim immediately denied again by the Iranian embassy in Baku. It was a plot, asserted the Iranian Embassy, organized by Zionists and the United States, as part of their efforts to destroy friendly relations between the two countries and further damage Iran’s international prestige as well as image.
Tehran is obviously increasingly disturbed by Azerbaijan’s growing relations with Western countries, first and foremost the U.S. and Israel, particularly at a time when these two countries are rumored to be planning an attack against Iran in response to its nuclear program. It is precisely for this reason that one might easily read the motives behind these developments. Yet, what I personally humbly fail to understand is whether Iran is right in complaining about Baku’s presumably antagonistic approach towards Iran, given its state of affairs with Armenia.
An Islamic republic favoring an avowedly Christian state in a conflict with its predominantly Muslim neighbor would normally seem unlikely, but this is exactly what Tehran did during the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the early 1990s. Since then, Iran has indeed been predisposed towards supporting Yerevan over Baku on regional issues, but first and foremost the Karabakh dispute.
There are a great variety of reasons behind this support, but I will list here only the three most crucial of them: At present, the number of ethnic Armenians living in Iran is estimated to be about only 100,000, constituting the country’s largest Christian minority. On the other hand, the number of ethnic Azeris living in Iran is at least 20 million, though there is some dispute about this figure, which is affected by the differing perspectives and motivations that the issue is approached with. These people have been integrated into Iranian society and hold important positions in the higher echelons of the state like Seyyed Ali Khamanei, the supreme leader who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeni. Nonetheless, the Iranian establishment sees these people as a potential secessionist threat, actually one to be provoked by Azerbaijan should it regain its territories still under Armenian occupation. It is precisely for this reason that Tehran attempts to strategically balance Azerbaijan with its arch enemy Armenia.
In such a milieu, I feel compelled to remind our Iranian friends of a Turkish/Azerbaijani proverb that goes, “Stick a needle in yourself first to see how much it hurts before you thrust a packing needle into others.”
C. Cem Oguz
http://www.news.az/articles/politics/53614
‘Iranian nurses here to spy on Turkey’
25 January 2012 / TODAY’S ZAMAN, İSTANBUL
An unidentified source has warned the Interior Ministry about an alleged Iranian plot to send nurses to Turkey to spy on the neighboring country.
Turkey recently passed legislation making it possible for foreign doctors and nurses to work in Turkish hospitals.
The source claims that Iranian official institutions train nurses in espionage before their arrival in Turkey, the Habertürk daily reported on Wednesday. The source is believed to be an Azeri Iranian.
“My wife is a nurse and we decided to apply after we learned that Iran will send nurses to Turkey. A state official then visited us, asking my wife to attend a course before going to Turkey,” says the unknown source in a letter to the ministry. The source claimed the courses are on “patient influencing techniques” and “gathering personal information.”
The information comes days after news of another suspicious Iranian course of action, claiming that the Quds Force, a military unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, plans to send a group to Turkey to carry out armed attacks on the US Embassy and consulates. The National Police Department, which gathered the intelligence, has warned police departments in all the 81 provinces that they must be vigilant and remain alert to the existence of such a threat.
The Interior Ministry has since started investigating Iranians who have applied to come to Turkey. It has also asked the Foreign Ministry to aid it in the investigation.
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&newsId=269549&link=269549
Unknown Unknowns,
RE: “I had to agree that it made no sense to *fax* a letter, and so I concluded, with Empty, that the letter was a hoax (probably unwittingly) perpetrated by Trita Parsi et al.”
I think there is a misunderstanding here and sorry for my vagueness. The only thing about *the letter* I wanted to clarify in our exchange was that it was neither signed by Ayatollah Khamenei nor a clear consent was obtained from him. That was all I was attempting to clarify. In terms of what, who, why, etc. surrounding such communication are entirely another story into which I do not think it is useful to venture.
Just as I said yesterday..:
‘Israeli strike would be blessing for Iran’s regime’
By BEN HARTMAN 01/30/2012 01:55
Visiting Iranian student Amir Abbas Fakhravar: Attack will bring ayatollahs, allies, public legitimacy.
An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a blessing for the ayatollahs and would permanently silence the opposition to the Islamic Republic, a visiting Iranian dissident told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
“An attack would be a blessing for the Islamic Republic, a gift from God for them because then they could use this type of attack to play the victim around the world,” said Amir Abbas Fakhravar of the Confederation of Iranian Students (CIS).
Fakhravar added that an Israeli attack would not bring about a regime change in Tehran, and instead would bring Iran new sympathetic allies and would give it legitimacy in the eyes of the public it lost after the contested 2009 presidential elections.
“After 2009 and the [pro-democracy] Green Movement they lost their legitimacy in the country. It’s not hard to regain this legitimacy after an Israeli attack,” Fakhravar said.
He added that for a regime devoted to paranoid conspiracies blaming Israel for all of its peoples’ hardships, an Israeli attack would be all the proof that Tehran needs to focus the eyes of the public on Israel, effectively silencing dissent within Iran.
Instead of military action, Fakhravar believes that if the international community ensures tougher sanctions against Iran it can stop the drive for a nuclear weapon.
He said the central component in Iran is oil dollars, which give the regime the cash it needs to pay Basij militiamen and Revolutionary Guard soldiers. If the money dries up, according to Fakhravar’s logic, the regime would lack the means to pay its foot soldiers to crack down on unarmed demonstrators.
Fakhravar is in Israel along with CIS spokeswoman Saghar Erica Kasraie.
Fakhravar said he spent five years in Iranian prison for participating in student protests in 1999. During his imprisonment, he was repeatedly tortured, he said. In 2006 he defected to the United States and later founded the CIS and the Iranian Freedom Institute in Washington.
Fakhravar and Kasraie are in Israel for the first time. With talk of a possible military confrontation with Iran dominating the public debate in Israel, both spoke of their trip as an opportunity to present Israelis with a human face of Iran.
Both described Israel as being different from what they expected, namely, that it is not a fortress with security personnel on every corner, rather, a place where people appear to live normal, happy lives.
On Sunday, they toured Jerusalem, Bethlehem and a number of other historical sites. Fakhravar said he interviewed Israelis he met for a weekly TV show he produces, to show Iranians “that Israelis are normal human beings, lovely people, and to show that we should have relations with them.”
Kasraie said she has been intrigued by Israel so far, and said, “I came to this country because I wanted to help bridge the gap and build bridges between people.”
She also said that in Iran the state-run media has spent years “brainwashing the people to believe that Israel is such a monster and these days, everything the government has made forbidden the Iranian people want to question why. So I think our visit is important in helping break that taboo.”
When asked what she thinks about an Israeli military strike on Iran, Kasraie did not mince words.
“We want to make the message very clear that a military attack will not help the opposition get rid of the mullahs,” she said. “There’s a much cheaper alternative to war, to that kind of military interaction, and that is an oil embargo, which would just take some brave world leaders standing up to say, ‘Don’t buy Iranian oil.’”
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=255678
New U.N. draft resolution gives Syria 15 days to comply
Posted By Josh Rogin
The Cable has obtained a copy of the draft resolution on Syria currently being discussed inside the U.N. Security Council. It calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy and says additional measures would be taken if he doesn’t comply within 15 days.
U.N. Security Council diplomats are meeting behind closed doors on Friday to discuss what’s being called the Arab-European draft resolution on Syria. The Moroccan ambassador is presenting the draft resolution, which is designed to implement the recommendations of the Arab League transition plan laid out on Jan. 22.
The draft resolution condemns “the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities,” demands that the Syrian government immediately put an end to all human rights violations, and calls on both sides to end attacks and violence immediately.
The resolution then lays out a political roadmap that matches the Arab League initiative intended to pave the way for a transition “leading to a democratic, plural political system” through the formation of a national unity government, the handing over of all presidential authority to Assad’s deputy for a transition period, and then the holding of free and fair elections with international supervision.
Importantly, the draft resolution requests that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon report on the implementation of the resolution every 15 days and also directs the Security Council “to review Syria’s implementation of this resolution [in] 15 days and, in the event that Syria has not complied, to adopt further measures, in consultation with the League of Arab States.”
Representatives from the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland spelled out the broad goals the United States has for the final version of the resolution.
“We are looking for a resolution that reflects the commitments that the Arab League was seeking from the Syrian government, that — in its November 2nd agreement, which unfortunately has not been lived up to by the Syrian side,” Nuland said.
She indicated the United States was hopeful that Russia, which has been openly supporting Assad and sending him weapons, will work with the rest of the Security Council to produce a resolution that is strong and effective. Russia and China vetoed European resolution on Syria last fall and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Friday that Russia would veto any resolution that seeks to remove Assad from power.
“We continue to want to work with the Russians so that the whole U.N. Security Council is united in sending the strongest possible message to the Assad regime that the violence has got to end, and we’ve got to begin a transition,” Nuland said.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/27/new_un_draft_resolution_gives_syria_15_days_to_comply
Richard steven hack,
About Panetta, yeah that soundbite, “Iran is x year from getting a nuclear weapon” always miss the fundamental point which although Panetta say himself and that is: ‘If they want to get nukes and nothing prove they are seeking them with the facts on the ground today’
Also recognize that Panetta keep repeating this soundbite over and over again and note how he constantly say ‘US and Israel have the same view on this bla bla’ its like lobbying is being pressured on Panetta because he does never sound convincing, he rather look miserable and detached in every interview. Like he doesnt even belive what hes are saying. Its kind of interesing since Panetta from what I understand was against war when he started (even though he didnt say that directly) but now he suddenly turned 180 degrees and repeat irrational warmongering claims.
I also think that argumentation is ridiculous. Its like saying:
“United States are one year away to put paint the White House pink, if they want”
“Peter is one year away from running over his neighbour with his car, if he want”
“Mary is one week away from killing her friend with her fork, if she want”
I mean its getting ridiculous.
Iran web developer sentenced to death
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s state media say the Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence against a web developer convicted of spreading corruption.
The semiofficial Fars news agency says blogger Saeed Malekpour was found guilty of promoting pornographic sites. It says the Supreme Court approved the death sentence handed down by a Revolutionary Court that deals with security crimes.
Malekpour was reported imprisoned in October, 2008 and confessed on Iranian TV that he developed and promoted pornographic websites.
The website gerdab.ir, affiliated with the elite Revolutionary Guard, called Malekpour the head of the biggest Persian-language network of pornographic websites.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_DEATH_SENTENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-29-13-12-47
The west has always sold their friends very easily when the going goes tough and it is not in their self-interest anymore. This will come to bite them, because their allies will, as easily, cut ties with them, when the west loses their appeal to them. They have not made any strong alliances build on trust & loyalty, but short term gains. The middle east sheikhdom could be easily bought, if they think they will get a better deal than what they have now.
News reports about Russia asserting itself is interesting. I think Russia, after the fall of the USSR, was under the illusion that a working alliance with the west would be workable. But America & Europe seem to always draw a line with their “us & them”. Russia will always be “them”, no matter how much they tried to get close. I think, the Libyan war was the greatest insult to Russia. They approved the UN resolution to for a no-fly zone in Libya in good faith, but they soon realized that it was an actual war, not something Russia was led to believe.
The west is playing their cards completely wrong, and their short-term gains will soon dry up. As countries become more and more independant, they will start to refuse western interference. Already China, India, Brazil, and Russia are less & less willing to let USA do what it wants. If the west continues their normal arrogance, I think they will soon realise that the rest of the world are going their seperate ways.
One hopes a change in the policies of the west, because if things continue as they do, they will become insignificient. And the blow will come, at the same time, to the same group of countries, such as USA, Germany, Britian, France, etc, and the only countries that help out these countries historically are each other, but when they all go down, who else will support them? Philipines? Japan? Mexico? Azerbaijan? All their coalition buddies will abandon ship and attach themselves to the new emerging powers, and Europe & the USA will become irrevelant.
M. Ali says:
January 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“In the martyr argument, I have always found strong racism behind it. Therefore, this double standard exists. If a western man, gives his life for the greater good, he is a hero. If the Iranian holds the same belief, he is an Islamist fanatic, martyring himself for 72 virgins (when was the last time, you have heard any muslim talk about the 72 virgins?), and loving death.”
What a way to depict hypocrisy, its funny as it is maddening. American as a martyr is played by will smith, a hero. While a moslem? Meet Achmed the dead terorist (search it on you tube,its disturbingly hilarious).
M. Ali: “It is perfectly possible that I would sacrifice myself to save loved ones”
It has been argued that this is an evolution-derived reflex. In which case, I suspect that there is a major evolutionary defect in me, since I wouldn’t do it as far as I know.
But then, my defect is even greater since I have no loved ones and can’t imagine having any given my personality. :-)
I might RISK my life in some circumstances – that is rational to some degree – but I would never SACRIFICE it.
But it’s better to arrange things so that risk is minimal (it can never be completely eliminated as long as one is human in the real world.) If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing so you survive it. As they say, the first thing to do in planning a crime is planning the getaway. And the first thing a spy does before insertion on a mission is to figure out the exfiltration. And the first thing to do in starting a new business is figuring out the exit strategy.
Sassan: Seriously, you’re an idiot.
“The key difference is that we live in a secular society in which even though there is the belief in the return of the Messiah in the Christian-Judeo tradition, it is both a passive role in which no one with any sort of power takes seriously the concept in their decision making within the top elements of the government.”
What part of people worrying about George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan taking the notion of Armageddon seriously didn’t you comprehend?
You’ve been referred repeatedly to a report analyzing the claim that Iran is not a “martyr state” but none of that penetrates at all, right?
You just spout this shit by rote, right? No brain cells functioning at all in the process, right?
M. Ali says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm
“I don’t think there is a God, but I’m always willing to be proven wrong.”
Style points well won.
M. Ali says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Settman: “First of all. Why would Iran have to accept more intrusive inspections by IAEA since the hype about Iran is just hype and because some states just say so?
Second, why would Iran accept that since it will get nothing back? Enriching uranium is not illegal under the NPT nor is it illegal for those states outside the NPT. Its not up to others to decide on this fundamental right.”
The sole reason for doing so is that a full, legal acknowledgement from the West of Iran’s right to domestically enrich would undercut the entire case against Iran’s nuclear program.
As an aside, it would also weaken the West’s applying this rule against other new nuclear nations, especially since Obama has agreed to allow domestic enrichment for Saudi Arabia and some other countries which are lackeys of the US.
Granted, it wouldn’t stop the West from continuing to start a war with Iran. But it would make it harder for the West to justify the war in any legal venue, such as the UNSC or the UN General Assembly.
Also granted, that isn’t worth much either. But it might be worth agreeing to the AP to get that acknowledgement – as long as Iran could manage its compliance with the AP so as to avoid targeting information being passed to the CIA and DoD and the Israelis.
OTOH, since the West is NEVER going to make that concession precisely because it would undercut the case for war, it’s a moot point.
What would be even more stupid is what Eric has argued for: Iran committing to the AP WITHOUT such an acknowledgement from the West.
Canning blames the victim again:
“Khomeini did make a number of statements that clearly were rash, and that helped to bring disaster to Iran (in form of Iran-Iraq war).”
By now, this is an utterly clear pattern for him: anything uttered or done by anyone in any country that could remotely be considered critical of another country is deemed the cause of the resultant war of aggression by that second country. The victim country is always to blame for not being smart enough to avoid being attacked.
This has to be a uniquely British attitude…
[Israeli] Air Force drone crashes near Gedera
:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4182105,00.html
LIKELY HEZBOLLAH DRONE EXPLODES AT SECRET ISRAELI AIRBASE
:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2012/01/29/drone-explodes-inside-secret-israeli-airbase/
Who would want us to think Iran crashed a drone in Israel?
:http://972mag.com/who-would-want-us-think-iran-crashed-a-drone-in-israel/34189/
I agree with the analysis above. It’s VERY unlikely Hizballah ran a drone many miles into Israel. I think Silverstein is accepting some bogus conspiracy theory here.
I suppose it IS POSSIBLE that SOMEONE ran a drone toward the Israeli missile base in order to get some intel for targeting purposes, but I find it unlikely that it was either Iran or Hizballah. Aide from Silvertein’s “sources” I see no evidence that is the case.
Just came across this site, which can act as a nice counter-balance against the EA agitprop.
http://www.irandailybrief.com/
This seems to be an officially sponsored site. Certainly it is not filtered and is readily available for all to view here, even without anti-filtering software. A brief glance at the Human Rights page (top right tab) gives the lie to any notion of a severely repressed or tightly controlled press.
James Canning says: “Do I “support Zionism”? Or do I merely think it is not worth possibly destroying the planet to get Jews out of control of what is Israel withink “1967″ borders? Where you go wrong, in my view, is thinking it necessary to forcibly evict the 700,000 illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank.”
Clueless. The man is utterly clueless. He lives in a dream world where Israel is not an illegal, rogue, terrorist state, and where Britain still matters in international terms, and where if a regime doesn’t bow down to the US (and amazingly, the UK) it deserves to be bombed because it wasn’t smart enough to be “diplomatic”.
Can Obama Prevail against a Romney-Netanyahu Ticket? – Robertson
http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/can-obama-prevail-against-a-romney-netanyahu-ticket-robertson.html
My guess is Obama will be re-elected. The problem is that once re-elected he will continue to do as he’s told. Which means if he hasn’t started a war with Iran this year, he very likely will do so over the next four years. The notion that as a second term President he can “push back” and do what he wants is so much nonsense. And even if he did, as this article points out, he’s going to have very little leeway against an Israel- (and military-industrial complex-) dominated Congress.
If I’m wrong and some Republican freakshow gets elected, well, all bets are off…We’ll be at war with Iran within 12 months of a Republican President.
Richard, thanks for your article. Also, I agree somewhat with what you said about not valuing self-sacrifice yourself. I’m half and half on that. I remember a line from a book about, when one is ready to die for his country, he is ready to kill for it.
However, I’m not sure how I will react in a real situation. It is perfectly possible that I would sacrifice myself to save loved ones, even if I don’t necessary put much faith in an afterlife. And if I was involved in a war, it is possible the high emotions of the situation, might cause me to react in a way that I would not anticipate.
Iran to unveil naval surveillance aircraft
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223807.html
Robert Fisk: The present stands no chance against the past
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-present-stands-no-chance-against-the-past-6295957.html
Quotes
But Republicans in America are now warning of an Islamic Sharia law takeover in the US. It’s an idea fostered, according to The New York Times, by a 56-year-old Hasidic Jewish lawyer called David Yerushalmi and his Society of Americans for National Existence, who now has former CIA director James Woolsey and Republicans Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann echoing his views. The last two have actually signed a pledge “to reject Islamic law”.
Indeed, I have a letter beside me as I write, sent to The New York Times on 2 December 1948, warning of the visit to the US of the young Menachem Begin whose “Freedom Party”, said the letter’s authors, was “closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties”. Among the authors of this letter was Albert Einstein. Today, brave Israeli leftists like Miko Peled, son of the legendary Israeli General Matti Peled, have been touring the States, trying to warn of the dangers presented by Israel. In a recent speech, he described the fearful start of the bombardment of Gaza on 27 December 2008 (total dead about 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis) as “a date that will forever be etched in our memory as one of the darkest and most shameful days in the long history of the Jewish people”.
Now, said Peled, at Silwan just outside East Jerusalem, thousands of Palestinians may be evicted from their homes “so that Israel can build a park to glorify a conquest that took place 3,000 years ago, never mind that not a shred of scientific evidence exists that such a king (David) ever lived, any more than there is evidence the world was created in six days. The past trumps the present in Israel – a state that wants to eliminate the existence of people who live on their land to solidify the myth of a glorious past”. Strong stuff indeed.
End Quotes
The Latest from Iran — 30 January:
0745 GMT: Execution Watch. Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird, has declared, “Canada is deeply concerned about reports that Iranian citizen Saeed Malekpour’s death sentence has been confirmed by the Iranian authorities. His case is but one example of the refusal by Iranian authorities to respect their international human rights obligations.”
The punishment of Malekpour, a permanent resident in Canada, was confirmed earlier this month by a Revolutionary Court. He has been condemned for developing an “obscene” website.
Baird also raised the cases of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced to death for adultery, and Pastor Youcef Naderkhani. facing the death penalty for apostasy if he does not “repent”. The Foreign Minister added, “Iranian authorities sentenced seven administrators of the Baháí Institute for Higher Education to four- and five-year sentences solely on the basis of their faith.”
http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2012/1/30/the-latest-from-iran-30-january-posturing-over-oil.html#0745
Patrick Cockburn: Sanctions can only deepen the Iran crisis
Israeli and US hawks are more interested in regime change than the country’s nuclear programme
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-sanctions-can-only-deepen-the-iran-crisis-6296132.html
Quote
The origin of the present crisis was the moves last November and December by the neoconservatives in the US, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party and the Israel lobby in Washington to impose sanctions on Iranian oil exports and Iran’s central bank. These are very much the same people who targeted Iraq in the 1990s. They have been able to force the White House to adopt their programme and it is now, in turn, being implemented by a European Union that naively sees sanctions as an alternative to military conflict.
In reality, sanctions are likely to intensify the crisis, impoverish ordinary Iranians and psychologically prepare the ground for war because of the demonisation of Iran. The problem is that Israel and its right-wing American allies are more interested in regime change than Tehran’s nuclear programme. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz succinctly stated the differences between the Israeli government and Washington. It said that “while the Americans are actively seeking a way to start a dialogue, Israel is preaching confrontation and the toppling of the government in Tehran”.
It is this latter policy that has triumphed. Israel, its congressional allies and the neoconservatives have successfully bamboozled the Obama administration into a set of policies that make sense only if the aim is overthrow of the regime in Tehran. The Iranian government has been given no diplomatic way to climb down without humiliation.
End Quote
The part he gets wrong is where he thinks the Obama Administration has been “bamboozled”.
Oh, please… Once again, Obama is not a complete idiot. He reads the 2007 and 2011 Iran NIEs. He reads the JSOG reports that show no detectable secret enrichment program. He KNOWS Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program.
He’s doing what he’s doing because he has been TOLD to do so by the people who control his political life.
It’s that simple. Stop hallucinating that Obama is just some big dummy that can be “bamboozled”. He is completely complicit in this situation, as the Leveretts appear to have become convinced based on their current post.
Iran says Syria must hold free poll, but needs time
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=255661
This is a tactical mistake, since the West has no intention of giving Assad time. Now the West can claim Iran is backing away from supporting Syria. While Salehi’s statements are correct, the Western spin will distort them as usual.
Nothing we didn’t know. Amusing exchange between Russia’s UN envoy and the US envoy, Susan Rice, showing the US doesn’t seem able to conduct itself professionally in diplomacy any more, if it ever did.
Russia asserting itself against West, this time over Syria regime change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-asserting-itself-against-west-this-time-over-syria-regime-change/2012/01/26/gIQARGjVYQ_story.html
Panetta: Iran is one year away from producing nuclear weapon
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/panetta-iran-is-one-year-away-from-producing-nuclear-weapon-1.409983
Of course, what Panetta said is IF Iran wants to do so…which is not what the headline reads…
I also think Panetta’s two years away from a deliverable warhead is probably bogus, too.