David Bromwich, of Yale University, has written a long but compelling piece, “Obama’s Drift Toward War With Iran,” which we commend to everyone to read in full at Huffington Post by clicking here. We highlight the following passages:
“…All the recent talk, bristling with expertise, about Israel giving the U.S. a 12-hour warning before an attack, is a diversion to play on popular fears. It keeps prodding the subject to keep the fever high in America — a mood that is useful for many things, if you ever elect to use it. Practically speaking, what Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak hope their actions may accomplish is another kind of breakout. They seek to lure Iran to attack American forces or American assets or Israel. In the latter case, they can claim that unless America does its duty and agrees to a joint attack, or takes the matter out of Israel’s hands, Israel itself will attack.
In the last two years, the U.S. Congress has passed resolution after resolution condemning Iran, urging the president to do something hostile, and warning him against negotiations. The EU capitals, hungry for cheap oil and regional influence, clamor for the United States to do resolutely whatever it means to do. An intricate web has thus been constructed. Only great ingenuity and political talent could extricate an American president today. And while this was passing, how has Barack Obama been spending his time?
The president has made no comment on the situation. He has let it heat up for three years now, while the public mind grows swollen with false facts, and while negotiations, to the extent that there are negotiations, proceed under cover and in secret. As if negotiation were a shameful thing. Time does not tell for Obama. He will always have time. That was his philosophy in drawing out the health care debate for twelve months as his popularity sank from 70% to 45%. It was his policy once again, in catastrophically misjudging the odds for an agreement on the debt ceiling. In that affair, Obama hung back. He left it all in the hands of William Daley before sacking Daley and heading out on the campaign trail.
Obama never gets the jump on his opponents. But Iran, the site of his longest delay (because it is the most disagreeable problem he confronts), is the most important issue of his first term. Probably it is the most important he will ever confront in his life. If he drags the U.S. into another war, a war that will be seen throughout the Arab world as a crusade against Islam itself, this will be the thing Barack Obama is remembered for. Why does he suppose, with such recurrent fantasy, that tactical silence and secret action are superior to an honest grappling with the work of public persuasion? The truth is that all Obama’s big speeches have been about general matters: changes he sides with but cannot effect. Eventual health coverage for all Americans; the preservation of the middle class; peace among all nations. But Iran should be different.
Let us grant the obstacles, both internal and external. Obama is radically unsuited to crisis, in several ways we are now familiar with. He hates to be involved in negotiations; is easily bored, easily rankled, and hasn’t the patience and the power of suspending vanity that are necessary for the work. Also (and this abets inertia), his convictions have surprised him by being weaker than he supposed. He came to the presidency with a sense of himself and the world that was fundamentally immature; his time in office has seen a slow process of public recognition of that fact. He is not a fighter. He is not a “good hater.” He is not particularly loyal to his party. He is only now learning what it is to be a good explainer. Finally — a tremendous error, with Iran — he delegates rather than takes charge. Distaste for the battle of politics (a different thing from the contest of campaigning) is accompanied, in him, by a love of speculative discussions. So Obama waits; and while he waits, on any given question, the public mood drifts in a direction opposite from what he thought he was aiming for.
To whom has he delegated the matter of Iran? Dennis Ross above all — the member of the DC permanent establishment who is most reliably associated with the Israel lobby. And Tom Donilon, who gained the president’s favor by applauding his 2009 middle-range solution on troop escalation in Afghanistan. The major previous achievements of Dennis Ross are the Clinton and Obama approaches to Palestine. The result speaks for itself. Donilon has been as little in evidence as any head of the National Security Council; before Obama elevated him, he was best known for helping to organize the eastward expansion of NATO: a disaster whose consequences the American people have yet to appreciate fully. So these are the men the president trusts — in the first case, because of the impeccability of his renown; in the second, because he falls in with Obama’s own propensity to continue Cheney-Bush policies but do it slowly in a softer tone.
On Iran, Obama has come to a crossroads. He will soon be called on to refute accusations of weakness by an explosive demonstration of “strength.” If things get to that point, there is no doubt that he will do what the war party expects him to do. He will do it to win the election, but he will work hard to convince himself that he does it to save Israel, America, the cause of democracy in Asia, and the future of humanity. The path has been made all the more tempting by the discovery — a surprise perhaps to the president himself — that he is not averse to war. His favored mode of killing is the drone strike. There, the man who shoots the missile is far behind the scenes and the president’s command of the killing is behind the man behind the scenes. Stealth, secrecy, and aloofness from accountability all make drone attacks non-confrontational, in a way well-adapted to Obama’s temperament.
The U.S. is flying drones over Iran. One or two have been brought down, and some Republicans called for revenge. What if more are brought down, and what if several more politicians join the outcry? The Israel lobby and its congressional hosts may then convert the issue into a national cause. This president, who is moving toward war while hiding his negotiations and explaining nothing about Iran to offset the popular fears — is he ready to argue against another war? Or has war with Iran (so long as it can be portrayed as begun by Iran) already in fact been selected as the path of least resistance?
In actual negotiations of all sorts, over the past three years, Barack Obama has seemed to believe that he is well served by staying well out. He may think so still. But all too conceivably, some day in the next few weeks or the next few months he will have maneuvered himself into giving another version of the Great Power speech he has given before; the one that begins, “So Iran has a choice.” And yet, this president — it was the single great difference between him and the other candidates in 2008 — said he would negotiate with Iran. Nothing on any intelligence estimate has changed the nuclear status of Iran since he made that pledge. If he meant what he said, it was his business to lead public opinion to support the idea of negotiation and to educate the American people about the desired result.
While Obama waits, fortifications on the other side are being built up with fantastic brazenness. The New York Times, in almost back-to-back articles, on the front page on January 27 and on the cover of the magazine on January 29, informed its readers that Israel has calculated the risk and feels sure that it will not suffer badly in any retaliation following an attack on Iran. The first of these stories, by Ethan Bronner, for some reason quoted only Israeli sources and took their declared estimates at face value. The second, by the Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, ended by flatly predicting Israel would attack Iran in 2012. (Jeffrey Goldberg, prompted by the same Israeli government sources, in a similar article two years ago in the Atlantic predicted they would attack in 2010.)
There was a puzzling thing about the Bergman story. A series of paragraphs near the end conveyed the substance of conversations with Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad; and everything that was credibly said by Dagan served to discredit the rest of the article. For those paragraphs establish beyond any doubt: (a) that the crisis is nothing like as desperate or “existential” as Netanyahu and Barak have implied, and (b) that there is no long-term insurance for Israel that bombing Iran tomorrow can be supposed to achieve.
Worse than the Bergman article were the publicity captions for it, done in the Hearst manner. All of the “conditions” have been fulfilled for an Israeli attack, these marginal summaries told us. The question was not “if” but “when”: a word repeated twice, in different places. So the Times cues and the Times Israel reporters, especially the ones favored with front-page stories and cover stories, are saying this is a last chance for Iran. David Sanger said it was the last chance in May 2009 and, to repeat, Jeffrey Goldberg said it in 2010, but both have been saying it again over the past several months. Others, too, are saying it now; and an election is on, with more than the usual champing bellicosity among the actors on the Republican side. The people who are playing with fire are people who like to play with fire….
…What is the prognosis? In foreign policy generally, Obama has done what Bush did or what Bush would have done in similar circumstances. He compensates by doing it slowly and giving it a less unpleasant name. The heavy rhetorical emphasis on multilateralism in NATO’s deposing of Gaddafi is an example — right down to the ad hoc coinage of the unhappy and quickly withdrawn phrase “leading from behind”. Here the exception proves the rule: Obama likes Predator drone strikes and lethal action by the Navy Seals. To say it again, a main reason seems to be that these are acts he can order himself — in secret, based on secret evidence — which go forward without check or oversight. If the actions fail, they need not be publicized. He has never stopped wanting to do big things, but he tends to think about policy in the most generalized way…Under pressure, Obama makes sure that progress is slow in order to keep a path open for turning back.
Nothing could be more disastrous for America and nothing could be less necessary than war with Iran. Obama’s idea, if it is his idea, that he can assist or countenance or be party to an attack by Israel without deep repercussions against the United States and many of its assets and its people the world over, is the most desperate of fantasies. The repercussions, if they are not felt at once, will be felt for a generation and more. Obama has let the war party have their innings until they are sure that they control him. All the signs now, and above all his reluctance to make a case for negotiation or even to hint at the progress of diplomacy that may be under way, suggest that the people who pitched for the Iraq war and have Iran in their sights are counting Obama as one of their own. He is reluctant, yes, but he is almost a committed man. The latest propaganda for war has gone so far that it will be a full-time job to resist the momentum building to a “test” some time this year. As it stands, Iran is headed to become for Obama in 2012 what the economy was in 2010: a controllable crisis which, through personal inaction and conventional acquiescence in failed policies, threatens to pass utterly beyond his control.”
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Barry Soetoro is a puppet of the C.I.A. and always has been, as was his mother and father. he’s no more entitled to be the puppet than any other sondonesian pile of shit that got C.I.A. vetted and shoehorned into the slot.
this ass hat has no ability to do anything but follow his orders from his handlers in Tel Aviv.
those are the fuckers who control him. CIA = MOSSAD WEST
Let the Isreali’s attack. IF they use piloted aircraft NONE will return!
Iran has but to wait and take them out as in a shooting gallery.
Only missles may be effective, but it would take Hundreds of them.
IF Iran is effective at taking out 90+% of attacking aircraft I doubt they would
even waste a missle on a counterattack within Isreal.
The World will be astounded at how poorly Isreal performs!
They will embarass themselves.
The U.S. will NOT be in any initial attack by Isreal!!
No More Tears – The End Game
http://www.peterjamesx.com/Rhema%202012/No%20More%20Tears.htm
Richard,
On your latest response the first thing crosses my mind is ‘most times I concentrate on what Richard says and my curves of thoughts follow a trend which is parallel to Richard’s, but at times the two curves diverse drastically as if no compromising position is ever possible’.
Going into details of why, item by item is beyond our confined space of exchanging our ideas. However I better mention a few points:
1- We both agree on issues such as dishonesty of politicians, on corruption of corporations etc etc However you sound as an angry man while I sort of try to ignore the pains of living by acting as a (suprficial?) curious observer.
2- You are often more assertive in your estimations (such as quoting year 2050 or year 2075 for start of transhumanism in the world). I am always more cautious. I remember reading about a debate in 1850s between pro Darwin Huxley and Bishop of Canterbury. After the debate Huxley predicted something like ‘in 30 or 40 years all the churches are here no more or are replaced by libraries’. Over one and half centuries are gone by and still so many new churches are under construction (especially in USA and Russia!).
3- You knowledge on military issues tells me you might’ve served in US military. I am un uncompromising pacifist thus we are the two opposite shores of a large see.
4- You sometimes brand those who do not agree with you with harsh labels. I try to respect opposing views unless they are expressed by schizophrenics or by very young children.
5- You are in favor of ‘free enterprise’. I have no objection for such a system in any technologically underdeveloped society. I think however, since similar to fact that ‘one in every million is a serial killer’ quite a few are born overly exploitative, they can use any unregulated fee enterprise system for their advantage creating a primitive capitalist system which in time can evolve to the monster the world is witnessing today.
6- I have no idea about your religious beliefs. I am atheist….do u believe in god?
Most probably there are many more stuff that are, in varying degree, different in our two mind-sets.
Despite all that, whenever I log in RFI , I’ll read your comments with varying degree of eagerness and enthusiasm.. You views in RFI are outstanding even if don’t agree with them.
WTF,
I see you too made the point about Russian concern for likely flow of huge numbers of refugees through Azerbaijan to Russia, in event of an insane Israeli attack on Iran, etc.
R S Hack,
I agree that Hayden cannot say that Israel’s purpose in attacking Iran would be to drag the US into that war. Even though clearly true.
fyi,
I agree with you there is no chance Iran would attack Azerbaijan. Russia is worried that if war came to Iran, many hundreds of thousands of refugees would likely try to get to Russia through Azerbaijan.
I recommend the leader in today’s Financial Times, “Time to test Iran’s nuclear intentions – - West must clarify what level of capability it can live with”.
The FT seems to suggest the P5+1 must accept Iran’s enrichment to 5%. This of course is true.
fyi,
“Azerbaijan is in pre-revolutionary state – it cannot go on with dynastic rule while, at the same time, taking an anti-Shia posture.”
- Do you really see it that way? I thought the anti Iran sentiment was felt by a wide segment of the population.
Sakineh Khanum says, “BTW, everybody calls Israel a US ally. Don’t allies need have treaties between them? What treaties have been signed between these two. As far as I know, none.”
My understanding is the reason for the lack of a formal treaty is that such an instrument requires bu US law that the geographical boundaries of the country be defined, which of course would defeat the whole purpose of the treaty from both parties’ PoV.
Richard: No, I have not been experiencing technical difficulties with RFI, other than the usual loading problem when the comments go over 4 or 500 and the page gets to heavy to load quickly.
Also, if, as you say (and I think you are right) that the number of Hizbollah’s short-range missiles and rockets [and long-range artillery mortars] is important, then I would have thought that Iran would have armed them with massive numbers of their latest technological innovations. Missiles with a range of 100 to 200 km are relatively light as materiel goes, and they would supply Hisbollah with several plane-loads via Syria, if not by land through Iraq. Thoughts?
WTF says: February 17, 2012 at 8:52 pm
There is no chance of Iran attacking the Azerbaijan Republic.
Iranian can cause a major problem by cutting access to Nackhchevan.
Azeris will hen have to air supply that enclvae or ask for Tureky to do it on their behlf through Anatolia.
Azerbaijan is in pre-revolutionary state – it cannot go on with dynastic rule while, at the same time, taking an anti-Shia posture.
Rd.: “RSH, some of the numbers (missles) might shock you!!>.”
I repeat: Iran DOES NOT have ANYWHERE NEAR 200,000 “long range missiles”. Utterly impossible.
At most Iran might have 1-2,000 missiles capable of hitting areas in the Middle East across the Persian Gulf – and Israel is the furthest away, therefore even fewer missiles will be able to hit Israel.
Hizballah on the other hand has an estimated 40,000 missiles, but how many of them can hit Israel as far as Tel Aviv has not been specified as far as I know. Most of them are probably still Katyusha’s with a range of 20 miles or so. But if even a thousand or two of those can hit Tel Aviv, then Hizballah can definitely cause problems for Israel’s economy by forcing much of the Israeli population into bomb shelters for much of every day.
This is of FAR MORE concern to Israel than Iran’s missiles. And that is precisely why Israel will attempt to push Hizballah further north in Lebanon under cover of the Syria war to prevent Hizballah’s missiles from reaching most of Israel.
Arnold: “From earlier, pretty much this is why both Israel and the US have not attacked Iran and until it changes neither will attack Iran.”
Fundamentally irrelevant.
Again, this presumes that both Israel and the US ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons at some point.
Even if you assume that both countries are only concerned about Iran achieving “breakout capability”, since it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain that Israel alone can NOT severely damage Iran’s facilities over an extended period of time, CLEARLY that shows that NEITHER country is actually concerned about that.
Once again, the REAL motivation for any attack on Iran on the part of the US is to regime change – which the US ALSO knows is not going to happen short of military action.
And on the part of Israel, the only reason for talking about attacking Iran is to pressure the US into doing it because Israel is quite aware that it can’t itself destroy Iran’s program.
“The Israelis aren’t going to [attack Iran] … they can’t do it, it’s beyond their capacity,” Hayden said. “They only have the ability to make this worse.”
And that is PRECISELY THE POINT! The SOLE reason for Israel attacking Iran is to drag the US into a war with Iran. Israel knows this. The US knows this. Everyone knows this.
So why are these idiots talking about whether Israel can do damage to Iran’s program? IT’S IRRELEVANT.
What Hayden CANNOT SAY because it is politically incorrect is that the SOLE REASON for Israel attacking Iran is to drag the US into a war with Iran.
This is in NO way a reason for believing that Israel WON’T attack Iran. It is in EVERY way a reason why Israel WILL attack Iran – IF the US does not do it first.
“A monthlong U.S. bombing campaign would inflict far more damage, Hayden said, but it wouldn’t be worth it. The George W. Bush administration studied the issue, he said.”
Once AGAIN for the mentally challenged! The US KNOWS 1) that Iran does NOT HAVE a nuclear weapons program; 2) the US KNOWS that the US COULD damage the program for months or years, in comparison to Israel’s efforts, but be unable to prevent Iran from reconstituting the program WITHOUT engaging in a full scale war for regime change; and 3) the US DOES NOT CARE about anything EXCEPT regime change.
Therefore the notion that the US won’t attack Iran because it can’t prevent Iran from getting nukes is as bogus as the notion that Israel won’t attack Iran because it can’t destroy Iran’s program.
“The US strategy is to impose sanctions, because the US wants sanctions on Iran anyway, and to hope for an unexpected regime change.”
Bullcrap. The US KNOWS there will be no “unexpected regime change”. Israel knows it, too, and will attack SOLELY to force the US into the war.
“This is a relatively low-cost strategy on the part of the US. The US will not relieve the sanctions unless or until Iran is responding to sanctions in a way that harms the US.”
Iran cannot harm the US in any significant way in terms of responding to the sanctions.
“On the other hand, Iran’s credible stance that it would harm the US after an attack,”
Which, as I’ve said repeatedly, is insignificant to the ruling elites.
“combined with its capacity to build a weapon after any attack which would defeat any attack’s purpose”
This is an incredible statement. An attack’s PURPOSE CAN NOT be to resolve the nuclear issue, but to achieve a serious weakening of Iran in order to remove Iran as an effective geopolitical actor in the region, for the benefit of Israel and the US.
Once again, an attack’s purpose has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the nuclear program or even whether Iran would or could produce nuclear weapons subsequent to such an attack.
“is enough to cause the US (and also Israel which despite the theatrics is a dependent country that cannot act against expressed US perceived interests)”
That is not true. Israel can act against US interests because Israel has sufficient support in the US ruling elites to skate past any criticism – especially since Israel’s interests align perfectly with those of the US ruling elites in the same manner they did over the Iraq war.
This is a bogus argument and completely illogical. It’s a fantasy.
Has anyone noticed issues with this site over the last couple days?
The other night I couldn’t get into the site at all – the home page would load, but not this thread.
Just now I tried to post a comment and the page just goes white and doesn’t reload…
Eric wrote:
“How does one determine “badness?” I’m still working on the answer to that question but, once again, I have this strong sense that it’s something you just feel, and you know it for sure when you get that feeling.
You’re not alone in trying to make sense of the world from inside a fuzzy box of feeling.
Ronen Bergman doesn’t look for “feelings” of “badness.” He’s far more sophisticated; he looks for “national security threat[s] to your country” and when they are found, he says “I think that it is morally justified to kill people that are of national threat.” He solves the problem of defining “national security threat by relying on what he is told by Israel’s leaders;
“Pres. Netanyahu [and Israel's leaders have compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler.] I think this comparison is wrong, but . . . Once this is the comparison, once your arch-nemesis is Hitler, then all means are justified to stop it. Once the threat is an existential one and you defend your people from another annihilation, then I would assume that everybody would justify recruiting [people] whoever they are, even if they are terrorists, [to take out] a new Hitler.”
For Bergman, you know “badness” when Israel’s leaders feel that someone can be compared to Hitler, which provides the moral justification for killing.
Netanyahu’s and Israel’s leaders’ and Bergman’s logic appears to be contagious. Last November Akron University professor Walter Hixson wrote an op-ed in the Akron Beacon-Journal newspaper that was titled, “Why Israel Must Confront Its Past.”
Robert Gippin was one among many who took exception to Hixson’s scholarship as well as his declaration — that Israel confront the facts of its past. Gippin, who identified himself as “as a Jew who has dissented literally for decades from much of what has been said and done in support of Israel,” wrote:
QUOTE
“Current scholarship shows that most of the Arab out-migration in 1948 was not caused by the Israelis. Hixson notes in passing that many Arabs live in Israel. They are the ones who stayed in 1948 and their descendants. The Jews never tried to force them out. They are full voting citizens of Israel, albeit a minority with some legitimate grievances.
As to 1967, there is no serious question but that if Israel had not struck preemptively, it would have been attacked by its Arab neighbors and put at a huge disadvantage. It was an appropriately defensive first strike, not a war of aggression.
Hixson casts Israel as a rogue state and a legitimate enemy not only of the Palestinians, but of the U.S. and all other right-thinking nations. That is not only factually and morally wrong, it contributes to the problem rather than solving it.
What Israel has done — both right and wrong — has largely been the product of the centuries of oppression that culminated in the Holocaust. Think of Israel as a post-traumatic stress disorder victim, still. Unjust attacks only reinforce Israel’s instinct to fight no-holds barred against perceived threats to its survival, whether it’s really threatened or not.
That doesn’t mean that Israel shouldn’t be criticized for its wrongful acts and strenuous efforts made to correct them. But putting Israel in the false light of a ruthless aggressor only feeds the problem.
Thus, I agree that Israel had no right to colonize the land it occupied in 1967 and has no right to continue to settle people there. Hopefully that will not ultimately be fatal to Israel’s existence. If Israel will not agree to the Palestinians in the West Bank having a viable state there, it must eventually make them citizens of Israel, too. And that will be the end of Zionism, brought about by Zionists themselves.
Israel will never change course until it feels free of the centuries of unjust slanders that led to slaughter. Hixson’s poor scholarship and distorted rhetoric are distinctly unhelpful.”
END QUOTE
Gippin doesn’t bother with figuring out “badness” based on “when you get that feeling;” he shoots first, against the possibility that he might get that feeling that a threat exists.
I’ve spent hours puzzling over the “feelings” and rationality — or lack thereof — contained in Mr. Gippin’s statement. As I think you have concluded, Eric, and as many others have as well, Iran’s nuclear project is not the problem. The issue bedeviling the relationship between Israel and Iran and therefore the United States is somewhere inside the muddled thinking and ideologically poisoned psychological state of persons like Robert Gippin, and Ronen Bergman, and Benjamin Netanyahu. They possess weapons of mass destruction, and Israel uses those weapons in a “no-holds barred [way] against perceived threats to its survival, whether it’s really threatened or not.”
Russia’s Iran strategy
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/17/russias-iran-strategy/
They also fear that an Israeli strike on Iran would be the first step in a regional conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East and generate massive refugee flows into Russia via Azerbaijan. At the same time, Russian policymakers are also concerned about the possibility of Iran creating instability on Russia’s southern border, especially in light of difficult relations between Iran and Azerbaijan.
Russian military planners recently announced that next autumn’s large-scale military exercise would take place in the Caucasus and involve the premise of a war that begins with an attack on Iran, but turns into a regional conflict that draws in Russia.
Was rendering assistance to an elderly family member today, when I switched on PBS NewsHour. At that moment Judy Woodruff spoke on Iran’s nuclear program, and I sighed at her depiction. Then Ray Suarez added to the same depiction, and proceeded to introduce Ray Tayekh. Good grief was all I managed to get out, while expecting the worst for the next person on the panel. You can well imagine my relief when there was Flynt! Suarez even gave a plug for RFI.
Where would peace advocates like ourselves be without the Leveretts, to set the record straight.
Bottom line: the only solution with the rogue and terrorist regime of the IRI is regime change in support of the Iranian people. The U.S. and her allies will lead the charge. Ground boots will not be necessary.
Eric A. Brill says:February 17, 2012 at 7:25 pm
”It requires also that the country in question be a bad country. How does one determine “badness?” I’m still working on the answer to that question…”
Eric,
Maybe the following would help:
. The country is a Muslim country.
. It is ruled by bearded men.
. It sits on one of the richest hydrocarbon resources.
. Has been deterring the violence that one could unleash.
. Is the only country between one and hegemony.
. Is standing up for rights of the little people without a voice of their own.
. Is exposing ones Zionist ally.
…
BTW, everybody calls Israel a US ally. Don’t allies need have treaties between them? What treaties have been signed between these two. As far as I know, none.
In badness, Iran tops the charts! Bad is as bad does (UU?)
I am sure books can be written on this subject.
James, re Dr. Jalili’s “ambiguous” letter
As you know full well Iran has always been ready to negotiate as distinct from genuflect to diktats. Not only has she always ready to negotiate, she has put all manner of initiatives on the table that she was willing to sign up to, just a half of which would have satisfied any objective observer that Iran is willing to forgo any possibility of making nuclear weapons. Now, after years of having proven her obvious technical prowess and industrial capacity, the allegations about her supposed intentions are regarded as a sick joke, and the need for any extraordinary safeguards measures therefore seem uncalled for.
Alas, over the years, as per FYI, the west intoxicated with their imagined influence and power shunned all these Iranian offers.
Now utterly discredited, and isolated, the west has no choice but to accept whatever Iran offers. The west has left nothing left in her arsenal for coercion. The much hyped military action was already answered by Ahmadinejad on Wednesday: ‘bring it on already’.
Given the current circumstances, all that is left to negotiate is how much face saving and at whose expense. One hopes they’ll all be grown up about it, and de-escalate for the common good.
The ‘common good’ has different meanings on either side of the tall wall of mistrust. The west needs time for the ant-western fever in the region to simmer down a bit, before they restart on their grand mid east plans. Iran needs to follow UU’s boa constrictor rule, and allow the prey to exhale so that it can tighten its grip.
Eric,
Is it possible that diminutive warmonger, Joe Lieberman, wants to set up an attack on Iran even if Iran makes clear no nukes will be built? Bibi Netanyahu wants to expand his ethnic cleansing programme in the West Bank?
Rehmat,
I think Iran would prefer not to be attacked, just as Hezbollah would not have kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers if it had known Israel would react in such an insane frenzy. Israel, of course, had wanted a pretext to try to take out Hezbollah, to clear the way for an attack on Iran.
Fiorangela says:
February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm
It’s hard not to notice that nearly all the Drawers of Red Lines have shifted their red lines lately from “nuclear weapons” to “nuclear weapons capability.” This means I won’t be able to duck much longer the need to figure out exactly what is meant by “nuclear capability.”
I’m already part way there. I understand this much clearly: while “nuclear weapons” are things whose existence you might be asked to show some actual reason to suspect before bombing a country that allegedly has them, no such requirement applies to “nuclear weapons capability.” It is merely a state of being whose existence you just feel, and you know it for sure when you get that feeling.
I actually know a bit more. “Nuclear weapons capability” doesn’t require merely that a country be technically able to make a nuclear weapon, no matter how strongly one might feel that it has that ability. To be sure, some people say that’s all the term means, but those people aren’t drafting up war resolutions – and thank goodness for that. If they were, after all, they might mistakenly suggest that the US should bomb, say, Japan, or maybe Brazil, rather than Iran.
No, “nuclear weapons capability” requires more than just technical ability. It requires also that the country in question be a bad country. How does one determine “badness?” I’m still working on the answer to that question but, once again, I have this strong sense that it’s something you just feel, and you know it for sure when you get that feeling.
Sheldon Adelson is considering giving a further $10 million to Newt Gingrich, in hopes of damaging Rick Santorum.
James Canning – Iranian are waiting for the Jewish army to attack them so they can teach it a lesson worse than it received at the hands of 1500 Hizbullah fighters in Summer 2006.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/hizbullah-changed-the-me-in-2006/
Israel’s dependence on foreign aid
According to US economist, Thomas R. Stauffer, the Zionist entity has cost US taxpayers more than $3 trillion a decade ago. The Zionist-controlled western mainstream media conceals the horrible disparity in Israel’s economic culture behind Israel’s great achievements in science, technology and wealth. However, in reality, Israel is one of the most socially polarised societies in the developed world. According to the Adva Institute, an Israeli equality and social justice NGO, top managers earn $523,000 a month, nearly 500 times the average monthly salary of $1,440. This is fives time the differential in the US.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/israels-dependence-on-foreign-aid/
The Henry Jackson Society is part of the neocon wing of the Israel lobby in the UK. Julia Pettengill of that group on Feb. 17th had piece in the Daily Telegraph online: “Is Israel gearing up for an attack on Iran?’
Quote: “With Iran flaunting its nuclear progress, allegedly attacking Israeli diplmats and reportedly strengthening ties with Al Qaeda, the possibliity that Israel has finally had enough is not exactly far-fetched.”
Pettengill does not explain why Iran would back al-Qaeda when al-Qaeda is trying to overthrow the government of Syria.
William Hague told the Daily Telegraph Feb. 17th that Britain is not taking part in any ’secret war’ against Iran, adding: “It is not our way of dealing with this to have assassinations or to advocate military action.”
Richard Silverstein wrote a classy column titled “Understanding Iran” that refers to other MSM writers who are chortling at Iran’s ineptness in its alleged retaliatory attacks on Israeli assets in other countries. Silverstein’s ‘understand Iran’ caution argues that Of course Iran would react to Israel’s campaign of covert war against Iran, why wouldn’t any state; but Silverstein cautions, “What happens if Iran gets serious and bombs an embassy?” etc. Silverstein writes:
“Barack Obama ought to ask himself if this is what he wants his foreign policy to look like going into a presidential election? A protracted war against Iran fought on behalf of Israel.”
Silverstein’s heart is in the right place but his focus is not. In my opinion, all eyes should be on Israel — every layer of the Israeli and zionist onion needs to be peeled back; Israeli psychopathology needs to be relentlessly exposed until the whole world is blind with tears at how blinded they have been by the lies of the “Jewish and democratic state.” Only when the masses understand what zionism means and what Israel intends can an honest discussion begin about what to do about Israel, and AIPAC, and all of the American politicians and legislators who have acted against the interests of the American people, but even more against the rights of the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Libya, Syria, and Iran.
Silverstein does link to an article in Christian Science Monitor that is worthwhile, Scott Peterson’s long essay title, What Would Happen if Iran had the Bomb? :http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0216/What-would-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video/%28page%29/8
Peterson’s article echoes the argument Flynt and Hillary Leverett have name numerous times: the US parlayed with China; US should similarly parlay with Iran.
Veterman journalist Taki (of Takimag.com) asked a good question Feb. 12th: “Why does the US refer to Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank as ‘terrorists’, whereas they call the Syrians who opposed Assad ‘freedome fighters’ or ‘protesters’?”
Taki already knows the answer.
Gash,
Israel wants an end to Iranian enrichment. Full stop. So does Aipac and other extremist elements of Israel lobby in the US. I think many American analysts would see no danger in Iranian production of 5% U. 20% is a trickier business.
US elections this year. Obama gets heavy flak for even wanting to talk to Iran.
Congress Pushes Iran Regime Change Over Diplomacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUPEVJqO2Nk&feature=g-all-u&context=G2573313FAAAAAAAAAAA
“Does Aipac want war? Lieberman ‘capability’ red line may tip Aipac’s hand”, by Robert Naiman, Feb. 17th:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/us-iran-relations_b_1285276.html?ref=world
Is Joe Lieberman unhappy that Iran apparently is not going ahead with nukes at this time, but he wants war anyway?
1. israel/mossad took control of the crime scene, apparently stepping all over the toes of Indian investigators:
“New Delhi, Feb. 15: The National Security Guard (NSG) was not allowed to gather forensic samples from the Israel embassy car blast site near the Prime Minister’s house on Monday because of “some diplomatic reasons”, a senior official said today.
The disclosure came on a day an Israeli team, including Mossad officials, met Indian investigators and provided inputs, including a suggestion that a local module could have used a magnetic bomb supplied from abroad.
“It was very weird that our post-blast study team was not allowed to visit the site and gather samples, citing some diplomatic reasons. Our experts, whose only job is to study and conduct research based on collected samples, were denied this opportunity,” the official added.”
2. as juan cole notes, to the extent that india has gathered information, it believes that the signature of the attack suggests that it may be the work of an indian ‘muslim module’ rather than the iranians.
3. press reports of basic factual accounts of the bombing are ‘conflicted’. thus, for example, a press photo shows the bombed vehicle engulfed in flames on a public way, while JPost reports that In the first attack, the wife of an Israeli diplomat was injured when a bomb exploded in her car in New Delhi, India. The woman succeeded in driving to the Israeli embassy where she was evacuated to a nearby hospital. credit to ‘tito’ on silverstein’s site for pointing this out.
James,
Permanently. The US want to portray they are pro-talks but having their impossible demands on Iran they know Iran will reject such ‘talks’ and will then say “Look, we told you, Iran doesnt want talks”.
Indeed, James; Saudi Arabia is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Dreazan’s reasoning and writing was second-rate propaganda, shades of Theodor Herzl’s “army of mediocre intellects.” Dennis Ross, too, is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Sakineh Bagoom says:
February 17, 2012 at 10:01 am
re J Rubin’s “bomb Iran NOW” column in WaPo -Every single comment was critical of Rubin, Israel, and Jewish & AIPAC advocacy for war in Iraq and now Iran.
The sheeple are waking up. But is it too late?
There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” – Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.
Gash,
I think the EU might wish to see the US follow the EU, rather than “blindly follow the US”. Depending on the specific issue.
In your view, the P5+1 offer to negotiate is just cover for asking Iran to stop all enrichment? Permanently, or only for a given term?
Fiorangela,
Surely Yochi Drezen is aware the Saudis already keep oil as high as their experts think the market will bear. No reason whatever for Iran to “attempt to control prices”.
fyi,
I agree with you about Tepperman. He is an illustration of the linkage between arms manufacturers and the Israel lobby.
Thailand Bomb Plot: Iran Suspects Cavorted With Prostitutes, Thai Police Say
Thailand Bomb Plot Iran Suspects
By TODD PITMAN and THANYARAT DOKSONE 02/17/12 06:01 AM ET AP
BANGKOK — The three Iranian men detained for allegedly plotting bomb attacks in Bangkok on Israeli diplomats had more than terror on their minds in Thailand. Police said Friday that they had also cavorted with prostitutes at a beach resort.
The news comes as Thai authorities announced they were searching for two more suspects in the botched bomb plot, including a possible explosives specialist who may have been training the Iranians.
The foiled plan was discovered Tuesday when explosives in the men’s rented house blew up by mistake, forcing them to flee. Two were detained in the Thai capital, and a third was captured Wednesday in neighboring Malaysia as he reportedly tried to return to Iran.
After flying into the southern city of Phuket on Feb. 8, the men moved to Pattaya and stayed there for at least two nights before heading to Bangkok. Located 45 miles (70 kilometers) southeast of the Thai capital, Pattaya is particularly notorious for its sleazy sex industry and large contingent of prostitutes.
The Iranians hung out with several female sex workers during their stay there, and one of the women was brought to Bangkok to identify the suspects on Thursday, said Lt. Col. Noppon Kuldiloke, a senior immigration police investigator in southern Thailand.
A cellphone image taken by one of the women, published by the Bangkok Post with an article headlined “Suspects partied in Pattaya,” purportedly showed the three Iranians at a Middle Eastern bar or restaurant surrounded by hookah water-pipes, two of them cradling women in their arms. The men posed for the photo around a low, drink-filled table on which there appeared to be at least one bottle of beer.
The woman who took the image said one of the now-detained suspects, Mohammad Kharzei, had asked her to escort him “because he was not good at speaking English,” according to the Bangkok Post.
She said she brought two companions for Kharzei’s friends, and they had drinks and played snooker together. The woman detected nothing awry, except when one of the Iranians “barred her from approaching a closet” in his hotel room, the newspaper reported.
The botched plot has ratcheted up tensions between Iran and Israel, which is accusing Iran of waging a covert campaign of state terror that included a bombing Monday in New Delhi that tore through an Israeli diplomatic vehicle, wounding an Israeli diplomat’s wife and driver, and a failed bomb attempt the same day in the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
Iran has denied responsibility for all three bomb plots, and blames the Jewish state for the recent killings of Iranian atomic scientists.
Thailand’s national police chief said Thursday that the detained Iranians were plotting to attack Israeli diplomats, citing the similarity of so-called “sticky” bombs that can be attached magnetically that were used in New Delhi and Tbilisi.
On Friday, Bangkok police commissioner Lt. Gen. Winai Thongsong announced authorities were searching for two more suspects in the case, including one man who was seen early Tuesday on closed circuit camera footage as he left the same house where the accidental explosion later took place.
Winai identified the suspect as 52-year-old Javad Nikkhahfard and said he was believed to be a bomb maker who had possibly been training the three Iranians. He said Nikkhahfard was of Middle Eastern descent, but gave no other details and did not give his nationality.
The camera footage showed the white-bearded man leaving the residence with a bag in his hand. Police say he had been coming and going repeatedly in previous days.
The same cameras captured each of the three Iranian men leaving the residence shortly after an explosion ripped the roof of the house that afternoon.
Winai said police also are looking for an additional suspect who had rented the destroyed home with an Iranian woman named Leila Rohani who is now believed to be back in Tehran.
Besides Kharzei, the two other detained suspects are Saeid Moradi, whose leg was sheared off by explosives he was carrying on a busy Bangkok street as he tried to flee, and Masoud Sedaghatzadeh, who was arrested in Malaysia and was trying to return to Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/thailand-bomb-iran-suspects_n_1284290.html?ref=world#s704658
Rd. says:
February 17, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Rd-
Thanks this was a good one, in my argument with RSH, I wrote going to war is not the same as watching a Steven Segal movie, nor is going to Masjed not knowing which part body to use for a conversation.
4. Do we understand the significance of having dozens of missiles launched daily on Tel Aviv by Iran and its allies, which will empty the city, end tourism and spark a flight from the country?
James Canning says: February 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Mr. Tepperman is undoubtedly wrong.
It was all about supporting US armament manufacturers as well as giving free weapons to Israel.
It was not about Iran.
So Mr. James Canning–what happened in Thailand, India and Georgia–was it really the iranians?–can you offer proof either way?
“Striking Iran’s nuclear program is out of Israel’s league”
RSH, some of the numbers (missles) might shock you!!>.
SST also has a write up on this.. “It seems” israeli’s are getting more and more recognition for what they are, may be not mass, but it is gaining
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/striking-iran-s-nuclear-program-is-out-of-israel-s-league-1.413388
James Canning wrote: “$60 billion US arms sale to Saudi Arabia was “all about Iran”. Teppreman wrote that the sale “is meant to help one of Iran’s largest neighbors (and a longtime target of Iranian provocation) cope with nuclear-armed and potentially more belligerent Persian state.””
Yochi Dreazen http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-choice-on-nuclear-power-20120202 got a Pulitzer scholarship to research & write about a nuclear plant in UAE that USA is supporting (Westinghouse is building part of it; S Koreans building most of it). Dreazen says that even though UAE did business with A Q Khan, the US and international community are willing to trust UAE not to do anything wrong with its nuclear technology because it has signed all the protocols and because its nuclear project is strictly for peaceful purposes – unlike Iran, whose nuclear goals are nefarious. Or might be. Or might have been. Or might become. But then, Dreazen concedes, UAE’s nuclear project also might become nefarious.
Dreazen said that other Arab states might seek nuclear WEAPONS to defend themselves against Iran, NOT because they think Iran would strike them with nuclear weapons if Iran had or got nuclear weapons, but because if Iran had or got nuclear weapons, Iran would use the threat of nukes to control the price of oil. Dreazen reasons (against prevailing evidence, by the way) that Iran has far less oil than the Arab states, therefore, will seek to control prices, and will use nuclear threat to bring Arab states to heel on price of oil.
Regarding UAE’s nuclear project, Dreazen explains that UAE seeks nuclear technology to serve its domestic energy needs, including its lavish lifestyle that includes an indoor ski slope, among other things that the third world desperately requires for its existence. UAE’s reasoning is “cynical,” says Dreazen: UAE does not have that much oil, so it wants to supply its domestic energy needs with nuclear power and save its oil resource to produce revenue.
What a good idea.
Maybe Iran should think about doing that–using nuclear energy for domestic needs and save its oil resources for production of revenue.
what a waste of a Pulitzer scholarship.
James Canning says: February 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm
The 20% offer is now worthless; the latest Iranian plans call for refueling of the Tehran Research Reactor with domestic fueld rods by the middle of 2013.
Before 2015, Iranians will the Arak Heavy Water Reactor in operations.
They will be in good shape.
James,
US wont accept any enrichment thus talks are useless, the goal as stated is regime change.
James,
No why would it be in the interest to blindly follow US policy?
Gash,
Is it not reasonable to expect the EU to try to maintain unity with US regarding Iran, to large extent?
Gash,
Are you claiming the EU will not accept Iranian enrichment to 5%?
US, EU alleged welcome of talks is bogus.
Also, very clear that EU have a policy on Iran that is the same as the US, EU always have to wait and see what US approach to Iran is. They never dare to step outside of this policy even if its not in their interest to follow US command or policy.
What will play out is the following:
The parties meet, US put forward as usual its demand of depriving Iran its right to enrich, Iran refuse. The headlines nex day will read: “Iran refuse dialogue and ‘generous’ offer by the west, US, EU calls for more sanctions”.
West is not sincere, its the regime change that is the goal for them.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/u-s-eu-welcome-iran-nuclear-letter-suggest-talks-possible-1.413545
BiBiJon,
I noted earlier today that the Wall Street Journal today ridicules Dennis Ross for arguing that Iran is ready to negotiate.
WTF,
You might like Pat Buchanan’s Feb. 16th piece, “Blacklisted, but not beaten”:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
Buchanan notes that Abe Foxman of ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has been after him for decades for being an “anti-Semite”.
BiBiJon,
Jalili’s letter was ambiguous – - intentionally, of course. Which was sensible. Do you have a take on it?
James Canning says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm
“Iran of course just this week sent the letter to the P5+1. Clearly Iran wanted to launch the re-fueling of the TRR before that letter went out?”
What are you insinuating? Spell it out if you want a conversation.
WTF,
Bravo (re Pat Buchanan). Buchanan has solid grounds for seeing a defeat of Obama as a disaster for the Middle East. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are both simplistic “thinkers” (or non-thinkers) on foreign policy. Aka fools.
Abbas,
Regarding the defeat of Jimmy Carter, it is also important to note that many rich and powerful Jews wanted Carter defeated to punish him for forcing Israel out of the Sinai, and to keep him from trying to get Israel out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights (and Gaza).
Abbas,
A key difference between Republicans and Democrats on Middle East foreign policy, such as it is, is that Republican Party base has significant number of Christian Zionists. Democrats have most of the Jews.
Gash,
Would Amano have obtained his position if he had not kow-towed to Israel lobby and the US?
Netanyahu will of course be in Washington the first week of March for Aipac annual meeting, and he will have hundreds of stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress attending the Aipac meeting.
BiBiJon,
Iran of course just this week sent the letter to the P5+1. Clearly Iran wanted to launch the re-fueling of the TRR before that letter went out?
Dan Cooper,
Writing in the Atlantic in September 2010, Jonathan Tepperman claimed the $60 billion US arms sale to Saudi Arabia was “all about Iran”. Teppreman wrote that the sale “is meant to help one of Iran’s largest neighbors (and a longtime target of Iranian provocation) cope with nuclear-armed and potentially more belligerent Persian state.”
So, current managing editor of Foreign Affairs 18 months ago predicted Iran would build nukes and promoted the $60 billion arms sale as a way to contain Iran!
The real Zone of Immunity
======================
As the nuclear fuel production capacity in Iran ramps up, before long IAEA reports will be stating that stocks of LEU at <5% and 19.7%, and the feedstock, uranium hexafluoride (UF6), have decreased below the minimum quantity necessary to make a 'break out' feasible.
Interestingly, given the absence of any diplomatic contact/negotiation, this non-braekabale-outable state will have been achieved voluntarily by Iran.
The only things still up for grabs is Iran signing the AP, and adopting new code 3.1. I suspect Iran will ramp up cooperation with IAEA synchronously with scaling up fuel production. I.e. they'll simply observe all AP provisions without actually signing it.
Only war will derail Iran from this path. But just as Arnold explained, there are powerful reasons for everyone to avoid a war.
Sean Ali Stone, the son of the renowned Oscar-winning US director Oliver Stone, who converted to Islam earlier this week expressed the hope that he could represent a “true image” of a Muslim to the West.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010175140
Dan Cooper,
Jonathan Tepperman makes it a habit to slander Iran and promote idiotic levels of US “defence” spending. He opposes the effort of the US and Russia to get rid of many of their nukes.
What a surprise to see him in chage of Foreign Affairs journal! Just kidding.
Photi,
How does Iranian enrichment to 20% help Iran defend itself militarily, as you claim?
Photi,
In my view, the US acted foolishly by ignoring Ahmadinejad’s offer to stop enriching uranium to 20%. One might well argue that Obama acted in bad faith.
Bear in mind the constant litany of attacks against Obama, for “appeasing” Iran, made by idiot or irresponsible Republicans in the US Congress.
Wall Street Journal (not Fournal).
A leading propaganda organ for the warmongers, the Wall Street Fournal, today ridiculed Dennis Ross for arguing that Iran is ready to negotiate! In “Iran versus everyone”, the WSJ claimed Iran “made an attempt to bomb Washington, DC”.
Need to disguise reference to the “plot to kill the Saudi ambassador”?
Be My Valentine (belated)
To all German readers: There is an extremely manipulative article in DER TAGESSPIEGEL:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/streit-um-atomprogramm-was-wuerde-deutschland-tun-wenn-israel-irans-atomanlagen-angreift/6223068.html
UU,
Thank you for reassurances! Slick as ever (reading wise)!
Mama said: great philosophers deserve more respect. Their name should be spelled correctly: Forrest Gump.
Sakineh Khanum:
I’m reassured to see that you continue to do a lot of reading. Yes, well, she must have not received that memo, you know, the one that said the plantation is no more, that it is an ex-plantation. Oh well.
Meanwhile, I’m waiting for the Mossad operations in India and Thailand to blow up in their faces. Desperate is as desperate does, to paraphrase that great late 20th century philostopher, Forest Gump.
James,
You defeat your own argument on the 20% issue. As you continually bring up, President Ahmadinejad has offered to cease production of 20% enrichment. If the issue were 20%, why does not the US see this offer as a good place to start in negotiations? The US/Zionist media is manufacturing a fear factor behind the 20% enrichment issue in order to receive public backing for what are in reality hegemonic ambitions on the part of the US and Israel.
Besides, even if 20% were a real issue and at the level of importance that the US claims it is, how can anyone in the US State Department even begin to discuss this supposedly very important issue without first establishing a basic diplomatic relationship with Iran?
In effect the US is saying to Iran “We will destroy you if you do not give up your ability to protect yourselves from our destruction. If you cease and desist from your defensive ambitions, any future war we Americans decide to bring on your land will be easier for the American public to stomach because not as many American soldiers will come home in body bags. Please understand and heed our concerns.”
UU,
As if on Q, Jennifer thinks you are right. She says:
” First, the official policy of the U.S. must be regime change. It’s fanciful to keep decrying “human rights abuses occurring in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including torture, cruel and degrading treatment in detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, violence against women, and ‘the systematic and serious restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly’ as well as severe restrictions on the rights to ‘freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief’ ” without calling the regime illegitimate and pledging to support the aspirations of the Iranian people.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/time-we-got-serious-about-iran/2012/02/17/gIQAidZjJR_blog.html
This is the content of an email I received this morning:
Dear Friends and Supporters of peace and tranquility between the peoples of the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran;
Please join us at the protest against promotion of war and bloodshed by some influential members of the Council on Foreign Relations, who have declared now is the Time to Attack Iran.
Ardeshir Ommani, President
American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)
http://www.iranaifc.com
Dear Americans for Peace and Dialogue with Iran
Emergency Call
Date: Thurs., March 1, 2012
Time: Gather at 5:00 PM
Place: Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street, NY, NY 10065
(Building just off Park Ave.)
Iranian communities across the U.S. and in Iran are outraged by learning that Jonathan Tepperman, Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, the bi-monthly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), has allowed Matthew Kroenig’s toxically anti-Iran article: “Time to Attack Iran” to appear in the Jan/Feb. 2012 issue of the magazine.
As if this egregious act was not enough to bring discredit to the magazine and the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR is sponsoring a public “live debate” on March 1st, to convince Americans that war on Iran, just as the ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Syria, in its early stages, is the rational, humane and civilized method of dealing with the differences between the two countries of U.S. and Iran.
It is a well-known fact that is verified numerous times by even some top U.S. officials in the U.S. Administration and intelligence services, including by the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and President Barack Obama among many others in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran has no nuclear weapons or even programs.
American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), consistent with our 8 year Mission Statement, call on all Iranians and Americans who do not wish to witness another war – this time on Iran – to join us in a protest picket line in front of the Council on Foreign Relations to voice your opposition to this meeting that intends to promote war, death and destruction of yet another country in the Middle East.
Negotiate with Iran! Remove your Warships!
Lift the Sanctions! Sign a Non-Aggression Treaty!
Iran has no NUKES! U.S. and Israel have 1000’s!
Called by American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) ,http://www.iranaifc.com, 914-589-0744
Endorsed by (List in Formation) Answer Coalition, International Action Center, Pakistan USA Freedom Forum, WESPAC, and……..
UN chief on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/un-chief-iran-open-nuke-programs-100617608.html
No wonder US loves this puppet.
A small step towards a more democratic polity
Many things come to mind when one thinks of what kind of steps can be taken to democratize the political process: proportional representation, abolition of the Electoral College, public financing of political campaigns, are the more well known ones. Then: a ban on dual citizens from holding public office or even having a license to lobby, a ban on members of secret societies from holding public office, the nationalization of the central bank, etc. But what about this: offering three choices (instead of the current one) on election ballots, as follows (and in this precise order):
1. ( ) The whole political system has insufficient legitimacy for me to support it in any way. Elections should be held for a constitutional convention instead, and the whole basis of the political system revamped.
2. ( ) None of the below-listed candidates. There is something seriously wrong with the system, and something needs to be done about it, as neither the incumbents nor the list of candidates offered represent my values.
3. ( ) List of candidates
No change of the sort is going to happen in this century, of course. Obviously. We are not yet ready for democracy anything approaching a true democracy. But if these changes were miraculously made in, say, the ballots in Iran’s and America’s upcoming presidential elections, I daresay that Iran’s system would fare better, and probably even much better. This would be even more the case if the percentage of no-shows was to be allotted to the first category (which of course it would have to be – there is no where else to put the disenfranchised, which in a typical US election is a massive 65% of the electorate.) Add to that those who would vote for categories 1 & 2, and you get a general picture of how sick the system is.
This thought experiment should be particularly useful for putting into its proper context fads such as human rights violations and concerns as pretexts for the “responsibility to protect” nonsense.
And just to end with an extra twist of the dagger, I would say that seeing as the whole movement of modernism, the Scientific Revolution, the Age of Reason, and all that fancy bidness, with its “Enlightened” values, was a tsunami that had its epicenter in the Western capitals of London and Paris around the turn of the 17th century (1600 CE), and that the shock waves of this tsunami did not reach the shores of Iran until three centuries later (around 1900), then it would follow that it is incumbent on Western states to institute this kind of measure before it is incumbent on Iran to do so, and that said onus will start to apply to Iran around three centuries after the Western states deign to institute it and apply it to themselves. And all this assumes a similar axiological development trajectory, which assumption is also invalid, of course.
So meanwhile, spare me your “Responsibility to Protect” bullshit.
The last time post revolution iran made a deal to keep someone out of the white house it was with the republicans (Reagan) to keep Carter out by postponing the release of the hostages until after Reagan’s inauguration.
I think it was a Lebanese (Fadlallah or Nasrallah) who described the republicans and democrats as virtually the same on foreign policy except that the democrats lie more.
Arnold Evans says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:12 am
Arnold, I cited the same talk USAF General Hayden gave last month, in the previous post here at RFI.
But I admit I can’t predict the Israeli civilian leadership.
There was an Israeli based observer by the name of Marsha Cohen I used to read, but unfortunately I haven’t come across any of her material, recently.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:04 am
Perhaps the October surprise, if there is going to be one, is that Obama is behind in the polls or is teetering, and Iran decides to suspend enrichment or some such concession, so as to deny a rabid Republican entry into the White HOuse.
Not sure if anyone linked this last week, but Pat Buchanan sees Obama as the only thing holding back an Iran attack. He believes that if Obama is defeated in November, there will almost certainly be an Iran war in 2013.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/node/127610/18664
Also interesting to note, MSNBC fired Pat Buchanan today after 10 years.
;http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/story/2012-02-16/msnbc-pat-buchanan/53124646/1
Off-topic but of interest to many, concerning the November 2011 IAEA report on Iran:
As several more technically capable writers have pointed out, the “military dimensions” portion of this IAEA report (especially its lengthy “Annex” devoted to the subject) contained little new information, reporting almost entirely pre-2003 activities that the IAEA worries may have continued after 2003 but does not provide evidence that this has occurred. But the three-paragraph section of the Annex devoted to “modelling and calculations” (paragraphs 52-54) had struck me as an exception, since it described apparently suspicious “modeling studies” occurring as recently as 2008 and 2009.
I’ve read this important section of the report more carefully, however, and now question whether it really lays out a sufficient basis for the IAEA to conclude that these studies must have been aimed at creating a “nuclear explosive.”
My doubts have two bases in particular:
1. According to the IAEA itself, a great deal of its investigation of these allegations involved “open source research” that turned up several recent papers published by Iranian scientists on the subject matter. If “the application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear,” it seems highly unlikely to me that Iranian scientists would be publishing papers on such studies.
2. Although the IAEA writes in places that “the application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear,” it writes in other places that such studies indeed have non-nuclear applications. That may be why Iranian scientists did not hesitate to publish papers on the studies.
I leave it for others to reach their own conclusions, but I quote below the three paragraphs of the IAEA’s November 2011 report (with highlighting added) that describe these “modeling studies” – the only portion of this IAEA report that included unequivocal allegations of recent nuclear-related activity (as distinguished from mere expressions of concern that pre-2003 activities have continued).
QUOTATION FROM NOVEMBER 2011 IAEA REPORT ON IRAN:
C.8. Modelling and calculations
52. Information provided to the Agency by two Member States relating to modelling studies alleged to have been conducted in 2008 and 2009 by Iran is of particular concern to the Agency. According to that information, the studies involved the modelling of spherical geometries, consisting of components of the core of an HEU nuclear device subjected to shock compression, for their neutronic behaviour at high density, and a determination of the subsequent nuclear explosive yield. The information also identifies models said to have been used in those studies and the results of these calculations, which the Agency has seen. The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the Agency. It is therefore essential that Iran engage with the Agency and provide an explanation.
53. The Agency obtained information in 2005 from a Member State indicating that, in 1997, representatives from Iran had met with officials from an institute in a nuclear-weapon State to request training courses in the fields of neutron cross section calculations using computer codes employing Monte Carlo methodology, and shock wave interactions with metals. In a letter dated 14 May 2008, Iran advised the Agency that there was nothing to support this information. The Agency has also been provided with information by a Member State indicating that, in 2005, arrangements were made in Iran for setting up projects within SADAT centres (see Section C.1 and Attachment 1), inter alia, to establish a databank for “equation of state” information [footnote omitted] and a hydrodynamics calculation centre. The Agency has also been provided with information from a different Member State that, in 2005, a senior official in SADAT solicited assistance from Shahid Behesti University in connection with complex calculations relating to the state of criticality of a solid sphere of uranium being compressed by high explosives.
54. Research by the Agency into scientific literature published over the past decade has revealed that Iranian workers, in particular groups of researchers at Shahid Behesti University and Amir Kabir University, have published papers relating to the generation, measurement and modelling of neutron transport [footnote omitted]. The Agency has also found, through open source research, other Iranian publications which relate to the application of detonation shock dynamics to the modelling of detonation in high explosives, and the use of hydrodynamic codes in the modelling of jet formation with shaped (hollow) charges. Such studies are commonly used in reactor physics or conventional ordnance research [footnote 44 – see text below], but also have applications in the development of nuclear explosives.
[Footnote] 44: For example, the shaped (hollow) charge studies said by Member States to have been carried out by the Centre for Research and Development of Explosion and Shock Technology, also known as “METFAZ,” have conventional military applications (such as for developing armour piercing projectiles), but can also be used to develop computer codes which can then be adapted to model nuclear explosives.
END OF QUOTATION FROM NOVEMBER 2011 IAEA REPORT ON IRAN.
WTF:
Egypt does not have to invade Israel, but it can put enough troops into the Sinai that Israel would have to increase the amount of people it holds on reserve. It can also from there reach into Israel with surface to air missile coverage.
Egypt militarizing the Sinai is prohibited by the treaty, but if Egypt was to do it, it would be a substantial strategic problem for Israel. Then if the situation with Gaza was to flare up with Egypt militarized in the Sinai, Israel would have a much more difficult time there.
Even without breaking the terms of the treaty, there is a lot I hope to see an independent Egypt to regarding Gaza, for example letting in concrete and shipping through Egyptian-controlled waters that will make Israel’s preferred policies there impossible to implement.
I know that Egypt isn’t in a position to attack Israel, but does anyone know what the actual ramifications could be if the treaty were nullified? Would it be merely symbolic, or could something actually happen on the ground (like Egypt militarizing the Sinai)?
Muslim Brotherhood: U.S. aid cuts may alter Egypt-Israel treaty
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/senior-muslim-brotherhood-say-cuts-in-us-aid-could-affect-egypts-peace-treaty-with-israel-.html
Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Brotherhood Freedom and Justice Party, which controls nearly 50% of parliament seats, said U.S. aid was part of Egypt’s commitment to the treaty.
“The U.S. is a principle part of this agreement and its guarantor. There is no room for talking about aid except in the framework of discussing the peace deal,” Morsi is quoted as saying on the Freedom and Justice Party’s Facebook page. “Brandishing threats to stop this aid is out of place. Otherwise, the peace deal would be reconsidered or it could flounder.”
Essam Erian, a ranking Brotherhood member, told Reuters that Egypt was a party to the treaty “and we will be harmed, so it is our right to review the matter.” He added: “The aid was one of the commitments of the parties that signed the peace agreement, so if there is a breach from one side it gives the right of review to the parties.”
From earlier, pretty much this is why both Israel and the US have not attacked Iran and until it changes neither will attack Iran.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-israel-bombing-20120217,0,3806847.story
U.S. intelligence officials are skeptical. Former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told a group of foreign policy experts last month that Israel is not capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran’s nuclear sites. Some are situated at the outer range of Israeli bombers, and others are underground, he said.
“The Israelis aren’t going to [attack Iran] … they can’t do it, it’s beyond their capacity,” Hayden said. “They only have the ability to make this worse.”
A monthlong U.S. bombing campaign would inflict far more damage, Hayden said, but it wouldn’t be worth it. The George W. Bush administration studied the issue, he said.
“The consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret,” Hayden said.
The US strategy is to impose sanctions, because the US wants sanctions on Iran anyway, and to hope for an unexpected regime change.
This is a relatively low-cost strategy on the part of the US. The US will not relieve the sanctions unless or until Iran is responding to sanctions in a way that harms the US.
On the other hand, Iran’s credible stance that it would harm the US after an attack, combined with its capacity to build a weapon after any attack which would defeat any attack’s purpose, is enough to cause the US (and also Israel which despite the theatrics is a dependent country that cannot act against expressed US perceived interests) to refrain from attacking.
Sounds like the China is not happy with Susan Rice’s undiplomatic comment after the UN veto
Respect for different viewpoints
Updated: 2012-02-16 08:02
By He Wenping (China Daily)
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-02/16/content_14619470.htm
“Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, disregarding diplomatic manners, said she was “disgusted” by the vetoes by Russia and China, and both have the blood of the Syrian people on their hands. Some said the veto was a result of China’s blind adherence to the “obsolete” principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, or was due to China’s efforts to cooperate with Moscow’s diplomatic initiative. Some even made the foolish claim that Beijing was worried about a similar uprising to the “Arab Spring” in China.”
See who in the US want a war and who doesn’t , seems as we are getting closer to elections this is getting closer to a boiling point
Graham Doesn’t Believe Clapper: ‘I’m Very Convinced’ Iran Is Building Nuclear Weapons
By Eli Clifton
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30556.htm
“In his prepared testimony, Clapper emphasized that Iran’s decisionmaking could be influenced by outside inducements and pressures, much as any other nation state evaluates its interests and security, saying:
We judge Iran’s nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran. Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran’s security, prestige, and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear program.
Clapper acknowledged that Iran’s technical advancements strengthen the assessment that Iran has the capability to eventually produce a nuclear weapon, a view which falls in line with the IAEA’s findings that Iran’s nuclear program has potential military dimensions.”
Correction, James:
“That’s about a year’s supply of 20% uranium, according to the IAEA? Excessive?”
Make that three years’s supply. But the question remains the same: Excessive?
Sorry the first post did make it up Sorry to put it up twice.
This is sad. I really liked this guy as a journalist and a person
Anthony Shahid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/anthony-shadid-dead_n_1283526.html?show_comment_id=135427292#comment_135427292
Some how my comment related to my former comment did not make it up. I was able to get in another plug for this site on NPR’s Talk of the Nation yesterday. They did a segment on Iran. I mention this site and how Conan should have Flynt and Hillary on to discuss Iran
Maryann in Pittburgh 6:oo
“The Growing Conflict over Irans Nuclear Program.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=02-15-2012
If Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSM host refuse to educate the public based on facts then we need to do our best to bring them here
James,
Kooshy writes:
“About how much 20% U Iran has produced so far, I think that was mentioned in last IAEA report, some number around 100K if I remember correctly.”
That’s about a year’s supply of 20% uranium, according to the IAEA? Excessive?
Eric
He said in addition to 1.5 Kg ever month that needs to beaded every month every three years the entire fuel has to be renewed/replaced which will need additional 40Kg of fuel, so if correct (he actually get one other point he was not sure confirmed by Mr. Abbasi who heads the atomic organization) that equals to 94 KG every three years he didn’t say if that is based on operating full capacity and 360 days.
About how much 20% U Iran has produced so far, I think that was mentioned in last IAEA report, some number around 100K if I ember correctly
Kooshy,
I didn’t understand what Ahmadinejad meant that it has to be “replaced” every three years. What would be replaced? That’s why i used only his 1.5 kg/month figure.
I don’t think it matters much, though, because James hasn’t pointed to any source that reports how much 20% fuel Iran is actually producing. As I wrote earlier, the ISIS estimate was based on an assumption that Iran would send 1,000 kg of LEU to Russia and receive back 120 kg of 20% uranium. But that deal fell through, and we don’t know (or at least I have never read) how much LEU Iran is in fact refining to 20%. Unless we know that basic fact, how can we determine whether it’s production of 20% uranium is excessive.
Maybe there’s more out there than this 2009 ISIS estimate, based on assumptions about LEU transfers under a deal that never happened, but I sure haven’t seen it.
Arnold-
According to president Ahmadinejad speaking after installing the first fuel road in TRR, apparently TRR needs 1.5 KG of fuel every month and every 3 years the entire fuel load 40KG has to be replaced with new fuel
Based on what he says every 3 years the reactor needs 40+54 =94 KG every three years
He is peaking in Farsi describing how the fuel roads are produced he describes the production detail in the video
http://film.irna.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=3356
James,
Here’s something else for you to consider.
The ISIS estimate based its quantities of 20% fuel on the 1,000 kg of LEU that news media were reporting would be transfered from Iran to Russia. Though that deal obviously fell through, we nonetheless must bear in mind that the West (and Russia) never objected that that 1,000 kg of LEU would yield “excessive” amounts of 20% uranium. That being so, whatever time frame that 20% uranium would have sufficed for, that time frame apparently was acceptable to the West and Russia — not “excessive.” Indeed, my recollection is that, as the discussions wore on, the West wanted Iran to transfer even MORE than 1,000 kg of LEU. Presuming (and who can doubt this, eh?) that Iran would have received back a corresponding amount of 20% uranium, it follows that the West was willing for Iran to have an even longer-lasting supply of 20% uranium than is reflected in the ISIS estimate.
What do you say to this, James?
James,
Here is the full text from the link you provided (a 2009 ISIS estimate):
QUOTATION FROM ISIS ESTIMATE:
The annual LEU requirement of the Tehran Research Reactor is estimated by making assumptions about the reactor’s operating power, its annual operating capacity, and the fuel’s burnup, or irradiation level before spent fuel discharge. A fundamental constant in this calculation is that about 1.25 grams of uranium-235 is consumed (fissioned or converted into uranium 236) per megawatt-thermal-day.
The reactor has a rated power of 5 megawatts-thermal (MW-th), although it has been operating at 3 MW-th, partly because of a lack of fuel. Iran bought 116 kg of LEU (19.75% enriched) from Argentina in the late 1980s (see Timeline) and started to fuel the reactor with this fuel in about 1993. No other country has since been willing to supply additional fuel until the October 1 announcement following the historic meeting in Geneva betweeen the P5+1 and Iran. For this calculation, a power of 5 MW-th is assumed during future operations.
The capacity is taken as the reactor operating at full-power 40-80 percent of the year. Eighty percent is probably too high, but serves as an upper bound on annual fuel requirements and forty percent is near or lower than actual operational experience.
The fuel burnup is taken as 50 percent, which is typical for this type of research reactor fuel.
Estimates:
The annual uranium 235 consumption is: 5 MW-th x 365 days/year x (0.4 to 0.8) x 1.25 grams/MW-th-days = 0.91 to 1.82 kg per year.
The amount of uranium-235 in the fresh fuel required annually is the amount consumed divided by the fuel’s burnup, or 1.82 to 3.64 kg of uranium 235 per year.
Since the fuel is 19.75 percent enriched, the estimated annual fuel requirement is 9.2 to 18.4 kg LEU (uranium mass) per year. If the reactor operated only at 3 MW-th, it would require only 5.5 to 11 kg of LEU (uranium mass) per year. At this lower power level, the Argentine-supplied fuel would last 10-20 years. Since the Argentine fuel is expected to run out during the next few years, Iran has likely been operating the reactor near 3 MW-th and the lower operating capacity factor of 40 percent since 1993.
If Iran provides 1,200 kg of LEU (3.5 %) hexafluoride, as reported in the media, Russia could produce about 120 kilograms of 19.75 LEU (uranium mass) can be made, assuming a tails assay of 0.71 percent (natural uranium).1 This quantity of 19.75% LEU would correspond to roughly 6-13 years worth of fuel at an operating power of 5 MW-th and a capacity factor between 40 and 80 percent, assuming some minimal losses in fuel fabrication. If the TRR remains at 3 MW-th, then this would be sufficient fuel for 11 to 21 years of operation.
END OF QUOTATION FROM ISIS ESTIMATE.
Quite a number of assumptions and variables, but ISIS does end up reasonably close to what Ahmadinejad said in his speech the other day. He said “every month we need a kilogram and a half of this fuel.” At that rate, the 120 kilograms of 20% fuel that ISIS estimates Russia could produce would last 80 months, or 6 years and 8 months. Does that strike you as excessive? More important, this ISIS estimate (again, from 2009) tells us nothing about how much 20% fuel Iran is actually producing. It only estimates what could be produced from the amount of LEU that was being discussed in late 2009.
Do you have any information on what Iran is actually producing? That’s what we need to know.
So Agent 20%,
The original TRR deal, if the West actually met its commitment, would have supplied Iran with 120 kgs of 20% LEU, enough for 11 to 21 years of operation.
:http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/
4. If Iran provides 1,200 kg of LEU (3.5 %) hexafluoride, as reported in the media, an enrichment plant could produce about 120 kilograms of 19.75 LEU (uranium mass) from it, assuming a tails assay of 0.71 percent (natural uranium).1 This quantity of 19.75% LEU would correspond to roughly 6-13 years worth of fuel at an operating power of 5 MW-th and a capacity factor between 40 and 80 percent, assuming some minimal losses in fuel fabrication. If the TRR remains at 3 MW-th, then this would be sufficient fuel for 11 to 21 years of operation.
Iran as of November 2011 had 80 kgs of 20% LEU and was producing about 4.7 kgs per month.
:http://www.iranwatch.org/ourpubs/articles/iranucleartimetable.html
So Iran, at that rate has less 20% LEU than was envisioned by the TRR deal offered by the West and enough for 11 to 21 years if Iran continues to operate the TRR at the rate it has been doing so recently to conserve fuel.
At the designed burn rate, 120 kgs of fuel is enough for 6-13 years.
So Iran has less 20% LEU on stock than the West agreed to supply in 2009, though that agreement did not contain any guarantee that Iran would actually get fuel.
In other words, Iran’s current stock is less than your country claimed it was comfortable with Iran having – except that your country was likely lying about that.
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/sites/facilities/tehran-research-reactor-trr/
The reactor has operated at 3 MW-th, partially due to a shortage of fuel. The Tehran Research Reactor is expected to run out of Argentine-supplied fuel at the end of 2010 or sometime in 2011.
We still have a long way to go before we sanction Iran’s fishery and tomato producers association.
US sets sanctions on Iran’s Intelligence Ministry
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191004,00.html
Sarkozy: ‘Israel is a miracle!’
On February 8, 2012 – addressing annual dinner of the main French Jewish umbrella organization, the CRIF, Sarkozy told 1,000 Jewish guests: “France won’t compromise on Israel’s security because Israel is a miracle“.
However, he damped their high anti-Iran spirits by saying that solution to Iranian problem is “diplomatic, not military”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/sarkozy-israel-is-a-miracle/
James,
“Re: 2.37pm. I have said many times that I think the P5+1 would accept Iranian production of 5% U. I doubt they will accept 20%. Not my call. One might well argue that if Iran is only using 20% U to build fuel plates for research reactors, as long as the nuclear material is monitored this is not a huge problem.
I continue to think Ahmadinejad was quite right to offer to stop Iranian production of 20% U.”
The point was I was trying to make was that Iran wasnt first approached for enriching 20% back in 2006, it was sanctioned for enriching. What you are saying is the opposite, that Iran is sanctioned because they enrich at 20%.
James,
“re: your 4.40 post. By Iran’s “keeping its nuclear programme running” you mean ________?”
Since the sanctions are imposed to stop the programme, it shows that this has failed. Iran wont give up its programme.
Gash,
Re: 2.37pm. I have said many times that I think the P5+1 would accept Iranian production of 5% U. I doubt they will accept 20%. Not my call. One might well argue that if Iran is only using 20% U to build fuel plates for research reactors, as long as the nuclear material is monitored this is not a huge problem.
I continue to think Ahmadinejad was quite right to offer to stop Iranian production of 20% U.
post already too much has happed this week! I’m dying to learn about india thailand and georgia
wish you both good health and long life
may allah protect you both.
Gash,
re: your 4.40 post. By Iran’s “keeping its nuclear programme running” you mean ________?
Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 16th (“Iran cites nuclear gain, offers talks”), but nothing we don’t know already. The P5+1 needed to respect Iran’s initiatives in its nuclear programme, is Iranian position in Wednesday’s letter.
Kathleen,
Interesting. Did Conan come back at the guest, who objected to the “no smoking gun” comment?
Eric,
120kg of 20% U sufficient for 6 to 21 years of operations of TRR (depending on operating rate).
“Tehran research reactor fuel requirements”
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/
Ok I kissed up enough. Neil Conan also had tons of folks on who were selling the invasion of Iraq. Bill Kristol, Frum, Gaffney. And he has allowed John Bolton to repeat so many lies about Iran that my head was spinning. Neil never challenged him.
Neil did say to his guest that “there is no smoking gun” about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. His guest objects to his comment
kooshy,
I agree, the Pentagon and the CIA oppose war with Iran. So does Obama.
Eric,
http:www.isisnucleariran.org/sites/facilities/tehran-research-reactor-trr/
Eric,
Still looking. You might find interesting this description of the TRR and its opeation. Formerly used 93% U, but changed to just under 20% at cost of more than $5 million.
Gash says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Gash
As you can see once again is clear that it is the US military/ security (like in 07 and 11) which are rebuffing the war party’s political and foreign policy establishment for going to war with Iran.
Eric,
I will look for them.
JAMES,
“Eric, I have linked reports by nuclear scientists that indicate Iran as of several months ago had sufficient 20% U on hand to make rods/plates to operate the TRR for maybe ten years or more (depending on operating rate).”
Would you kindly repost those links? Thanks, James.
BiBiJon says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm
“Ay. Khamenei’s speech: Any country or movement that wants to confront Israel can look to Iran for help”
With that announcement Iran is forcing all the regional countries to publicly step to the front the row, and take a stand on which side of the conflict they are.
Countries of the region can’t afford to have large a Muslim population and not to support the Palestinians in their efforts against occupation as much as Iran does, once they do that they overtly become a public enemy of Israel and in turn US/EU, and if they don’t they are further exposed. With the ongoing Islamic/Arab awakenings it was a perfect timing to gain further street support in the region putting more pressure on the west.
Slowly the truth is coming out. Iran will not start a war and Iran will keep its nuclear program running, thus proving sanctions are futile, useless. US must understand that talks is the only way out.
U.S. intelligence officials: Iran not about to abandon nuclear program, but unlikely to provoke conflict
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-intelligence-officials-iran-not-about-to-abandon-nuclear-program-but-unlikely-to-provoke-conflict-1.413349
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm
I should have been clearer. It wasn’t acts, but speeches that raised the temperature to a boil.
The whole we’ll close Hormuz;
Ay. Khamenei’s speech: Any country or movement that wants to confront Israel can look to Iran for help;
And Ahmadinejad’s speech on Wednesday.
This level of rhetorical confrontation to my mind is saying fuggetabout ‘covert.’ Iran is daring the west to bring it on!
BiBiJon says:
February 16, 2012 at 2:50 pm
In my opinion Mr. Obama was never in charge of the US foreign policy from the beginning ( he was a nice window dressing which didn’t work and got burned early on, nerveless he will be blamed for any setbacks) I further believe he had to concede the direction of US’s foreign policy to the lobby to become eligible for nomination, his AIPAC directed foreign policy it’s been continually encountered by the US military( more of US firsters due to their trained nationalism), perhaps the only privately foreign policy initiative he made ( Brazil, Turkey encouragement to make a deal with Iran) was immediately rebuffed in an embarrassing way, no wonder he told Sarkozy I have to deal with him(BiBi) everyday he clearly is not comfortable in the box he is.
As for the US’s (AIPAC) foreign policy stand the way you put it, there was no other choice if it’s circled around Israel’s safety net rather than the US interests, especially up until when the US military is not willing to participate.
Russia closely monitoring Iran situation: Russia’s Chief of Staff
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/227019.html
“According to World Tribune, the Kremlin has ordered the military to draft options for a Russian response to any foreign attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
fyi,
- I don’t see how your link disproves my point. It is open knowledge that Iran procured 50 Rd-33 engines for their Shafaq airfracts (a program Russia pulled out of). Your link states that the engines are license produced in India, not Iran.
BiBiJon: “Why has Iran decided to bring the covert simmering war to an overt boiling temperature?”
I don’t see any evidence that they have. These guys in Thailand? Not even…
As far as I can see, Iran has done nothing in the covert arena – yet. Not even Hizballah has done anything provably, although there are claims the recent incidents might be them.
If either the Qods force or Hizballah does a covert action, someone will die and it won’t be their own assets…
Nasser:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/20071020.aspx
Sakineh Bagoom: “RSH, that is if you believe the voting system is NOT rigged. Good luck with that!”
Good catch! My bad…
kooshy says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Kooshy jan,
very perceptive, and thank you. One question though:
Did Obama’s unprecedented sanctions/stuxtent/murder policy force the world into taking a stance? If so, was Obama ready for the full-scale fruition of Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” divisive world-view?
Nasser says: February 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm
No.
But de facto partition is both desirable and inevitable.
Nasser says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm
James.
My input contained more than a question. It was a response to your enrichment claim. Which I would appreciate if you could approach.
Yes it seems that you would accept war on regardless if Iran wanting/having nukes or not.
Gash,
I should say that war would be disastrous….. I in fact think war will be avoided if the parties act reasonably.
Gash,
You asked me (Feb. 11, 2012 at 5.48pm): “Why do you keep pushing for war?” In fact, I have said time and again that war will be disastrous for Iran, the region, the world, and probably especially for the Palestinians. This is “pushing for war” in your view?
Irshad,
I missed your Feb. 11, 2012 at 5.55pm comment, that William Hague should go to Tehran and that Ahmadinejad would agree to have Iran stop enriching to 20%.
Obviously, the P5+1 negotiators are taking the lead.
I imagine Hague would like to visit Iran, should conditions allow.
kooshy,
The Financial Times today had an interesting piece regarding how China is propping up the value of the euro. There can be few who claim China is not powerful.
BiBiJon says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Why has Iran decided to bring the covert simmering war to an overt boiling temperature? Is this for the hitherto spectators (the BRICS) to get involved, or is it purely the result of dynamics of West-Iran confrontation?”
BiBi
First of all, is fair to say that two out five BRICS countries have been directly involved in the Iran nuclear case ( you read Iran’s standing to the US/west) for some time now, and the other three meaning BIS plus Turkey are more involved/concerned with Iran’s case today than they were three years ago, regardless if their involvement now is a byproduct of US or Iran’s policies at the time, what was always obvious is that Iran did want from the beginning to make her standing against US’s hegemony an international case rather than an isolated US vs. Iran case, she was successful in her effort to internationalize the case, with that perspective in kind Iran can’t be called she isolated.
My observation of Iran’s foreign policy in this past three decades is, that Iran continually has tried to make her policy of standing to the US hegemony a wider international concern, admittedly Iran has been more successful with her efforts now than she was before, especially since Ahmadinejad took office. Since 2005 Iran was also successful to make the Israel question a part and parcel of Iran’s case and transform the issue to an Islamic resistance vs. hegemonic colonial west making it further difficult for the US/west to address the issue as an isolated dispute. For some time now Iran and Mr. Ahmadinejad have been working to make this issue further widen by making it a south vs. north issue, which if fully successful it will become much more difficult for the west to address as it its currently shaping to the point that the west in her efforts is much more isolated today than they ever were.
Due to Iran’s foreign policy efforts what is surfacing is more and more behind the seen actors have to make a policy judgment and come out with their name tags and alliances attached, exactly what is currently shaping in the region and beyond. This will eventually force the west to accept one of two choices to divide the world in a two, north vs. south (east vs. west), or accept a multi polar world with powerful independent regional actors. I think at the end west will prefer the lather. We are witnessing a time that the world of post WWII is fundamentally changing.
James
If you read my input (which goes back to the beginning of the UNSC sanctions) you will notice that this has nothing to do with the 20% enrichment. So respond to my input as earlier stated please.
Nasser,
There is essentially zero likelihood Afghanistan would partition itself, formally. FYI has said a de facto partition is possible.
Gash,
You could clarify things futher and say in your view, Iran should stockpile whatever amounts of 20% uranium it is able to produce, and damn the consequences.
fyi,
Regarding Afghanistan, in your opinion is there any possibility the North could formally secede from the rest of the country?
Gash,
Re: your question of Feb. 11, 5.48 pm. Do you think Ahmadinejad acted wisely when last September he offered to have Iran stop producting 20% U? Ahmadinejad clearly wanted to head off a further round of sacntions.
Why do you think I am warmongering by pointing out Ahmadinejad acted wisely?
fyi,
“Iranians are manufacturing their own trainers.
Where does the engine for them come from?”
- I have seen MAPNA produce some modern gas turbines. A technology obtained mostly for the Germans. So theoretically Iran had for quite some time the capability to atleast reverse engineer turbojet engines like the J79 and the J85. I have seen no evidence of this though (I suspect lack of funding). In fact they are on open record trying to buy these things and they legally bought their helicopter engines from Canada I believe.
- I don’t mean to bicker over this issue. I am just curious if there is any open information about the Russians helping them out with their jet engine production. Thanks.
James:
“I will look for that question.”
Great I expect an answer.
James canning, you miss 3 points
1. If Israel attack, US will help.
2. If there is a deliberate provocation or even false flag, US will fight the war.
3. If Iran doesnt follow US/Israel demand, more pressure will be put on Iran which might very possibly lead to warfare.
Gash,
If you are incapable of seeing the direct connection between Iran’s June 2011 announcement of a trebling of production of 20% U, and the latest sanctions, you apparently think Iran should enrich to 20% as of right, and if the Six Powers do not like it, they can stuff themselves.
I will look for that question.
Gash,
Obama’s top general, Dempsey, and his secretary of defence, have gone to considerable effort to tell Israel not to attack Iran.
If Obama came out in public and said Israeli warmongers are threatening the national security of the American people, he would go down to defeat in November.
R S Hack,
I agree with you that the Senator from Israel, Joe Lieberman, wants to force war with Iran. I disagree of course that Lieberman speaks for “US elites”. Most rich Americans I know loathe him.
James canning, why wouldnt the obama administration accept war? Presidents at war will always be reelected, not to mention that the Iran conflict seems to be the most important of all issues in the world for the candidates.
James:
Your constant try to provoke the board with 20 enrichment is getting useless.
You could start by responding to my input at: February 11, 2012 at 5:48 pm
kooshy,
Is David Albright trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross, who very stupidly in effect forced Iran to enrich to 20% and to build the fuel plates for the TRR?
kooshy,
I agree with you it is peculiar that David Albright now says that building the fuel plates for the TRR is not a signficant technical achievement. This is the opposite take to that of Mark Fitzpatrick (quoted in the Daily Telegraph yesterday and the Financial Times today).
kooshy,
Bushehr #1 is being fueled by Russia through 2015.
A-B,
The purpose of the sanctions was not to “cripple” Iran, at least prior to the latest round of sanctions triggered by Iran’s early-June announcement last year of an intention to treble production of 20 percent U.
kooshy,
Yes, Iran could not build the fuel plates for the TRR in 2010, as I said. (I also have mentioned that Israel assassinated the scientist in charge of building the plant that would fabricate the fuel plates.)
Eric,
I have linked reports by nuclear scientists that indicate Iran as of several months ago had sufficient 20% U on hand to make rods/plates to operate the TRR for maybe ten years or more (depending on operating rate).
Rehmat,
Did the US “occupy” Afghanistan after overthrowing the Taliban (with help from Iran)?
Gash,
Obama does not want Israel to attack Iran. Obama wants to win re-election this year.
This second fact obliges him to be quieter about his wishes regarding the first fact, than otherwise would obtain.
Rehmat says: February 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm
That is just a show.
US will leave Afghanistan.
Pakistan will rule Southern and Southeastern Afghanistan through Taliban.
North and Northwestern Afghanistan will be a de facto separate entity; supported by Russia, Iran, Uzbeckistan, and other states.
Mr. Karazai and the Kabul Government are on their own.
According to a news flash on haaretz US intel. say Israel likely to strike in spring.
While I dont doubt that the israeli warmongering and threats could materialize, however all this “Israel will” seems more and more to be desperate calls for the world to fight Iran, to put pressure on the world. What Israel is really saying is attack Iran for us or we will do it “by ourself”, metaphorically Israel is holding a gun to the international community threaten a semi world war. However there is really no “by our self” because if Israel decide to attack they have been approved by the US and therefore US are as complicit in the war as Israel.
Today, Iranian President Dr. Ahmadinejad arrived in Islamabad on a two-day visit to Pakistan on the invitation of his Pakistani counterpart, President Asif Ali Zardari. They’re going to be joined by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai later today to discuss matters related to the US-Taliban deal in Qatar.
Washington invaded and occupied Afghanistan under the lame excuse of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which are in reality carried out by Israeli Mossad, has failed to defeat Taliban even after ten year. The war has cost US taxpayers over $600 billion and death of over 10,000 US-NATO soldiers and half million Afghans.
Ahmadinejad and Zardari are also to review the progress of Iran-Pakistan (I-P) gas pipeline. The multi-billion-dollar natural gas pipeline project that is aimed at helping Pakistan meet its energy shortfall for its rapidly growing domestic and industrial needs.
The Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran trilateral summit was first initiated in 2009 with the aim to boost the economic cooperation among the three countries. Other issues related to security and development in the region will also be touched upon during the summit.
Washington defeated in Afghanistan years ago, is trying to find an ‘honorable’ exit while leaving a pro-American regime in Kabul.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/ahmadinejad-in-islamabad/
All:
A Turkish View:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/turkey_bomb.pdf
Very well said Pirouz,
Pirouz says:
February 16, 2012 at 12:24 am
Kooshy, it’s a pattern repeated by certain Iranian-American analysts:
1) Iran announcing the enrichment of uranium is based on Iranian domestic political weakness.
2) Iran announcing it has put a satellite into space is based on domestic political weakness.
3) Iran announcing it is successfully manufacturing nuclear fuel rods is based on domestic political weakness.
And before these goals are achieved, the experts claim the Iranians are incapable of this level of achievement. And when the Iranians accomplish it, they say it was really no big deal for them to achieve it.
This one’s for the Gavner. Apparently Iran is not the only country that is enriching to 20%!! I had NO idea. Did you, Gavner? This changes EVERYTHING.
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America’s uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. “Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran,” said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and “everything they need” to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material.
Now I wish I’d bet money on the de-escalation theory
===========================================
Panetta says Iran enriching uranium but not decision yet on proceeding with a nuclear weapon
Penetta also said to a House panel: “the United States is open to negotiations to find a diplomatic solution.”
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/panetta-says-iran-enriching-uranium-but-not-decision-yet-on-proceeding-with-a-nuclear-weapon/2012/02/16/gIQAl0RsHR_story.html
Rd. says: February 16, 2012 at 11:58 am
US Planners are mostly responsible for bringing US into this situation; not Jews, not nec-cons, and not any other escape goat (so to speak).
There is a long stroy behind this…
In 1995, Mr. Clinton did their best to cause Iranian government to default on its external loans.
Now, US planners have brought the United States that both Peace and War have become too expensive for US to seriously contemplate.
And they want to run the world…
Kathleen says:
Call, write, email, tweet, facebook, visit, lobby, petition your Reps let them know how you feel on this situation with Iran. It can make a difference
Kathleen, you are not alone.. good to see Col Lang is on the same page.
His response was to this; ["War seems likely once a pretext is found that will draw in the US." ]
turcopolier said…
JCJ
Write, call and generally pester yourcongressional representative with the news that you will actively oppose their election i they vote for ANYTHING like this. Organize others to do the same. Spread the word. pl
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/02/brewed-by-starbucks.html#comments
Eric A. Brill says:
February 16, 2012 at 10:13 am
“Choice 3: continue to get jerked around by the West…”
Question for the board:
Why has Iran decided to bring the covert simmering war to an overt boiling temperature? Is this for the hitherto spectators (the BRICS+T) to get involved, or is it purely the result of dynamics of West-Iran confrontation?
Ahmadinejad speech yesterday:
————————–
“They have to change their ways. They have to especially change their attitude toward the nation of Iran. They constantly make frequent remarks against the nation of Iran. All options are on the table, they say. Fine, we say, let these options be on the table. Let it remain on the table for so long that it rots.”
….
“These are all pretexts and if this pretext is confronted they bring up another pretext. They say they want to negotiate, so why don’t you? Or are you the sort to say that you are for talks but come to the table with a club and say listen to whatever I tell you? Is this what you call negotiation?
You want to negotiate in this way with a nation like Iran? Or, do you want to destroy the nation of Iran? Well, come and destroy it then. (laughs) Please come forward. (laughs) Please don’t pull any punches. History is filled with bullies who wanted to destroy the nation of Iran but the nation of Iran has survived and the name of their potential destroyers is not even registered in the pages of history.”
From http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/ahmadinejad-speech-on-nuclear-energy-advances-full-text.html
kooshy says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Thanks for that “blast from the past,” Kooshy. But I don’t know that you or I deserve much credit for clairvoyance. As I wrote then, Iran had only two choices: (1) shut down the Tehran Research Reactor once its existing fuel ran out; or (2) enrich its own fuel and form it into fuel plates, however difficult (as Albright and others insisted then) or easy (as Albright tells us now) that might be.
Iran didn’t like Choice 1 (shut down the TRR), and that left Choice 2. Simple as that.
I suppose there was a Choice 3: continue to get jerked around by the West on offers to produce fuel for the TRR. But I think Iran had grown just a bit weary of Choice 3 by the time you and I wrote. I couldn’t blame it then, and I don’t blame it now.
Nasser says: February 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Iranians are manufacturing their own trainers.
Where does the engine for them come from?
Interesting video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg0_B4cDa4w&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD8BC53E26568A4BE
Lobby: ‘Why Oliver Stone’s son converted to Islam?’
Hollywood director and filmaker, Sean Stone, son of Oscar-winning director, Oliver Stone 27, has irked Israel Lobby by converting to Islam on February 14, 2012 in Ispahan, Iran. He chose ALI as his first name. Some Israel Hasbara websites have given him the title of “defender of Ahmadinejad“. His father, Oliver Stone, is Jewish but his mother is Christian. Thus, by Jewish law, Sean is not ‘Jewish’ by birth unless he had adopted Jewish religion after he turned 14.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/lobby-why-oliver-stones-son-converted-to-islam/
NIAC is also urging your support for the Ellison-Jones initiative. Compare NIAC’s message to J-Street’s message, earlier comment
“Say No to War: Tell Your Representative to Sign the Ellison-Jones Letter
No to WarRepresentatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Walter Jones (R-NC) are working with their colleagues to urge the President to pursue the diplomacy necessary to reduce rising tensions and stop war. Ellison and Jones are seeking the support of their fellow Members of Congress to sign an important letter to the President that says loud and clear: we want diplomacy, not war.
Make sure your Representative signs this important letter by sending them a message today.
We need a major push so the White House understands that there is a strong constituency that opposes war with Iran and supports negotiations. If the President is going to stand up to hardliners in Iran, Israel, and the United States who are determined to derail non-military options, he must hear from those of us who support peace and diplomacy.
Take action to tell your Representative to sign the Ellison-Jones letter.
Take Action
Regards,
Jamal Abdi
NIAC Policy Director
P.S. – Please share this alert widely with your friends and family through email, Facebook, and word of mouth. “
no worries, Iran; J Street & Jeremy ben Ami, son of former acolyte to Ze’ev Jabotinsky, are on your side:
“As I wrote last week, the drums of war with Iran are sounding ever more loudly1.
Sadly, too many Washington politicians are focused on sounding tough rather than on developing sound strategy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Veteran diplomats are straining to be heard, urging as Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers did in the New York Times2, a robust, new diplomatic initiative.
Thankfully, some elected officials are listening, anxious to avoid yet another Middle East war. Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Walter Jones (R-NC) are seeking their colleagues’ signatures on a thoughtful letter to the President that supports both sanctions and pressure on Iran as well as a robust diplomatic initiative.
Click here to ask your Member of Congress to join the Ellison-Jones letter calling for robust, sustained diplomacy to prevent a costly new war.
J Street shares the very real and legitimate fear that this Iranian regime might acquire a nuclear weapon. Security – for Israel, the region and the world – is our first and foremost concern when considering how to prevent that from happening.
However, we take seriously the concerns that many top American and Israeli security experts have expressed over the consequences of a military strike on Iran3.
Israel’s former Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that an attack against Iran “would mean regional war… giv[ing] Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has also noted that Iran could retaliate against the United States, “sinking our ships, striking our military bases… not only involve[ing] many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.”
The Republican Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers has talked on CNN of the “real problem” that a military strike could cause for the national security interests of the United States4. The Democratic Chair of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein echoed Ambassadors Pickering and Luers’ call for diplomacy just this weekend5.
One letter won’t silence those beating the drums for war. But it can signal that there is support for pursuing all other options first.
Ask your Representative to join the Ellison-Jones letter calling on the President to pursue bilateral and multilateral engagement with Iran.
Thank you,
Jeremy Ben-Ami
[1] – The Drums Of War, Jeremy Ben-Ami
[2] – “Military Action isn’t the only solution to Iran,” by William H. Luers and Thomas Pickering, Washington Post, 12/30/2012.
[3] – What The Experts Are Saying About Iran
[4] – “Rogers on Increasing Tension with Iran,” State of the Union, CNN, 2/5/2012.
[5] – “Letter to the Editor: Senator Dianne Feinstein, on Diplomacy with Iran,” New York Times, 2/10/2012.
———-
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. “
A convenient way to check out the headlines (for Persian readers):
http://tabdil.net/Newspaper/
Richard Steven Hack says: February 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm
”They know and they don’t care because they know there’s nothing we can do to them short of voting them out of office.”
RSH, that is if you believe the voting system is NOT rigged. Good luck with that!
“Vote early and vote often”
George W Bush wouldn’t allow Iran to have ANY enrichment capabilities, and the multiple sanctions imposed by the West should have by now totally crippled Iran. Well, REALITY shows Iran beat the West on both accounts (cf. both big news yesterday on Iran’s nuclear advancements and Iran’s counter oil embargo on EU). Now, the Israelis scoff at Iran for Iran’s FICTITIOUS incompetence in carrying out terrorist attacks Iran most likely didn’t. So, Iranians EVIDENTLY have good brains (mastering science and diplomacy) but sre no-good terrorists even in FANTASY? Iran should be proud, no?
Hans-sahn:
A flame-free response for you:
http://www.rusi.org/images/library/LI4CE4F17BA50DC.jpg
,http://www.registan.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/iran-ethnic-groups.gif
Pirouz
You mean like this clown talking to DOS approved NYT the equivalent of Pravda back in old USSR
Aggressive Acts by Iran Signal Pressure on Its Leadership
By SCOTT SHANE and ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: February 15, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/middleeast/frantic-actions-hint-at-pressure-on-iran-leaders.html
“Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the belligerent moves by Iran actually underscored weakness.
“If there’s a meta-narrative here, it’s that Iran tends to speak loudly but carries a small stick,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. “Their alleged terror attacks projected incompetence more than fear, their announced nuclear progress is likely exaggerated, and their threat to pre-emptively cease oil exports to Europe turned out to be another bluff.”
Humanist: “Vikings were ferocious rapists and plunderers. Look at their societies today. Crime rate is almost the lowest in the world and the Standard of Living is the highest. Just study their prison system.”
I am aware of their prison system as a result of reading “Catch Me If You Can” wherein the comparison between theirs and the barbaric French system is described vividly.
“You might think ‘…these guys are close to the transhumaist of the future’.”
Hardly. A Transhuman state is going to entail a lot more than attitude adjustment.
“They came to the conclusion that they should not allow capitalism to roam freely in an absolutely rampant form since that kind of capitalism is the mother of all evil. Thus in their taxing system they passed laws that allowed taxing the rich heavily (up to 99%).”
Without going off topic, I’m in favor of total “free enterprise” AND the complete elimination of “corporations”. Corporations are creatures of the state – legal entities given virtual immunity to cover the predations of their owners. The primary issue with so-called “capitalism” is the fact that it exists in a state context. “Free enterprise” is NOT and never will be “capitalism”. “Capitalism” should always be referred to as “state capitalism” since it always devolves to the rich controlling the state in favor of some businesses and to the detriment of others.
I don’t know that much about the influence of wealth on the Scandinavian states political system but I’d better dollars to donuts it still exists, regardless of the tax structure. But perhaps the organization of the Scandinavian countries vis-a-vis corporations is one reason they haven’t been ravaged by the sorts of excesses the US has.
The problem is that result has probably occurred because of the unique conditions and history of those countries populations which are reflected in the organization of those states, and thus is not exportable to the rest of the world. A “local exception” as I mentioned in the earlier post.
Being small is an advantage in this regard. It’s generally regarded as true that the prehistoric tribal societies were mostly more peaceful – not entirely but mostly – than subsequent “civilized” societies. A large part of that was reduced population pressures within a given area and a concomitant access to more easily shared resources. Once human societies started running into each other, the primate competitiveness produced by the fear of death started to outweigh other social considerations until we arrive today at an almost universal “anarchy of nations” all trying to stab each other in the back.
“Since the security system of US had identified weird type of families who never fought with each other”
Reminds me of the “Stand on Zanzibar” sci-fi novel by John Bruner which entailed a research project into a small African country where there was never any conflict between families or with other countries, etc., among other concepts.
“They were not aliens, they were slightly modified humans, they were almost perfect humans…The story is about how hideous human beings are, self-righteous, barbarous and deceptive hypocrites and how we can be close to perfect being just by a few physical alterations.”
Nice concept. I’d like to see a story like that.
“I was a super lazy dreamer, I started many projects and finished none of them.”
Me, too.
Kooshy, it’s a pattern repeated by certain Iranian-American analysts:
1) Iran announcing the enrichment of uranium is based on Iranian domestic political weakness.
2) Iran announcing it has put a satellite into space is based on domestic political weakness.
3) Iran announcing it is successfully manufacturing nuclear fuel rods is based on domestic political weakness.
And before these goals are achieved, the experts claim the Iranians are incapable of this level of achievement. And when the Iranians accomplish it, they say it was really no big deal for them to achieve it.
And here is one form our own 20%Gav thought back in 2010, Gav. With that I hope you cap the 20% for a while
James Canning says:
June 19, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Arnold,
My understanding is that Iran is unable to create the fuel rods or plates needed for the TRR, even if it enriches sufficient 20% U.
You will remember that Iran stressed for years it was only enriching U to 5% or lower, for the electrical power generating stations. Even at that, Bushehr #2 will not come online for years, and #1 is being fueled by Russia.
In search of finding the David Albrights past claim on TRR I looked on a Thread in RFI titled
“IRAN, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE “FRAGILE PROMISE” OF THE FUEL-SWAP PLAN
Posted on June 19th, 2010 under general with 147 replies.”
http://www.raceforiran.com/iran-the-united-states-and-the-fragile-promise-of-the-fuel-swap-plan
This is the thread on Mark Fitzpatrick’s analysis of the fuel swap deal, it was interesting to read the position and arguments among the RFI regulars in mid. 2010 some of you may want to read your old comments.
Here is a comment by me and a subsequent reply by Eric
kooshy says:
June 22, 2010 at 5:19 pm
In light of West’s refusal to accept the Tehran declaration for cooperation in refueling the TRR, for Iran the best way forward is to internally manufacture the fuel plates as soon as possible at any cost with its full scientific focus on manufacturing of this plates. The benefits of manufacturing fuel plates by Iran and in Iran are:
1-Proof that Iran is using its uranium for peaceful proposes
2-Iran proves to the west and P5 that has a full fuel cycle capability and has past the thresh hold
3-Brakes possibility of formation of a fuel cartel for future fuel requirements
4-Iran will strengthen the NPT countries by refusing to accept west’s blackmail
5-Iran strengthens the NPT treaty
Of course when this happen, experts in the west like Mark and Alan will claim that Iran always had the fuel and is using its old stock pile, similar to what we heard
When they claimed Iran is not currently capable to enrich to 20% by likes of David Albright. There is a proverb in Persian that is “The wall of denial is high”
Eric A. Brill says:
June 22, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Kooshy,
I agree entirely with you. It’s really hard not to, since Iran presently has only two choices:
1. Do what you suggest: enrich to 20% and figure out how to make fuel plates, however long that may take; or
2. Buy medical isotopes from non-Iranian sources, thus leaving the US able later to demand concessions in exchange for access to those isotopes.
It’s silly season again in the media, especially where certain Iranian-American analysts are concerned. Many have stated the nuclear announcements are a sign of weakness in Iran. If you go through the past seven years, at least once a year and sometimes more, Iran announces technological achievements. (Don’t these folks ever get tired of providing unreliable analyses based on heavily biased observations?)
And then there are the American experts claiming the Iranians (being a backward people) are always behind schedule in building high tech items or machinery. I’ve a question for them: how long did it take for we Americans to successfully build the V-22 Osprey? Heck, we’re still waiting for the F-35! And don’t even ask about the cost overruns.
Today’s New York Times article on the subject was ridiculous. So was Robin Wright’s interview on BBC. Utterly unreliable reporting and news analysis.
None of us is in a position to know whether the Iranian government was behind any of the attacks on Israeli diplomats this week. But one indisputable truth has emerged:
A country’s government tends to react more negatively when a motorcyclist attaches a bomb to the car door of a citizen of that country than when a motorcyclist attaches a bomb to the car door of a citizen of an enemy country.
Any disagreement with that observation?
kooshy says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Like you, I remember quite well that many Western nuclear experts predicted two years ago that Iran would be unable to create fuel plates for the TRR. Now David Albright tells us it’s easy. My, how things change.
Hypocrite David Albright now claims that the fuel plates for TRR “are not hard to produce” LOL, of course Albright has the military establishment’s support to use the state supported media at will.
“David Albright, a nuclear physicist and former international weapons inspector in Iraq, said in an interview that the fuel plates aren’t hard to produce and have no military implications.
“They’re so far behind that it sounds like they’re trying to play catch-up, which makes me think it’s more for a domestic audience than an international one,” said Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.”
:http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/u-s-calls-iran-s-nuclear-claim-hype-as-oil-rises-on-fears.html
Now compare to what Albright said to WP back in 2/9/2010
Analysis: Iranian plan will put nation a step closer to having material for bomb
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 9, 2010; A10
“Indeed, Iran does not have the expertise to build the specialized fuel rods needed for the research reactor — only France and Argentina are expert at it — so the main consequence of Iran’s decision appears to be moving up the enrichment ladder. If Iran tried to fuel the reactor itself, absent international assistance, it would be risky to the reactor and for public safety, according to David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.”
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020801384_pf.html
Eric: The author also cites this paper of his which is downloadable here:
Non-Proliferation Law & Countermeasures: Their Function and Role in Determining the Status of a Special Regime
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1961941
Richard,
As I was reading your post so many things were going through my mind writing them all needs 1000s of words.
I just refer to two.
1- The first one is about your view that “…….Polynesian and South Pacific societies have been violent. Also Scandinavian societies have been violent in the past.”.
I am well aware of the above fact. It is a fact that fascinate me, it could in a way make us hopeful that there is a light at the end of this long tunnel reaching to the realm of Cultural Evolution withing our present day APE body.
Vikings were ferocious rapists and plunderers. Look at their societies today. Crime rate is almost the lowest in the world and the Standard of Living is the highest. Just study their prison system. You might think ‘…these guys are close to the transhumaist of the future’. Their early 20th century investigations on how to transform their society to a truly civil, just and progressive society fascinated me the most. . They came to the conclusion that they should not allow capitalism to roam freely in an absolutely rampant form since that kind of capitalism is the mother of all evil. Thus in their taxing system they passed laws that allowed taxing the rich heavily (up to 99%).
The result of their fundamental change in the society kind of worked. Now they are ahead of all in many materialistic aspects …..but unfortunately they are still entrapped inside an ugly body.
2- ‘Long time’ ago, without knowing what Transhumanism is, just for fun I thought of writing a sci-fi (in Farsi). In it a report is sent to the office of the President of US (who is fanatically religious) about possible presence of aliens among human beings. Since the security system of US had identified weird type of families who never fought with each other, etc etc. The President orders a prompt extensive investigation on those aliens. After lots of things happening humans are incapable of determining if the weird being are aliens or not. The President orders torturing…… Just before the start of torture the suspects do intense concentration, bite their lips and die quickly. The dimension of the Puzzle grows further……..
Long story, the security system has a hard time to find out if they are in fact extraterrestrial beings or not. Finally they seek the help of a Russian scientist who assertively claims they are from outer space and they are very dangerous.
Then, on order of the superstitious Pres the slaughter of aliens starts…lots of things happen …just as when they think they have cleansed the humanity they find a new one who is not exactly like the aliens but quite close. He tells the REAL story which is this:
Couple of generations ago an ingenious brain researcher finds a way to neutralize couple of parts in our reptilian brain. The result being a fantastic transformation (this part is long and explains how he manages to find a way such that the new brain features are passed to the new generation)
…….
The last chapter is about a new report to the President explaining why the most precious gem of all times was thrown into a deep ocean.
They were not aliens, they were slightly modified humans, they were almost perfect humans.
I still have the Farsi manuscript (I think). I don’t have any incentive or energy to revise and rewrite it in my poor struggling English. I hope someone who is a brilliant sci-fi writer likes the idea and writes a smart book about it.
The story is about how hideous human beings are, self-righteous, barbarous and deceptive hypocrites and how we can be close to perfect being just by a few physical alterations.
At the time I had discovered who we are and how far we are from a civil constructive being. I imagined something that as I find out today is so close to what Transhumanist are…..what a surprise….and what a pity…. I was a super lazy dreamer, I started many projects and finished none of them.
Eric: Take a look at this legal piece and let me know what you think.
Iran, The Nuclear Issue & Countermeasures
http://www.ejiltalk.org/iran-the-nuclear-issue-countermeasures/
Hypocrite David Albright now claims that the fuel plates for TRR “are not hard to produce” LOL, of course Albright has the military establishment’s support to use the state supported media at will.
“David Albright, a nuclear physicist and former international weapons inspector in Iraq, said in an interview that the fuel plates aren’t hard to produce and have no military implications.
“They’re so far behind that it sounds like they’re trying to play catch-up, which makes me think it’s more for a domestic audience than an international one,” said Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/u-s-calls-iran-s-nuclear-claim-hype-as-oil-rises-on-fears.html
why no arab spring in persian gulf states
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/where-the-arab-spring-faltered-20120126
The five leading pro-democracy activists here—known as the UAE 5—instead languished in prison until the president pardoned them. Although they’ve gathered hundreds of new followers online, nothing suggests their message will bring average Emiratis to the streets. “There’s no critical mass,” said Nasser bin Ghaith, a Western-educated lawyer and one of the leaders of the loosely organized reform movement. He spent nearly eight months in prison for his efforts. “Rational thinking leads people to believe, ‘We have a nice life, a nice job. So, who really cares about the type of government that gives us all of that?’ And it’s very hard to change their minds.”
The UAE 5 point to a lingering mystery about the Arab Spring: Why did it catch on in some countries but not others? Protesters across the region braved state-sponsored violence, even gunfire, to unseat the long-standing rulers of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. At great human cost, opposition forces now seem poised to oust Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, too. But the momentum of the Arab Spring stopped in the Persian Gulf region, where wealthy, unelected rulers seem as entrenched as ever. There are three reasons for the Gulf states’ staying power: Governments here don’t derive their power from fear and brutality; the nations have little history of political activism; and oil wealth allows the regimes to effectively buy popular support. (Even in Bahrain, occasional protests are driven as much by sectarian as by democratic complaints.) Emiratis, Qataris, Saudis, and Omanis may not love their rulers, but few seem to want them gone.
For the record, neither the NPT nor Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, nor any other agreement or treaty, limits the percentage to which Iran, or any other country, may legally enrich uranium.
Practically, of course, eyebrows would get raised if Iran, or any other country, were to enrich uranium to a percentage above what it needs to run some reactor. Energy-producing reactors generally require uranium in the 3-5% range. Iran’s Tehran Research Reactor requires 20% uranium.
Eyebrows might also get raised if Iran enriched uranium only up to the percentages it needed, but enriched a lot more of it to that percentage than it really needs. That is precisely what James argues Iran is doing. I and many others have responded that we don’t see any evidence that Iran is doing that. I’d agree with James if I saw such evidence, but I haven’t.
Kathleen: “What is the level of enrichment of uranium that Iran is legally able to enrich under the NPT?”
According to Wikipedia:
Quote
Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.
Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable);[2][3] some argue that even less is sufficient[citation needed], but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6%235U.[4] For critical experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.[5]
End Quote
I can’t find any indication that there is a specific legal limit specified in the NPT but the above are the generally accepted levels, so presumably when the NPT speaks about a “nuclear weapons program” they are talking about levels in excess of 20%.
Why Demand Nuclear Transparency from Iran and Not Israel?
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7873
Watch the following video where an Indian journalist interviews the Israeli ambassador in India.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3wSwj8D5c&feature=player_embedded#!
In about minute 5 the journalist after pointing to the good relations between India and Iran asks “ were you surprised that Iran will do something like this on Indian soil?”
Here is the Israeli ambassador’s reply:
“I have to say that my personal opinion about this is, the minute the country, group of people or individual crosses the path of ultimate evil which in my eyes is planning to killing of a fellow human being, there are no limits to what such a person or group can do…and it does not really matter if it happens in the Washington as I said [recent Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador] or Buenos Aires or in Delhi or in Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem. This is an international menace and it can be tackled only by us….all of us…not only Indians and Israelis….all of us working together to fight it “
I could see the picture of the ambassador’s mind similar to the Picture of Dorian Gray. It wasn’t a pleasant view.
I guess if you ask him “so you believe the killing of a fellow human being is ultimate evil?” He would say of course since in his mind Palestinians, Iranians or anyone who is Israel’s adversary IS NOT a fellow human being and as we have often heard they are terrorists (or cockroaches).
What an astounding arrogant world view in this age when science strongly rejects the superiority of any race over the others.
I wonder what he would have said when asked “recently US government alleges Israel uses MEK to assassinate Iranian scientists…aren’t they human beings?”. Most probably he would dodge the answer. He might then say”We Israelis are ready to defend ourselves in any way and anywhere we see fit”. Then if asked “in case of any occupation who has more right to defend itself….the occupiers or the other side?”. One can safely wager that he will abort the Interview and angrily walk out of the room.
More interesting is when he says “[Iran] is an international menace”. Doesn’t he believe in Polls? Does he know the majority of people outside Israel and the Western countries believe “Present day Israel is the most dangerous country in the world” (European too, 60% blame Israel for the major problems especially the ones in the ME). Doesn’t he know in those polls Iran is almost in the bottom of the list of the countries who are the ‘threat to the world’?
—-
For the US accusation of “Israel using MEK to assassinate Iranian scientists” read this:
,http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
Is that a historical change of course? Who is getting fed up with terrorist activities of Israel?
Sassan says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm
“Iranians arrested after blasts on a Bangkok street aimed to attack Israeli diplomats, and the devices used were similar to bombs targeting Israelis in India and Georgia this week, according to Thailand’s police chief.”
—————
“French anti-terrorist police raided the place in 2003, securing millions of euros and taking Rajavi and some of her collaborators into custody. Several of Rajavi’s followers set themselves on fire to protest her arrest, confirming official French concerns about the cultish nature of the group.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1569788,00.html#ixzz1mVTl1C5o
—————-
an NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem makes two amazing claims: (1) that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and (2) the Terrorist group “is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.
See ,http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
—————-
Now suddenly we have terrorist attempts at three countries, India, Georgia and Taiwan who happen to have cordial relations with Iran. Yeh, right!
Sheikh Fadlallah: ‘Pride of Lebanon’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/sheikh-fadlallah-pride-of-lebanon/
Richard Steven Hack – Sen. Joe Lieberman is US-Israel dual citizen and an American traitor in every definition. He campaigned for US Goyim soldiers dying in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and now is asking the same thing in Syria, Iran and Pakistan. Many American call Lieberman as the ‘Israeli Viceroy’ of the US.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/lieberman-we-need-more-wars-for-israel/
An interesting legal analysis of the international law relating to the Iran nuclear issue.
Iran, The Nuclear Issue & Countermeasures
http://www.ejiltalk.org/iran-the-nuclear-issue-countermeasures/
Eric, read this over and weigh in from your perspective of the legal issues regarding the referral of the Iran case to the UN. I haven’t read this in detail yet since it’s pretty dense in terms of “legalese”.
Canning makes note of the Truthout piece on the Senator Joe Lieberman bill to block all diplomacy with Iran that might avert an Iran war.
He asks: “Is Joe Lieberman trying to force war with Iran?”
Well, of course. What is amazing even to me is that this is right out in the open – that NO SOLUTION EXCEPT WAR is ACCEPTABLE to the US Senate!
If this doesn’t establish what the ruling elites want, I don’t know what does.
If this bill comes up for a vote, it will be interesting to see the percentage by which it passes – and I’m pretty sure it WILL pass – and also whether Obama will veto it and for what reasons other than “it ties my hands”, which every President usually complains about.
Obama allegedly complained about the Defense bill requiring detention of US citizens suspected of terrorism by the military as “tying his hands” and IIRC he wrote a signing amendment saying he would reserve the right to ignore that, but he didn’t actually veto it. I suspect he won’t veto a bill denying him any ability to negotiate with Iran.
We’re well past negotiations at this point in any event. There will be no more negotiations over the nuclear issue. The next step after the Syria war and the oil export sanctions will be a blockade. There’s really little more left to be done to get the war started.
BiBiJon: “Once again the Arnold shelf-life rule applies.”
I think that’s MY “shelf-life rule”…
I think I was the first one to suggest the Iran crisis has a “shelf life” – but I could be wrong.
I think Arnold believes something similar but he believes the “shelf life” will run out and the US will back down, whereas I believe the opposite – that the US must attack sooner rather than later because there IS a “shelf life” to the crisis.
Eric splits the difference by saying that if Iran unilaterally agrees to the AP, then “somehow” Iran can “wait out” the “shelf life” until the US magically collapses or Iran becomes so strong it can deter the US indefinitely.
Fyi in turn doesn’t believe in a “shelf life” at all. He thinks the Iran-US standoff is a fifty year “Cold War”. (Of course, thirty of those years have already gone by, but, hey…)
Take your pick… I just don’t see any evidence in history that you spend ten years ramping up a war – or even slo-mo regime change as Arnold thinks – just to let it peter out in the end with no results… As I said, no one makes any money from that approach.
Iranians arrested after blasts on a Bangkok street aimed to attack Israeli diplomats, and the devices used were similar to bombs targeting Israelis in India and Georgia this week, according to Thailand’s police chief.
“The suspects targeted Israeli diplomats in Thailand,” Priewphan Damaphong told reporters in Bangkok yesterday, hours after he confirmed that the Bangkok bombs contained magnets designed to attach to vehicles. India’s initial investigations suggest that a magnetic device was attached to an Israeli diplomat’s car on Feb. 13 in New Delhi seconds before it exploded injuring the woman, the city’s police commissioner, B.K. Gupta, has said.
“The type of explosive device is similar to the incident in India,” Priewphan told reporters in Bangkok. The men “were not targeting a place.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/thai-police-say-israeli-diplomats-in-bangkok-targeted-by-iranian-bombers.html
A senior Thai security official said the explosives used in India and Thailand had both used the same “magnetic sheets.”
Humanist: “I think those views do not apply everywhere (are not universal)
and are dark (Kafkaesque!) views that could gain acceptance only in very rough, brutal and violent communities. If you live in a typical Polynesian or Scandinavian society where the crime rate is extremely low then you are bound to believe normal human beings, by nature, are nothing but good.”
It’s a matter of looking at the whole world. Not to mention that some Polynesian and South Pacific societies have been violent. Also Scandinavian societies have been violent in the past.
You can’t judge the world by “local exceptions.” The US is not a “local exception.”
“The above idea is indirectly and conditionally backed up by social sciences that study the effects of our genes and our environments in our behavior. (a long story)”
The bottom line of human behavior is the fear of death. This overrides everything else and is the limiting factor on human relationships. Genes and environment can only mitigate – or aggravate – but not eliminate this factor.
“I think Darwin’s Natural Selection theory can also back that up, since a society where every member is aggressive, dishonest is bound to get extinct while civil societies are destined to thrive.”
Except most societies do not “thrive”. Instead they grow to a point where they become extinct due to one or more of economic collapse, state oppression, war, or in past times things like epidemics. In the meantime, they wax and wane according to lower levels of human conflicts.
It has only been the fact that there has been no “world wide” society that the human race hasn’t pushed itself to extinction. And there still isn’t a “one world” despite the inter-connectivity the world has today – and it’s a good thing there isn’t.
“I don’t think humans are baboon. We can split atoms they never can. If we dream about flying we can build airplanes ..they never can”
The fact that humans have a conceptual consciousness superior to the apes is the only good thing about humans. The problem is that consciousness is too easily overridden by the emotional urges inherited from primates, and is as I’ve said controlled by an overwhelming fear of death.
We Transhumanists believe that only by transcending the current human body and brain can we eliminate the fear of death and establish a consciousness which is at all times rational and thus eliminate human conflict. Fortunately the technology to do this will be invented in this century.
Unfortunately, the process of distributing this technology is likely to be inefficient and unequal, leading to a conflict between the remaining humans and the nascent Transhumans – a conflict humans must by definition lose. I expect this slow motion conflict to begin by 2025 or 2030 and be in full swing by 2050 or perhaps 2075 at the latest.
In short, humanity will not survive past this century except as Transhumans.
James from the article “Something to watch: what New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand does, because she supported Lieberman in December in insisting that no diplomatic effort was acceptable that allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium. So, if I’m Lieberman, Gillibrand is my next Democratic target in the effort to block President Obama from pursuing meaningful diplomacy to prevent war.”
Chris Matthews just played a clip of Senator Gillibrand saying that Iran is not only threatening Israel but threatening the US also.
On the segment “Iran proclaims nuclear advances”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#46403699
James Canning says:
February 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm
“What is your view on Iranian enrichment? Insist on 20 percent, even if it enables the idiot stooges of the Israel Lobby in the US Congress to prevent a deal between the US and Iran?”
My view is that one has to be in a catatonic deep-state of stupor not to realize 20% like everything else these last 32 years is just an excuse. People are not going to start/stop wars over 20%.
Again according to Clapper’s testimony: “Iran has the largest missile force in the mid east, which she is upgrading constanly for longer range and more accuracy. That my friend of Hague’s friend’s friend is the reason nobody in their right mind will start a war with Iran.
James Canning,
“But again, how do you define “independent Iranian power”?”
- That is why I asked you if you meant to direct this question towards fyi. It is a phrase that he uses and not me.
- I believe the US or the Europeans have no intention of bettering relations with Iran and break with their present course of action no matter what Iran does. Now Iran certainly deserves a lot of blame for backing themselves into their present predicament but their isn’t much they can do now to assuage the Western powers. Thus the present confrontation will continue.
From Alastair Crooke’s piece”
Quote
The feeling is one of approaching an abyss, particularly as it is not clear what the true objectives to some of these wars are. That is to say, we all hear their ostensible aims of humanitarian concern, but for most these ring laughably false. Some projects may march in step, some may overlap to some extent but run counter in part, and some may simply have completely opposing ends to what is proclaimed.
End Quote
And this:
Quote
And as no one really is sure what is the true extent of the designs behind these multiple projects, except that – since all have a claim to power and hegemony – suspicion and mistrust inevitably are mushrooming to the point at which tensions can easily spill over, at any point, into localized sectarian violence and then jump the firewall into the geostrategic conflict. This is what is meant by the “abyss”.
End Quote
And this:
Quote
This current ultimately is one of political autocracy, and of imposed civil and Islamic discipline. It is about a hugely wealthy elite staying on top.
End Quote
My. my, someone ELSE talking about “wealthy elites”… Who would have thought? In the end, this IS the motive for all these “projects” he talks about.
And this:
Quote
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in recent comments, has made clear that a direct military attack on Iran does not suit US interests, (or rather does not suit President Barack Obama’s current electoral interests) – at least for now. Any attack at this early stage in the electoral process, simply would be too risky – it would allow too much time – after the television “spectacle” of the first “hit” gives Obama’s ratings a lift – for some horrible, possibly traumatic consequences of military action to play out, not least economically – and much to the president’s electoral disadvantage.
End Quote
EXACTLY! As I said, any issue Obama was with a war on Iran relates to his political situation and to the timing and method by which the war is STARTED – NOT whether the war is desired by him.
“Is Joe Lieberman trying to force war with Iran? To “benefit” Israel (and f*ck the American taxpayers)?”
No doubt
Call, write, email, tweet, facebook, visit, lobby, petition your Reps let them know how you feel on this situation with Iran. It can make a difference
Kathleen,
Twenty percent?
But read Robert Naiman’s piece I just linked.
BiBiJon,
What is your view on Iranian enrichment? Insist on 20 percent, even if it enables the idiot stooges of the Israel Lobby in the US Congress to prevent a deal between the US and Iran?
“James Canning says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:12 pm
R S Hack,
You fingered something peculiar: Arne Gunderson’s statement on CNN that 20 percent uranium was “weapons-grade”. Apparently, 20% is nine-tenths of the way, technically, to 90% (in terms of overcoming problems). But 20% is obviously not 90% and where were the fact checkers?
The Times (London) recently had a piece on US news reporting, focusing on maps of the Middle East used in TV reports. One map, for report on Egypt, had Egypt located where Iraq can be found. A report on Libyan rebels entering Tripoli had a map with Tripoli, Lebanon identified. Etc.”
What is the level of enrichment of uranium that Iran is legally able to enrich under the NPT?
BiBiJon,
Yes, I have read what James Clapper says. Iran has not decided to build nukes.
Robert Naiman has interesting piece:
http://www.truth-out.org/could-lieberman-bill-block-war-averting-diplomacy-iran/1329325016
Is Joe Lieberman trying to force war with Iran? To “benefit” Israel (and f*ck the American taxpayers)?
Warmongering US Senators Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman want to prevent Obama from making any deal with Iran that allows a “nuclear weapons capability”. What does that mean?
Kathleen: “Richard call Reps anyway. They need to know we are out here”
No they don’t. They know and they don’t care because they know there’s nothing we can do to them short of voting them out of office. And as long as there is a TWO party system, that ain’t happening…
James Canning says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm
“I rely heavily on Malcolm Rifkind’s thinking, given that he has access to latest US-UK and other intel on Iran.”
James, if you use google, you might find there’s not much need for Rifkind’s vaunted access to US intel. The ‘intel’ is available.
Here’s what Clapper had to say about Iran’s existing nuclear weapon capability:
“Iran’s technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so.”
From http://intelligence.senate.gov/120131/clapper.pdf
Once again the Arnold shelf-life rule applies. After a few years of Iran having been acknowledged to possess the raw material, and “the scientific, technical and industrial capacity” to produce nuclear weapons, the question arises why then it hasn’t done so?
When Ehud Barak talks about zone of immunity, or the window of opportunity, it is this Arnold shelf-life he is really talking about. Another words, every passing day makes it clearer Iran has no intention of making the bomb.
Save Us from the Liberal Hawks
Syria’s a tragedy. But it’s not our problem.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/13/syria_is_not_our_problem
Quote
What is surprising, though, is that despite the disaster of Iraq, looming withdrawal in what will amount to defeat in Afghanistan, and, to put it charitably, the ambiguous result of the U.N.-sanctioned, NATO-led, and Qatari-financed intervention that brought down Muammar al-Qaddafi’s regime, is how nearly complete the consensus for strong action has been even among less hawkish liberals, whether what is done takes the form of the United States and its NATO allies arming the Free Syrian Army, opening so-called humanitarian corridors, or encouraging Turkey and a coalition of the willing within the Arab League to do so. British columnist Jonathan Freedland summed up this view when he wrote recently in the Guardian that the West must not “make the people of Homs pay the price for the mistake we made in Baghdad.”
End Quote
Not surprising to me – these people are morons…
Quote
Nothing is wrong with intervention, it seems (just as there is nothing wrong with drone strikes), just as long as it is done by good U.N.-loving, multilateralism-oriented Democrats from the coasts, rather than by ignorant, war-worshipping, vulgarly nationalistic Republicans from flyover country.
End Quote
Yup. There’s nothing quite like political party chauvinism and hypocrisy. Just look at Juan Cole for an example.
Quote
Beneath all the incantatory bluster, however, a certain nervousness shows through. To judge by the fevered, angry response of U.S., French, and British officials, it seems as if they genuinely believed the Russians and Chinese would be obliged to truckle before the historic inevitability of the human rights revolution. How else to account for the spectacle of Ambassador Rice storming out of the Security Council chamber in fine, old, Khrushchev-era Soviet style once the vetoes had been cast, or her declaration shortly after that Russia and China had held the council “hostage” (one can only wonder how long until those words are thrown back at her the next time the United States vetoes a Security Council resolution on Israel-Palestine, as it has so often in the past).
Safely out of government, Slaughter was able to go further, demanding that the United States and its allies do something to bring the carnage in Syria to an end. Otherwise, she wrote, R2P would be exposed as a “convenient fiction for power politics or oil politics.” So convinced is she of the positive value of the responsibility to protect as a force for peace and international security that she seems perfectly willing to envisage an end run around that pesky Security Council veto the Russians and the Chinese had the gall to invoke. To be legitimate, she writes, all that would be required from the United Nations would be the “authorization of a majority of the members of the [Security Council],” as an exercise of R2P, “with clear limits to how and against whom force could be used built into the resolution.” Like the iconic U.S. officer in Vietnam who told a reporter that his troops had been obliged to burn the village in order to save it, Slaughter seems to be willing to undermine the structural foundations of international order, which, for better or worse, is based in large measure on the Security Council, in order to further it. Peace is war; war is peace. George Orwell, call your office.
End Quote
Quote
And even if al Qaeda’s role is overstated, the degree to which what is going on today in Syria pits Sunnis against Assad’s Alawite base was underscored by the early January testimony to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by Israeli army chief of staff Benny Gantz, who said the Israel Defense Forces was already making contingency plans to cope with the thousands of Alawites likely to try to flee to Israel should Assad be driven from power.
End Quote
So Israel is fully aware of who and what is behind the Syrian crisis. Take note.
Provocations Against Iran Follow a Rich Tradition
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2012/02/14/provocations-against-iran-follow-a-rich-tradition/
A recap of the main historical events where the US deliberately started most of its wars.
Note: And all of those provocations led to an actual war…
Why Are Some Americans Defending an Iranian Terrorist Group?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/why-are-some-americans-defending-an-iranian-terrorist-group/252973/
R S Hack,
Gareth Porter says Obama needs a deal with Iran. This is true. FYI made that point earlier today.
Clearly, Obama does not want a US war with Iran or an Israeli attack on Iran that drags the US in.
Dennis Ross told Haaretz that the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, achieved by the emir of Qatar (with help from Egypt earlier), was a “problem”, if it is real. Unless Hamas accepts dictates of the Quartet.
Ross should have told the Israelis they cannot keep large parts of the West Bank and expect peace. Years ago.
Obama’s Zig Zag Maneuvers with Israel and Iran
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/15/obamas-zig-zag-maneuvers-with-israel-and-iran/
I disagree with this almost entirely. Porter is usually right on but in this case he’s making the case up out of whole cloth, by “reading Obama’s mind”.
In my view, if Obama has ANY issue at all with Israel starting an Iran war, it is SOLELY over the TIMING of that war and whether or not Israel cooperates closely with the US in terms of how and when that war is started, so that the US and specifically Obama himself is not blamed for starting yet another Middle East war.
Obama, like any other politician under the command of the ruling elites of the US, couldn’t care less about whether the war will “damage US interests” or even turn out to be a “disaster” like Iraq and Afghanistan. Considerations of that sort didn’t stop him from promising in his election campaign to escalate the war in Afghanistan which he then did once elected. And it hasn’t stopped him from ramping up the course for war with Iran despite the fact that virtually everyone concedes that his sanctions policy is not going to work and in fact can only lead to war.
In short, the old conflict between Israel and the Bush/Cheney administration remains under the Obama administration: the US wants Israel to start the war – but on its time table, and Israel wants the US to start the war – but on its timetable. Neither wants the internal political and geopolitical blowback from starting yet another Middle East war, but both are unwilling to back off from the perceived – if not necessarily real – internal political and geopolitical advantages in attacking Iran.
Meanwhile the crisis has a “shelf life”. If the US and the EU cannot pressure Iran to suspend enrichment within a few more years while Iran continues to do nothing to produce nuclear weapons, NO ONE will believe the accusations against Iran and the end result will be that the sanctions themselves will be eroded until they are irrelevant.
And this means that the US, EU and Israel will have failed miserably – a state they are not prepared to bow to. Therefore there is no choice except to go to war. It is clear that the US ruling elites have already come to that conclusion, which is why the US and EU continue to ramp up their military deployment in the region.
Nasser,
I of course agree Iran should do its best to cooperate with Russia.
Nasser,
But again, how do you define “independent Iranian power”?
Nasser,
Thanks for answering. Britain most definitely wanted an improvement in relations with Iran, after the current government came into power. Flawed execution? Possibly. Vociferous objections from ISRAEL LOBBY in the US? Absolutely.
Dennis Ross last week received an award from powerful Jewish lobby group ADL. For his “leading role in shaping the US involvement in the Middle East peace process.” Some of us think Ross has hurt the process badly.
Ross is certain Bashar al-Assad will be overthrown. That prediction might bode well for the Syrian government, given how often Ross is wrong.
A blood-red smog over Syria
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB15Ak05.html
Quotes
Much of the opposition’s strategy is apparently predicated on the calculation that a foreign intervention would mute the regime’s heavy weapons and take out its command and control structures (the Libyan example immediately comes to mind). On February 4, following the vote at the Security Council, the rebels were forced to confront the reality that such an intervention was more distant than they had hoped; they also faced a renewed and unrelenting army offensive. Signs that some of them may be switching to desperate tactics quickly emerged.
On Friday, for example, two bombs at “security facilities” in the key northern city of Aleppo claimed the lives of at least 28 people and wounded “hundreds more”. The American think-tank Stratfor estimates that “Despite its denial, the FSA [Free Syrian Army] or one of its offshoots most likely conducted the strikes and has denied responsibility in order to avoid being tainted by accusations of terrorism that could alienate potential foreign backers”.
The report argues, “The FSA’s motivation in launching such attacks is not only to inflict damage on government installations and personnel in retaliation for the security forces’ attacks on the opposition movement, but also to elicit a harsher crackdown from the Syrian regime. A brutal crackdown would likely attract even greater international attention and cause a humanitarian crisis, which could prompt foreign military intervention – an FSA goal since its inception.” [1]
In the past, such deplorable tactics have been used by guerrilla groups the world over. Rebel claims that the regime is using chemical weapons against civilians [2] likely serve a similar purpose.
Not only are the big-weights Russia, China and the US facing each other, but so are all the regional players (Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the helm of the Arab League, Iran, Turkey and Hezbollah deserve a special mention). Even on the lowest levels, a war economy based on smuggling and black-market profiteering networks stretching thousands of miles has quickly taken root.
The balance is such that barring major developments on the ground, an intervention is not imminent. After all, the Syrian regime has bought billions of dollars worth of anti-aircraft weapons in the past couple of years, and has stockpiled thousands of missiles, some tipped with chemical weapons.
Neither, however, do its enemies appear ready to back off. In 10 days, on February 24, a “Friends of Syria” group is scheduled to meet in Tunisia.
End Quotes
James Canning,
“What do you mean about “independent Iranian power”? The Bitish government made clear nearly two years ago it welcomed a prosperous, strong Iran taking a prominent role in the region.”
- Did you mean to direct this question towards me or fyi? Anyway I regard the British government as hostile to Iran. Period. I am glad Iran cut her ties with her; though I did not approve in the manner it was carried out.
- As to Russia treating Iran like a bargaining chip; the most obvious example would be Russian refusal to fulfill (S-300) or delay (Bushehr) her contractual obligations to Iran in order to extract concessions from the West. This has not been lost on Iranian leaders it seems and their suspicions of Russia thus runs deep. I should make clear however that I believe Iran must do all it can to maintain positive and cordial ties to Russia and cooperate whenever possible.
By Arshin Adib-Moghaddam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/15/iran-israeli-diplomats-attacks
Iran seems an unlikely culprit for the attacks on Israeli diplomats
Tehran has good relations with Thailand, India and Georgia. Why would it endanger that by planting bombs there?
Pepe Escobar on Why Bahrain is not Syria
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB15Ak01.html
Quote
Just like Tunisia and Egypt – and unlike Libya and Syria – the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain was indigenous, legitimate, non-violent and uncontaminated by Western or Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) infiltration.
The response was a major crackdown plus a Saudi Arabian invasion over the causeway to Manama. That was the tacit result of a deal struck between the House of Saud and Washington; we give you an Arab resolution allowing you to go to the UN and then launch the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s humanitarian bombing on Libya, you leave us alone to smash this Arab Spring nonsense (see Exposed: the US-Saudi Libya deal Asia Times Online, April 2, 2011.)
The Obama administration took no time to preempt the “celebration” of Bahrain’s crushed democracy push by dispatching a State Department honcho to Bahrain.
As reported by the Gulf Daily News, the so-called “Voice of Bahrain” (more like the voice of the al-Khalifas), US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman widely praised King Hamad’s steps to “diffuse tensions” – such as “the release of political prisoners, a partial cabinet reshuffle and the withdrawal of security forces”.
Feltman’s briefers must have been catatonic, because political prisoners remain in jail, the cabinet reshuffle is cosmetic and security forces are in overdrive repression mode.
Feltman said Washington stressed “national dialogue”, “made-in-Bahrain” solutions, and no foreign states “interfering in the process”. Should Bahrainis follow the NATOGCC model as applied to Syria?
End Quote
fyi,
“Jet Engines are one item of technology that Russians are exporting to Iran.”
- The only jet engines I have seen Iran make is the reverse engineered MircroTurbo TRI 60s which Iran calls Tolou 4/5. I have very good reason to believe it was China and not Russia that transferred this technology to Iran. They need it to power their anti ship missiles, cruise missiles and their UAVs.
- Also Ukraine is probably allowing Iran to license build TV 3 engines for the AN 140 planes. I am not aware of any such technology transfers from Russia.
Brett,
Obviously I am aware the current US position is “no enrichment” by Iran. But China and Russia would allow 5% enrichment. This would be a middle-ground. Since Ahmadinejad already offered to stop enriching to 20 percent, it seems feasible an agreement could be reached allowing the 5% but not the 20%. As a compromise.
China and Russia do not suffer from the ISRAEL LOBBY brain tumour, which afflicts the US body politic. I think Russia and China could have come to agreement with Iran years ago.
R S Hack,
I think the UK did a fairly good job of forcing Tony Blair & Co to account for their disastrous decision to back the US in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Iran is being punished by the world, and threatened with mass destruction, because Iran supports the rights of people like Susan Abulhawa
A Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) conference was held at University of Pennsylvania last weekend. Ms. Abulhawa opened the conference with this speech.
The Jewish community mounted massive resistance to the conference; major donors to University of Pennsylvania threatened to withdraw their support.
Other Jewish groups furious with the presence of the BDS conference on an American college campus prepared posters comparing the BDS campaign to Kristallnacht and depicting the 2 days of German rage vented against Jewish businesses. The posters did not mention that five years prior to Kristallnacht, Jewish groups had organized worldwide to boycott Germany into economic destruction, and that the boycott had endured for 5 years before Germans reacted with what is called Kristallnacht. Nor did the posters prepared by Jewish organizations outraged that Palestinians and Americans are organizing to fight back against 60 years of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people mention that the immediate provocation for Kristallnacht was the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris by a Polish Jew.
About the fact that Kristallnacht occurred on THAT date, the website of the US (taxpayer funded) Holocaust Museum states:
“Vom Rath died on November 9, 1938, two days after the shooting. The day happened to coincide with the anniversary of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, an important date in the National Socialist calendar. The Nazi Party leadership, assembled in Munich for the commemoration, chose to use the occasion as a pretext to launch a night of antisemitic excesses. Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, a chief instigator of the pogrom, intimated to the convened Nazi ‘Old Guard’ that ‘World Jewry’ had conspired to commit the assassination and announced that, “the Führer has decided that … demonstrations should not be prepared or organized by the Party, but insofar as they erupt spontaneously, they are not to be hampered.”
United States congressmen have been signalling to their constituents since at least 2007 that the aim of US legislation imposing sanctions on Iran is to provoke the Iranian people to riot and overturn their government.
Tehran takes issue with Azerbaijan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB15Ak04.html
Quote
Strategically, then, in addition to threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s other retaliatory measure consist of sowing the seeds of instability in the South Caucasus-South Caspian region, two major routes of energy pipelines to Europe.
Tehran could achieve this relatively easily by engaging in counter-covert operation activities that are tantamount to tit-for-tats against Israeli and Western interests in the broader region, given the widening net of tensions between the two sides. This signals that countries such as Azerbaijan are caught in the fallout of a new cold war. (See Azerbaijan at crosswinds of a new cold war Asia Times Online, September 9, 2008.)
For now, however, with Iran’s Asian energy partners giving the cold shoulder to US-European efforts to impose a total energy ban on Iran, Tehran does not feel sufficiently threatened to resort to such drastic counter-measures that would translate into growing tensions with some of its neighbors.
End Quote
R S Hack,
You fingered something peculiar: Arne Gunderson’s statement on CNN that 20 percent uranium was “weapons-grade”. Apparently, 20% is nine-tenths of the way, technically, to 90% (in terms of overcoming problems). But 20% is obviously not 90% and where were the fact checkers?
The Times (London) recently had a piece on US news reporting, focusing on maps of the Middle East used in TV reports. One map, for report on Egypt, had Egypt located where Iraq can be found. A report on Libyan rebels entering Tripoli had a map with Tripoli, Lebanon identified. Etc.
AMERICAN DECLINE IN PERSPECTIVE, Part 1
‘Losing’ the world
By Noam Chomsky
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB16Ak02.html
Quotes
There are important lessons in all this for today, even apart from another reminder that only the weak and defeated are called to account for their crimes. One lesson is that to understand what is happening we should attend not only to critical events of the real world, often dismissed from history, but also to what leaders and elite opinion believe, however tinged with fantasy.
{MY NOTE: EXACTLY! It’s not what YOU believe, but what THEY believe! – RSH]
Another lesson is that alongside the flights of fancy concocted to terrify and mobilize the public (and perhaps believed by some who are trapped in their own rhetoric), there is also geostrategic planning based on principles that are rational and stable over long periods because they are rooted in stable institutions and their concerns. That is true in the case of Vietnam as well. I will return to that, only stressing here that the persistent factors in state action are generally well concealed.
[MY NOTE: Right again! They have "rational" goals of greed and power. - RSH]
American decline is real, though the apocalyptic vision reflects the familiar ruling class perception that anything short of total control amounts to total disaster. Despite the piteous laments, the US remains the world dominant power by a large margin, and no competitor is in sight, not only in the military dimension, in which of course the US reigns supreme.
[MY NOTE: Agreed. Iran certainly is not a "competitor" even if it wins the Iran war as I expect it will - in time. But Chomsky is even talking about China...- RSH]
The most important victory of the Indochina wars was in 1965, when a US-backed military coup in Indonesia led by General Suharto carried out massive crimes that were compared by the Central Intelligence Agency to those of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. The “staggering mass slaughter”, as the New York Times described it, was reported accurately across the mainstream, and with unrestrained euphoria.
It was “a gleam of light in Asia”, as the noted liberal commentator James Reston wrote in the Times. The coup ended the threat of democracy by demolishing the mass-based political party of the poor, established a dictatorship that went on to compile one of the worst human rights records in the world, and threw the riches of the country open to Western investors. Small wonder that, after many other horrors, including the near-genocidal invasion of East Timor, Suharto was welcomed by the Bill Clinton administration in 1995 as “our kind of guy”.
{MY NOTE: Another example of the DEEP, DEEP corruption of the United States, which few people seem to understand. – RSH]
End Quotes
BiBiJon,
I rely heavily on Malcolm Rifkind’s thinking, given that he has access to latest US-UK and other intel on Iran. Iran is not building nukes or getting ready to build nukes.
Should a psycopath like Saddam Hussein gain power, and nukes, in Iran’s immediate locale, Iran might want nukes.
US wants to get rid of Israel’s nukes. So does the UK. But this means resolving Israel/Palestine problem.
India’s dilemma: How to pay for Iranian oil
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NB15Df02.html
Rd.,
Mark Fitzpatrick of the IISS, quoted in the Daily Telegraph story you linked (from Feb. 15th), was stressing there were no military implications from Iran’s announcement. This is a good thing, surely.
Iran activates 3,000 new centrifuges
“Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Tehran has added 3,000 new generation centrifuges to its Natanz facility, increasing the production of 3.5 percent enriched uranium by 50 percent.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/226824.html
Rd.,
Malcolm Rifkind, a British MP with access to latest UK and US intel on Iran, says it appears Iran wants to be “nuclear-ready”. That piece from 2010 you linked ties into this thinking, in a sense.
Rd.,
I have been expecting success in Iran’s programme to build the fuel plates for the TRR. There is a substantial technical challenge posed, however.
kooshy,
Is it not correct to say the Iranian oil minister opposes cutting off oil sales to European countries?
Voice of Tehran,
On Feb. 15th the Iranian oil ministry denied reports that it had embargoed oil exports to a number of European countries. Has that changed?
Has anyone commented on this by Patrick Seale?
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=50642
“While the Arab world struggles to reshape its future out of the fires and blood-letting of revolution, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a haven of stability, continues to pursue its goals of growth, modernity and social transformation with great resolve and singleness of purpose.”
Link to Iran’s news of new agreement with china on export of Iranian oil
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/227075/جزئیات-توافق-جدید-نفتی-ایرانچین
kooshy says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:31 pm
“With regard to oil embargo on six European countries
It maybe that the UK was not included because of our own 20% Gav.”
Gav 20 % , please what will you do now without our oil and gas please , please Sahib don’t be harsh on us.
Richard
I disagree with you on “While I do know that experiences change people, I suspect that great money, like great power, only ENABLES people to be the psychopaths they always were……”
And I disagree in much stronger ways with Timothy Leary’s “If the average American were elected President, he’d govern the country pretty much like Idi Amin……”
I think those views do not apply everywhere (are not universal) and are dark (Kafkaesque!) views that could gain acceptance only in very rough, brutal and violent communities. If you live in a typical Polynesian or Scandinavian society where the crime rate is extremely low then you are bound to believe normal human beings, by nature, are nothing but good.
The above idea is indirectly and conditionally backed up by social sciences that study the effects of our genes and our environments in our behavior. (a long story)
I think Darwin’s Natural Selection theory can also back that up, since a society where every member is aggressive, dishonest is bound to get extinct while civil societies are destined to thrive.
(If interested refer to famous Prisoner’s Dilemma game which, in an implied way, shows honesty pays back more than deception.)
–
and..
I don’t think humans are baboon. We can split atoms they never can. If we dream about flying we can build airplanes ..they never can
We are (exactly) like them when we fight with each other or we stage tribal wars (this is also a long story)
–
I do not know anything about Transhumanism. I am going to study it. I hope it doesn’t advocate violent radicalism since that, in any possible form or shape, is not my cup of tea.
With regard to oil embargo on six European countries
Iranian news agencies (Fars, Mehr , PressTV) are reporting that contrary to western news agencies reports there was no ultimatum given, the European diplomats were simply told that their countries will no longer receive any Iranian oil. The six countries are France, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal.
It maybe that the UK was not included because of our own 20% Gav.
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13901126001710
A related news is, that Iran renegotiated and renewed its oil contracts with china this past weekend, according to new the new contracts china’s oil import from Iran will increase.
From Press TV
“In response to the latest sanctions imposed by the EU against Iran’s energy and banking sectors, the Islamic Republic says it is cutting oil exports to six European countries.
Iran on Wednesday said it’s cutting oil exports to six European countries including Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Portugal.”
“Iran says it will only sell oil to those European companies that agree to strike long-term agreements and guarantee payment.”
Wow , that was fast…
http://www.presstv.com/detail/226827.html
The price of oil in global markets hits a six-month high of nearly USD 120 a barrel as Iran says is cutting oil exports to six European countries.
On Wednesday Iran warned six European states, including the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Portugal, that it is cutting oil exports unless long term deals are made and payments by EU states are guaranteed.
Brent crude was up USD 1.83 reaching USD119.18 a barrel on Wednesday, the highest price since August 1. This is while US crude climbed by USD1.28 to reach USD102.02.
After on January 23 EU announced plans to impose a ban on purchasing oil from Iran, Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi said on February 8 that Tehran has decided to halt crude exports to some European states.
kooshy says:
Does anyone remember the western analysts who claimed that Iran is incapable of producing the fuel plates
here is one;
“Salehi claims in today’s statement that Iran is “now producing fuel plates.” This is likely an exaggeration of Iran’s capabilities. “
http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/has-iran-initiated-a-slow-motion-breakout-to-a-nuclear-weapon/
ISIS Reports
Has Iran initiated a slow motion breakout to a nuclear weapon?
by David Albright, Paul Brannan, and Andrea Stricker
July 12, 2010
So it is a claim, when there is progress in the nuclear program, but it is foregone conclusion when it comes to bomb making innuendo !!!!!
So James, whats wrong with the Brits and their thinking?? Is driving on the wrong side of the road have a negative impact on the brain waves??
“Iran claiming a big expansion of its ability to enrich uranium. “
“I’m sceptical that they’re leapfrogging on to the next generation,” added Mr Fitzpatrick. “We shouldn’t be too impressed by this. We shouldn’t start to build bomb shelters yet.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9084885/Iran-retaliates-over-international-pressure-with-threat-to-stop-selling-oil-to-the-EU.html
James Canning says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“Have you not noticed today that FYI seems to be arguing Iran should build nukes?”
James, fyi, and many influential Iranians can have various opinions. However, Iran’s government makes independent sovereign decisions, having considered all those opinions.
Some decisions are long-term. Iran’s foray into full-cycle nuclear energy which also creates a ‘nuclear weapon capability’ is one of those long-term decisions.
I think this decision is informed by many many things.
a) Iran’s domestic need for energy burns up an increasing amount of a commodity that can be sold for hard currency.
b) Iran has been in the business of exporting energy for a hundred years. To connect to neighboring countries’ electrical grids and sell them cheaply produced electricity is a natural out-growth of Iran’s natural export market.
c) A nuclear weapon capacity is regarded as strategically important. No one knows what the world might look like in the future. E.g. US has already winked and nodded at Israeli/Indian nukes. Just imagine a future Saddam Hussein becomes a US’ “our kind of guy” and also gets the wink and the nod.
d) The world as it is today, presents no upside to Iran possessing nuclear weapons, hence Iran’s entirely believable contention that they are not after the bomb.
e) These types of decisions are not something that Iran makes lightly, nor is she likely to abandon a path that made perfect sense yesterday, because of foreseen outside attempts at coercion today. The plan, I assume was the Arnold Evan’s rule:
all fear-mongering has a limited shelf life. E.g. when Iran first reached the threshold of enough LEU to make ONE bomb, Helen Cooper of NYTIMES was besides herself with the fear-mongering. But, now years, and many more tons of LEU after that initial ’scary’ event Coopers of this world have to look elsewhere for something scary; Same thing with how many cascades; Same thing with Bushehr power plant going online; Same with how many cascades are operating; Same with whether an enrichment site is bomb-proof, etc. Any of these milestones at first are milked for all their potential scariness, but ultimately, years later, the Arnold rule makes them unmarketable — the sell-by-date has expired.
Eventually, Iran’s adversaries realize Iran was playing chess. In response they up the ante. Wage full-on economic war. That too was foreseen, and Iran had an answer ready: exchange of queens — Hormuz.
That last card concentrates the minds, and forces India, China and Russia to cantilate the same hymn: No WWIII; No sudden oil shock. That is the stage we are at. Both US and Iran are likely to get back at playing chess having tried their hand at poker.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 15, 2012 at 3:54 pm
No, the Iranian’s aim here is to break the financial sanctions of Europe on oil transactions.
If EU states cannot guarantee payment to Iran in a 2-year period, Iranians will cut the oil flow.
Considering today’s news that Iran has loaded Iranian produce fuel plates for the TRR
Does anyone remember the western analysts who claimed that Iran is incapable of producing the fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor and only France and Argentina can make the fuel plates, If you do, please post the names and related articles, I remember at the time the WH spokesman made that claim as well as David Albright . I think is a good time to expose some of this people for their proven wrong analysis.
Iran Issues Threat to Oil Buyers in Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/europe/iran-says-it-will-cut-oil-supplies-to-6-european-nations.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
It’s another “we’re going to do it but we haven’t done it YET” report…
Obviously Iran would prefer to get another six months of revenue even if they would like to punish the EU for the oil export sanctions…
If I were Iran, I’d forego the revenue and smack the EU where it lives: in the pocketbook by forcing them to buy their immediate oil on the spot market where the price will be much higher than the long-term contract price. If the EU wants to cut off Iran’s revenue, Iran should force the EU to expend more than they can afford to pay given their economic condition. Especially when the sanctions take effect, the EU will still pay more.
Want to know how much the Pentagon lies about Afghanistan?
Army Whistleblower Lt. Col. Daniel Davis Says Pentagon Deceiving Public on Afghan War
:http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/army_whistleblower_lt_col_daniel_davis
The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to Read
:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-afghanistan-report-the-pentagon-doesnt-want-you-to-read-20120210
Get Davis’ report here:
:http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf
The lesson here: When a (serving) Pentagon general opens his mouth, he’s lying. Retired generals may or may not be lying… Career is all they care about – and their post-career pension and cushy job at some military-industrial complex board room.
Brett says: February 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The UNSC sanctions are prohibiting the development of missiles in Iran, enrichment in Iran, and the construction of heavy water reactors in Iran.
In this regard, UNSC has arrogated to itself the scope and pace of the technical development in Iran of nuclear and space science.
They have attempted to take sovereign rights from another state without going to war.
Even if they relent on enrichment, what about missile and heavy water developments?
They have made a fine kettle of fish, haven’t they?
[Always predicated on quick Iranian surrender.]
Tony Karon in Time on How to Interpret Iran’s New Nuclear Advances
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/15/how-to-interpret-irans-new-nuclear-advances/
While Karon is technically correct, you can see that he really isn’t “allowed” to question the Iran situation as much as he might like. It simply isn’t “allowed” in the MSM to question the official story about anything. At least he puts in the proper disclaimers that the NIEs show that Iran is not making a bomb and has not decided to do so.
Even this latter part is disingenuous since Iran has repeatedly stated it has no desire to make nuclear weapons at all. That should be added to those disclaimers in all cases. More importantly (since I don’t trust ANY government’s statements either) it should be added that the geopolitical and strategic logic of Iran’s position clearly shows 1) they have no need for nuclear weapons, 2) they could not use them if they had them, and 3) nuclear weapons would be a negative value for their geopolitical influence goals.
fyi says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Iran is a de facto nuclear-weapons state; like Brazil, Argentina, Germany, and Japan.”
“Attempts to undo that status will lead to World War III.”
fyi-
I very much agree with your position except the WWIII part, which I simply think it wouldn’t get that far, I rather think in case a war is imposed on Iran by the west, with their direct involvement, Iran will try to prolong the war for a few months, after a few months she will leave the NPT will build and TEST a nuclear device, very much same scenario exist for any number of nuclear ready countries. That alone will change everyone’s position, and will reduce the chance for others to become directly involved, It’s not clear if the western strategist would want to go with another NK like scenario in the more important and central part of the globe where Asia gets connected to the Europe and Africa, and 70% of world oil has to be produced and pass through this area.
Forgot the link to the article:
First Iranian-made fuel rods loaded in Tehran reactor
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/15/world/meast/iran-nuclear-rods/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_world
Here is a perfect example of how the MSM distorts perfectly well known facts to ratchet up fear of Iran’s nuclear program.
In an article on CNN about Iran’s new nuclear fuel plates, this statement is made:
Quote
“I am not so worried about the fuel issue but I am worried about the advanced centrifuges,” said Arne Gundersen, chief energy adviser with the nuclear consulting group Fairewindes Associates.
“If they are better, (Iran) can make enriched uranium faster,” he said.
Nuclear power plants use uranium that is enriched to 5%, Gundersen said. Making a nuclear bomb requires uranium to be enriched 20% or more, he said.
End Quote
As we all know, weapons enrichment is in excess of NINETY PERCENT. This statement from this idiot suggests that Iran’s enrichment to 20% is sufficient to make a nuclear weapon. This is a deliberate lie. Even CNN’s notoriously poor fact checking could not possibly have missed that statement.
Technically the statement is correct in that ninety percent is “more” than twenty percent. But twenty percent is NOT sufficient for making nuclear weapons and thus the statement is totally wrong AS STATED.
There is no way CNN could have missed that. It was a DELIBERATE distortion.
This is why we can never reverse the brainwashing of the US electorate on the Iran nuclear program – because the MSM will always be able to distort and spin the facts. As long as the bulk of the electorate gets their news from this sort of biased source, any “counter-propaganda” is dead in the water.
A senior Thai security official said the explosives used in India and Thailand had both used the same “magnetic sheets.”
Speaking of deception and false flag. This is quite absurd.
Jewish man arrested ‘after posting swastikas on doors’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/9019394/Jewish-man-arrested-after-posting-swastikas-on-doors.html
Such incidents have happend many times, I cant remember seeing christians or muslims have done the same thing. Why would anyone do such a thing?
james canning, I am not talking about ‘now’. I am talking about that Russia and China wouldnt imposed sanctions if it wasnt for the US pressure to do so.
Why would US accept 3,5-5 enrichment? Thats the level Iran was sanctioned for by the UN. Didnt you know that US wont accept any enrichment by Iran?
re Eric Brill’s comment at 11:27 am Feb 15
The contrast between Jon Davies and Peter Jenkins was striking in their discussion of Diplomatic Approaches to Iran.
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ru681-R740
Further contrast is seen in remarks by Danny Ayalon, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., also in a Chatham House forum on Jan 19, 2012 :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rsgky0ZjiQ
Both Davies and Ayalon hate Iran but for different reasons. Both Davies and Ayalon have their hands on levers of vast power, but are too ignorant (Davies) and too rage-driven (Ayalon) to handle their power wisely.
Jenkins is more knowledgeable than Davies and less ideologically blinded than Ayalon; he is the man in the middle who alone can understand the innocent lives that will be harmed by the ignorance and hate of Davies and Ayalon, but is least powerful to effect any change; in the Q and A session after his talk, Jenkins said, “Oh, mine is just an intellectual exercise; it will never happen, I’m afraid.”
These two items offer a broad outline of the differentiation between Davies’ and Ayalon’s hatred:
In this Timeline of the History of Jerusalem, an organization that approaches Jerusalem from what appears to be an evangelical Christian perspective attached this note to the date 614 AD: ( ;http://www.centuryone.com/hstjrslm.html)
“Persian conquest of Jerusalem — They destroy most [Christian] churches
and expel Jews”
It is not unlikely that Ayalon would endorse the implication that “Persians . . .destroyed Christian churches and expel[led] Jews (emphasis supplied). After all, it certainly casts Iran in a bad light, as the doer of evil deeds and the persecutor of Jewish people.
Both Peter Jenkins AND Danny Ayalon may be aware of the historical facts set forth in this document: The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638CE (pdf) by Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz, DRAFT COPY copyrighted 2004 by Andrew Phillips and Joseph Katz, All Rights Reserved.
My impression of Jenkins persuades me that the history of relations among Persians and Babylonian Jews; Persians and Babylonian Jews and Rome; Persians and Babylonian Jews and Rome and Jews in the Roman empire; and Persians, Babylonian Jews, Rome, Jews in the Roman Empire before AND after the Roman defeat of the Jewish uprising in 62-70 CE AND Muslims and Christian and Jewish converts to Islam — (whew) — creates in his mind an appreciation of the breadth and depth of the interrelationships between Jews and non-Jews in that world, and well as the intensity of the conflict between one cohort of Jews and another.
Davies, on the other hand, is in that category that I call “simplistificator.” He’s like the boy child in the movie Stepmom: while horseriding with his ‘real’ Mom, Susan Sarandon bitterly critizes Stepmom Julie Roberts. In an obvious (to my mind) bid to please his Mother, the boy says, “I’ll hate her if you want me to.” Davies is only too eager to hate Iran, facts and complexity be damned, because hating Iran provides security for him.
Ayalon’s hatred is of another category entirely. It encompasses a profound identity crisis that burdens Jews; Gil Eyal probes this identity crisis in “The Disenchantment of the Orient: Expertise in Arab Affairs and the Israeli State.” The essence of that crisis is contained in this nugget:
“At the end of every Hebrew sentence that you utter,
There sits an Arab, smoking his hookah,
Even if it begun in Siberia,
Or in Hollywood, with Hava Nagilah.
-Me’ir Ariel
The zionist project in the Levant presumes to ‘return’ to the land of Canaan the children of Abraham– he who fled his homeland in Ur — from their dispersed states in Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, and France, and to re-create in the Levant the high culture of Germany which Jews participated in after French emancipation brought them in contact with the fruits of Italian and English Enlightenment, and to bring that Western high culture, which Jews somehow now uniquely represent, to the benighted and backward people of the Middle East; that is, those Persians and Arabs who first shared their cultures, treasure, and blood with Jews beginning over 2500 years ago. That is, how does a Jewish shoemaker’s son from Lithuania reconcile to his Persian and Arab forebears? This is one element of the Jewish-Arab-Iranian crisis.
Another element is blatantly political; in fact, it has been a political conflict from the very beginning, as Esther made painfully clear when she demanded — and achieved — that Ahasueras slaughter his prime minister, his ten sons, and 75,000 of his Persian countrymen in favor of a Jewess and her kin. From the very beginning, Jewish groups — like all other human groups in history — have contended for dominance of the states in which they have dwelt.
That zionism is almost uniquely incapable of acknowledging its unquenchable thirst for power is suggested by several facts:
1. The paper linked above reveals quite plainly and with extensive footnotes (269 footnotes for a 47 page paper) that Jews interacted with Persians, Arabs, Muslims, and Romans, at the highest levels, over several centuries, including most especially during the time of Jesus, when Herod was king of Jerusalem. But in her discussion of “the Herodians,” Amy Jill Levine mentions the Parthian empire and dismisses it as “another one of those groups that was around.”
2. In his history of Jews between the time of Alexander and the rise of Islam, David Ruderman says there are no records of Jewish life and culture for the seventh century, so scholars are forced to retroject from Jewish writing of the ninth century to discern patterns of Jewish-Muslim relations at the time of contact between Mohammed and Jews, i.e. in Qaerash.
Perhaps Ruderman will be delighted to learn of the sources that Abrahamson and Katz have discovered and will share the information with Amy Jill Levine. Me, I’m more cynical; I think their omissions are deliberate. I think Danny Ayalon’s hatred of all things Iranian is akin to that of the defendant who knows there is an eyewitness abroad who knows the truth of the defendant’s crime and must be silenced.
But, ta da folks, here it is: Abrahamson and Katz have written down the testimony and secured it a safe deposit box:
“The vast majority of Rabbis have opposed any attempts of building the Temple. During the
messianic claims of David Alroy (1160 C.E.), the Jewish Exilarch and the Rabbinic academies
were expected by the authorities [to] suppress and control any attempts at nationalism8. It is
probable that this was the expected role of the Exilarch and the rabbinic academies throughout
the entire period of Islamic rule.
In spite of numerous attempts spanning five hundred years to attempt reconstruction of the
Jewish Temple, in the centuries following the Islamic conquest and the construction of the Qubbat
Al-Sakhrah, Dome of the Rock in 692 C.E., there has been no further serious attempt on the part
of Jewish leadership. Any attempt during the Islamic conquest and immediately thereafter to
share the Temple mount is not mentioned in Rabbinic literature, and literature that hints at
nationalistic restoration has been censured by leading Rabbinical figures. For example Ibn Ezra
writes of Sefer Zerubabel that “[these books] were not compiled by prophets or sages, and that
they contained ideas which run counter to an appropriate understanding of Torah.”9
To gain insight as to why Rabbinic Judaism has adopted this counter-intuitive view, one must look
closely at the two conquests of Jerusalem. The first conquest was in 614 CE by the Persians
with the assistance of up to 20,000 Jewish soldiers. The second was in 638 CE by Islamic forces
under the command of Khalif ‘Umar, with an unknown amount of Jewish aid. These events were
separated by only twenty-four years, and many of the factors that affected the first conquest were
present during the second conquest. As will be explained below, the common thread throughout
both of them was the nationalistic ambitions of the Jewish Exilarch, the secular leader of world
Jewry.
Amy Jill Levine, like Scofield before her and like Danny Ayalon and the entire zionist host, continue that secular Jewish ambition, in conflict with the religious tradition upon which they rely for legitimacy, and at the very high cost of the numerous states, from Persia to Germany to Palestine to Syria to Persia again and, before long, the United States.
Peter Jenkins knows it doesn’t have to be that way.
Abrahamson & Katz conclude their research with these words:
“With Shabbatai Zvi, great hope was followed by deep disappointment, leading to a censoring and
an attempt to forget events. This appears to be what happened with Nehemiah ben Hushiel and
his hopeful conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE that ended in tragedy. Almost all record has been
destroyed or has been censured by the Rabbis. On the one hand this non-political position has
allowed the Rabbinic Jews to flourish among their enemies without being perceived as a threat,
unlike the Khawarij. On the other hand it has led to a history of Islam that appears to stand
isolated, unrelated to outside events, incomprehensible and seemingly contradictory.
The flight of Hussein to Babylon, and his assassination along with his whole family at Kerbala,
was not just a tragedy for the Shiites. It was a tragedy for the Jews and Judeo-Islamic relations
as well.
For Muslims, we must recognize the debt to the many brave converts from Judaism who fought
valiantly, and gave their lives for the cause of the Prophet. It was not just a few Jews (and Judaic
peoples) who declared their wholehearted submission to the Prophet. Perhaps at least some of
the current antagonism of Islam towards Judaism can be seen as misplaced. Surely, Judaism is
not the “enemy” of Islam.268 Perhaps given the context of the wars between the Rome and the
Jews from Hadrian to Heraclius, Jihad can be seen in its original light.
For Jews, we must recognize that Rabbinic Judaism exists today, and flourishes in the study of
the Talmudic writings, largely because of the Islamic Caliphate. If Heraclius had succeeded in
conquering Persia, it could have been that all the Jews of world would be converted or
slaughtered in “one hundred and twenty years.”269 Also, at a time when the Judaic nation was
getting swept away in prophetic and Messianic furvor, Islam chose Rabbinic Judaism to lead a
way out of the confusion.
It is possible that the future of Islamic-Jewish [and Iranian] relations, may be with our past.
Sakineh,
Chomsky should say that the US supports “democracy” if that support works to benefit Israel. Hamas won the Palestinian election? Response of neocons warmongers was to conspire with Israel to overthrow Hamas in Gaza.
Brett,
You may recall that Russia tried to avoid war in 1990-91, by telling Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait. Saddam, through false pride, failed to get the job done and got his army blown to pieces.
Russia tried to get Saddam to act intelligently in 2002-03, to avoid war. Saddam blundered yet again, and brought catastrophe to himself, his family and his country.
Chomsky spouts NWFZ-ME as if it’s a reality, but the article is worth a read.
Quote
The regime is doubtless a serious threat to much of its own population — and regrettably, is hardly unique on that score. But the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well. Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilizing” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world. [emphasis mine]
End Quote
http://www.truth-out.org/noam-chomsky-imperial-way/1329329076
Brett,
China prefers not to take a high profile in political disputes in the Middle East. But China made it very clear it does not want Iran to build nukes.
ISRAEL LOBBY perverts and distorts US policy toward Iran. China knows this.
“Short-sighted West eyes Syria on the brink”:
http://rt.com/news/syria-conflict-assad-un-351/
Sensible criticism.
James canning, yes right now Russia and China playing along but as my post made clear. The Iran-issue wouldnt be a issue if it wasnt for the US+Israel pressure. China just paying lipservice to the US, also Russia but to a lesser extent.
b,
Do you think Ahmadinejad acted wisely last September when he offered to have Iran stop enriching U to 20%?
fyi,
You will recall that Iran had poison gas and did not use it against Iraqi troops even though Iraq used it against Iranian troops.
Iran’s position is that all WMD are immoral and should be destroyed. Sensible.
@all
Mark my words.
The Dennis Ross op-ed today is a headfake.
In two or three month he will be back claiming that diplomacy failed because Iran, despite “diplomacy”, still enriches and will call for a war of aggression against Iran.
fyi,
Are you saying Ahmadinejad should not have offered to have Iran cease production of 20 percent uranium?
R S Hack,
Yes, the Aug. 2010 Stratfor analysis on Russia was weak. George Friedman probably makes a good deal of money with these reports. He has a number of arms manufacturers as clients.
I thought Friedman was trying to give the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline a boost.
All:
I have to clarify my position, it seems.
I believe that immediately after 1998 nuclear tests of Pakistand and India, Iran should have exited NPT and started on a project to build and field nuclear weapons.
Such weapons had become a necessity for the continued coherence, integrity, and survival of the Iranian state.
Regrettably, Iranian leaders did not take that path; perhaps thinking that the safety of Iran could be predicated on international instruments of disarmament, treaties, etc.
Or they were just poorly advised.
It is too late to leave NPT now.
But should Iran be again subject to a threat of WMD like she was during the war with Iraq; Iranian leaders must be able to very quickly assemble nuclear weapons.
Russia and China are irrelevant to this calculus.
There is no telling what the future could bring to Iran or the region around her.
[Axis Powers are just making things worse.]
Iran is a de facto nuclear-weapons state; like Brazil, Argentina, Germany, and Japan.
Attempts to undo that status will lead to World War III.
Kathleen,
The ISRAEL LOBBY is suppressing the NBC story about Israel’s working with the MEK terrorists to assassinate Iranina nuclear scientists.
fyi,
You skip over the issue of enriching to 5% as compared with 20%.
Iran has sought a Middle East free of nukes for many years. This is a sensible policy.
Saudi Arabia easily can purchase the services of nuclear experts to build nukes.
kooshy,
Did you read FYI’s comments about Dennis Ross’s NYT piece? FYI thinks Ross is trying to give Obama cover for de-escalating. This seems highly likely.
James Canning says: February 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The day will not come that Saudi Arabia would be building a nuclear bomb.
The only 2 Arab states that are even remotely capable of doing so are Egypt and Algeria.
And for technical, financial, and political reasons they would not do so.
Nuclear proliferation in the Near East caused by Iran is a canard.
So is a Middle East Nuclear Weapns Free Zone prdicated on no enrichment on Iranian soil; the Hidden Imam will be with us before that takes place.
BiBiJon,
Read FYI’s comments today carefully. He was arguing Russia would come to Iran’s assistance if war breaks out, and that Iran could expect such assistance and rely on the danger of a Third World War as inducing the west to allow Iran to build nukes.
Iran Is Ready to Talk
By DENNIS B. ROSS
Published: February 14, 2012
Another worthless analysis by Ross, as usual he pens out changes to the board that may have effected on Iran’s calculation, but it seems that he is not willing to pen out changes since 09 that may have affected the US, Israeli’s calculations, like Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, western economy, Iran’s advancement on nuclear technology, etc.
One can’t make a sound analysis if only one sides of the board is ever considered and discussed, but never less an analysis worthy of being published in an state run publication like NYT, better known the American Pravda
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/opinion/give-diplomacy-with-iran-a-chance.html?_r=1
BiBiJon,
My point regarding Russia and China, and their adamant opposition to Iranian nukes, is that if war comes, due to Iran’s actually building nukes or getting very close, Iran should not expect assistance from Russia or China.
I personally believe Iran is not building nukes.
BiBiJon,
Have you not noticed today that FYI seems to be arguing Iran should build nukes?
fyi,
I think the Iranian oil minister was aware the European countries would need more than a few weeks (to de-escalate). He obviously did not want to cut off oil sales to the EU.
20% Agent, James Canning says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“You are quite wrong about China and Russia. Very recently, China went out of its way to make clear it adamantly opposed any nuke-building by Iran.”
James, are you aware Iran has said a gazillion times it is not building, it has no intention of building, and has never been building nuclear weapons? You will find a good chronology here: http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2012/02/obama-lies-about-iranian-nuclear.html
If you are aware, then, why do you keep insisting on insisting others are opposed to Iran building weapons? Your choice of phrase and your choice of repeating such phrases ad nauseam suggests if only Russia/China gave the green light, then Iran would go right ahead and build atom bombs. If that is not what you’re thinking, then do you not see the total irrelevance of what Russia/China might or might not oppose?
fyi,
Iran would ensure serious security concerns for itself, if it caused Saudi Arabia to build nukes. Pakistan is nightmare enough.
fyi,
I think Iran was addressing its “security concerns” by ensuring an ability to move forward quickly to build nukes, should the need arise.
fyi,
I think the “spin” aspect of Dennis Ross’s piece in the NYT today is given away by the title (“Iran is ready to talk”). In fact, the US may be ready to talk (as in, considering allowing enrichment to 3.5%-5%).
James Canning says: February 15, 2012 at 2:09 pm
You are, in effect, ignoring security concerns of Iran.
fyi,
I agree with you, that Dennis Ross has been asked to put a positive spin on the de-escalation the US wants.
Castellio,
I agree with you that the Stratfor analysis (Aug. 2010) on Russia was weak, to be kind.
Brett,
China and Russia both argued that the only way forward was, and is, negotiations. They opposed the sanctions but wanted, and want, to maintain unity within the Six Powers (P5+1).
James Canning says: February 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Mr. Ross lies.
But that might be because he has been told to put a positive spin on US decision to de-escalate with Iran.
We shall see.
fyi,
Are you claiming that the numerous statments by Iran, that its does not seek to build nukes, are a ruse?
Brett,
I will look for your question.
You are quite wrong about China and Russia. Very recently, China went out of its way to make clear it adamantly opposed any nuke-building by Iran.
James Canning says: February 15, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Then they should not have dragged Iran into UNSC.
That game is over.
Accept nuclear Iran or fight WWIIII.
james canning could you please respond to the message I sent last day?
Also China and Russia doesnt really care if Iran get nukes. Look at this from this way. Do you think Russia and China would have pressured Iran if it wasnt for the US, Israel, UK, Germany constant mongering? For Russia and China this is principally a non issue but since they have ties to the west they tag along, but not too long.
Dan Cooper,
Do you think Ahmadinejad acted wisely last September when he offered to have Iran stop enriching uranium to 20 percent? (Provided IAEA application to refuel the TRR was approved.)
Nasser,
What do you mean about “independent Iranian power”? The Bitish government made clear nearly two years ago it welcomed a prosperous, strong Iran taking a prominent role in the region.
fyi,
Worries about a potential World War III are the reason Russia and China are adamant that Iran not build nukes.
fyi,
Dick Cheney was still vice president in 2007 and he very stupidly helped talk G W Bush into not accepting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (to make deals with Iran and Syria, and pull all US troops out of Iraq asap).
Russia and China are both adamant that Iran not build nukes.
fyi,
I agree entirely the Israel lobby did its best to block the Russian proposal last year for a phased reduction in sanctions.
fyi,
Do you agree with Dennis Ross that Iran “refused to entertain” the Russian proposal last year for a phased reduction in sanctions?
James Canning says: February 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Mr. Ross is only partially telling the truth.
The step-by-step plan has been going back and forth between Iran and Russia for many months and alered.
So, Mr. Ross could be correct if his comments are to be viewed in regards to one of these numerous give-and-takes.
But the main thrust of his comment is a lie.
He lies.
The fact is that US-EU created and entered a period of escalation with Iran.
And one element of that was to scuttle the Russian Step-by-Step plan.
In regards to Russians and WWIII:
They do not wish to ignite WWIII, nor fight it.
But they will be forced to fight it over Iran – their other strategic choice is surrender to the Axis Powers.
As I have repeatedly stated: one wonders if the threat of WWIII was considered in 2007 when US-EU Axis decided to continue on theor path of escalation.
Nasser,
In what way has Russia “treated Iran as a bargaining chip”? What do you think Russia should have done differently?
James Canning says: February 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm
The power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, should her leaders decide to to so, does not exist in the international arena.
Russians can decide their own interests; Iranian leaders have an obligation to Iran and her existence and integrity as a coherent state.
fyi,
Is Russia “using Iran as a bargaining chip”? In what way? Russia does not want Iran to build nukes, but thinks the sanctions are counter-productive.
Dennis Ross in the NYT today claims Iran “refused to entertain” the Russian proposal for a phased reduction in sanctions last year. Do you agree with Ross?
fyi,
G W Bush was aware attacking Iran would be illegal, due to the 2007 NIE on Iran. The CIA largely blocked the warmongering neocons (including Dick Cheney and his gang).
Russia does not want Iran to build nukes. Full stop. If war becomes necessary to prevent Iran from building nukes, Russia will not help Iran.
OK, the 9 o’clock news got the low down. According to it, Iran has NOT cut off ANY country (not even France and Holland) YET. The ambassadors were called in and were warned that if they do not change their position on the oil embargo, Iran will be forced to look to other customers for its oil, and will not be held accountable if in that event, they will no longer be able to supply their respective countries with oil. The Foreign Ministry also told the ambassadors that [by the way] Iran already has customers lined up, and is only holding them off because of Iran’s concern for the welfare of European citizens, who are going through a particularly harsh winter currently.
Dennis Ross, writing in The New York Times today (“Iran is ready to talk”), claimed that “it is unclear whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, whose regime depends so heavily on hostility to America, is willing to make a deal on the nuclear issue.” No mention, it goes without saying, of Iran’s offer last September to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent.
Kooshy, yes, in that more partiuclar sense….
So the three items of progress in nuclear technology that were announced were the following:
1. Bushehr up to 75% capacity (from 50%)
2. Fuel elements inserted into TRR
3. 4th Generation centrifuges online (300% more efficient and substantially smaller)
Then you have the development today where it seems almost certain that Iran is going through with its threat to cut Europe off from their oil supply, yes, but also, to put an immediate halt to imports of any sort from those countries, I think sends a message to Baroness Ashton that will probably make her face almost as ugly as Billary’s. (She’s not that far off as it is…)
Nasser says: February 15, 2012 at 11:26 am
Jet Engines are one item of technology that Russians are exporting to Iran.
Bushehr is another one.
There are other items, I am sure as well.
I sketched out a scenario under which Russia will be re-supplying Iran (under attack by US and EU states).
Next, US must either attack Russian resupply assets to accept that her war aims in Iran are unreachable.
The attack on Russian assets will result in Russians attacking US forces.
That will be the start of World War III.
Mr. Bush understood this much – someone must have explained all of this and more to him – and he alluded to the possibility of World War III in relation with the Iranian Nuclear Program.
The news is also confirmed by Tabnak.com (Persian), affiliated with the conervative Mohsen Rezai (former head of IRGC), where dozens of commenters have already posted their approval of the measure.
Raja news (also in Persian, and affiliated with our President, Dr. Ahmadinejad) adds this interesting detail:
این در حالی است که یک مقام مطلع در شرکت ملی نفت ایران اعلام کرده تهران صادرات نفت به دو کشور فرانسه و هلند قطع شده و به چهار کشور پرتغال، اسپانیا، ایتالیا و یونان اولتیماتوم داده که اگر قرارداد بلندمدت بسته نشود صادرات نفت به آنها هم قطع می شود.
[Senior officials of the NIOC (National Iranian Oil Company) have stated that oil exports to France and the Netherlands have been cut off (with immediate effect), whereas the other 4 countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece) have been given ultimatums that their supply will also be cut off if they fail to enter into long-tern agreement.]
Off-topic, but I thought others might find it interesting how the New York Times can change the slant considerably in different versions of the very same story — in this case, the on-line report and the printed report of last night’s New York/Toronto basketball game. Both versions reported the game-winning shot at the buzzer by Jeremy Lin, the 23-year-old Chinese-American basketball player who recently has become an unlikely hero for the New York Knicks, an otherwise dull middle-of-the-pack NBA team.
If the New York Times can do this with a sports story, it’s not difficult to imagine what they can do with an Iran story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/sports/basketball/at-the-buzzer-its-all-jeremy-lin-as-knicks-edge-raptors.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
On-line story 2/15:
There is little chance of [the Jeremy Lin media/fan frenzy subsiding]. Lin scored 27 points — his sixth straight game with at least 20 — and handed out 11 assists. He forced some shots, committed 8 turnovers and struggled to contain Jose Calderon (25 points).
Paper version 2/15 (page B10, National Edition):
This was not Lin’s best night, to be sure. He forced a lot of shots, was 9 for 20 from the field, committed eight turnovers and struggled to contain Jose Calderon.
fyi,
“But the flow of technology and know-how has been un-interrupted since the Iranian Revolution.”
- Can you please detail some of these.
- Now don’t take my posts to be some form of anti Russian hysteria. I am simply stating that on practical terms Russia isn’t really willing to do much for Iran and any notion of World War 3 over Iran is truly nonsensical. Thats all.
Nasser says: February 15, 2012 at 10:42 am
You only need to look at the map to ascertain that.
Certainly Russia has been using Iran as a bargaining chip; that is what great powers do.
But the flow of technology and know-how has been un-interrupted since the Iranian Revolution.
And you can also see it in the limits of Russian cooperation with Axis Powers on Iran.
Rehmat says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:55 am
jeebus h krist i am so goddamned sick of psychopathic zionist lies it makes me wanna holler.
I was raised in a Catholic environment that was just about as intense as humanly possible. I spent 19 years in Catholic schools, colleges, universities. Never did I hear one single word about “blood libel” or “Christ killer.”
jeebus but these people are freaks of nature. god damn them to stew in a vat of their own excrement for eternity.
Rd,
Damn it, getting me all excited like that. They should just go ahead and cut it off and not wait for July to come around.
fyi,
“The only flaw, in my opinion, is that the Russian inetrest in the continued existence of independent Iranian power dates to at least 1991.”
- What makes you so sure of this? Russia has continuously treated Iran like a bargaining chip. I think you overestimate Iran’s importance to Russia just like many Iranians (like Mr. Mousivian) had for so long overestimated their worth to the United States.
Methinks Press TV has talked a little out of school. This news, though also on the Fars News Service site, has not (as yet) been reflected in the 7 PM news. Besides, the government would not undermine its own news opportunity re the nuclear progress with this news on the same day.
I think what has happened is that the 6 countries’ ambassadors were called into the Foreign Ministry this morning to let them know that if they do not break with the EU decision, that they can expect to have their oil supply cut off at very short notice. But regardless, this is definitely not the end of this little story.
(The ambassadors were: France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands & Greece.)
As I was typing that last sentence, the IRIB 7 PM news confirmed the news. It was the third or fourth news item, and was allotted less than a minute.
Mr. Ross’s views:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/opinion/give-diplomacy-with-iran-a-chance.html
anyone hearing any of the MSM outlets besides the original article talking about this?
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
By Richard Engel and Robert Windrem
NBC News
Updated: 11:14 a.m. ET — Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.
ROCK CENTER EXCLUSIVE
The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.
The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.
The last couple days the MSM have endlessly covered (especially NPR) the attempted assassinations of Israeli diplomats and Netanyahu emphatically claiming that upper level Iranian officials are involved. But we are not hearing any coverage about Richard Engels report that US officials have
Quote from Engels report: “Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.” US OFFICIALS REPORTING TO ENGEL THAT THE MEK WHO IS ON THE US TERRORIST LIST IS BEING FINANCED, TRAINED AND ARMED BY ISRAEL’S SECRET SERVICE AND HAVE KILLED IRANIAN SCIENTIST. THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY US OFFICIALS.
Sure not hearing Richard Engel on any of the MSNBC news programs being interviewed or asked about these US OFFICIALS CLAIMS. Not a peep. NPR’s Robert Siegel not having Richard Engel on to discuss this.
Nasser says:
“Iran cuts oil export to 6 European States”
it has been denied.. a bit of gaming goin’ on !!!
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Nasser says: February 15, 2012 at 7:17 am
Iranians waited for EU states to de-escalate.
When that was not forthcoming, they cut the oil flow.
EU leaders almost certainly did not think that Iranians would carry out this threat.
Fiorangela says: February 14, 2012 at 6:20 pm
This is a decent assessment.
The only flaw, in my opinion, is that the Russian inetrest in the continued existence of independent Iranian power dates to at least 1991.
Allan Alzner, the US executive director for Israel advocacy group, The Israel Project (TIP), claimed last week that majority of Latino Americans are anti-Israel because they’re influenced by traditional Catholic religious views on Jews (Christ killers, Blood Libel, etc.) and ignorant about Middle East affairs. Group’s global director Laura Kam has also claimed that anti-Israel views are also on rise in Europe.
Interestingly, according to FBI database below – Latinos count 42% for the terrorist attacks on US soil by group from 1980 to 2005 – while Jewish acts of terrorism count 7% and Muslim acts of terrorism were at 6%.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/lobby-latinos-are-anti-israel-by-faith/
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 14, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Humanist: “Are humans baboons?”
—————
The reb’s answer: Jewish Theology for Beginners
it’s 3 hours long. I stopped listening after 10 minutes, but I think I got the point.
“Iran cuts oil export to 6 European States”
http://presstv.com/detail/226807.html
YES! What took ya?
What % do the Azeri’s constitute in Iran? As the tension between Iran and Azerbaijan increases and indirectly Armenia how do the Azerbaijan’s in both countries fell about this? Please no flames I am just trying to understand the issue. I suspect that some kind of de-stabilization will take place out of Azerbaijan which will effect Iran and Armenia.
IRIB is reporting that Ahmadinejad will attend the unveiling ceremony in Natanz of the new progress in nuclear technology. This will be in about an hour and a half’s time (3 pm local time; 6:30 GMT), which I imagine will be carried live by Press TV, for those interested. They said that there were three main items: the 20% fuel plates (that will make James happy, I’m sure); 4th generation centrifuges that have been designed and produced locally. One of the attibutes fo these centrifuges is that they are made of carbon fiber, and they are more powerful and are able to remove impurities that the previous generation left behind. They mentioned a third item, but were vague as to what that was. I guess we will have to wait and see.
kooshy says:
February 14, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Crooke continues to provide the most reliable analyses on the Syrian situation.
Perhaps the October surprise, if there is going to be one, is that Obama is behind in the polls or is teetering, and Iran decides to suspend enrichment or some such concession, so as to deny a rabid Republican entry into the White HOuse.
Yet another interesting analysis of the push for war and US’s hesitation by Gareth Porter
Can Obama avert war with Iran?
“On one hand, Obama has been pursuing a course aimed at avoiding being drawn into an Israeli war with Iran, which both Obama and the military leadership consider as against vital US interests. On the other hand, Obama believes he needs a deal with Iran to demonstrate both to Israel and to the US public that he is succeeding in inducing Iran to retreat from its present stance on its nuclear programme. “
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201221254919523390.html
A very well analysis of various conflicts and strategies in the region by Alastair Crook, I recommend for those interested on the region to read
Putting match to tinder
By Alastair Crooke
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB15Ak01.html
“It holds out the prospect to them, as Halevy notes, of an alternative: “of the Iranian people once again rising up against the regime which has brought them so much suffering” – of soft regime change, in place of the unpredictability and riskiness of war.
The question is: would such a plan see Obama safely pass through the re-election process, and thus sink Netanyahu and Likud hopes for a Republican win in 2012? That is the key issue on which the White House and Panetta must maneuver. Independent Israeli action could upset this calculus.
But collective “suffering” did not cause the people of Gaza to turn against Hamas, and there is no reason to think it more likely to work in Iran. Iranians do not react well to pressure; and if the US and its allies fail to depose Syria’s leadership, as seems likely, for an anti-Iranian one, then the very “logic” of the Obama position, on its own terms, will ratchet his policy in the direction of the “final option” – with vociferous Iran hawks levering the war option along the ratchet.
Some in Washington, unable to see how power is shifting in the world today, firmly believe that Iran’s destruction would put Israel and the US back at the top in the Middle East.”
That Obama has painted himself into such a corner is the direct result of his endorsement of Dennis Ross’ “engagement with pressure” policy on Iran, which apart from raising the question of whether there ever was any meaningful engagement intended, cannot now possibly provide any negotiated solution – other than Iranian surrender – that would be not be spared a brutal savaging by the Republicans as Democrat “appeasement” and “weakness”, in a campaign year.
But in pursuing this project of seeking to mollify Iran hawks through a hot, increasingly sectarian “war” in Syria, and by letting the Gulf monarchies fire up reactionary Salafist movements across the region – supposedly again to “contain” Shi’ite influence and further weaken Iran – the US and Europe are becoming increasingly witting, or unwitting partisans, in a Sunni sectarian “project” for the restoration of Sunni primacy which is piggy-backing on the US and European obsessive animosity towards Iran. This risks another type of war, just as dangerous – but to which Western powers seem oblivious.
End Quote
Sassan
Your posts are based on deception, extortions, distortion and manipulation of the facts in order to mislead and brainwash the people in this forum.
Everyone in this forum has called your bluff, so you must be a sick and demented person to keep writing here.
Do not betray justice, humanity and your country for the sake of your sick ideology.
It is a well-known fact that Israel Government encourage and pay their supporters to hijack public opinion in forums.
Tell your paymasters, this does not work any more in “the Race For Iran” …lol
Sassan: There are the goods and the bads, you are the Ugly :)
ROFLMAO
Richard call Reps anyway. They need to know we are out here
http://youtu.be/mnuv81ngoAI
Video of Islamic Republic terrorist Saeid Moradi without his legs in Thailand.
Humanist: “Enormous wealth changes the brain like enormous power.”
While I do know that experiences change people, I suspect that great money, like great power, only ENABLES people to be the psychopaths they always were…
I think it was Timothy Leary who once said, “If the average American were elected President, he’d govern the country pretty much like Idi Amin…”
In other words, when you’re poor and without power, you can’t act out all those violent fantasies that are running around in most people’s dreams. Once you have money and power, you can…
I’m pretty sure that’s how it would work with me… :-) And I hope it does! :-)
Humanist: “Are humans baboons?”
Yes…
You post under the rubric “Humanist”. I’m a (radical) Transhumanist. So it doesn’t surprise me that you would ask that question…
Read the STRATFOR analysis “Hypothesizing on the Iran, Russia, U.S. Triangle” – which, by the way, is from 2009.
Friedman as usual is all over the map and his “net assessment” is so much garbage.
The entire article is mostly about how Iran’s ability to mine the Gulf and the Strait is the “real nuclear option”.
Duh…
Then he states that the calculations of the mine clearers are “not available” to him. Well, doesn’t STRATFOR have access to military personnel? Can’t they find out? We here in previous posts have referenced two studies on the mine clearing issue… STRATFOR can’t find better information than that?
In my prediction of how the Iran war would go, I make it clear that the only way to insure the Gulf and Strait remain open is to occupy the shores and push Iranian forces far enough back from them that they are (mostly) unable to either lay new mines or prevent by missile attacks the US and NATO navies from clearing those already laid. A lot also depends on who attacks by surprise first.
How Friedman connects this to Iran’s relations with Russia is very unclear from the article. Apparently he assumes that Russia supplied Iran with more new mines and thus enables Iran to make the “nuclear threat” of mining the Strait and thus “counters” the West’s dismissal of Russia as a geopolitical player…
But here we are three years later and tensions have never been higher. We are one naval blockade away from war with Iran…
So obviously Friedman was wrong – or the Russians were – that the threat to close the Strait was as much a “nuclear option” as first thought.
I wonder how much Friedman gets paid to make these crappy analyses… Maybe I should start my own “STRATFOR” consultancy and churn out this sort of crap for the big bucks…
Castellio says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Castellio-
Perhaps I should have copy and pasted what was relent to our debate in the article that cut my eyes, if you remember I was arguing that currently there exist a balance of power in the region that has not yet convinced the US military to approve a military undertaking, here is the relevant point in Stratford article which apparently is from 09 but still relevant if not more not only militarily, but influentially as well. Again I did not mention or think iran’s balance of powere in region is due to a possible backing by the Russians, I don’t think IRI thinks of Russia as a firm support frankly no one in Iran does.
“The United States cannot permit the Iranians to lay the mines. The Iranians in turn cannot permit the United States to destroy their mine-laying capability. This is the balance of power that limits both sides. If Iran were to act, the U.S. response would be severe. If the United States moves to neutralize Iran, the Iranians would have to push the mines out fast. For both sides, the risks of threatening the fundamental interests of the other side are too high. Both Iran and the United States have worked to avoid this real “nuclear” option.”
As regarding the Greek and Italy among other European troubles obviously I agree with PCR but that is not relevant strategic point to our debate, Europe at this point has no way forward or back, it will be way difficult to put this thing back in the bottle.
On Kathleen’s comment about “Call your Reps……No war on Iran” Richard Steven Hack argues why it won’t work. I fully agree with him most probably on the basis of the same thesis.
He says “ Unless, again, your are a major campaign contributor on a par with Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson……and if you were, you’d be calling to support a war with Iran……”
The last part of the above quote indicates a profound fact that has been discovered in recent times. In simpler terms it means “when you are poor you tend to be a normal (nice?) cooperative person but as you get richer the circuits of your brain changes making you believe you are really somebody”
Our brain is not like our kidney or heart. It is an ever-changing organ. Science shows how dictators (who originally are sort of rational) gradually change to delusional apathetic persons, most times becoming full fledged psychopaths.
Enormous wealth changes the brain like enormous power. (since money can buy you power) It can transform the ‘normal’ character of a person to a deranged or incoherent personality. That is in my view how Sabans and Adelsens of our time have evolved. They are now delusional self-righteous psychopathic warmongers who are incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy..
Castellio: “This is an indication that Western elites–the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, the EU, transnational corporations, oversized banks, and the mega-rich–no longer believe in democracy.”
I wonder why Roberts thinks they ever did…
The only reason these people like “democracy” is that it’s as easy to buy an electorate as it is to buy a dictator – but much easier to control an electorate… Also there’s much more money to be made in an alleged “capitalist democracy” than in a socialist dictatorship – and it’s as easy to steal it in the former as the latter…
In other words, if you’re interested in money AND power, why live in East Germany where you can only have one when you can live in West Germany and have both?
The rich Founding Fathers of America didn’t believe in “freedom” – just freedom from King George… (That might be a little harsh…some of them maybe really believed in general freedom…but very few of them were anarchists..)
Roses are red
Violets are blue
This is how little I think of you
~someone
Happy Valentin’s day everybody!
Oh! Kooshy! We really will just have to agree to disagree on this. I get the Stratfor regularly and have read the article. If there is one area I might claim some knowledge its Russian politics and history, and that article is way off, or just so aggravatingly incomplete in so many aspects it becomes a seemingly intelligent gloss that is entirely substance-less.
As to the Roberts, what fact of the take over of the Greek and Italian governments do you dispute? In Iceland, a democratic solution was found, the people voted, the debts were seen as bad loans, the economy is again growing. As in Argentina.
Rd: I just read Endgame in the Middle East by Thierry Meyssan.
I think he’s hallucinating if he thinks this is over by any means. It reminds me of the scene in the movie “Animal House” where the crazy students declare “Nothing is over until WE decide it is!” That’s going to be the attitude of the West regardless of what Putin says…
I stand by my prediction that the US and NATO will be bombing Syria by summer.
I sent an email to Glenn Greenwald just now making my predictions on how the US and NATO will attack Syria and Israel will attack Hizballah. I also pointed him over here, which I think I’ve done before.
Tonight on NPR’s All Things Considerd. Robert Siegel had Jeffrey Goldberg on to discuss Iran . You know how Siegel is always looking for diversity of opinion and all
Goldberg spun the story that Iran has refused to negotiate (which we know is untrue) and that they might actually be saying “we’re actually going to negotiate” Siegel and Goldberg team up again to promote more aggression towards Iran
Both Siegel and Goldberg went on an on about Netanyahu claiming that Iran tried to assassinate Israeli diplomats in India and is it Jordan. Then they also say that Iranians say that Israel is responsible for the killing of Iranian scientist. What Siegel and Goldberg fail to mention is that US OFFICIALS HAVE REPORTED TO RICHARD ENGEL THAT THEY KNOW ” Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.”
link to rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com
Nope nope nope sure not hearing anything about this on NPR’s All things considered. here is the link
Siegel and Goldberg
“Bangkok Bombings fuel Israel Iran Tensions”
http://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/
Kathleen: “Glenn Greenwald has a great one up”
“Most Americans continue with this strange mindset: we realize we were wrong to support those past wars you gave us, but we stand ready and eager to support this next one!”
“Call your Reps…No war on Iran”
What’s wrong with this picture?
Even if EVERY American called their rep and told them not to go to war with Iran – we would still have an Iran war. Because just expressing an opinion means nothing to them – unless you’re a major campaign contributor or bribing them directly.
Only if the vast majority of Americans called their rep and told them not to go to war with Iran ON PAIN OF BEING VOTED OUT IN THE NEXT ELECTION would the reps have to think twice.
But since the vast majority of Americans, according to ALL the polls, believe 1) that they know “little” or “nothing” about the Iran situation, and 2) nonetheless believe Iran HAS or is pursuing nuclear weapons, and 3) some percentage between 15 and 44%, depending which poll you read and how the question was phrased, WANT a war with Iran – well, by definition, you aren’t going to change that by calling your rep…
Unless, again, your’re a major campaign contributor on a par with Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson…and if you were, you’d be calling to support a war with Iran…
In the ‘Manufacturing Consent’ coauthored by Noam Chomsky in the mid 70s one can find something like “…the crime of Media is not confined to how they distort the facts, it is also on how they hide major information from the general public”
In the recent unrelenting and multifaceted propaganda blitz of Israel on Iran, the Corporate/AIPAC controlled Media’s role of trumpeting the Israeli position is no surprise. The public are bombarded by all kinds false information to pave the way for the war. Simultaneously news of terror plots and steady publication of outright lies, baseless accusations and stupid reasoning of why Iran must be bombed (such as Iran being a major threats to US and Israel) are planted in the mind of gullible people.
And of course lots of sinister stuff are going on behind the scenes.
At times, the propaganda takes absurd shapes such as President of Israel warning Americans on Iranian missiles reaching US east coast or New York Post on an attempt to ridicule the fact of “Israelis use MEK for terrorist activities in Iran” blatantly argues “instead of Obama, MEK deserves the Noble Peace Prize”.
From all those constant brutal arguments, the discussions about many intelligent alternatives to war are completely missing. For instance in the corporate media there is no analysis of the following critical and consequential dialectic:
Since there is no dispute among the scientists that “always there exists at least one compromising solution for International disputes being beneficial to both sides (provided the disputing parties are fair and rational)”.
Then why there is no mention of intelligent negotiations or clever diplomacy? Are humans baboons?
I skip half a dozen other relevant missing discussions. All that showing how disgusting is the the corporate media, which instead of serving the people, are slaves of a relatively small group of extremely powerful warmongering psychopathic profiteers.
I think the fact that the corrupted media is hiding a bunch of strong, rational and totally convincing arguments against another heinous war is an indication of, to what degree, the media contemptuously treats the people.
The masters of the corrupted corporate media think they can deceive all the people forever. They are wrong. Hopefully the unavoidable historical awakening will materialize before the waters of the oceans irreversibly are set to boil, a possibility that is fervently denied by the powerful yet ignorant sickos who pull the strings of war.
lololololololololol Dan….get some mental help!
Sassan says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm
“The problem with the IRI is that they never know how to stay with one story. I remember when Neda got killed they had at least 3-5 different stories before they came up with the “CIA” nonsense…”
Re: Neda
Sassan; you know very well that your paymasters Israel and its ruthless and murderous Mossad agents were behind Neda’s killing and the cold-blooded murder of five Iranian scientist.
Israel’s agents are renowned for this type of assassinations.
Israel has been desperate to destabilize the Islamic republic for the past 32 years and has been prepared to go to any length to achieve her objective.
Sassan does not write about the thousands of innocent Palestinian women and children blown up to pieces by Israel but he is so willing and eager to exploit and fabricate the killing of one young woman in street of Tehran.
How low and sick can you get.
Some claim a basiji fired the shot that killed Neda. This is totally fabricated.
People hold a basiji only because they saw he was a card-carrying Basij member and then let him go because no one saw him shoot Neda.
If they had actually witnessed the shooting, the crowed would have torn him to pieces there and then.
In any murder case, establishing “the motive” is one of the most important aspects of any investigation.
Now let us analyze the motive and who was behind Neda’s killing and benefited from it.
There are two fundamental questions:
1…….What would the government of Iran gain by killing an innocent girl in a quiet side street?
2…….What would a “Foreign agent or the enemies of Islamic Republic” gain by killing her?
At the time when she was shot:
Neda was not participating in any demonstration.
She was not wearing any green clothes.
She was not yelling obscenities at the regime.
She was quietly strolling back to her car with her music teacher in a side street away from demonstrations.
In those circumstances, A Basiji could not distinguish if Neda was a pro or anti government supporter, so Why would he want to kill her? There was absolutely no motive for him to kill Neda at that moment.
This is a really an important question and perhaps Sassan can enlighten us with his honest and unbiased opinion. Lol
From what we have witnessed from Israel’s assassinations in different countries during the past 30 years, and Israel‘s desperation to discredit the Islamic republic, all indications are that Neda was “assassinated to order” by An Israeli agent to create an icon and generate maximum publicity to tarnish the image of the Iranian government.
CIA and in particular Mossad’s agents specialize in this type of operations.
They deliberately chose a “beautiful girl” in order to get maximum exposure.
One needs to ask why they did not kill her music teacher who was by her side.
The answer is obvious; an old man with a gray hair would not have created as much publicity.
In this regard, Reza Esfandiari eloquently articulated and wrote:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=35869
It is inconceivable that an Islamic regime which understands the power of martyrdom in its own culture would sanction the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and ordinary young woman on the streets of Tehran.
However it is every bit conceivable that those who thought the opposition movement needed a symbol and icon of resistance – recipients and supporters no doubt of a $400m CIA-backed destabilization program for Iran – would have arranged this horrible murder and try and pin it on the Iranian authorities.
Sassan: what is your Jewish name?
kooshy,
The Stratfor analysis Fior linked, that you seem to like, aso stated: “If Moscow could leverage Germany out of the Western alliance. ..” This notion is ludicrous.
Was Stratfor trying to help the Nabucco pipeline promoters?
To counter Israel Apartheid Week (IAW), BluesStarPR, an affiliated member of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), has produced a booklet to help Zionist activists demean Palestinians and Islamic regime in Tehran. The booklet bore image on its cover of Nadia Agha-Soltani, the Iranian teenage student shot by a sniper. According to Israel Shamir, professor James Petras and Thierry Meyssan, Nadia was a victim of CIA-Mossad-MI6 plot to discredit Dr. Ahmadinejad’s re-election victory in June 2009. Israel Shamir put Ahmadinejad on par with Castro and Chavez, saying ……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/international-israeli-apartheid-week-2012/
Fiorangela,
The Stratfor analysis from Aug. 10, 2009 makes a peculiar claim: “The Americans have stated that Russia is not a country to be taken seriously.” This comment borders on the preposterous, surely.
Castellio says:
February 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Castellio
The Stratford analysis which was linked by Fior earlier, is by far a more serious strategic analysis, related to our debate than the article by PCR, I recommend reading it.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=12646
Brett,
Daily Telegraph Jan. 27th stated: “Amano [IAEA head] said it was too early to say definitively that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.” True, obviously?
Fiorangela,
Yes, Iran does have a certain reluctance to make some disclosures that may result in Israeli assassinations (of named nuclear scientists).
Brett,
What do you think Ban Ki-Moon should be saying? Russia and China both say only way forward is negotiation,s and they do not want Iran to build nukes.
Ayan Hirsi Ali is Niall Fergusson’s wife. two peas in a pod.
___________
Stratfor on Hypothesizing the Iran-Russia-U.S. Triangle.
the assessment is from 2009, shortly after Iran’s elections and Ahmadinejad’s trip to Russia. Stratfor was intrigued by the timing of the trip — immediately after the disputed election (which, as informed people are aware, was more transparent and decisive than the 2000 election in US), and also by an earlier demonstration in Iran in which protesters shouted, “Down with Russia.” Stratfor wanted to know what that sentiment suggested.
What has changed and what is the same in 2012 in the Iran-Russia-U.S. triangle, and how have its angles changed in view of US and Russian toe-to-toe involvement in Syria?
—-
In the discussion between Peter Jenkins and Jon Davies, the question arose whether instability in Syria would cause Iran to become more, not less, interested in developing a nuclear weapons capability.
If the same group met today, I would expect someone to ask what effect Israel’s stated policy of assassinations would have on Iran’s nuclear intentions. Davies is not a serious thinker; Jenkins seems to have a clearer understanding of Iran. My guess is he would say that Israel’s activities against Iran force Iran to tighten controls over its population and to be less likely to agree to Additional Protocol, without first having sanctions resolutions at UN rescinded. In the Sept. 2011 conference, Jenkins mused about the fact that Iranians are reasonable and would deal with others respectfully if treated with respect; he suggested that Iran might agree to more intrusive IAEA monitoring and possibly AP; and would likely agree to a comprehensive test ban on the day AFTER Israel signed such an agreement.
But today, I suspect Iran would not trust Israel’s signature on anything; Iran would — and perhaps should — demand nothing less than IAEA on the ground in Dimona before Iran agreed to additional IAEA activity in Iran. After all, Iran believes, with sound basis, that IAEA information finds its way to Israeli assassins.
James Canning =
Read your sources, he put the blame on Iran and have removed his objectivity=
Quote.
Separately, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged a resumption of dialogue between Western powers and Iran on their nuclear dispute.
He said Friday that Tehran must comply with Security Council resolutions and prove conclusively that its nuclear development program is not directed to making arms.
“The onus is on Iran,” said Ban, speaking at a press conference. “They have to prove themselves that their nuclear development program is genuinely for peaceful purposes, which they have not done yet.”
Ban expressed concern at the most recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency that strongly suggested that Iran’s nuclear program, which it long has claimed is for development of power generation, has a military intent.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said at a Davos session that “we do not have that much confidence if Iran has declared everything” and its best information “indicates that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to nuclear explosive devices.”
“For now they do not have the capacity to manufacture the fuel,” he said. “But in the future, we don’t know.”
End Quote.
Brett,
HuffPo reported Feb. 2nd that Ban Ki-Moon “told Israel that the international standoff over Iran’s suspect nuclear program must be resolved peacefully.”
Brett,
According to the report in the Huffington Post, at Davos Ban Ki-Moon “urged a resumption of dialogue between Western powers and Iran on the nuclear issue.”
This apparently was refere3nce to P5+1 which includes China.
Rd.,
I had surmised that Iran would announce success in building the plates from the fuel rods, to refuel the TRR. That article you linked said Iran would insert the rods themselves. but this may just be an oversight by the author of the piece?
James canning = Who cares what he says in public, as my link showed he have obviously ties to israeli interests. You should check Wikileaks cables to understand that public statements made by politicians is very different from the the real truth that is on going behind the curtains.
Moon have also never called for resumption of talks, he have rather called on Iran to come to negiotiation table (which they already sit at and waiting for the western powers to come). He have never said that Iran is not building or want nuclear weapons.
Brett,
Surely an Egypt with a strong economy would be good for Egypt and the Middle East. And the rest of the world.
Castellio,
Interesting piece (by Paul Craig Roberts), but how would one go about saving the euro “democratically”?
Sarkozy raised the retirement age in France to 62, but his Socialist opponent promises to drop it back to 60 even though this is not financially feasible.
Brett,
Ban Ki-Moon at Davos Jan. 27th called for a resumption of nuclear talks with Iran. Sensible. And he has said there is no evidence Iran is actually building nukes, or about ready to build them.
kooshy says: February 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Yes, you are right.
Yemen I did not include since they are not Imami Shias and Iranians do not have much leverage or relations with them.
I was unaware of the Qatari Shias.
And I forgot to include Turkey – a country that would suffer greatly if sectariansim is unleashed across the Middle East.
In fact, the AKP will be a major looser in such a situation since the mass of non-Sunnis Turkish citizens, as well as non-religious Sunnis will flock to the Anti-AKP parties.
Encouraging sectarianism is a fool’s errand; suitable for the foolish Arab leaders.
Sassan
US actor, director Sean Stone converts to Islam in Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/226718.html
Sassan: Iran doesn’t need one story, because the “attacks” had nothing to do with the country. It was obviously a false flag operation carried out by Israel or the MEK, or both, or some other western backed terrorist organization.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/05/ayaan-hirsi-ali-the-global-war-on-christians-in-the-muslim-world.html
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World
Feb 6, 2012 12:00 AM EST
From one end of the muslim world to the other, Christians are being murdered for their faith.
We hear so often about Muslims as victims of abuse in the West and combatants in the Arab Spring’s fight against tyranny. But, in fact, a wholly different kind of war is underway—an unrecognized battle costing thousands of lives. Christians are being killed in the Islamic world because of their religion. It is a rising genocide that ought to provoke global alarm.
The portrayal of Muslims as victims or heroes is at best partially accurate. In recent years the violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania. In some countries it is governments and their agents that have burned churches and imprisoned parishioners. In others, rebel groups and vigilantes have taken matters into their own hands, murdering Christians and driving them from regions where their roots go back centuries.
The media’s reticence on the subject no doubt has several sources. One may be fear of provoking additional violence. Another is most likely the influence of lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—a kind of United Nations of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia—and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Over the past decade, these and similar groups have been remarkably successful in persuading leading public figures and journalists in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a systematic and sinister derangement called “Islamophobia”—a term that is meant to elicit the same moral disapproval as xenophobia or homophobia.
But a fair-minded assessment of recent events and trends leads to the conclusion that the scale and severity of Islamophobia pales in comparison with the bloody Christophobia currently coursing through Muslim-majority nations from one end of the globe to the other. The conspiracy of silence surrounding this violent expression of religious intolerance has to stop. Nothing less than the fate of Christianity—and ultimately of all religious minorities—in the Islamic world is at stake.
At least 24 Coptic Christians were killed in Cairo during clashes with the Egyptian Army on Oct. 9., Thomas Hartwell / Redux
From blasphemy laws to brutal murders to bombings to mutilations and the burning of holy sites, Christians in so many nations live in fear. In Nigeria many have suffered all of these forms of persecution. The nation has the largest Christian minority (40 percent) in proportion to its population (160 million) of any majority-Muslim country. For years, Muslims and Christians in Nigeria have lived on the edge of civil war. Islamist radicals provoke much if not most of the tension. The newest such organization is an outfit that calls itself Boko Haram, which means “Western education is sacrilege.” Its aim is to establish Sharia in Nigeria. To this end it has stated that it will kill all Christians in the country.
In the month of January 2012 alone, Boko Haram was responsible for 54 deaths. In 2011 its members killed at least 510 people and burned down or destroyed more than 350 churches in 10 northern states. They use guns, gasoline bombs, and even machetes, shouting “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”) while launching attacks on unsuspecting citizens. They have attacked churches, a Christmas Day gathering (killing 42 Catholics), beer parlors, a town hall, beauty salons, and banks. They have so far focused on killing Christian clerics, politicians, students, policemen, and soldiers, as well as Muslim clerics who condemn their mayhem. While they started out by using crude methods like hit-and-run assassinations from the back of motorbikes in 2009, the latest AP reports indicate that the group’s recent attacks show a new level of potency and sophistication.
The Christophobia that has plagued Sudan for years takes a very different form. The authoritarian government of the Sunni Muslim north of the country has for decades tormented Christian and animist minorities in the south. What has often been described as a civil war is in practice the Sudanese government’s sustained persecution of religious minorities. This persecution culminated in the infamous genocide in Darfur that began in 2003. Even though Sudan’s Muslim president, Omar al-Bashir, has been indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which charged him with three counts of genocide, and despite the euphoria that greeted the semi-independence he grant-ed to South Sudan in July of last year, the violence has not ended. In South Kordofan, Christians are still subject-ed to aerial bombardment, targeted killings, the kidnap-ping of children, and other atrocities. Reports from the United Nations indicate that between 53,000 and 75,000 innocent civilians have been displaced from their resi-dences and that houses and buildings have been looted and destroyed.
Both kinds of persecution—undertaken by extragovernmental groups as well as by agents of the state—have come together in Egypt in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. On Oct. 9 of last year in the Maspero area of Cairo, Coptic Christians (who make up roughly 11 percent of Egypt’s population of 81 million) marched in protest against a wave of attacks by Islamists—including church burnings, rapes, mutilations, and murders—that followed the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship. During the protest, Egyptian security forces drove their trucks into the crowd and fired on protesters, crushing and killing at least 24 and wounding more than 300 people. By the end of the year more than 200,000 Copts had fled their homes in anticipation of more attacks. With Islamists poised to gain much greater power in the wake of recent elections, their fears appear to be justified.
Egypt is not the only Arab country that seems bent on wiping out its Christian minority. Since 2003 more than 900 Iraqi Christians (most of them Assyrians) have been killed by terrorist violence in Baghdad alone, and 70 churches have been burned, according to the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA). Thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled as a result of violence directed specifically at them, reducing the number of Christians in the country to fewer than half a million from just over a million before 2003. AINA understandably describes this as an “incipient genocide or ethnic cleansing of Assyrians in Iraq.”
The 2.8 million Christians who live in Pakistan make up only about 1.6 percent of the population of more than 170 million. As members of such a tiny minority, they live in perpetual fear not only of Islamist terrorists but also of Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws. There is, for example, the notorious case of a Christian woman who was sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad. When international pressure persuaded Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer to explore ways of freeing her, he was killed by his bodyguard. The bodyguard was then celebrated by prominent Muslim clerics as a hero—and though he was sentenced to death late last year, the judge who imposed the sentence now lives in hiding, fearing for his life.
Such cases are not unusual in Pakistan. The nation’s blasphemy laws are routinely used by criminals and intolerant Pakistani Muslims to bully religious minorities. Simply to declare belief in the Christian Trinity is considered blasphemous, since it contradicts mainstream Muslim theological doctrines. When a Christian group is suspected of transgressing the blasphemy laws, the consequences can be brutal. Just ask the members of the Christian aid group World Vision. Its offices were attacked in the spring of 2010 by 10 gunmen armed with grenades, leaving six people dead and four wounded. A militant Muslim group claimed responsibility for the attack on the grounds that World Vision was working to subvert Islam. (In fact, it was helping the survivors of a major earthquake.)
At least 13 people were killed and 140 injured on March 8, 2011, when participants in a large Christian demonstration in a Cairo slum were attacked by residents of a surrounding neighborhood., Mohamed Omar / EPA-Landov
Not even Indonesia—often touted as the world’s most tolerant, democratic, and modern majority-Muslim nation—has been immune to the fevers of Christophobia. According to data compiled by the Christian Post, the number of violent incidents committed against religious minorities (and at 7 percent of the population, Christians are the country’s largest minority) increased by nearly 40 percent, from 198 to 276, between 2010 and 2011.
The litany of suffering could be extended. In Iran dozens of Christians have been arrested and jailed for daring to worship outside of the officially sanctioned church system. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, deserves to be placed in a category of its own. Despite the fact that more than a million Christians live in the country as foreign workers, churches and even private acts of Christian prayer are banned; to enforce these totalitarian restrictions, the religious police regularly raid the homes of Christians and bring them up on charges of blasphemy in courts where their testimony carries less legal weight than a Muslim’s. Even in Ethiopia, where Christians make up a majority of the population, church burnings by members of the Muslim minority have become a problem.
It should be clear from this catalog of atrocities that anti-Christian violence is a major and underreported problem. No, the violence isn’t centrally planned or coordinated by some international Islamist agency. In that sense the global war on Christians isn’t a traditional war at all. It is, rather, a spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities.
As Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, pointed out in an interview with Newsweek, Christian minorities in many majority-Muslim nations have “lost the protection of their societies.” This is especially so in countries with growing radical Islamist (Salafist) movements. In those nations, vigilantes often feel they can act with impunity—and government inaction often proves them right. The old idea of the Ottoman Turks—that non-Muslims in Muslim societies deserve protection (albeit as second-class citizens)—has all but vanished from wide swaths of the Islamic world, and increasingly the result is bloodshed and oppression.
So let us please get our priorities straight. Yes, Western governments should protect Muslim minorities from intolerance. And of course we should ensure that they can worship, live, and work freely and without fear. It is the protection of the freedom of conscience and speech that distinguishes free societies from unfree ones. But we also need to keep perspective about the scale and severity of intolerance. Cartoons, films, and writings are one thing; knives, guns, and grenades are something else entirely.
As for what the West can do to help religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies, my answer is that it needs to begin using the billions of dollars in aid it gives to the offending countries as leverage. Then there is trade and investment. Besides diplomatic pressure, these aid and trade relationships can and should be made conditional on the protection of the freedom of conscience and worship for all citizens.
Instead of falling for overblown tales of Western Islamophobia, let’s take a real stand against the Christophobia infecting the Muslim world. Tolerance is for everyone—except the intolerant.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, and escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992. She served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006 and is currently a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Her autobiography, Infidel, was a 2007 New York Times bestseller.
thanks to — rd at 3:21 pm Feb 14
Thierry Meyssen reports that Syria, with political support from Russia, is regaining control of Syria.
-Feb 4, NATO ordered to cease fire
-Feb 7, Russian diplomats arrived in force in Damascus, joined by representatives from Lebanon, Iran, Turkey and greeted by cheering crowds in both Damascus and Aleppo.
“Turkey has ceased all support for the “Free Syrian Army”, closed down its facilities (except the one on the NATO base at Incirlik), and turned over its commander, Colonel Riad el-Assad. Russia, . . . is the guarantor of the agreements . . .”
this is very good news, if true and if it holds — with hopes that it holds.
Groups who stood in opposition to their own country are in a difficult situation: reports Meyssen:
“The next day, the US State Department informed the Syrian opposition in exile that it could no longer count on its military aid. Realizing that they have betrayed their country to no avail, the Syrian National Council members went in search of new sponsors. One of them even went so far as to write to Benjamin Netanyahu asking him to invade Syria.”
Pursuant to the RHS-Kooshy stand off (or whatever)… I think the following article is relevant:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29291
The problem with the IRI is that they never know how to stay with one story. I remember when Neda got killed they had at least 3-5 different stories before they came up with the “CIA” nonsense…
So, initially the IRI says it was “Israel behind the attacks but now it says:
“Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi: Attacks against Israeli diplomatic targets may have been carried out by one of the many enemies Israel has around the world; Iran denies any involvement in Georgia, India bombs.”
An Iranian View says: “What happened in Thailand India, and Georgia was obviously carried out by Iran’s enemies.”
llololololol….quite comical. And I guess the guy with the legs blown off is really a “Zionist”. lol
New proof that UN chief do as told by US and Israel.
Quote.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is scheduled to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Vienna to discuss the situation in Syria and Iran’s nuclear programme, an Israeli diplomat said Tuesday, dpa reported.
Ban is scheduled to visit Vienna Wednesday for meetings with Austrian government officials and UN organizations on nuclear disarmament.
Israel’s Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom met Ban at UN headquarters in New York and told reporters afterward that Ban maintains “ongoing efforts to stop the Iranians” from acquiring nuclear weapons.
End Quote.
So let us deconstruct this. The UN chief have a secret connection to israeli officials that, as it seems, tells him what to do and that he, with no such political power trying to impede the iranian nuclear program? And not only that, he get this assignment by the only nuclear weapons regime in the middle east.
And why does this israeli official thinks he could be the spokesman for the UN chief?
Why is the world runned by clowns?
Egypt’s recent remarks clearly show a resistance policy, that they wont tolerate american interfering in their internal politics.
Quote
In her remarks, Abul Naga linked what she said was a surge in U.S. funding for civil society groups last year to an attempt to steer the course of the post-Hosni Mubarak transition in “a direction that realized American and Israeli interests.”
“All the indications show that there was a clear desire to abort any chance for Egypt to emerge as a modern democratic state with a strong economy,” she was quoted as saying, adding that such a prospect would be a threat to “American and Israeli interests.”
End Quote.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-egypt-usa-idUSTRE81D0TM20120214
fyi says:
February 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm
You need to add Yemen and Qatar (15% of Muslim population are shih) to that list.
James Canning says: February 14, 2012 at 2:26 pm
None of this matters; the strategic situation in favor of the Axis of Resistance is not reversible by war or any other means.
All,
BBC Radio4’s “File on 4″ is currently playing about the effect of sanctions against Iran on UK and EU businesses. Its very interesting and has some senior UK politicians on it. Check it out.
kooshy says: February 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Those who should avoid a Shia-Sunni confrontation are Sunni-majority states with significant Shia populations.
Those are: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
It will harm them significantly.
Iran has nothing to worry about that; her leaders have wrapped themselves in the flag of Islam and raised the banner of Palestine.
They have, in effect, become untouchable.
“Syrian activists resort to pigeons to communicate”
So much for generosity of the Qatar and Saudi Arabia, I guess with that in mind one can’t afford a better way to communicate with Sarkozy and Erdogan. What may come next in our own western MSM would be a story on how for the lack of weapons the freedom fighters of Syria are fighting the brutal Assad regime with swords, much like Douglas Fairbank in thieves of Baghdad.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMONV3TcUa6BN2xvP9QMa-bwrwuQ?docId=CNG.b779101791d85a0652720d98fc7b42a1.8b1
War in Syria?? or Endgame in the Middle East
by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/Endgame-in-the-Middle-East
Iran to Install Domestic Fuel Rods in Nuclear Reactor Wednesday – Official all %20 of it.. err I mean all %100..
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120214/171315293.html
What happened in Thailand India, and Georgia was obviously carried out by Iran’s enemies.
The “attack” in India is more significant than the others, because India is currently Iran’s most important oil customer.
Kathleen,
Bravo!
Glenn Greenwald has another good one about foolish American warmongers (“US media takes lead on Iran”):
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_Iran/?source=newsletter
NBC News told its audience that Iran “threatens the world”.
Glenn Greenwald has a great one up
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
U.S. media takes the lead on Iran
“I used to find somewhat baffling this bizarre aspect of American public opinion: time and again, Americans support whatever new war of aggression their government proposes, then come to regret that support and decide the war was a “mistake,” only to demonstrate that they learned no lessons from their “mistake” by eagerly supporting whatever the next proposed war is. Thus did the widespread belief that Vietnam was a “mistake” have no impact on their support for the attack on Iraq, and now — with some polls showing Americans, before their government even proposes it, preliminarily willing to cheer on an attack on Iran — it is clear they have learned nothing from their acknowledged “mistake” in supporting the attack on Iraq. Most Americans continue with this strange mindset: we realize we were wrong to support those past wars you gave us, but we stand ready and eager to support this next one!”
Call your Reps…No war on Iran…
R S Hack,
After Germany annexed Austria in 1938, Lord Halifax opposed war with Germany because he, and some other colleagues closely involved in the making of British foreign policy, saw the Soviet Union as posing a greater threat than Hitler’s Germany. Was Halifax’s stance “dishonourable”, in your view?
“Armageddon averted? Nukes ‘on board’ blazing sub (VIDEO)”:
http://rt.com/news/nuclear-sub-fire-missile-165/
Castellio: “as a consolation prize to the Gulf states for the US not going all out to start a war with Iran.”
That’s a fantasy. Why should the US NEED to give a “consolation prize” to the GCC? He’s grasping for an explanation because he can’t emotionally acknowledge the straight line between Syria and Iran, like most other commentators have understood.
“But what does that mean, for now?”
Means nothing. Syria is next, then Iran. And the only reason Syria and Lebanon are next is Israel’s concern for a “low cost” war with Iran, which requires “defanging” Syria and Hizballah. Otherwise they would leapfrog Syria and go straight for Iran.
See, this is why “pundits” are invariably wrong and therefore useless in predicting events. They are always hampered by their own baggage and ties to the mainstream conventional wisdom that the world is run by “honorable statesmen” rather than the lying scum that really run countries. So it is forbidden to speak of the leaders of the Western world as if they were the lying crooks they actually are. So their most egregious and obvious acts of aggression have to be explained away as something else, else the “pundit’s” access to the MSM and to government jobs would be stripped away.
Washington is planning to table another bill for a regime change in Damascus at United Nations. Its contents are not much different than what were vetoed by both Russia and China recently. One cannot blame Barack Obama administration to keep trying to bring aboard a united UN Security Council vote to exploit it for a regime change as it did in Libya with the help of two veto-powers, France and Britain. Washington is not in the position to bypass UNSC as it did in 2003 and invaded Iraq.
Pro-USrael former prime minister of Lebanon, Sa’ad Hariri, spilled the beans in an interview with a British reporter last month that Washington wants to establish a coalition government in Damascus – consisting of Muslim Brotherhood and anti-Bashar Ba’athist leaders. The new regime will not only establish diplomatic relation with the Zionist entity but also distance itself from Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran. Thus making it easier for USrael to attack the Islamic Republic.
To begin with, the US, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia has introduced the religious ‘sectarian card’ in Syria which has been home to one of the most tolerant religious society in the Arab world – pitting Sunni majority against Shia, Christian and secularist/Socialist Ba’athist minorities. Washington and Qatar is arming the anti-government rebels as they did in Libya.
However, Syria is not an easy toast like Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq. But the Jewish Lobby believes that a pro-Israel regime in Damascus is the only way to get rid of Iranian menace. Zionist Jew Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda arm of Israel Lobby (AIPAC) said recently:
“Syria is the soft underbelly of Iran, Tehran’s most important ally, conduit for arms and cash to terrorists. A unique confluence of American moral purpose and America’s strategic interest argue for intervention in Syria. It’s time to start arming the Free Syrian Army (rebels)”.
One wonder why the US should turn against one of its Arab ally which helped US by sending its forces in Lebanon to protect both the US-Israel interests in late 1980s?
In addition to Russian support – Bashar al-Assad regime is supported by Iran, Iraq, Hizbullah and Hamas. Syria itself has 270,000-men strong army and airforce equipped with tanks, missiles and fighter-planes. All together, could make Israeli Jewish lives hell.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/syria-another-us-adventure-for-israel/
Unknown Unknowns,
I think an increasingly rich, educated Iran is very much in the best interests of the US. This is the viewpoint of William Hague, the British foreign secretary. Provided Iran does no build nukes.
Dan Cooper,
Do you think Ahmadinejad acted wisely last September when he offered to have Iran stop enriching uranium to 20 percent?
Fara,
Bravo, Lord Lamont. He obviously is quite right the latest sanctions harm British interests.
Fara,
As you probably are aware, Germany decided to canceal all further nuclear power plants in the wake of the disaster in Japan. And Japan is cutting back the number of new nuclear power plants it will build. We can expect proponents of more nuclear power plants to argue the issue of facilitating building nukes, even if these is spurious.
fyi says:
February 14, 2012 at 12:34 pm
I must add it seems that Iran and the Shih community is trying hard to avoid a sectarian war, by not directly getting involved in Bahrain or Syria, not retaliating to bombings of Shih religious centers and conducting various seminars and conferences based on Islamic awakening and unity, it’s a difficult task but it is possible to pull by a lot of self-restraint. I just hope Al-Azhar is doing as much.
Castellio,
I agree with you the Russians made sense in seeking a UNSC resolution calling on the parties in Syria to pull and negotiate.
I continue to think the Saudis decided it was necessary to overthrow the government of Syria, due to unease about the direction things were going in Tehran.
fyi,
Kenneth Pollack claims the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was “premature”. Wrong. In fact, those troops should have been pulled out years earlier.
fyi says:
February 14, 2012 at 12:34 pm
A Shih-Sunni sectarian war on regional scale is not good news, it should be avoided at all costs with Iran’s and egypt’s leadership, the only beneficiaries would be the traditional colonial westerners. A Unified Islamic Resistance is ideal, if it can be instigated on a common base of resisting colonialism and self-determination, still a very difficult task since the time will expand the animosities and may even penetrate into various ethnicities like Lebanon in 70’s in a regional scale with the same foreign colonial actors aiding one side or another, I guess they are going to exercise the last viable option they always had.
All:
An strategic assessment with which I agree by Dr. Pollack.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0214_arab_power_pollack.aspx
The implications are not a Cold War across the Middle East, rather the strategic necessity for the United States to make a settlement with Iran.
Yes, there has been a sectarian war and the Shia have won.
Now the local powers as well as Axis Powers must deal with the consequences of that victory.
BiBiJon says:
<Only one ‘active’ hyperlink is allowed. Additional hyperlinks can be included, but must be masked. E.g. http://www.nytimes.com and ,www.nytimes.com get through the automatic filter.<
Thanks a lot, that helps indeed.
I don’t remember this being referenced here.
His key line is: My personal feeling: the United States is pushing regime collapse in Syria (I’m not even going to dignify the process with “regime change”) as a consolation prize to the Gulf states for the US not going all out to start a war with Iran. Assad’s scalp on the GCC’s belt will have to do for now.
But what does that mean, for now?
You have to scroll down at http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/
“As a riposte to the Arab League initiated, US/EU backed “Assad must step down” resolution, Russia proposed a resolution calling on both sides to pull back forces and negotiate. Pretty reasonable proposal. But reasonableness is not part of the program on Syria. Instead, a Security Council vote was called on the West’s proposal, even though everyone knew it was headed for a veto… The Gulf and Western powers wanted to advertise, no, make that provoke, a failure at the United Nations. They got it when Russia and China, as promised, vetoed a resolution they considered one-sided. Even though the resolution had been advertised as precluding armed intervention, i.e. so toothless as to be meaningless, it was paradoxically trumpeted as “the last chance” for peace. What it really means is that, with the UN rejected as a suitable venue for great power diplomacy, it’s open season on Syria. Time to crank up another extra-UN “coalition of the willing” (Iraq-speak) or “contact group on Syria” (Libya-speak). In fact, the process has already started. Basically, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, Turkey whoever can now meddle in Syria with cash and arms to their heart’s content. My personal feeling: the United States is pushing regime collapse in Syria (I’m not even going to dignify the process with “regime change”) as a consolation prize to the Gulf states for the US not going all out to start a war with Iran. Assad’s scalp on the GCC’s belt will have to do for now. A while back, I wrote that the people’s revolution in Syria had failed; and the rebellion would now have to make do with whatever nation the GCC, the US, the EU, and Turkey decide to give them.”
The 8 o’clock news just stated that the nuclear achievements will be announced tomorrow. It referenced achievements by students at Sharif Tech. in the field of nuclear science and engineering.
Sassan says: February 14, 2012 at 9:20 am
BULLETIN: Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has voiced its concern that the threat of a maturing and more intelligent and powerful Iran will persuade as many as 200,000 of Israel’s elite to flee Israel for better living in Iran. MFA has already been forced to rely on low-grade Tehrangeles ‘I spy’ wannabes to conduct its vaunted hasbara project.
In other news: Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) report increasing dissatisfaction with the calibre of hangers-on that plague the spiffily-uniformed troops. “Most of them are childish bores,” one 18-year old acne-scarred military man was overhead telling his mama.
re Ronen Bergman and the morality of assassinations (random thoughts)
1. from “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession” by Haggai Ram, of Israel’s Ben Gurion University (please pardon the lengthy quote. I’m channeling my inner sassan).
“Ronen Bertman, an Israeli journalist turned terror-cum-espionage expert, begins a highly popular — albeit equally problematic– book on Israel’s dealings with Iran and the Hezbollah. Despite its repetitive and oftentimes tedious narrative, which spans more than six hundred pages, and despite (or perhaps owing to) its many inaccuracies and distortions regarding Iranian history and culture, “Point of No Return: Israeli Intelligence Against Iran and Hezbollah” topped the nonfiction best sellers list for many weeks in 2007. This is not coincidental, partly because the book exudes so systematic a visceral hatred of everything Iranian, but in the main because it is rooted in an a priori assumption that many an Israeli would readily endorse. Indeed . . .in his book Bergman sets out to fit all of his many empirical sources . . .to one single overiding hypothesis: that Israel’s war against the Hezbollah was, in reality, part of “a wider and more conflict between Israel and Iran, between Israel and Islamic extremism,”** as Bergman proposes. 2 In this respect, Bergman’s book not only fails to challenge but also ends up reproducing the prevalent (if not entirely hegemonic) view in Israel–namely, that the 206 Lebanon war was, to cite Benjamin Netanyahu, “conceived, organized, trained and equipped by Iran, with Iran’s goal of destroying Israel and . . .building a Muslim empire.”
Like the many anti-Iran charges uttered by Netanyahu and like-minded Israeli officials, journalists and scholars, Bergman’s book is not a product of sheer fantasy. As with all other acts of propaganda and disinformation, Bergman’s Point of No Return is predicated on an element of truth. The Islamic Republic of Iran truly has been the main culprit behind the Hezbollah’s “transformation into a formidable force, able to confront the great and mighty IDF,” as Bergman contends. Yet Bergman’s function–like the function of most israelis who have introduced and disseminated these notions–is not to expose and confront that truth. Instead, it is to take that element of truth and package it in a manner that would serve the belligerent policies of the Jewish state in the wake of the “war on terror”
that Ehud Barak declared from a BBC studio on Sept 11, 2001er, um,that Benjamin Netanyahu urged US Congress to pursue when he addressed Congress on Sept 12, 2002, even as George Bush was at the United Nations declaring his intentionsthe Bush administration has unleashed in retaliation to the attacks of September 11, 2001.Indeed, it has already been amply demonstrated that the Israeli government has, with the full backing of the United States [or a cabal therein], “hijacked the antiterrorist agenda to impose more and more brutal policies on the occupied territories,” with the ultimate goal being “to render completely unviable any prospect of a Palestinian state.”
END QUOTE
2 Bergman’s argument on this issue is rooted in the Huntingtonian notion, which has an astonishingly impressive following among Israelis (and Americans), that the 1979 revolution inaugurated the “quasi war” between Islam and the West, which culminated in the attacks of 11 September 2001. [Netanyahu's statements before a congressional subcommittee on Sept 12, 2002, echo this 'notion,' and Danny Ayalon's comments in the Chatham House interview mentioned at ** state it explicitly: the Iranian Revolution was the starting point for Islamic extremism and terrorism in the region.] Take, for example, Eliezer . . .Tsafrir, the last Mossad agent in Iran before (and during) the revolution . . . Tsafrir writes, “Even if (the 9/11 attacks) carried no Iranian fingerprints, they were executed by radical Islamic organizations that are under the sweeping influence of the Islamic Revolution and its preaching. Most diabolical of all is Al-Qaeda . . .After Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, (Al Qaeda) is the most horrific outgrowth in the history of terrorism and Islamic radicalism . . .There is no doubt that one of the main ancestors of this lineage was Ayatollah Khomeini, the great exporter of revolution and terror.”
END QUOTE
The main point I started out wanting to make from this passage is that Bergman is a tool of the Israeli propaganda apparatus. He does not observe and report on Israeli government, he speaks for Israeli government. And as Haggai Ram pointed out, Israeli government acts in concert with certain, ever-expanding elements of American government and society.
Given that Bergman speaks for Israeli government; that US government & media have clear linkages, it is worth noting that immediately after Bergman’s video segment, Brian Williams introduced an extended report on a woman who had been mistress of John F. Kennedy, “our martyred president.”
Bergman had just finished insisting, with wild-eyed passion that “”From the day of its establishment the Israeli secret services have used the weapon of assassinations — of targeted killing–more extensively than any other country in the world. Even the cruel tyrants like Stalin or Saddam Hussein were far more hesitant when it came to overseas assassinations.” (Almost all of Bergman’s comments have been typed in this comment, but observing his body language as he speaks validates Avigail Ararbanel’s assessment that Israeli culture is unhinged (see my later comment).
Sassan merely echoed Bergman’s argument — and the claim made by Bob Wildrum in the same MSNBC news report, by the way — that assassination is moral. Bergman made a two-part argument:
part 1: “Israel being a small country with limited resources, almost from day one was aiming at targeted operations rather than all out wars, hoping that by taking out individuals they can alter — change the course of history.
Does killing a relatively low-level nuclear scientist in Iran “change the course of history?” Remains to be seen, but the assassination of even higher level Iranian scientists have not so far “changed the course of history.” The assassination of JFK changed the course of history, but we’re not talking about assassinating presidents, are we. Or are we?
part 2: “I think that it is morally justified to kill people that are of national threat — national security threat to your country.”
Bob Wildrum also discussed the allegation that Israel uses U.S. terror-listed MEK members to assassinate Iranians and assessed the ‘winners and losers’ in the situation.
Obviously Iran is not in the winner’s column: “five Iranian nuclear scientists have been taken out,” but still, Iran’s nuclear program has not been impacted, although, “obviously, it’s having a psychological effect,” Wildrum said.
Here’s how Wildrum scored Israel and the U.S.:
“For the Israelis it’s dealing with a terrorist group. And for the United States, what it says is that the great moral value that Israel has is being diminished by them working with a terrorist group on assassinations. So nobody can like this story.”
That is, Israel’s “great moral value” is NOT “diminished” by carrying out assassinations, which Wildrum has acknowledged is an act contrary to American law — presumably, ‘moral values;’ rather, Israel’s “moral value” is diminished by making use of a group that is on the “moral values USA” terror watch list. The solution is obvious: US should delist MEK! Then, Israel regains its accustomed perch on the ladder of “great moral value” and Sassan can be spared an anxiety attack.
Getting back to Bergman’s explanation of why assassinations have “great moral value,”
he explains how a “national security threat to your country” is defined:
“Now I don’t support the comparison that Pres. Netanyahu made between Ahmadinejad and Hitler. I think it’s wrong. Hitler should not be compared to anything. And yet this is the comparison being made by the leaders of Israel. Once this is the comparison, once your arch-nemesis is Hitler, then all means are justified to stop it. Once the threat is an existential one and you defend your people from another annihilation, then I would assume that everybody would justify recruiting [people] whoever they are, even if they are terrorists, [to take out] a new Hitler.”
That is to say, comparing someone to Hitler triggers the right to use “all means” to terminate this “existential” threat.
Of course, as was spelled out in the opening quotation from Bergman’s book about Lebanon, Israel has defined Iran as an “existential threat” since 1979 when Khomeinin came to power and Israel’s access to Iranian treasure, information, and influence in SAVAK was shut off. In other words, when Iran declared its independence from Israeli intrusions on Iran’s sovereignty, Iran became an “existential threat” to the zionist project.
This has gone on long enough — too long. Permit me merely to note two or three books:
M. Shahid Alam’s “Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilising Logic of Zionism” is a compendium of the “varieties of exceptionalism” that zionism grants itself, including exempting itself from norms of international law.
Stephen Green’s “Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel.” Details the ways in which a) Israel does NOT have “limited resources,” but (as Alam also explains) has throughout zionism’s existence has used the then-most powerful nations in the world to achieve its goals. Green further debunks Bergman’s claim that “almost from day one was aiming at targeted operations rather than all out wars.” Rather, as Shimon Peres revealed in a 1963 Knesset speech, Israel would use politics and acquisition of vast arms to defend itself, and also use the “strong military” power it had built up in a ” ‘preventive war,’ i.e., for a first strike . . .utiliz[ing] local clashes in order to increase tension and seek opportunities to deliver a ‘crushing blow.’ ”
Please note that Peres’ speech was delivered at Knesset in 1963, well before Iran displayed “Hitler-like” characteristics and nearly 30 years before Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis found its way into print. No, Peres’s strategy for Israel’s functioning in its neighborhood by pursuing a murderous path is not ’situation ethics,’ it is endemic to the zionist ideology.
A deeper question is whether that murderous zionist ideology is co-existent with modern zionism, that is, the movement begun in the late 19th century in Russia, or if it has deeper roots. That’s for another time, but some illumination on that topic can be found in Martin Goodman’s “Rome and Jerusalem,” and also, probably much to Levine’s chagrin, in Amy Jill Levine’s lectures on “Great Figures of the New Testament,” particularly her description of the Herodians.
—–
** On the Chatham House website where Peter Jenkins interview is streamed, also find a Chatham House interview of Danny Ayalon. More on that later.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tv/2011/04/000001_ptv_live_streaming_map.shtml
BBC taking live calls from Iran regarding the silent protests in Iran today..
Wonderful, now it’s Japan’s turn;
Japan atomic power defenders: keep ability to build nuclear weapons (“…if you don’t want to be pushed around…”)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/japan-nuclear-arms-idUSL4E8DA2ZK20120213
Obviously, countries are watching carefully how the world is developing and learning the leason.
Zbig (H.-Jochen Scholz) says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:59 am
Only one ‘active’ hyperlink is allowed. Additional hyperlinks can be included, but must be masked. E.g. http://www.nytimes.com and ,www.nytimes.com get through the automatic filter.
Hope this helps.
Rd. says:
February 14, 2012 at 9:39 am
If I were Mel Brooks, I’d write a strong letter of protest to Mrs. Clinton asking to be exempted from the blanket statement: “You cannot make this stuff up.”
Clearly you can. I (Mel Brooks) made up ‘Get Smart’, and I insist to continue to receive royalties for that creation.
Anti-Iran sanctions hit UK companies
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/226652.html
I for one find the false flag scenario in the Indian attacks by Israel to be entirely plausible and worth considering. In their twisted way of thinking, not only do the Israelis seek international sympathy for a war they started, they get to muck up bi-lateral Indian and Iranian relations as well. Motive galore.
“Israel targeted own embassies to evoke sympathy: Iran MP”
http://presstv.com/detail/226627.html
Question to the webmaster: was anything wrong with my yesterday’s posting?
Interesting tidbit..:
Last month, a Lebanese-Swedish man with alleged links to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants was detained by Thai police. He led authorities to a warehouse filled with more than 8,800 pounds of urea fertilizer and several gallons of liquid ammonium nitrate.
Turkey the Honduras of the Middle East for a new Contra war?
“Those who had read a certain USAID report knew what it was about: “The United States seeks to develop Turkey as a base for regional leadership on organized crime, counternarcotics, nonproliferation, and counter-terrorism,” says the report. A four-in-one job, given to the empire’s most valuable neo-colony of the moment. “
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/buglalilar130212.html
And another one..
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/437/Thailand%20Explosion_Higg(2).jpg
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/462/Thailand%20Explosion_Higg(4).jpg
Picture of the Hizbolli thug in Thailand who had his legs blown off. Miraculously, he didn’t die..
BiBiJon says:
Iran has rubbished Israeli charges as “empty lies”.
gas prices have not gone up either?!? infact in a couple of places they are down a bit?? No market jitters??? perhaps the markets are getting to know false flags ops just like the phoney saudi ambassador b rated movie script.
Gash says: February 14, 2012 at 7:30 am
Not at all.
Isrselis have been threatening that they will attack Iran.
Here is their chance.
The latest arrest and plot that was revealed in the U.S. against the Saudi Ambassador reveals some interesting clues: the disarray of the Islamic Republic in that they no longer can produce the highly skilled operatives to carry out such terrorist attacks in contrast to what they were able to do earlier. It is quite interesting and this has been further supported in the last 2-days with the bombings in India and Georgia and the premature incident today in Thailand in that none of the attacks ended up killing any individuals in which was the obvious motive in all of these terrorist operations.
Mel Brooks created Maxwell Smart, agent 86.
=============================
Yes folks, the used-car salesman brigade has just hit again.
The first Mr. Smart had dollars wired to a Mexican drug cartel, and for the latest episode of ‘Get Smart’, we have:
———–
“He tried to wave down a taxi, but he was covered in blood, and the driver refused to take him,” Pansiri said. He then threw an explosive at the taxi and began running.
Police who had been called to the area then tried to apprehend Moradi, who hurled a grenade to defend himself. “But somehow it bounced back” and blew off his legs, Pansiri said.
Photos of the wounded Iranian showed him covered in dark soot on a sidewalk strewn with broken glass. He lay in front of a Thai primary and secondary school. No students were reported wounded.
A dark satchel nearby was investigated by a bomb disposal unit. Pansiri said police found Iranian currency, US dollars and Thai money in the bag.
———————–
From http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501712_162-57377174/bangkok-blast-wounds-iranian-attacker-4-others/
From http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Unfazed-by-US-sanctions-India-to-step-up-ties-with-Iran/articleshow/11887691.cms
India is uneasy at Israeli accusations about Iran’s hand in the Monday bombing that targeted an Israeli embassy car, badly injuring the wife of the Israeli defence attache.
India, the sources said, does not want to be drawn into a diplomatic war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Iran has rubbished Israeli charges as “empty lies”.
All!
Whoever behind the failed attempts and bombings plays right in the hands of Israel and other warmongers of the world. If those moves arent as some call “false-flag” they are awkward, non strategic, clumsy and of course illegal and wont benefit Iran one bit.
Just came across an interesting piece by the economist intelligence unit.
from the ViewsWire: December 30th 2011:
“Given the strong probability that all of the protagonists would suffer grievous harm from an escalation of conflict over the strait, not to mention the damage that would be inflicted on an already wobbly world economy, the question arises as to why the US and the EU are intent on stirring the pot. The much-trumpeted International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that came out in October did not add anything substantial to what was already known or suspected about Iran’s nuclear activities. Its conclusions were in fact remarkably similar to those of the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate, which was criticised at the time for being too soft on Iran. Citing sources in several intelligence agencies, the IAEA stated for the first time that it was convinced that Iran had conducted activities prior to 2003 that indicated that it intended to develop nuclear weapons. At the same time, the IAEA acknowledged that it did not have any evidence of a military dimension to Iran’s ongoing nuclear fuel programme. Among the possible explanations for the Western powers’ actions is that they fear that time is running out, as Iran is getting close to the point at which it will be able to draw together all the various elements of its uranium enrichment activities and its missile technology development to turn itself into a nuclear-armed power. There may also be a calculation that increasing the economic pressure on Iran will influence domestic politics and enable a shift in the internal balance of power in favour of interest groups that are ready to negotiate in good faith about an agreement guaranteeing that Iran would not be able to produce nuclear weapons.
However, the supposition that the US and the EU are proceeding on the basis of a well thought-out plan is at odds with the reality of a hesitant and reactive US presidency and an EU that is in existential crisis over the euro. That raises the suspicion that there is a growing risk of the West blundering into a catastrophic confrontation with Iran. Given the major interests that it has in the region, China is likely to be watching these developments with increasing anxiety.”
In the interview of Iranian Diplomacy with Peter Jennings, he makes the following statement which *prima facie* supports Eric’s position regarding the AP:
“(There is an analogy with Iran’s decision, in 2006, to cease applying the Additional Protocol (AP). This decision denied IAEA inspectors the access they needed to produce the assurance that there are no undeclared nuclear activities or material in Iran. The absence of such an assurance plays into the hands of Iran’s enemies.)”
But then, it seems to me at any rate, he goes on to contradict himself:
IRD: In June 2005, Bruno Pellaud, former IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards, said that if Iran had a military program, it would not have accepted the Additional Protocol. Is this a sound analysis?
PJ: Essentially, yes. Iran would have been taking a big risk in December 2003, when it provisionally applied the Additional Protocol, if it had possessed nuclear material or facilities that it had no intention of declaring to the IAEA, since the Additional Protocols grants the IAEA intrusive inspection rights.
And here he essentially admits that the US political system is at the mercy of political pressure groups [who act in the interest of Israel]:
PJ: In any meaningful negotiation a degree of reciprocity is required to produce an agreed outcome. Supposing Iran were to tell the P5+1 that it was ready to apply the Additional Protocols and modified code 3.1, to resolve all outstanding IAEA questions, and to volunteer a number of “confidence-building measures” (CBMs) to show to neighbors that it intends to continue respecting the NPT – how could the West reciprocate? The White House cannot concede any diminution in the pressure of bilateral or UN sanctions in an electoral year, for fear of the President’s opponents accusing him of weakness, and the White House would be unhappy if the European Union were to rescind bilateral EU sanctions. Conclusion: it is hard to envisage any progress through talks/negotiations this year, even if the P5+1 were to drop its insistence on full implementation of all UN demands as a precondition.
What seems certain is that there will be no movement in Iran-US relations before the election. That is a good amount of time for more “facts on the ground” to rear their head. I hope that once re-elected, Obama will be in a frame of mind to “reset” US relations with the Islamic Republic, and I think there is a pretty good chance of that, as it is probably the only way he can salvage a decent legacy for himself.
Sassan
Despite your promise, you failed to reply to my post about Israel a while ago.
If I manage to find it, I will post it again.
Today, I copy-paste one of my old posts about Iran for your attention:
When replaying to this post, please do not manipulate, exaggerate and distort the truth.
In today’s Iran, security is paramount and much more important than civil rights.
If one understands the international politics and the world order, one can easily comprehend that Iran is in a very volatile and dangerous situation.
There are so many CIA and Mossad backed groups active in Iran as we speak,
There are powerful governments behind these groups and their ultimate objectives are:
“Dividing Iranian people”, “de-stabilizing its government”, “regime change” and
Establishment of a puppet government sympathetic to Israel and USA.
By now, any person with a bit of intelligent should recognise that 32 years of sanctions has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program but everything to do with weakening Iran economically in order to turn its people against its government.
During the election Ahmadinejad gave freedom, people were expressing themselves freely in the streets of Tehran, there were televised presidential debates, and such events were unprecedented in Iran’s political history.
We all witnessed how the oppositions misused this freedom and manipulated the electoral process with help and assistance of the entire western media, orchestrated and financed By US ,which resulted in riots.
The crackdown was absolutely necessary because the security of the entire country was at stake.
If the Iranian government gives too much freedom, these vultures with the help of foreign agents will pounce again and destabilise the country as soon as they smell freedom.
In 1953, the US destroyed the democratically elected government of Mosadegh and in 2009 tried but failed to topple another democratically elected government of Iran.
It is laughable when our government with its own atrocious human’s right record uses the notion of human rights to demonize the Islamic republic.
Iran’s human right is not perfect but comparatively speaking is one of the best in the Middle East.
Many Iranians believe that a secular democracy is the best solution for Iran but I strongly believe that:
Even if Iran develops one of the best secular democracies in the world but refused to recognize the criminal Zionist regime in Israel and also refuses to give up its independence, the USA would cripple it exactly the same way as it has been trying to cripple the Islamic Republic.
People of Iran should not be under illusion that another revolution and regime change by western government would bring them prosperity.
On the contrary, once the system is destabilised, different provinces of Iran like Kurdistan, Baluchistan, lurestan, Azerbaijan and others would seek autonomy.
Different political groups both inside and outside of Iran, such as MEK, Monarchist , Communist and others would fight bitterly to gain power, the result of which would be a civil war the like of which, we have never seen before.
If I were an Iranian, I would stay with the status quo for the time being rather than allow the US and Israel to divide and destroy Iran into another hell like Iraq.
Remember what the USA and the Britain did to Iran’s only democracy back in 1953, they destroyed Mosadegh’s democratically elected government.
In the current world order, there are two options left for Iran:
1) Stay independent as they are now and fight to the bitter end
Or
2) Be slave to western countries.
Knowing how proud the Iranians are about their independence, I believe there is only one option remains.
Jay at 11.16. Thanks.
Ah, so!
Israeli terrorism is morally superior terrorism because it never targets civilians. Those 400 or so children in Gaza were… well, very small terrorists, just like the ones in Lebanon, and the white phosphorous was, well… white, which is also morally superior.
I noticed that Sassan has a picture “of himself” to go with his comments, which I am confident is not a picture of him, and I notice, too, that they haven’t blocked his comments about…. wait for it, Iranians raping children.
Repetition to establish irrational associations, here and there, and wherever accepted.
Are there words for his particular type of “morally superior” madness?
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm
UU-
I hope you didn’t overdose on the free cake and the sundaes; I really got tired of the US elite BS, these guys always find an excuse for a good war, just like if a war is a cheap Steven Seagal movie or a video game, it never is their own electorate fault since they have no control over the ruling elites, and never the fault of the brutal mercenaries they call military unlashing on poor people around the world. And so far they never had enough, and only are confronted by idiots or terrorists no one ever has enough logic to confront them.
Kooshy-san: James Canning says: “The US has absolutely no “strategic need” for war with Iran. Full stop. UNLESS Iran proceeds with building nukes.”
I disagree with James. My thought is that the US is between a rock and a hard place. It cannot afford to wage war on Iran, but at the same time, it cannot afford not to. It knows that left to its own devices, 20 years from now Iran’s technological, economic, military and diplomatic growth and development will be so large (even compared to the last 20 years) that it will be game over in the Middle East. And that, it cannot afford.
*
Fior-san says, “Judge to man convicted 5 times of robbing banks: “Why do you keep robbing banks?” Robber: “Because that’s where the money is.”
I literally laughed out loud! Merci.
*
Jay says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm
As VoT rightly pointed out, Sassan’s boyfriend is IDF.
Kooshy-san says, “Immediately after putting this minor strategic difficulty out of his way, he then moves to the juicy part which gives him the climax that is moving to the shooting gallery and the arcade.”
LOL. Well, I have said my last word on the subject, so I won’t elaborate further, but talk of war and climax reminded me of one of the funny incidents on the march of 22 Bahman I was in a couple of days ago. There were people handing out all sorts of things, from pictures of the Rahbar (one of which I took and was proud to display on a stick), to cardboard cut-outs in the shape of that drone Iran landed, with Imam Khomeini’s immortal words “America can’t do a damn thing”. But the one that took the biscuit for me was a newspaper flier with the big headline: “hasteh-ee aamadeem”. I was thrown for a loop, as I had no idea what that meant, but then I saw that they had done everyone the favor of translating it into English, which read: “We came nuclear.”
Thanks for sharing, I thought.
Castellio says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Jay, do you have the link for that comment?
Here is the text of Sassan’s post and the link:
”
We still don’t know for sure if Israel was involved as it could very well have been the regime themselves but let me make one point assuming that it was Israel involved with the blast. When the Islamic Republic supports terrorists in the Palestinian territories in funding them and providing them the means in becoming suicide bombers, the target is always directed into MASS CASUALTIES in killing the “greatest amount of Jews possible” (with added effect, needles are packed in with the suicide bomber for the after affect of killing or maiming bystanders). According to press reports, the type of “magnet bomb” that was placed on the vehicles in Iran were designed in a way in which the explosion was “directed into the vehicle” rather than “outward” in preventing civilian casualties of other motorists and bypassers. Assuming this was carried out or funded by Israel, do you see how Israel is morally superior to the Islamic Republic? They don’t target civilians (assuming Israel was behind the attacks).
”
\!!http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/02/news-mousavis-daughters-threatened-israels-role-in-assassinations.html#ixzz1mKI6BSrs!!\
WTF says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Considering the current uprising in Middle East
Post-colonial countries (like KSA, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen) are mostly made of large ethnicities separated by religions and or tribal background fault lines, their current uprisings is for the neglected ethnicity to become a viable part of the political system, ultimately to gain some level of autonomy from the ruling ethnicity, or to completely take over the control of the political system if they are the larger ethnicity. In this formats once the uprisings starts it would be much more difficult to be settled, since the ethnical sensations would make it more possible for the uprisings to become a civil war on the fault lines of religion, ethnicity tribalism etc. In that case once the jinni is out it would be hard to put back.
Seeing as how the Gulf Arab states are now overtly pushing for regime change in Syria, it will be interesting to see if Iran starts fanning the flames of discontent in Bahrain and SA.
Bahrain Erupts Before Protest Anniversary
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577221083414153346.html
In recent months, opposition youth have grown more radicalized, using Molotov cocktails and rocks to fight back tear-gas firing police in the villages surrounding Manama where clashes are common.
And then there’s this…
Gunfights in Saudi Arabia Show Spread of Tensions
;http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/gunfights-in-saudi-oil-province-show-spread-of-iran-tensions.html
Violence, though, has been increasing since October when security forces were fired upon from side streets of Awwamiya. Gun battles between police and demonstrators broke out there and in Qatif on Feb. 9 and 10.
Jay, do you have the link for that comment?
Sassan,
I occasionally look through Tehran Bureau and I noticed a post from you in which you intimated that since Israelis are morally superior their conduct of acts of terrorism is justifiable (paraphrasing here, but the post is there for everyone to read).
I don’t know if anybody there will point out your reprehensible position, but I though I should take the opportunity to welcome you to the inhuman race!
Sassan, you still can’t find a way to quote a paragraph or two and then reference…
I must say, its a bit much to see Freedland pretending to have been strongly against the Iraq war. I don’t remember it that way. He is a well known apologist who, over the years, has perfected his apologies. Just another one… the article should be entitled “How to forget the recent past and in so doing misinterpret your support of the alliance of Al-Qaeda, the US, and Nato in Syria”.
Where US power should lie…. a cure for Alzheimers…
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/090212
Mossad attacks Israeli embassies and blames Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/mossad-attacks-israeli-embassies-and-blames-iran/
“Pentagon wants $3 billion for the War in Iraq that we thought was over”
http://rt.com/usa/news/billion-war-iraq-us-215/
I also recommend “The Mormon Thing”, by Philip Giraldi (at same site noted below).
Recent visitors to the CIA in Langley notice a number of young men walking around carrying the Book of Mormon.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Please don’t waste my time.
Likewise agreed
fyi,
You also noted correctly that the American public is paying and will pay the gigantic costs of the insane US policies in the Middle East.
Pat Buchanan slams John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, in
“On to Tehran – - or is it Damascus?”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
fyi,
You make good points. There is no doubt that interests closely aligned with the right wing in Israel “penetrated” the Pentagon with a view toward setting up the illegal invasion of Iraq. And the perpetrators were subsequently protected and rewarded.
James Canning says: February 13, 2012 at 5:57 pm
No, you are not going far (or deep) enough.
A major cause of the Iraq war was the inflitration of the Office of the Secreatry of Defense by people with dubious loyalty to the United States.
The Americans have a major task of cleaning their government institutions from foreign influences; foreigners of all kinds have taken advantage of the openness and hospitality of the people of the United States to advance their agenda; harming the United States.
On the other hand, Americans have to pay the wages of Empire.
Kooshy: “K- So did I you better read before jumping on the keyboard.”
No, YOU said and I quoted you that I “name only one, James names only one”. I DO NOT “name only one.”
Now you’re ducking that direct quote.
“K- For you, all past and present US military’s joint chief of staffs,”
Bullshit. There has been no mass announcement from “past and present Joint Chiefs” that an Iran war would be a “disaster”. Perhaps one officer or another, but not the entire Joint Chiefs.
Once again, you generalize based on one or another individuals to the entire Pentagon…
“and the various US’s intelligent services who have continually called “a war with Iran is a disaster””
And neither have the sixteen US intelligence agencies said anything about a “disaster”…
You just make this stuff up without any pretense of having evidence for your position, do you? Are you learning from Sassan?
“Factually still they are the ONLY group that have continually been against the war”
NOT as a GROUP – and not in opposition to the other GROUPS who have far more influence.
“and as a matter of fact no war has happened yet”
Which is called “circular reasoning” in the study of logic…
It’s also called “idiot logic”, as in “I wash my nuts so tigers won’t attack me. See, it works! No tigers have attacked me!”
“the elites that have continually asked for war and have not got their wish through yet.”
A mindless restatement of an assertion without any evidence…
“You say” a pushback is not a block” that is arguing in desperate childish way do you really believe that.”
Can you understand written English? A push back does not necessarily completely block something. It may also slow it down, but not entirely prevent it from moving ahead – which is exactly the position any Pentagon officers who oppose an Iran war are in.
“K- Why what’s in it for them just is because” it will be much easier to concentrate on ONE war than THREE””
AND they might get more promotions in a bigger war. Like I said, their careers are all the senior US military care about. Otherwise they wouldn’t be LYING about their “success” in Iraq and Afghanistan every time they open their mouths.
Or do you think they’re ALWAYS telling the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Iran? You think they’re lying about Iraq and Afghanistan but NOT about Iran? Despite the fact that they continually drag out stories about Iran supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, or Iran supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or whatever crap they come up with? Or do you think they’re lying about Iran in THOSE news reports but STILL don’t want a war with Iran?
“where is your logic or a reason that the US military wants to go to a new war for me to comprehend”
It’s pretty clear that there IS NO logic YOU can comprehend…
“what you level as the logic for why they want war is just a tactical issue what is the strategic component for what US military to want anew war, ah I forgot back to the ruling elites.”
Since you don’t appear to even know what the difference is between tactical and strategic considerations, let alone MOTIVATIONS which are completely different than either, I’ll let that one pass…
“I said it before I am not going to play your arcade war game”
Which is your way of admitting you can’t respond to anything I say about the US strategic capabilities vs Iran’s strategic capabilities…
“but I be happy to discuss this at a strategic level for the US side or Iran’s.”
Since you clearly don’t know WHAT a strategic consideration is, let alone a motivation for war which is not necessarily a strategic consideration at all, I don’t see the point of further discussion.
You have no coherent argument, just a recital of assertions unsupported by any evidence from any source whatsoever in terms of actual events, statements, assessments, or anything else.
Right now, you’re on a par with Canning and his 20% nonsense or Eric and his unilateral AP nonsense: all hand waving and no content.
Please don’t waste my time.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 13, 2012 at 6:04 pm
This is true.
But they failed.
That game is over.
Before I blame a government of an ally I first blame my own. Germany has been playing the US Iran game without any visible contradiction since the overthrow of the Sha in 1979, which was decided upon at the conference of Guadeloupe (4. to 7. January 1979). On the contrary, my then chancellor Helmut Schmidt agreed to the proposal made by Valéry Giscard D’Estaing, James Callaghan and President Carter. The main architect of the recent European Union embargo against Iran is my government. I agree with Pepe Escobar’s first sentence in his Jan 25 article in Asia Times: “No one ever lost money betting on the foolishness of European Union (EU) politicos.”
To put it in a nutshell: in a non-juridical sense the EU policy towards Iran is high treason because it is directed against well-understood European interests.
The US policy against Iran has nothing to do with an alleged Iran nuclear bomb construction. It has to do everything with
· Halford Mackinder’s “Democratic Ideals and Reality” as of 1919 and “The Geographical Pivot of History” as of 1904
· my namesake’s “The Grand Chessboard”
· Walter Russell Mead’s “God and Gold”
· the rise of China
· the threat to the Dollar as the world’ s key currency
· Andre Gunder Frank’s “ReOrient”
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520214743
and his last piece “Meet Uncle Sam Without Clothes Parading around China and the World”
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/noclothes.htm
· the lost industrial capacity due to outsourcing and concentrating on financial “services” (to put it in neutral words)
We have to fight against the Iran policy in Europe, Ms and Mr Leverett and many of the commentators here do it in the States. Belonging to a generation in Germany which benefited in many respects from the generosity of the United States after World War II I am deeply disappointed by the US policy since the end of the Cold War.
Interesting post over at Boiling Frogs…
Revisiting 9/11 with a Bit of Accounting
The Big Picture vs. Drowning in Superficial Details Surrounded by Smoke & Mirrors
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/02/10/revisiting-911-with-a-bit-of-accounting/#more-12018
Quote
So much time and energy and focus is being wasted on tiny bits of detail, while the macro picture is being completely ignored. Especially when many of these pieces act as smoke and mirror ingredients, rather than important pieces leading to the entire picture. What is missing is some good ole fashion accounting. What is needed is a general listing of losses and gains. And of course, with that, ferreting out those with the biggest wins and those with the biggest losses. How hard can that be? And why is no one doing it?
The American People
Liberties- loss (negative gains)
Financial- loss (negative gains)
Security & Safety- zero and negative
The Alleged Terrorists-Hijackers
Loss- dead.
The Alleged Terrorists: So-called Al-Qaeda
Financial- loss (negative gains)
Power- loss (supposedly on the run)
Physical Domain- loss (supposedly flushed out of the caves they were housed in)
Afghanistan People & Nation Status
Financial- loss
Liberties- zero (unchanged)
Security & Safety- loss (negative gains)
The US Government
Expenditure Power- gain; (positive; on borrowed money, peoples’ back)
Authority & Ruling Power- gain (positive)
Immunity & Untouchability- gain (positive)
War Power- gain (positive)
Abuse of Power Threshold- gain (positive)
International Colonies & Domain- gain (positive)
Military Industrial Complex & Related Parasitic Bottom-Feeders
Financial- gain (uber positive)
Physical Domain & Expansion; National and international- gain (positive)
Immunity and Exemptions from Laws-Regulations- gain (positive)
End Quote
The same concept applies to the discussions on this site…
“War is no solution for Iran’s nuclear dispute: Russia”
http://www.presstv.com/detail/226527.html
Russian FM, Lavrov, in UAE, said negotiations are only way forward to resolve dispute.
BFP Developing Story: Azerbaijan Hub for Mossad’s Assassination & Espionage Operations against Iran
:http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/02/12/bfp-developing-story-azerbaijan-hub-for-mossads-assassination-espionage-operations-against-iran/#more-12064
Iran summons Azeri envoy over assassins
:http://www.presstv.ir/detail/226332.html
Kathleen,
Writing in the Washington Post Jan. 27, 2010, Robert Kagan argued that the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse – - if only Obama would support the protesters. He therefore helped wreck the opportunity to make a deal with Iran.
Pepe Escobar on Syria, the new Libya
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB14Ak01.html
Quotes
So when the Assad regime, for all its ghastly military offensives that essentially victimize civilians caught in cross fire, says it’s fighting “terrorists”, it’s not exactly bending the truth. Even that ubiquitous, proverbial entity, the unnamed “US official”, is blaming AQI for the recent bombings. Same for Iraq’s Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al-Assadi; “We have intelligence information that a number of Iraqi jihadists went to Syria.”
So if Syria could not be the new Libya in the sense of a UN resolution authorizing NATO humanitarian bombing – vetoed by BRICS members Russia and China – Syria is a new Libya in the sense of unsavory ties between the “rebels” and hardcore Salafi-jihadis.
And as the West absolutely loves a win-win situation, no matter how prefabricated, that could also turn into the perfect Pentagon casus belli to intervene – as in freeing Syria from an “al-Qaeda” which was never there in the first place.
Just as in Libya, as a matter of strategy, for the House of Saud/Qatar Sunni axis, any possibility of a real dialogue between the (armed) insurrection and the Assad regime has been thwarted. After all; the key objective is regime change. Thus crude propaganda – in an Arab media largely controlled either by Saudis or Qataris – rules.
Example; the much-lauded Britain-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which vomits unending, unsubstantiated statistics on government “massacres” – and even “genocide” – gets its funds from a Dubai entity financed by shady Western and GCC donors.
As a bonus, the non-stop “opposition” spin totally laser-guides Western corporate media coverage. CNN attributed the Aleppo bombing last Friday to “terrorists” – in quotation marks; imagine the hysteria if this was the US Green Zone in Iraq bombed by the Sunni resistance in the mid-2000s. The BBC actually believed the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood spin according to which the Syrian government bombed itself; it would be like the Pentagon bombing itself in the Green Zone. As for Arab media – largely controlled by Saudis and Qataris – it has totally ignored the AQI connection.
The NATOGCC agenda remains the same; regime change, by any means possible. Even Warrior-in-Chief US President Barack Obama said so himself.
End Quotes
kathleen,
So, Robert Kagan was on Diane Rehm’s show, lying about Iran. What a surprise. Malcolm Rifkind has access to the best British (and American) intelligence, being head of the committee on intelligence & foreign policy (UK). He said last month that Iran wants to be “nuclear-ready”, meaning able to build nukes fairly quickly. But he took pains to make clear Iran is not currently building nukes, or about ready to do so.
R S Hack,
I have said many times the scheme to invade Iraq on false pretenses required deceiving G W Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Neither is Jewish, or part of the “Israel lobby” as such. Deceiving the president and his national security adviser was part of the programme of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. That office could not start the war; instead, it worked steadily to shape perceptions so that the war could go forward. And was it a coincidence that all four top officials were neocon Jews conntected to the Israeli right wing (who controlled the Office of SP)?
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm
“I’ve REPEATEDLY listed the components of the “ruling elites”, including the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, and the banks who finance them, the Israel Lobby, the neocons, and the politicians the control in general. I could include some others but this covers the majority of the major corporations and the rich investors who are involved in running the country.
So I don’t name “one”, I lump them under the phrase “the ruling elites”, mostly because I get tired of listing the lot every time.”
K- So did I you better read before jumping on the keyboard.
“That’s far too simplistic to claim the Pentagon has single-handedly stopped the war on Iran. A push back is not a BLOCK. Especially when those who did the push back were subsequently kicked out of the military several years ago…”
Rich-
K- For you, all past and present US military’s joint chief of staffs, and the various US’s intelligent services who have continually called “a war with Iran is a disaster” are irrelevant, and simply they got fired because they said so. Factually still they are the ONLY group that have continually been against the war and as a matter of fact no war has happened yet, so your argument is that they are irrelevant compering to the elites that have continually asked for war and have not got their wish through yet. You say” a pushback is not a block” that is arguing in desperate childish way do you really believe that.
“Once the Pentagon has left Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon will be perfectly happy to attack Iran at any time the ruling elites want since it will be much easier to concentrate on ONE war than THREE. That should be simple enough to comprehend.”
K- Why what’s in it for them just is because” it will be much easier to concentrate on ONE war than THREE” where is your logic or a reason that the US military wants to go to a new war for me to comprehend, what you level as the logic for why they want war is just a tactical issue what is the strategic component for what US military to want anew war, ah I forgot back to the ruling elites.
K- “Granted for US military there may exist a time when strategically becomes beneficial to start a war with Iran, but so far no sign is evident as of the NIE 2011.”
“This incoherent remark is barely capable of being parsed…”
What is so incoherent in that sentence that you simply brushed away the logical reason I put out, and rush back in the arcade? I said it before I am not going to play your arcade war game, but I be happy to discuss this at a strategic level for the US side or Iran’s.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/israel-and-proxy-terrorism/252971/
Israel and Proxy Terrorism
By Robert Wright
Feb 13 2012, 8:43 AM ET 83
Should Israel be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism? That question is being debated in the wake of a story that NBC News broke late last week.
Citing unnamed US officials, NBC reported that Israel has used an Iranian opposition group to carry out those much-publicized assassinations of Iranian scientists. The group in question is the M.E.K. (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahedin of Iran), which since 1997 has been designated a terrorist group by the United States because of its alleged assassinations of US citizens.
The argument for considering Israel a supporter of terrorism comes in two varieties:
1) According to NBC, Israel gives the M.E.K. the funding, training, and weapons to carry out the assassinations–and that would seem to constitute support for a terrorist group.
2) Leaving aside the M.E.K. involvement, there’s the argument that the assassinations inherently constitute terrorism. Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum had previously suggested that whoever is behind the assassinations is committing terrorism, but this NBC story is the first mainstream media corroboration of the widespread suspicion that Israel is behind them.
After the NBC story broke, Paul Pillar, a former CIA official who teaches at Georgetown, dusted off the definition of terrorism used by the US government for purposes of keeping statistics: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” That, says Pillar, is what these assassinations are.
kooshy,
The US and the UK continue to say that there is no proof Iran is trying to lbuild nukes. You might well expect to see war if such proof were to hand. But it seems clear the Iranian governmnet has not decided to build nukes, at least at this time.
Israel and Proxy Terrorism
By Robert Wright
Feb 13 2012, 8:43 AM ET 82
Should Israel be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism? That question is being debated in the wake of a story that NBC News broke late last week.
link to theatlantic.com
Friday, Feb 10, 2012 8:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups
link to salon.com
One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”
Iranian group’s big-money push to get off US terrorist list
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: A roster of influential former US officials is speaking at rallies in support of removing the MEK, an Iranian opposition group with a violent anti-American history, from the US terrorist list. A decision is expected within weeks.
link to csmonitor.com
U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/12/us-gulf-usa-iran-idUSTRE81B0V220120212
Quotes:
Some of the small boats have been outfitted with a large warhead that could be used as a suicide explosive device.
Military experts say the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf – which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers – is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran’s navy.
But ever since al Qaeda suicide bombers in a small boat killed 17 sailors on board the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in a port in Yemen in 1996, Washington has been wary of the vulnerability of its huge battleships to bomb attacks by small enemy craft.
Asked whether the U.S. Navy was prepared for an attack or other trouble in the Gulf, Fox said: “We are very vigilant, we have built a wide range of options to give the president and we are ready… What if it happened tonight? We are ready today.”
Iranian officials have threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet to the Gulf through which nearly all of the Middle East’s oil sails.
Asked if he took Iran’s threats seriously, Fox Said: “Could they make like extremely difficult for us? Yes they could. If we did nothing and they were able to operate without being inhibited, yeah they could close it, but I can’t see that we would ever be in that position.”
End Quotes
kathleen says:
February 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“Iraq warmongers have been recycled throughout the MSM for years now. But recently there seems to be a mass effort to get them on every MSM outlet possible.”
kathleen ,the ‘urgent’ push for war fully INCLUDES the recycling of the warmongers in the MSM , what do you expect ?
Not that the elitists care a whit about the public opinion , however we have still not reached the stage of genuine fascism , thus it would be ‘good’ to have the sheeple going along with the agenda at this stage. That much regarding your comment.
However as a person , who carefully follows the German media there is a lot of movement in the last 3 to 4 years or so.
E.g. if an anti-Iran article was published in the MSM say 4 years ago ( and 99% of the Iran-articles are biased and hostile ) the ratio of related anti-Iran comments to pro-Iran comments was 7 : 3 at best.
The situation changed dramatically to Iran’s favor over the last 4 years and nowadays the is a ratio of 1 :9 , a weird development , which could NOT be predicted with a common sense.
If some one today in the German MSM would quote Ahmadinejad’s ‘ wipe off the map ‘ statement , commentators would tear him apart ( which was definitely not the case just 4 years ago ) Thus years of brainwashing is beginning to backfire BADLY.
There are many such examples , e.g. in the situation in Greece , I see many people ( at least 70 % ) who do not buy into the narrative of the MSM , which in Germany is of course fully zionist and elitits controlled.
I think the reason is that once a person searches for the truth and feels that he was cheated and betrayed by the MSM , or to stay in present word usage , once he is ‘ awakened’ there is no turning back and he will STAY ALWAYS critical to whatever is imposed on him through the mind-control media outlets.
Thus in this respect I see a very postive development , provided of course that a person is willing to see through the fog and more and more are .
As long as the internet operates freely and News channels like RT News , PressTV , CCTV etc. can operate , I am very confident that a ‘Awakening’ on a huge scale will take place , which no one would have dreamt of.
On the other hand the cabal will do whatever in their immense power to prevent the awakening from taking place and they have all the material/evil tools of the world at their diposal.
It is bit difficult for me to judge the situation in the US , as it seems that the mind-control institutes have done almost irreperable damage to the american mind , thus I cannot make any predictions , although the Occupy movement , should it have a wise leadership , is a sign of big hope.
I do not even know which precentage of the American people I should count as ‘ awakened ‘ . If I only take 1 % , that would mean 3.300.000,- !! , personally I don’t see that number.
Kooshy: “neither is the ultimate strategic decision maker for starting a war or ending one the US military’s strategic planers are”
You don’t comprehend how the US works, do you? The Pentagon works at the pleasure of the civilian government – or more precisely, at the pleasure of the civilian elites. It’s not like most Third World countries where the military calls the shots. In the US, the rich call the shots – and they don’t allow the military to become rich, like Third World countries. They just bribe the military leaders with cushy jobs – similar to their military jobs, just sitting around giving orders – and only pay them enough to have a nice retirement.
“who is asking to finish the Afghanistan war and willing to send the US negotiators to negotiate with Taliban to end the war”
It certainly isn’t the military. They’ve been begging Obama for more troops all along and are still telling everyone who will listen that they can “win” if they just get more troops and more time.
The notion you have that the Pentagon wants to end Afghanistan is just bizarre.
The fact is the polls show the US electorate is tired of hearing about Afghanistan just as they got tired of Iraq and that is why Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq and withdraw from Afghanistan (AFTER “winning”, of course, which was a stupid promise.)
Now Afghanistan has become “Obama’s war” not “Bush’s war”. So Obama finally wants out and the best excuse he will have is to say he had to get ready to deal with Iran…
“so if it was for the ruling elites who are making money from the war why are they letting or wanting it to end”
(sigh) Have to repeat myself yet again… 1) Because the ruling elites 1) have made as much money as they can out of Afghanistan given that the electorate wants out; and 2) because a bigger and more profitable war is shortly ready to be initiated – Iran.
“you can’t argue that war market money making just dried up for Iraq and Afghanistan but the a new war market just getting shaped for a war in Iran, that’s senseless.”
Yes, you can, and no, it’s not senseless. It’s how things work.
“that the party that has to make the war has not yet agreed to it why?”
Where do you people get the notion that “the Pentagon” – as it it were one guy with one voice – “has not yet agreed”? Where is your evidence? Some general comments in the MSM that SOME people in the Pentagon don’t like the idea of starting a new war? The fact that a couple of generals like Admiral Fallon said they didn’t want an Iran war – and then promptly got kicked out? Just like several generals before the Iraq war said THAT war was not going to go well – and THEY got kicked out! And was the Iraq war suddenly put on hold? No, it happened!
So where is your EVIDENCE? PROVE that the Pentagon 1) does not en mass want a war with Iran, and 2) has the ABILITY to PREVENT such a war despite the US Congress and the US Administration.
Such an ability is usually called a “mutiny” and leads to military prosecution and jail time in a military stockade…if you’re not familiar with how the US works…
It’s ridiculous. It’s another one of these hand waving fantasies that people think is the way things work.
Humanist: “I was curious about the length of two of then. One was about 2500 words long, the other was way longer, over 19500.”
Yeah, I went overboard on the Irandefence one, but I kept finding new interesting points being made. Be glad I didn’t post the whole 57 pages of discussion… :-) I’m not Sassan! :-)
“Since you seem to know about military and warfare how sure are you about your assumptions and assertions stated on your February 11 at 5:59pm post?”
I’m not SURE – i.e., CERTAIN – about anything. But it’s what I would do if I were the US and Israel and wanted to start a war with Iran that would not cost too much in terms of actual immediate failure to accomplish any useful objectives and which stood a good chance of prolonging the war in order to make the maximum amount of money and inflict the maximum damage to Iran and perhaps achieve more domestic political power if there is terrorist blowback in the continental US.
“I think the case of war also belongs to the category of ‘ball and mountain’.”
Of course war doesn’t always turn out the way one expects when one starts it. The neocons thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and then on to Iran in another year or so. Didn’t happen…
But if your goal is just to start a war with a country which, as someone mentioned in a recent article, doesn’t have the ability to actually land on US shores and burn the capital down, then how it turns out is mostly irrelevant to the ruling elites of your country. What matters is will they achieve THEIR objectives – their REAL objectives, not necessarily their STATED objectives.
I keep saying this and everyone keeps ignoring it and dragging out the “gee, the US can’t achieve its interests by this war!”. Except they refuse to acknowledge what the US ruling elites REAL interests actually ARE. Hint: They bear little resemblance to whatever Obama is spouting in his speeches or what any RATIONAL person like the Leveretts would think is the US objective national interests.
“How sure are you about the occurrences of the events and their order as you have described?”
As I’ve repeatedly said, the order of events could change depending on 1) whether US/NATO can actually weaken Syria/Hizballah sufficiently to enable Israel to avoid a major hit during an Iran war, or 2) whether some other crisis might derail the course of events, such as a flareup with Pakistan or North Korea, or 3) whether a large asteroid lands on Israel…or Iran…or Washington…
In short, I’m doing the same thing any other wannabe pundit does: I’m extrapolating current events in a straight line… But as it stands, I see a straight course to an Iran war within probably two years or so, maybe sooner.
“Can you be sure of the final stable outcome that could stay the same for many decades? (similar to US / Japan war in the 40s)”
What “final stable outcome”? I haven’t mentioned anything like that, except to say the war itself is likely to last ten years. Given that the last major war – Vietnam – did, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted eight years and ten years, I’d say that’s a reasonable estimate.
It could go longer, it could go shorter. If it goes shorter, the ruling elites might be unhappy – unless they’ve made as much money as could be made in any longer time. Which is probably one reason they’re bailing out on Afghanistan. They could stay longer but why do so when Iran is likely to be so much more profitable. Iraq and Afghanistan together made them $100 billion a year or more. Iran should be at least twice and probably four times that size, maybe even $500 billion…
If you mean what sort of stable equilibrium with ensue like after WWII when Japan rebuilt and became friends with the US, well, I have devoted no thought whatever to what will happen after the US loses the Iran war and withdraws. I merely assume Iran will rebuild and carry on. The US will lick its wounds, like it did after Vietnam – and start planning a war within the next ten years with someone else, like Pakistan or North Korea… Always a bigger and better war for the ruling elites… Or maybe the US really will be bled some badly economically, militarily and geopolitically that it will be in collapse…
Who knows? I don’t predict endings, I predict beginnings…Predicting endings, as you say, is much harder.
Castellio says:
February 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Castellio-
The MIC is a relevant influential party, I never deny that so is the Jewish lobby but neither is the ultimate strategic decision maker for starting a war or ending one the US military’s strategic planers are, for example who is asking to finish the Afghanistan war and willing to send the US negotiators to negotiate with Taliban to end the war, so if it was for the ruling elites who are making money from the war why are they letting or wanting it to end, same goes for Vietnam war, you can’t argue that war market money making just dried up for Iraq and Afghanistan but the a new war market just getting shaped for a war in Iran, that’s senseless.
Yes, agreed seems to be good reasons for having a war with Iran, but that it’s not ONLY because the elites and the lobby wants one, the point is, that the party that has to make the war has not yet agreed to it why? Do you have answer for that? Can you argue that the elites were just waiting for the two unfinished messed up ones to be fully juiced out before they start another new juicy one is that your argument? That seems to be Richards.
Kooshy: “you only always name one”
And you always have to misrepresent what I say in order to make your point, don’t you?
I’ve REPEATEDLY listed the components of the “ruling elites”, including the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, the banks who finance them, the Israel Lobby, the neocons, and the politicians the control in general. I could include some others but this covers the majority of the major corporations and the rich investors who are involved in running the country.
So I don’t name “one”, I lump them under the phrase “the ruling elites”, mostly because I get tired of listing the lot every time.
“here I name the four relevant groups for undertaking a necessary strategic war by US against Iran.”
“1-US military ( which so far has continually blocked all other groups to start a war)”
That’s far too simplistic to claim the Pentagon has single-handedly stopped the war on Iran. A push back is not a BLOCK. Especially when those who did the push back were subsequently kicked out of the military several years ago…
“2-Your own ruling elites and the complicit politicians (granted will financially benefit from wars existing or new)”
White of you to acknowledge them…
“3-Jewish lobby ( will want to safe guard Israel and has nonstop pushed for war)”
Agreed – obviously. Some of the Lobby belong to the ruling elites, others do not. In my view, unlike Canning’s, they cannot start a war without the support of the other members of the ruling elites for their own reasons.
“4-US public ( irrelevant, since it can easily be formed to accept any war anywhere)”
Partly true. Note that I’ve never said PR was completely irrelevant, just that it was relatively easy and can not be countered without massive effort against the efforts of the MSM. It is important for the FICTION that the US is a “democracy” that the electorate believe their opinion counts for something, even it it clearly doesn’t. Besides, because it’s so easy to fool most of the people most of the time, why wouldn’t the ruling elites do it, just to make things run more “smoothly?”
“So now you need to explain why the US military has for many years blocked the other two main groups”
It hasn’t. That’s your notion and it’s not correct. EVENTS have blocked the Iran war. That and the need for a careful progression for justification for the Iran war, especially after the Iraq war and the mess it turned into and the other points I outline below.
“and what will make it to become complicit to start a new war for the benefit of other two.”
Once the Pentagon has left Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon will be perfectly happy to attack Iran at any time the ruling elites want since it will be much easier to concentrate on ONE war than THREE. That should be simple enough to comprehend.
Some of the senior officers might like to stay and “finish” in Afghanistan for the sake of claiming they “won”, but I doubt most of them are THAT stupid as to really believe they CAN “win” at this point. They just think Afghanistan is – for them if not for the grunts – a “cakewalk” they can improve their careers on.
Whereas Iran might actually prove to be a “problem” where they might actually lose significant numbers of men and material and thus damage their careers when “heads have to roll” over failures…
In short, the ONLY thing the Pentagon generals care about is their careers and whether they will transition to a cushy military-industrial complex board job after etirement…
“Granted for US military there may exist a time when strategically becomes beneficial to start a war with Iran, but so far no sign is evident as of the NIE 2011.”
This incoherent remark is barely capable of being parsed…
If you mean to ask at what point will the Iran war be FEASIBLY started, I’ve repeatedly said how and when:
1) When Israel has dealt with its concerns about Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon – or rather when the US and NATO have dealt with Syria FOR Israel;
2) When the US has carefully managed the sequence of events such that it can claim that it did all the “diplomacy” it could and all the sanctions it was “forced” to apply, with no results, and therefore it has “no choice” but to go to war, or to be more precise, to initiate a naval blockade of Iran which everyone knows will lead directly to war;
3) When the US military has properly positioned its forces per its strategic and tactical doctrine – getting there pretty rapidly now that US forces will be returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and be re-positioned in the Gulf;
4) When the US electorate is clearly in support of such a war – already achieved according to most polls;
5) When the elections are over and mid-term election campaigns have not started. Although I don’t give much weight to that consideration, it might be one for some politicians.
6) When there are no other equally urgent military or geopolitical disruptions of the US and Israeli plans, i.e., no Pakistan crisis, no North Korea crisis, etc.
When all of these conditions are met, especially conditions 1 to 3, the war will commence.
“Here once more I agree US militarily is superior to Iran’s and can bomb to Stone Age, so please don’t bring that up again or you become like the parroting 20% Gavner.”
White of you to acknowledge it… The fact that the US does have superior power compared to Iran’s military is why the Pentagon isn’t THAT worried about Iran, but IS worried mostly about the war spilling over into areas where the military is NOT particularly capable, namely terrorism, economic impact, asymmetrical war (such as they just LOST in Iraq and Afghanistan…) and so forth.
But again, while the military might care about “collateral issues” resulting from the war, the ruling elites don’t – because it won’t cause them any serious problems. And if it does, well, they’ll just back off from the war and force the US and NATO to wind it down – just like they’re doing in Afghanistan now that they have Iran ready to go…
Iranian Anti Ship Missile Production
Sometimes it helps to look online for videos.
Here is one month’s production of the Ghader (New extended range missile).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13RzMXdpeBw&feature=plcp&context=C383551fUDOEgsToPDskIOlTQlrzz8ZZ2g5BM4dfRQ
You can easily see 30-50 missiles in the background of this video.
Additional Ghader videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjtLSrXG6m0&feature=plcp&context=C36e06f3UDOEgsToPDskIyouyUlgY0c2jXj70NUGmX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eV3bgdJWXM&feature=plcp&context=C3fe422eUDOEgsToPDskJQVmxtzu8UgeDE7oo4so9C
New trucks shown with 3 missiles per truck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG9RelSP0y4&feature=plcp&context=C30ced1aUDOEgsToPDskLK5f-JCdcw_b2Uqpbl4-N8
So…it is reasonable to assume 50 missiles per month for the last six months using the number shown in the videos alone. In six months, 300+ produced. And obviously this is only one missile of many different variants Iran has and currently produces.
Iraq warmongers have been recycled throughout the MSM for years now. But recently there seems to be a mass effort to get them on every MSM outlet possible. A new and big push. Robert Kagan on the Diane Rehm show today. The transcript is not up but listened and he came right out and said that there is no doubt that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Then went onto to reference the new IAEA report on Iran. Diane did not challenge this comment. She did ask him if he had any “regrets” about supporting and pushing the invasion of Iraq several times. She went further than she generally does. So instead of those who pushed the war in Iraq going being investigated or going on trial we hear them all over the MSM repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-13/robert-kagan-world-america-made
Why does the Rehm team provide platforms for those who were so I believe purposely wrong about WMD’s in Iraq. Terribly wrong! Horribly wrong! Those responsible for the hundreds of thousands dead, injured and millions displace in Iraq. Those responsible for 4600 dead American soldiers as well as the tens of thousands injured…why would you provide a platform for these individuals to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. This is not fair coverage this is stupid and irresponsible
MSM has been recycling all of those warmongers everywhere you look and listen for 10 years. They are resurfacing in mass recently Robert Kagan on the Diane Rehm show today, Elliot Abrams on GPS this past Sunday, Kagan and Max Boot policy analyst with the Romney campaign, Wolfowitz going to be on Fareed Zakaria on Feb 27th, Addington and Wolfowitz asking questions at one of the Republican debates. Why the flying f— do we have to hear from individuals who I believe were purposely wrong about Iraq all in the name for supposed fairness. Why does the MSM promote these bloody warmongers instead of pushing for accountability for their crimes against humanity?
Ah Kooshy, now that’s interesting. What is the relation of the US military to the elites, the administration, the congress and the people at large.
And if people generally accept that the decisions of the military make more sense than the decisions of Congress, what does that mean for the US? That is the current state of things, actually.
Do people want another Eisenhower?
How will that person be chosen or otherwise achieve power?
Richard,
I wasn’t able to understand your long posts on WAR tactics with Iran.
I was curious about the length of two of then. One was about 2500 words long, the other was way longer, over 19500.
I have a question:
Since you seem to know about military and warfare how sure are you about your assumptions and assertions stated on your February 11 at 5:59pm post?
I remember in a seminar on computer modeling the speaker said “most real life events resemble the case of [soccer ball and mountain]”. Imagine you plant a huge soccer ball on top of a steep mountain, push it on a given direction until it starts rolling down. The problem is then, to determine where the ball lands.
In the simplest case the mountain resembles a perfectly smooth slope. In this case the prediction is easy (ball always lands on the same spot). However if the mountain is high and extremely rugged depending on random values of the relevant components such as speeds and directions of the winds, pressure inside the ball etc, after repeating the experiment the landing positions occupy a very large area showing a large degree of uncertainty.
I think the case of war also belongs to the category of ‘ball and mountain’. Some wars are easy to model (such as hypothetical war of US with a small island state in the Pacific where in minutes everything there can be destroyed. However the outcome of a war with Iran must be very hard to envision or to model.
How sure are you about the occurrences of the events and their order as you have described? Can you be sure of the final stable outcome that could stay the same for many decades? (similar to US / Japan war in the 40s)
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Do you ever get sick of being abusive?
There’s got to be a reason why Iran is willing to stand up to the US. And, I for one, do not think it is love of martyrdom. For me that says more than any numbers you, Cordesman, or any boastful Iranian General wants to blather about.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Rich-
Sure, I didn’t want to walk in your shooting gallery before becoming convinced why a war would be started to begin with and why has not started yet and who has prevented in the past and for what reason if not what has changed since, we are talking about an actual war not a video game.
For a serious discussion as what and when a war becomes strategically necessary, one can consider various influential groups for wanting or not wanting a new US war, in US like any other country there exist various beneficiaries and components to undertake a war, you only always name one James names the second one, and others yet another one, because the real and the most influential group becomes predicament to your argument for a need of a new war, so far this group has been the sole body to continually blocked the need to go to war, so, here I name the four relevant groups for undertaking a necessary strategic war by US against Iran.
1-US military ( which so far has continually blocked all other groups to start a war)
2-Your own ruling elites and the complicit politicians (granted will financially benefit from wars existing or new)
3-Jewish lobby ( will want to safe guard Israel and has nonstop pushed for war)
4-US public ( irrelevant, since it can easily be formed to accept any war anywhere)
So now you need to explain why the US military has for many years blocked the other two main groups and what will make it to become complicit to start a new war for the benefit of other two. Granted for US military there may exist a time when strategically becomes beneficial to start a war with Iran, but so far no sign is evident as of the NIE 2011.
Here once more I agree US militarily is superior to Iran’s and can bomb to Stone Age, so please don’t bring that up again or you become like the parroting 20% Gavner.
Oh my. Diane Rehm supplies a platform for Iraq war criminal Robert Kagan to push for a military strike on Iran today. While Diane went further than I have heard her go in a long time the transcript is not up yet. She did ask Kagan three times if he has any regrets about Iraq (the man is a flat out liar) She allowed him to get away with saying that there is no doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. No challenges after that just lets him get away with this.
Hope folks listen
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-13/robert-kagan-world-america-made
French Armaments Giant Thales bids for $3B Saudi missile deal
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (UPI) Feb 3, 2012
“. . .to upgrade the kingdom’s air-defense network, particularly those guarding key military and government sites.
The French company’s regional arm, Thales International Middle East, is well-established in the kingdom.”
France is Number Four Arms Exporter Behind US, Russia, Germany
:http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-01/news/31012889_1_scorpene-submarines-top-exporters-arms-exporter
(Judge to man convicted 5 times of robbing banks: “Why do you keep robbing banks?”
Robber: “Because that’s where the money is.”)
the picture on Aljezira’s front page shows a minivan in raging fire!!
http://www.aljazeera.com/
Is this the actual car that got bomed?? and someone was there to take pictures?? Sounds like the ISraelie TV crew who happen to be on the spot to video tape the 911 attacks!! interesting..
The next picture in the actual article shows the license plate on the car. I am not familiar with plates in india, it does not seem to indicate a diplomatic plate.
anyone familiar with the diplomatic plates in India?
;http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/02/2012213124113985940.html
BiBiJon: OK, fine. We don’t know how many missiles Iran has.
When the war starts, if Iran doesn’t launch one thousand missiles on day one, I’ll be right and you’ll be wrong.
Agreed?
Because there’s no way the CIA analysts and every other intelligence agency analysts who have an interest can’t figure out how many missiles Iran is producing at least by an order of magnitude based on comparisons with how long it takes other countries to produce similar missiles.
You think CHINA doesn’t have more missiles than Iran? You think North Korea doesn’t have more missiles than Iran?
You’re hand waving. You’re wrong. You’re just HOPING Iran has “tens of thousands of missiles” because some Iranian idiot general said he would launch “150,000″ – or whatever ridiculous number it was – missiles every day during the Iran war.
You want to believe him, go right ahead. Live in fantasy land.
Kooshy: “if the sole purpose for a new war is for the US elites to make money, than why would they need to end the publicly and internationally approved ongoing wars and start a new one”
No one said there aren’t limits, just that the limits don’t prevent an Iran war. In fact, I’ve laid out why we haven’t had the Iran war yet, which was partly due to limitations on US (and Israel) military power and partly due to political issues.
You keep putting words in my mouth, then scaling them up to levels I haven’t.
“as they simply can make money and even more by selling arms both to US military and her allies all over the region”
Which they are doing or hadn’t you noticed the $30 billion to Saudi Arabia, another X billion to Bahrain, etc.
“without needing to prime the Us public and international conditions for a new war,”
Of course, you have to prime the pump otherwise who will buy your weapons for a non-existent threat?
“taking the risk of its various unknown consequences in this current world economic and political conditions.”
Which risk as I’ve said repeatedly is NO risk to the ruling elites…
“He simply fails to explain the more important strategic necessitation for undertaking a war with Iran, which everyone knows for this past thirty years plenty exist”
I’ve never ignored the problem the US has with Iran. Iran is “uppity”, it complicates US and Israeli machinations in the region, and it does other things the US ruling elites don’t like – not to mention that it’s full of “towel heads” which is the opinion of the ruling elites, not mine…
But to turn the usual argument against a war now around back on you, if the US has had reasons for thirty years to hate Iran, how come we haven’t had the war yet?
Well, because there were good geopolitical reasons for not doing so – mostly called Soviet Russia and Communist China throughout the ’70’s and ’80’s. And then right after the fall of the Soviet Union, we had Iraq through the ’90’s. And then we had 9/11 and Afghanistan. And then Iraq again. And then a mess in both places, so the Pentagon pushed back against the war a little bit. And then Israel failed to take out Hizballah in 2006, and then balked when Cheney wanted Israel to start the war as a result. And then the 2007 NIE and then the 2008 elections.
Plus after the obvious mess in Iraq and then in Afghanistan, some PR HAD to be done to justify yet ANOTHER war… And that went along nicely right from 2003 until now it’s at almost it’s maximum pitch – almost.
“just like the elites are not living in this same country or world.”
They aren’t. They’re living in a world where their wives can afford to buy $25,000 handbags…
More importantly, you can’t establish – as I’ve asked you to previously – exactly HOW the ruling elites are going to be discomfited by the results of the Iran war.
Nor have you established that even if they WILL be discomfited by an Iran war whether THEY believe that.
“His second shortcoming is the reason why a need to go to war now then back in late 80’s or mid nighties or 2005″
Which I’ve done before and have just done AGAIN above.
In short, Kooshy, you’ve been unable to answer a single one of my points throughout this discussion. Instead, you’ve hand waved and generalized and ignored all my previous posts just to recapitulate your points here which you still haven’t produced any evidence whatever for except an apparently deliberate misrepresentation of everything I’ve said to date.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the rush to war continues. The US/NATO will be bombing Syria in a few months, Israel will attack Lebanon in a few months, the elections will be held, the current oil export sanctions will run their course, and then next year assuming all is well Obama will start lobbying for an Iran oil blockade.
And in the real world, the war will start and the profits will roll in to the ruling elites just as they have for the last hundred years of US wars.
R S Hack,
The four top officials of the Office of Special Plans in fact were Jews, and neocons, and closely associated with Israeli right-wing. Is this an “anti-Semitic” statement?
If they were Seventh-Day Adventists, I would say that is what they were.
Rd.,
FYI clearly is correct that US military planners do not want war with Iran. Or any military intervention in Syria, for that matter.
R S Hack,
Was it an “anti-Semitic” statement on my part, to say that most American Jews opposed the Iraq War? I have made that point a number of times. “Anti-Semitic”?
R S Hack,
Have you discussed the role of the Office of Special Plans, in setting up the illegal invasion of Iraq?
R S Hack,
You appear not to be aware Sir Malcolm Rifkind is a Jew. You just assert he is a “liar”, and leave it at that.
R S Hack,
Many times I have pointed out that the much of the best criticism of idiotic US policy in the Middle East comes from Jews.
Do you deny the role of the Office of Special Plans, in the Pentagon, in setting up the illegal invasion of Iraq?
fyi says:
“A false-flag operation will not get US into a war with Iran unless US planners desire such a war – which I do not beleive that they do.”
not that this false flag ops was meant to start a war, as you say, I agree the chances for hot war at this point are minimal.. however, there now good oportunity for the israeli MSM firsters to create distractions… here is one interesting happening from SST;
“(AIPAC) is attempting to block a brief filed by Director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) Grant F. Smith”
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/02/aipac-is-attempting-to-block-a-brief-filed-by-director-of-the-institute-for-research-middle-eastern-.html
Cannning says “YOu virtually rant about the “ruling elite” and ignore the key conspirators, who should be identified individually, and exposed.”
In other words, in his view, JEWS AND JEWS ALONE are responsible for the problems in the US. Because all he ever talks about here are the neocons and the Israel Lobby…And his statement above implies that I’m ignoring those factors – which is something I’ve NEVER said. I’ve explicitly talked about the Israel Lobby frequently.
Apparently he’s a classic anti-Semite…
Which makes him an idiot…
Everyone knows the Israel Lobby and rich Jewish billionaires in the US are *A* problem. And I’m willing to grant a certain number of the people who are influential in the military-industrial complex, the oil companies and the banks are probably Jewish since American Jews are richly represented in moneyed circles despite being only 2% of the population demographically.
But it’s not like White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and Catholics don’t have their share in the ruling elites… And it’s not like we have the Protocols of Zion working here.
This is NOT an ETHNIC or RELIGIOUS issue. It is an ASSHOLE issue and there is no shortage of same in all demographics…
Contrary to Walt and Mearsheimer, the Israel Lobby was NOT the SOLE cause of the Iraq war. They don’t even claim it was, just that it was THE major influence. Greg Palast has proven that Dick Cheney and the oil companies had major motivations for supporting the Iraq war. And Cheney also has connections with corporations that fit the definition of the “military industrial complex.” And needless to say, Dick Cheney is NOT Jewish…
Clearly Canning is your typical class conscious British anti-Semite, obsessed with establishing that Britannia would still rule the waves if it weren’t for those dastardly Jews… And therefore what Britain’s lying politicians say MUST be the truth and it’s all Iran’s fault for enriching to 20%…
Pathetic…
Castellio,
Another key element of the equation is that many liberal Jews in the US who would in decades past have attacked idiotic levels of “defence” spending by the US, tend to keep quiet. Why? ISRAEL LOBBY.
Fiorangela,
Interesting piece. The Gulf monarchies have several hundred billion dollars extra to spend, thanks to higher oil prices.
Castellio,
Thanks (re: post of 1.51). The sad part of the equation is that politicians could just as easily be enriching themselves by promoting infrastructure projects rather than unneeded weapons. But the power apparatus for ever more weapons, and for ever-more expensive weapons, is deeply entrenched, and many snouts are in the trough.
German firms upbeat on Saudi trade By IBRAHIM NAFFEE | ARAB NEWS
Published: Dec 24, 2011 23:47 Updated: Dec 25, 2011 01:42
JEDDAH: A top German official has confirmed that investments from German companies in the Kingdom are increasing despite the debt crisis in Europe.
The German ’s economy has performed well during the financial meltdown and the euro crisis, he pointed out.
Andereas Hergenröthe, delegate of the German industry and commerce in the Kingdom, told Arab News in an interview that 700 German firms in Saudi Arabia are running 100 percent company-owned branches, joint ventures with Saudi Partners or simple liaison offices.
The small and medium enterprises form the backbone of the German economy, he said, adding that he believed they could contribute to the huge development of Saudi Arabia’s economy. . . .
He added: “There are German consultants who are keen to expand their activities in the Kingdom’s power sector. The delegation of the German industry and commerce in the Kingdom, in association with the German Ministry of Economics and Technology, will lead a delegation of German renewable energy companies in May 2012 to Saudi Arabia, in order to actively promote the transfer of technology and know-how.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm
”
What part of “a ballistic missile is not a car” don’t you understand?”
Richard, what part of production management don’t you understand. A design is tailored to componentiation, producibility, and quality assurance testability. Once that project is managed, the rest is just quantity and the relevant factors are raw materials, industrial machinery and enough work force. No?
You may be confusing complexity with need, and think the reason why US does not have billions of missiles is because it is too complex in such numbers. You may be right. On the other hand, Just consider those kind of numbers are simply unnecessary.
R S Hack,
Israeli warmongers, and warmongering neocons in the US (and other foolish supporters of Israel right or wrong), continue to try to undercut the 2007 and 2010 NIEs on Iran, as critical part of the their effort to deceive the American people.
kooshy,
Would warmongering neocons work so hard to discredit the 2007 NIE on Iran, if that study was of no significance? And would warmongering neocons be working to undermine the 2010 NIE on Iran, if that study meant little or nothing? R S Hack skips over this issue.
kooshy,
The US has absolutely no “strategic need” for war with Iran. Full stop. UNLESS Iran proceeds with building nukes.
Castellio,
Big Oil did not support the western military intervention in Libya. It had little to do with setting up the illegal invasion of Iraq, though of course Halliburton made sure it made huge sums from the war.
But arms manufacturers have done a very good job of compromising the US Congress, so that hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on totally unnecessary weapons.
And Mitt Romney pedges to increase the squandering, should he gain the White House.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:43 am
This discussion with Richard is useless, Richard continuously fails to explain if the sole purpose for a new war is for the US elites to make money, than why would they need to end the publicly and internationally approved ongoing wars and start a new one, as they simply can make money and even more by selling arms both to US military and her allies all over the region without needing to prime the Us public and international conditions for a new war, taking the risk of its various unknown consequences in this current world economic and political conditions. He simply fails to explain the more important strategic necessitation for undertaking a war with Iran, which everyone knows for this past thirty years plenty exist, as has numerously been analyzed by various serious analysts including the Leveretts. The difficulty for him and likeminded people is when the US’s strategic need for undertaking a war with Iran is seriously analyzed they will encounter that the consequence of a war damage to US’s strategic standing becomes more than it can ever benefit the country, therefore his explanation simply becomes that this is irrelevant since the elites they don’t care and they will make more money just like the elites are not living in this same country or world.
Immediately after putting this minor strategic difficulty out of his way, he then moves to the juicy part which gives him the climax that is moving to the shooting gallery and the arcade. That’s not a serious strategic discussion for starting a war, outside of considering a possible incident which both sides have tried to avoid for a period of time. His second shortcoming is the reason why a need to go to war now then back in late 80’s or mid nighties or 2005, and what makes US more capable now than before to undertake a strategic war with Iran.
BiBiJon: “I just find it odd that during the one hour that the systems were switched off, Nassrelah decides to go on live TV and do the count down.”
Who says Hizballah wasn’t using SIGINT on the ship and KNEW when the system was turned off?
“So the intelligence got Hezbolah’s capabilities wrong. But, the “elites” can count on whatever intelligence they have about Iranian domestic as well as Russia/China surreptitiously supplied hardware. OooooooooooooK.”
Who said the ruling elites care? They KNOW the US has more hardware and more money to buy more hardware. They don’t care about details like that – that’s for the Pentagon flunkies to worry about…
Not to mention the obvious fact that one is Israel’s overconfident IDF assessment and the other is the US and the rest of the world’s intelligence communities who are making the assessments…
“The lousy ship didn’t sink, but heroically limped back to Israel. How much difference does that make to the battle plans?”
Not much. But the issue is if the ship’s countermeasures were turned ON whether the missile would have hit at all. THAT’S the point of discussion.
James at 1.51. We agree on that completely.
Unknown Unknowns: “that the seeker homed in on the largest object, and that if that were not left in the open, and if the missile had hit at the waterline, the ship would have been sunk.”
Go over to the Irandefence site and read the whole 52 pages of the thread I quoted below. There’s a LOT of technical discussion over exactly what an anti-ship missile radar sees, and how it can be spoofed by “chaff” fired from a ship. It’s relevant to how effective such missiles are which is relevant to the “homed in on the largest object” aspect you mentioned. Apparently chaff can be very effective against missiles.
“the US would have attacked Iran when Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to (and Bush would have gone along with it), but were prevented from doing so by the generals.”
I’ve laid out why I think the Iran war didn’t happen then in previous posts. It’s fairly clear why: Iraq/Afghanistan in 2005-2007 (which is WHY the Pentagon didn’t want to take on another war at that time), the failure of Israel to defeat Hizballah in 2006, followed by the 2007 NIE and upcoming elections in 2008.
Only the NIEs in 2007 and 2011 still apply, and the US/Israel PR efforts have rendered those moot. The US has mostly pulled out of Iraq and is preparing to pull out of Afghanistan quicker than expected (if not fully). Plus the sanctions will have run their course by end of this year. The only thing left to do is deal with Syria and Hizballah effectively this year (IF they can, which is not certain) and then start lobbying for a blockade after the elections are over.
Castellio,
Ronald Reagan to some extent was a dupe if arms manufacturers. But at least he did propose to the Soviet Union both countries get rid of their nukes.
G W Bush clearly thought cutting taxes “for the rich” would benefit the economy. HIs real blunder was to misunderstand totally the nature of the problem posed by the events of “9/11″. That misunderstanding helped cause the squandering of trillions of dollars.
Castellio,
I see the military-industrial-congressional comnplex in the US as posing a threat to the security of the entire planet. I am no apologist for the trillions of dollars that complex has caused to be squandered.
R S Hack,
The illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 would have been impossible without the work of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. This office was packed with neocon Jews with close ties to Israel. It succeeded in deceiving the president and his national security adviser.
YOu virtually rant about the “ruling elite” and ignore the key conspirators, who should be identified individually, and exposed.
James, its not simplistically about the will of the billionaires, its about the shape of an economy rooted in military expenditures, the financial sector, and big oil, and the driving factors within it.
Why, under the Republican governments is there a twinning of cutting public expenditures and a larger public debt? Do you think public debt is a commodity to be bought and sold? How big is that market? How influential are those who service it?
Kathleen & Fiorangela,
Anne-Marie Slaughter in a piece last month argued that Brazil and Turkey were necessary intermediaries for brokering a deal between the US and Iran, that would enable both sides to back off. This was and is a sensible proposal.
BiBiJon: “surely it is a political decision to only churn out a few dozen missiles a year. The point NOT to skirt around is whether or not Iran has the capacity. If not, how come?”
What part of “a ballistic missile is not a car” don’t you understand?
“you weren’t trying to get out of a debate about the impact on the larger economy.”
I was pointing out YET AGAIN that the ruling elites DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE LARGER ECONOMY.
What part of that didn’t you understand – since I’ve repeated it here maybe a hundred times in every thread going back months?
“You’re saying the elites don’t care. I’m saying I need a tad more convincing.”
You’ll get it when the bombs drop.
“A long enough oil price hike CAN forever destroy the hydrocarbon market.”
And the exact mechanism for that is what? And how long is “long enough”?
All you do is hand wave. You have no figures, no logical mechanism, no nothing. You assert it, therefore it must be true…
“Once alternative and ideally renewable clean energy sources have come on stream”
Once the oil companies are out of business, in other words, since none of that is going to happen while they’re in business. And even if it does, it will be at least two decades before significant changes are made. And even then, only the Nanotech Energy Initiative can possibly handle the energy needs of the world by 2050, as Professor Richard Smalley has demonstrated with actual figures.
“even sheeple have a breaking point.”
So you extrapolate and scale up a local incident to a country of 300 million. Good luck with that.
You know why Sibel Edmonds calls her blog “Boiling Frogs”, right? Think about it.
FYi at 12.37
I actually subscribe to the argument that the US is largely run by people who do not think of a national interest of the US, beyond the US government (and military) supporting the national and international interests of their vested interests.
In other words, what seems irrational from a global perspective is seen as desirable from the perception of the vested interests. War might lead to a less educated, more indebted, less well employed US populace, but it also means influential industries will meet their targets, investors will be happy, those industries will maintain their employment in those key ridings, and corporate payments to politicians will continue. And the people will again be unified.
You suggest an histoprical inflection point has been reached. I respect that argument. Certainly, if so, the American public remains ignorant of it.
R S Hack,
You are virtually delusional with your loose talk about “ruling elites” in the US and their supposed lust for endless war in pursuit of greater wealth. How many billionaires do you know?
“Fiorangela says:
February 12, 2012 at 9:14 am
Kathleen says: February 10, 2012 at 10:37 am –
“What is fascinating to me was not that Yochi was pushing the audience into supporting a military attack on Iran but who CSpans Washington Journal has had on over the last several months to address the situation with Iran. . . . CSPANS WASHINGTON JOURNALS list of guest on this topic are so terribly lop sided. Clearly they do not want to help inform the public based on facts. This is disturbing”
I agree almost completely, Kathleen. The quibble I would raise is that this has been going on for far longer then “the last several months.”
I’ve studied C Span’s coverage of Iran from 1983- 2012. I wrote a lengthy comment to Mondoweiss about the results of that study; alas, it was deleted. I was subsequently banned from Mondo.
Moderators at C Span are either biased or intimidated.
I should have pointed out what I found most important about Greta’s introduction of Dreazan. She said:
“You actually write that there’s a choice that Persian Gulf states are facing: Do they make peaceful programs focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands or demand of electricity and etc., or do they respond in kind to Iran?”
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JY
Brawner had already tried and convicted Iran.
The various moderators have their own styles. When Brawner is interviewing a guest on C Span, she frequently asks, “What is the evidence?” or “Based on what evidence?” i.e. do you make that claim. But when it comes to Iran, Brawner don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. Guilty as charged alleged, propagandized, relentlessly repeated.”
IN THE PAST WASHINGTON JOURNAL HAS HAD FLYNT LEVERETT ON, MICHEAL SCHEUER…BUT NOT LATELY. ALLOWING THE PUSH FOR IRAN TO MOVE FORWARD. THE NEW STATEMENT THAT I HAVE HEARD REPEATEDLY THE LAST YEAR IS “NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED” HAVE HEARD THIS OUT OF THE ALLEGED MODERATES ON IRAN LIKE ANNE MARIE SLAUGHTER AND BARBARA SLAVIN TOO.
Unknown Unknowns,
The CIA in 2007 took pains to block the neocon conspiracy to attack Iran on knowingly false pretenses.
Crucial element preventing the conspiracy from success was the 2007 NIE on Iran.
fyi: “War with iran will not salvage US global position. Nor would it help her economic situation.”
And you still don’t get it, no matter how many times I explain it to you that the ruling elites don’t care about abstract crap like that. As long as they’re making money, they’re cool with it. And as long as they have the most powerful military in the world, which is financed by the US taxpayer to fight TWO major wars in different parts of the world simultaneously, they will continue to be cool with the US position in the world.
“There are 11 million jobs that were eliminated in the United States during the last 3 years. Those jobs will not come back to the United States; no matter what her leaders do in instigating this or that war.”
Do you REALLY think the US ruling elites care about some grunt’s JOB? Seriously? Where have you been for the last fifty years of US economic downturns and a declining per capita income? Where have you been for the last $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry which dumped the US into a recession?
“And dollar is on her way out.”
The ruling elites don’t keep their money in dollars. And besides even if they did, they’ve got enough dollars to not mind a serious inflation rate.
You’re hand waving about broad geopolitical bullcrap while the ruling elites are focused on next quarter’s dividends of their military-industrial complex and oil company stocks, and screwing the US citizen out of his last dime…
The world is not run by geopolitical policy wonks, not even Zbigniew Brzezinski… It’s run by the richest, dumbest bastard you’ve ever heard of, whoever that might be…and all his equally rich, dumb bastard friends…
Sure, he cares that the US remains in the number one superpower position. And he knows how to make sure that happens – keep blowing up countries who are “uppity” while accommodating the ones with nukes (when he isn’t trying to screw those same countries.) And Iran doesn’t have nukes and won’t be getting nukes if he can help it. Whether he CAN help it or not is irrelevant. This is what he believes and what he intends to do.
You’re clueless about how the world really works.
Richard,
“You can believe that was the reason or not as you wish. I buy it because it makes sense. Also because the Israeli’s had no clue that Hizballah HAD shore to ship missiles like the C-802. Some people think it was a Noor, but others say if it had been a Noor the corvette would have sunk.
The main point, as people said in the thread, was that a “lousy 1500-ton corvette” wasn’t even sunk, let alone a destroyer, still let alone a carrier…”
All excuses are supposed to be believable at some level. A little proclivity to believe also helps. I just find it odd that during the one hour that the systems were switched off, Nassrelah decides to go on live TV and do the count down.
So the intelligence got Hezbolah’s capabilities wrong. But, the “elites” can count on whatever intelligence they have about Iranian domestic as well as Russia/China surreptitiously supplied hardware. OooooooooooooK.
The lousy ship didn’t sink, but heroically limped back to Israel. How much difference does that make to the battle plans?
Richard-san says, “It’s very easy to wave your hands and say, “see, they could do this!” But could they? Prove it!”
That is a fair point, and I am happy to admit that I cannot. I do not have any expertise in this area. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I am not convinced that Iran cannot take out four lousy ports if its life depended on it. To the contrary, I am convinced that it could. Well, we will have to leave the debate there, as we have reached an impasse.
By the way, just overhearing your conversation with BiBiJon regarding the missile that hit the Israeli ship but failed to sink it, I read on another site just today someone stating that the missile hit above the waterline, that it hit the crane or some such large object above the control tower, that the seeker homed in on the largest object, and that if that were not left in the open, and if the missile had hit at the waterline, the ship would have been sunk. I’m not saying what he was saying was true… just saying that there are a thousand opinions about these things.
I personally believe that the Iranian military provides deterrence against the US if only because if that were not the case, the US would have attacked Iran when Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to (and Bush would have gone along with it), but were prevented from doing so by the generals.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion, and I am happy to let you keep yours. Go ahead and have the last word if you like.
Cheers,
UU.
Tantamount, James, tantamount.
So, as a valley girl might say… “well, it’s like, you know, almost, you know, like, the same… so we should bomb them.”
Harvard Law Professor.
Castellio,
Dershowitz actually argued that an attack on a Jewish synagogue should be taken as an attack on the US? What an idiot, on this issue.
BiBiJon,
Iran has avoided spending on unnecessary defence. In contrast to the US, which squanders hundreds of billions of dollars per year on unnecessary defence.
BiBiJon: ““a vessel without active protection engaged. ” Why did that vessel in a war-zone not have active protection engaged? You’re buying the BS, just to prove point. Don’t.”
That was answered in the forum. The Israeli vessel was IN PORT. You don’t turn on active defense measures in port for fear of blowing up some commercial vessel by accident due to a radar reflection.
Wikipedia describes the incident as follows:
Quote
The resulting explosion caused the landing pad to cave in and be engulfed in flames that threatened the aviation fuel storage below, and the flames were not fully extinguished until several hours later. The ship suffered some damage, but stayed afloat, got itself out of the line of fire, and made the rest of the journey back to Ashdod for repairs on its own. The ship was repaired and resumed its combat role three weeks later.[3] Four IDF sailors were killed.
An investigation into the incident by the Israeli Navy concluded that the missile was indeed a C-802 which hit a crane in the rear of the ship. The ship’s radar system was not fully functional at the time, and both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode. An officer ordered that the anti-missile defenses be switched off about an hour prior to the attack without notifying the captain. The decision was made due to intelligence assessments that Hezbollah did not have the capability to hit Israeli warships. The malfunction in ship’s radar was also discovered, but the staff chose not to inform the captain.
End Quote
You can believe that was the reason or not as you wish. I buy it because it makes sense. Also because the Israeli’s had no clue that Hizballah HAD shore to ship missiles like the C-802. Some people think it was a Noor, but others say if it had been a Noor the corvette would have sunk.
The main point, as people said in the thread, was that a “lousy 1500-ton corvette” wasn’t even sunk, let alone a destroyer, still let alone a carrier…
fyi,
I see war with Iran as a disaster for the Palestinians.
I think Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former British foreign secretary (and defence secretary) is quite right to see the need to seek resolution of Israel/Palestine problem in order to achieve Middle East free of nukes.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Thank you. I am now convinced that Iran will not be firing missles from Tehran to Rhiad. I think that is very smart of them.
On the production capacity I need you to explain with both arms tightly held to your sides. If a nation has the industrial machinery, production engineering skills, and a trained work force to manufacture 7,000 automobiles a month, then surely it is a political decision to only churn out a few dozen missiles a year. The point NOT to skirt around is whether or not Iran has the capacity. If not, how come?
O.K. So when you said “oil companies will be ecstatic” you weren’t trying to get out of a debate about the impact on the larger economy. And now saying that was just an example, without citing other equally ecstatic sectors of economy I hope you don’t think you are actually taking the issue head on. The objective is destruction of the economy, the avenue is the oil. You’re saying the elites don’t care. I’m saying I need a tad more convincing.
A long enough oil price hike CAN forever destroy the hydrocarbon market. Once alternative and ideally renewable clean energy sources have come on stream, once energy saving measures are put on the front burner, nobody is going to go back to dirty oil consumption on today’s scale.
There was a near riot at my local Home Depot this last October because of the freak snow dump had caused a power outage for five days in CT. That was people trying to buy out-of-stock generators. No, Richard, even sheeple have a breaking point.
fyi,
I of course agree with you the US would gain substantially from good relations with Iran.
James Canning says: February 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm
In the event of US-Iran War, thought must be given to the future governing structure for the area between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Most likely, a new confessional system must be devised for that area.
fyi,
War with Iran would be certain to weaken the US. Full stop. And, obviously, war would injure Iran. Which is the purpose, sought by foolish “supporters” of Israel right or wrong. These foolish supporters of Israel right or wrong do not particularly care if the US taxpayers are saddled with another trillion dollars in debt. Or $2 trillion.
Unknown Unknowns: “Just stick to the deep sea ports, the berthing docks where the oil supertankers pull in to fill up.”
We’ve discussed that before here. Those ports are BIG sections of STEEL! They have to be to hold the enormous super tankers steady in rough seas.
There is no reason to believe Iranian missiles have the capability or the accuracy to hit them hard enough to completely disable them. It’s not impossible, but it’s not a certainty either.
It was also suggested that Iranian “frogmen” would do the job, which is equally ridiculous since they couldn’t possibly carry enough explosives to do the job. And the likelihood of Iranian naval vessels successfully attacking those ports is also low. I can’t imagine either Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries not having military assets in place to protect that critical infrastructure.
It’s very easy to wave your hands and say, “see, they could do this!”
But could they? Prove it!
Anything is possible, of course, but you can’t build a case that Iran is invulnerable or has massive deterrent value on “maybes”.
And again, what *I* can’t get through to YOU is that the US ruling elites DO NOT CARE! Any damage done anywhere is just an excuse to get another reconstruction contract worth hundreds of millions or billions. Didn’t Iraq’s war profiteering sink in to you?
Here’s another point to consider: Who will start the war?
One area of discussion over at Irandefence.com I mentioned below was how the war would start, because that would control who had the initiator’s advantage.
One person thought that if the US attempted a buildup in the region, or more than 3 US carrier battle groups came into the vicinity, or if US Naval forces began exiting the Gulf, that Iran would strike first. That was part of the discussion about how secretly US carrier battle groups can move which I noted. Another person pointed out that the US has had up to five carrier battle groups in the vicinity of Iran and Iran did nothing.
In my view, even though some Iranian military types have said that Iran will not wait for the US to build up its forces a la Iraq in 2003, I don’t believe Iran will initiate hostilities directly until something happens which can be construed as an “attack”. This includes a US Navy blockade of Iran’s oil exports.
My preferred scenario is that the US lobbies for an Iran oil export blockade. Pretty much all the forces needed to enforce that blockade are already in place. Additional carrier battle groups could be moved to reinforce them before Iran is aware of it for reasons discussed in the Irandefence thread.
Then the US/NATO could declare the blockade is in force one day essentially by surprise (in terms of when it is initiated, not that it’s coming; the latter would be telegraphed in advance.)
Once the US/NATO forces begin turning back or seizing Iranian oil tankers in the Arabian Sea (NOT the Gulf), Iran has two choices: 1) retaliate by mining the Gulf and Strait ONLY; 2) retaliate all out, including attacking US Naval forces, mining the Gulf and Strait, and launching its missiles.
If Iran does 1), the US will attack all out, because that’s all the excuse they will need.
If Iran does 2), the US will already be ready for that attack, and with the US surveillance of the Gulf region, they will not be surprised. Which means most of the Gulf region vulnerable targets that Iran might try to hit, such as the Saudi and other ports, will already be more heavily defended than usual by their local forces.
Then only the immediate launched Iranian missiles will likely be an effective attack vector against such targets. The Iranian Navy will be dealing with the US Navy and Air Force and laying mines and probably be unable to divert enough forces to take out all those other targets.
Any attempt by the Iranian Navy or IRGC Navy to attack those targets will be detected immediately, and US air assets will be directed to interdict them. Then it comes down to whether Iranian tactics can defeat US Navy and Air Force tactics.
Which as the discussion at Irandefence shows is up in the air, but weighted in the US’ favor due to the technology and firepower the US can bring to bear in the Gulf.
Castellio says: February 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Mr. Hack’s theory of “Inevitability of US-Iran War” is based on a misreading of histroy of post World War I world as well as the current state of the US economic poistion in the world.
War with iran will not salvage US global position.
Nor would it help her economic situation.
There are 11 million jobs that were eliminated in the United States during the last 3 years.
Those jobs will not come back to the United States; no matter what her leaders do in instigating this or that war.
Her position, both as the consumer-of-the-last resort and the global financier are gone.
And dollar is on her way out.
US is locked in a dead-end position in the Near East where – contrary to World War II (the Atlantic Charter) or the Cold War (Fredom, Economic Development) where she could paint a positive view of the future.
She needs to revolutionize her position in that part of the world by cozying up to Iran.
But she will not do so as she is afflicted with the same malaise that destroyed General Motors Corporation.
Castellio: “the U.S. military is still preparing for a much longer haul at mega-bases like Kandahar and Bagram airfields.”
They need those bases to hold aircraft to attack Iran (and/or Pakistan) with.
“The same is true even of some smaller camps, forward operating bases (FOBs), and combat outposts (COPs) scattered through the country’s backlands.”
Of course some US forces will be in Afghanistan for years more just like there are still, what, 10,000 in Iraq. But the bulk will be pulled out and made ready for Iran.
BiBiJon, with a quote like that, make it a 100 to 1 for a false flag. You have to love the word tantamount. I guess in common parlance it would be “kind of… like”.
Dershowitz: “The Obama administration should deem an attack on a synagogue or embassy as tantamount to a military attack on the U.S”
BiBiJon: “a) What is the relevance of the distance between Riyadh and Tehran? Surely, of more relevance are the 100s of 1000s of square kilometers of southern Iran from which a bevy of shorter range missiles can be launched from to hit not Riyadh, but southern PG coast line.”
We’re talking about hitting the Saudi pump station control system. Where is that located? How far is that from the Iranian coast?
Also, MOST of Iran’s missiles that are not long-range have a maximum range of TWO HUNDRED km. And they also do not have “thousands” of those.
“One guide might be how many automobiles can a single Iranian car manufacturer produce.”
No – that would be utterly irrelevant. The two are not equivalent in terms of construction methods, safety issues, etc., etc. It’s ridiculous. If that were the case, the US and Japan would have literally MILLIONS of missiles…
I’ve indicated what the experts think are production rates for the Shahab-3 – 10-15 a YEAR! Smaller missiles could be turned out in greater numbers, but we’re still talking about maybe a few hundred a year even if they could churn out one missile a day which is extremely unlikely.
“c) Western oil companies are not the be-all and end-all of western economies. Yes oil companies (especially Russia’s) will laugh half way to the bank. The other hal”
Where did I say they were? Nowhere, that’s where. I used oil companies as an example of why the ruling elites don’t care if Iran closes the Strait.
“a long enough price hike might forever destroy their market.”
Not for a decade, if then.
“That is if they even make it half way to the bank with all the attendant social upheavals that are likely to clog up the streets.”
My guess is the US electorate is so sheep-like that there will be NO upheavals even if the US drops into a full scale Depression.
FYI “I am saying that states may decide to ignore cause belli because war does not serve their interests.”
Absolutely, no doubt about that. (Iran has done so repeatedly.)
Generally, I agree with your argument that the US wants nothing less than regime change, but is looking to effect that in a manner, at this time, short of hot war.
Generally, I agree with Richard’s argument that war with Iran is inevitable as it is built into the essence of the US, the military industrial base of the economy, the shape and form of public investment within the economy, the political structure that maintains that economy, and the popular unity of America (they all need war and the continuous preparation for war.)
I don’t think I’m contradicting myself to say that.
To move the US away from war is to ask for a transition of the priorities of the American economy, of which there is no evidence.
If one thinks about this, one can see that having Greenspan as head of the Fed (for what seemed like forever), and having a Fed that only answered to financial interests, was a disaster for America’s future.
Richard,
“a vessel without active protection engaged. ” Why did that vessel in a war-zone not have active protection engaged? You’re buying the BS, just to prove point. Don’t.
Interesting post over at Irandefence.com:
Quote
Zraver
Colonel
Originally Posted by Kermanshah1
Hizbollah fired one missile and they hit the Israeli ship.
In case of Iran we will fire hundreds, all hitting your ships and than they’ll be sunk.
Actually they fired 2, one hit a larger merchant vessel, which says something about the guidance. The second hit near the waterline could not even sink a measly 1200ton corvette and only killed 4 people.
So in combat the C-802 has a 50% hit chance vs a vessel without active protection engaged. Now 50% is about average for an anti-ship missile so don’t get bent. Early versions of the Harpoon and Exocet didn’t do much better.
How the INS Hannit a Saar-5 class corvette would have fared if its protection was engaged is unknown. As far as I know, no missile has ever hit a ship with its active and electronic defensive suite engaged.
End Quote
Another exchange that was interesting:
Quote:
Assertion:
A guided missile cruiser only has 2 Phalanx system, each at best capable of intercepting 2 SSMs each. A volley of 5 or 6 will hit. Second volley can’t even be intercepted by the Phalanx because it can only fire for less than 30 seconds before its depleted. If all you have you have to rely on is chaff and jamming, then you are F*****.
Response:
Huh the Arliegh Burke has 90 cells for SM-2/3 which can be used for anti-antiship missile mission plus the ESSM launcher and the CIWS is being replaced by RAM systems. Get your facts straight. A carrier group with 2 DDG 1 CCG and 1 CVN Has over 400 SM-2 SM-3, ESSM and RAM missiles
End Quote
Another exchange of interest:
Quote
Assertion:
If you are being attacked from multiple angles it is even more futile. If Iran launches a cruise missile barrage on a carrier you will be attack from the NW by Kilos, from the NE by missile boats, from the E by land based missiles and who knows where an air attack will come from.
Rebuttal:
If the kilos are alive they only have 3 and they are out classed by US subs like the Virginia class.
The missile boats carry kosar missiles and they have to get close within 15km. The shore based Noor’s have a longer range, but are still limited to about 150km. A carrier 200km off Iran’s coast is immune to the Noor and can still strike 200km inland inside Iran.
The Iranian airforce is a one way attack, they have to fly high enough so that missile launch doesn’t simply drop the system in the sea. Plus they will be seen by E-2 and E-3 systems long before they see the carrier. The SU-24’s can carry the Noor, but are out ranged by the SM-2 and F/A-18. The F4’s and F-5’s with the Kosar have to get in close (15km) and face all the same problems as the SU-24 but have to stay under fire even longer.
End Quote
Another exchange:
Quote:
Assertion:
Originally Posted by Vladimir80
If Iran launches an all-out missile strike on a CSG all they have to do is make them exhaust their SAMs which will kill about 75-100 missiles given the 2:1 fire ratio employed by the USN. If all you have left is CIWS and counter measures another 100+ missiles will sink your entire fleet. It is simply a numbers game.
Rebuttal:
Yes it is a numbers game, the US will have at least 2 carrier and 1 amphib groups on scene and probably 3-5 and 2-4 respectively. Most probably close enough to be mutually supportive. Which poses a second problem for Iran- concentration of mass. If there are multiple USN combat groups in the same general area and each group has multiple vessels the chances of achieving the required concentration vs any 1 ship go down. This is magnified because Iran will not be able to feed the missiles course correction data, and it ability to co-ordinate attacks will be degraded by US efforts to take down the Iranian C4SRI assets.
Iran may well find itself firing piecemeal over the course of several hours into a “general vicinity” target box. This box will have more SAM’s than Iran has missiles plus it will be full of ECM, decoys, spoofing and point defenses.
End Quote
Another useful assertion to understand US tactics:
Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayyash
We’re talking about MLRS like Fajr or Oghab
My bad, I though you were talking about weapons within visual LOS. Assuming a battery of MLRS type weapons can target a 1km^2 box all you need to know to hit a ship is where it will be when the volley arrives. The farther away, the more time th ship has to move and the more batteries you need to cover the expanding box. The closer you are the less batteries you need, but the more vulnerable to counter fire you are. The closest point of aproach is right on the beach, so your launchers need to be close to the waters edge, the farther back the more time you surrender to the enemy.
Terrain is also a factor, since the deployment will probalby be the at the point where the land you control juts farthest into the sea you think they will sale through. If the enemy controls the air hey might see the batteries and begin hammering them causing attrition and reduced effectiveness.
Plus if the enemy sits just out side of your range, but can still hit your coastal military or ner inalnd targets then all your batteries are worthles. Iran’s problem right now is it lacks the means to strike effectivelly past 200Km of its shore. The few long range AshM like the Ra’ad and its small fleet of strike aircraft are no match for the combined weight of 3-5 carrier groups and 2-3 amphib groups who can with inflight refueling strike 50-150km inside of Iran while stayign outside of Iran’s missile range. As they beat back the defenses they can move closer.
End Quote
Another reference to the E-2 Hawkeye surveillane aircraft:
“From it’s operating altitude, above 25,000 feet, the E-2C extends the radar horizon by overcoming the line of sight limitations imposed on surface based radar systems by the curvature of the Earth. Flying at high altitudes and far out in front of the battle group, the E-2C detects targets well before they can present a threat. Fighter-size targets are detected at well beyond 200 nautical miles, larger bomber-sized contacts even further. While monitoring more than three million cubic feet of airspace, the radar also detects contacts on over 150,000 square miles of ocean surface. Any maritime contact, moving or stationary, can be detected even in high sea states….The Hawkeye can stay on station for more than five hours, and can cruise on station for more than four hours and 200 miles from it’s base.”
And then this comment:
Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by arri
Quick question:
Could an E-2 distinguish between a few small FACs among hundreds of speed boats, and if so, how is that going to help USN fleet defences?
Well, an E-2 will generally fall back behind the fleet to take advantage of the AEGIS umbrella if it faces a threat like AIM-54 or other extreme long range BVRAAMs. The detection capabilities against surface targets is 200nm for large vessles like tankers or ACs, 100+/- for destoyer/frigates and 50-75nm for fishing trawlers and large missile boats. Whether they emit their own radar will play a role in their detection as well. FACs and speedboats won’t be detected for far less. If the E-2 tries something stupid like deploying in advance of the fleet they will be an easy target. If they fall back they will be little use for detecting small craft. As long as IRIAF has AIM-54 capability they are in good shape. If not, the E-2 can pick up just about anything it wants. It can tell the difference between FACs and speedboats as the FACs will pop-up first and the speed boats will come up as they get closer. If IRIAF has Tomcats floating around the airspace the USN will drop the AWACs back and the FACs can rush in. They won’t be detected until the surface search radar picks them up. Seahawks will probably be out 10nm in front of their ships keeping an eye out and they have pretty good surface search radars. Between the E-2 and the helos you can expect them to pick up an attack about 30-35nm away from the screening ships. That will give you enough time for attack runs on the escort(s) before you take too many casualites. The limited range of FAC weapons like Kowsar and Shkval are going to require you to get pretty close. A combined missile attack from shore batteries, missile boats, Kilos, and FACs can overwhelm the defences and kill and or cripple the AEGIS umbrella. Once this is done, IRIAF and the FACs can then move on the carrier(s). By the time this happens you are going to have several squadrons of Hornets intercepting your attack. If you don’t bunch your boats together their ROCKEYES and Napalm won’t be to much effect. They will be reduced to picking you off with Mavericks and straffing. IRIAF can keep them off your tail long enough to engage the carriers. You can do it but you are going to take heavy casualties.
End Quote
And further:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arri
As I thought, and hour or 2 of advance notice. thanks. In addition to F-14s armed with AIM-54, E-2s also have to stay out of the S-200s range and that would reduce their ability to look into Iranian coastal activities.
a couple of points. to use Mavericks and strafing, planes and helos have to get awfully close and that means dealing with dozens of boats armed with 23m guns and misagh multi launchers. I also don’t think that casualties would be that high by iranian standards. Loosing a 100 boats with an average crew of 3 is nothing for Iran especially if they get to take out a couple of capital ships in exchange.
Mavericks can stand-off at 10-15nm thus increasing the casualties. You will also have to run a gauntlet of auto cannon air bursts showering shrapnel which will reek havoc on an open cockpit. Not to mention Seahawks launching Penguin ASMs or straying close enough to get swiss cheesed by a phalanx. You will lose several planes and helos to AMRAAM. Of course the death of a CSG is going to far outweigh your casulties but it takes the bravest of men to carry out this operation… Iranians are the only ones I see with the courage to try such a thing.
End Quote
And more:
Quote
Zraver
Colonel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir80
Well, an E-2 will generally fall back behind the fleet to take advantage of the AEGIS umbrella if it faces a threat like AIM-54 or other extreme long range BVRAAMs.
Or run a track that isn’t actually centered on the carrier. Since the E-2 is an emitter it can be used as a way to guide the enemy in the USN knows this and does practice using the E-2 as a false guide. A big threat to the Tom cats will be the F-22 if the US starts the war then Iran is already reduced to reacting- pre planned or not the US gets the first shot in. If some F-22’s are sitting high in ambush the Tom cats could be in big trouble.
Quote:
The detection capabilities against surface targets is 200nm for large vessles like tankers or ACs, 100+/- for destoyer/frigates and 50-75nm for fishing trawlers and large missile boats. Whether they emit their own radar will play a role in their detection as well. FACs and speedboats won’t be detected for far less.
The speed boats will be detected almsot within sight of Iran’s coast. The merchies are going to be screeming as are GWOT vessels not involved in a US-Iran war, finally Gulf navies and radars will see it if its inside the gulf.
Quote:
If the E-2 tries something stupid like deploying in advance of the fleet they will be an easy target. If they fall back they will be little use for detecting small craft. As long as IRIAF has AIM-54 capability they are in good shape.
This goes back to who is starting the war. If Iran starts it you scenario is much more likely F-14 vs E-2. If the US starts it the F-14’s are probalby going to have to fight their way out of Iran.
Quote:
If not, the E-2 can pick up just about anything it wants. It can tell the difference between FACs and speedboats as the FACs will pop-up first and the speed boats will come up as they get closer. If IRIAF has Tomcats floating around the airspace the USN will drop the AWACs back and the FACs can rush in. They won’t be detected until the surface search radar picks them up. Seahawks will probably be out 10nm in front of their ships keeping an eye out and they have pretty good surface search radars. Between the E-2 and the helos you can expect them to pick up an attack about 30-35nm away from the screening ships. That will give you enough time for attack runs on the escort(s) before you take too many casualites. The limited range of FAC weapons like Kowsar and Shkval are going to require you to get pretty close.
Which means they have to know where to go
Quote:
A combined missile attack from shore batteries, missile boats, Kilos, and FACs can overwhelm the defences and kill and or cripple the AEGIS umbrella.
Shore based support requires the USN to be in range. Excpt for when the US moves for the Tunbs its best to assume the Noor is going to be useless, only a few Ra’ad missiles will be there to help and they are big and slow. I also think the Viginias will be able to handle the Kilos if they are used in a anti-shipping vs a minelaying role.
Quote:
Once this is done, IRIAF and the FACs can then move on the carrier(s). By the time this happens you are going to have several squadrons of Hornets intercepting your attack. If you don’t bunch your boats together their ROCKEYES and Napalm won’t be to much effect. They will be reduced to picking you off with Mavericks and straffing. IRIAF can keep them off your tail long enough to engage the carriers. You can do it but you are going to take heavy casualties.
Best to assume it can’t be done and your going to have to fight in and out. Not only hornets but depending on whats in the area harriers and sea cobras as well.
Iran also faces a problem of how to get all the assets together. Drill or no drill that only gets them in the water it does not tell them where to go to assemble (base don where the enemy is) or where to find the enemy, of if all the units that can make it are present. Iran can probalby get most of the boats mated up to crews and in the water as soon as the bombs start falling. This however is not a solution in and of it self. The big question is where are the American forces. This info has to go through several steps each one subject to some form of degredation via US efforts. 1- an Iranian asset has to know where a USN surface group is and get that information to shore 2- the info has to get to a head quarters be evaluated a plan devised and then passed to the units. Some units will not get the info, some will get it late and some won’t exist anymore. You could end up with the Iranian units coming in piecemeal or towards the wrong location, or without enough mass, or possibly sent against several different groups each being to small to defeat the USN surface group it attacks. It’s not a simple cookie cutter solution.
End Quote
Another interesting exchange:
Assertion:
Originally Posted by arri
The only time there has been 4 carriers in Persian Gulf was for Iraq Invasion I, and iran was consulted before hand.
If US starts a build up, you can bet your a*s that iranians wouldn’t sit back and allow it to happen. There won’t be an ambush, but IRGCN will force a confrontation with USN. Mind you, Iranians don’t consider carriers in the PG as a sign of impending attack. They are watching for signs of USN leaving PG in large numbers, because, regardless your pages upon pages of arguments, smart people in the real US military know that odds favour Iran in this kind of confrontation in PG.
Rebuttal:
I just posted a source showing 5. But to make it easy 1 in the PG/ME, 1 on way to relieve, 1 supposedly in the South Atlantic, and 1 supposedly in the Pacific, 1 off Somalia for anti-pirate activities. Iran could end up with 5 carriers off its coast and only know general locations of 3 beforehand. Iran lacks a true open water surveillance capability. The carriers are quite capable of darting in from out side Iran’s patrol range to strike range in a single night. Add in 2 Ohios and some assets on DG and that is 1400 cruise missiles and nearly 400 fixed wing aircraft. aircraft. Add in a couple of amphib groups and you have nearly 100 other aircraft.
if the GCC gives the ok on the premise that they will be attacked anyway, then a couple hundred more USAF are thrown into the mix- all with no visible build up. The requirement the US has to get heavy divisions moved around does not apply to the navy or USAF which can both strike nearly any point on the globe within 24 hours.
End Quote
Further on that:
Assertion:
Originally Posted by arri
Carriers might scare Grenada, not Iran.
That’s 500 sorties per day, if any of the stay afloat for more an a day. Planes can’t even reach northern Iran, won’t have AWACK support in the interior, and Iran has extensive AA assets. This is one war you can’t win, and one that you could very well lose.
Rebuttal:
the carriers don’t need to reach northern Iran, just the shipping lanes and the Iranian coast. They can do this from outside the Iranians ability to effectively respond. Its also a bit more than 500 sorties, depending on the number of assets it could be as high 1-1200 sorties which is more than the Iranian Air Force can hope to get in the air.
The cruise missiles and B-2 can do what ever needs to be done to make the interior a wasteland and bring Iran’s nuke program to a grinding halt even if they cannot destroy the facilties themselves.
Iran’s AA assets are mostly junk. A few Tor M1 systems with a limited supply of missiles backed up by stuff that was already old in 1991.
US goals- 1- cripple Iran’s ability to physically impose a blockade via mines, missiles and FACs. everything else is secondary. Nuke facilities are the last thing on the list because they have no bearing on how Iran fights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir80
What makes you think Russia or China wouldn’t share general intelligence of that nature?
because they don’t have it, if Russia could track the USN via space borne assets the Bear-D would not be flying. Same goes for China.
Quote:
Besides, if discovered, they’d be sitting ducks. No … USN will sit way out in the Indian Ocean and will have to deal with IRIAF too. There is no way US is able to neutralize IRIAF in advance. There are hundreds of auxiliary runways, and northern Iran is out of reach of USN planes.
You don;t need to nuetralize the entire IRAF. there are more than enough cruise missiles to knock out the F-14, SU-24, and F-4, P-3 systems that can pose a threat to the fleet. The rest of Iran’s force is only usable for day time local air defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelver
anyway why an international passage cannot be blocked?
it is a divine law or there are technical difficulties that Iran cannot solve.
Technical, this amounts to a NATO warning to Iran, cut off Europes oil or cause prices to spike and NATO jumps in. For example, Italy could add to light carriers and 17 mine counter measure ships, Spain adds 1 carrier, 4 Aegis and 7 minesweepers, France adds 2 light carriers, and 13 minesweepers, Canada adds 2 minesweepers, the UK adds 3 light carriers, and 16 mine counter measure ships.
Seeing as how the US only has 14 mine counter measure ships the addition of NATO forces and probably the other ABCA forces which adds 6 more minesweepers and 8 more Aegis vessels.
US alone- 14 mine sweepers max US with allies- 73 minesweepers
Besides the light carriers, aegis and minesweepers the addition of NATO+A adds a couple of divisions worth of marines for the island fights.
End Quote
This exchange was amazing, concerning the ability of the US Navy to build up its forces in a region undetected by signal intelligence:
Quote
Zraver
Colonel
Assertion:
Originally Posted by arri
I have heard that urban legend too.
Feel free to conduct coordinated air operations around clock and at night in total silence. You are just going to crash more planes all by yourselves than Iran gets to shoot down.
Rebuttal:
I’ve posted the link before. NORPAC 82 http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
In NORPAC 82 using these and other tactics the CV force operated close enough to support each other, but far enough and randomly dispersed to avoid identification by anyone. One night in bad weather a man went overboard when the ship was within 200nm of a Soviet airfield in the Kuril Island chain. Despite launch of helicopters and active search methods by several ships in the successful SAR, including clear voice UHF transmissions, the force is not detected because no Soviet asset was above the radar horizon. No overhead system was cued. The force continued on.
At the initial objective point the ships have managed to penetrate without the opposition having any clue that the force was within 2,000 miles. Limited air operations have been conducted to this point with no aircraft transmitting radio, radar, or any other detectable phenom. The aircraft launch “ziplip” and fly a mission without any transmission. Aircraft stay below the radar horizon of defense sites which are less than 200nm away. The E2 flies a passive mission in readiness, but silent unless called to go active.
At the objective “mirror image strikes” are flown. These are full strike missions by the airwing flown on a bearing 180 degrees out from the actual objective. Again, no active transmissions. The entire launch, strike, and recovery are flown without a key being touched. In NORPAC 82 these mirror image strikes within range of Petroplavask and the SSBN bastion in the Sea of O are conducted for 4 days without being detected by the opposition. All day, every day, the E2 orbits on a passive profile. All of the ships operate in passive mode simply listening. In a real war our presence would have been deduced on the first strike as the survivors picked themselves out the rubble of their airfields. But for this operation we continued to train in silence.
End Quote
And this:
Zraver
Colonel
Assertion:
Originally Posted by arri
Are you expecting to smash Iran with a hundred lousy sorties?
If the US gets 5 carriers off Iran’s coast and 200+ USAF combat craft then its ahell of a lot more than 100 sorties. its 1400+ tomahawks, plus 3-500 sorties a day by various combat aircraft. And each US plane is a magnitude greater than Iran’s. An F-18 dropping 6 JDAM’s will hit 6 targets not 1. A strike of 70 aircraft with 25 bombing ( the rest for SEAD and counter air) each carrying 6 JDAM’s can hit 150 targets multiply this by the number of carriers and then add air force assets and cruise missiles. Iran could eat more tons of HE in one night from the US than its entire stock of BM’s could deliver over the course of an entire war.
[MY NOTE: And that's not counting the sorties from Diego Garcia, Incirlik, the US (long range Stealth), etc. In the Iraq war, they hit 2,000 sorties in the early days. - RSH]
End Quote
And this on Sunburns:
Quote
arri
National Security Advisor
Assertion:
Originally Posted by Zmey Smirnoff
Jesus H Tapdancing Christ, arri. As of right now not even Su-33 can launch a Moskit. Su-24 doesnt even come close.
Rebuttal:
I know. My point was that the only air craft in Iranian inventory that could ever possibly be modified to launch Moskit, is Su-24. There is nothing else, no ships, no planes, no nothing. No delivery system.
Personally, I don’t believe that Iran has any Moskits in its inventory at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayyash
Well Russia has them, i’m assuming they wouldn’t just sell the missiles without a delivery system, the Iranians would be dumber then i thought if that was the case.
Moskit is ship launched only as far as I know, and is being modified for air launch. No shore batteries.
End Quote
Well, I just gave you the best pages of 57 pages of comments on Iran’s anti-ship missile forum over at Irandefence.com
Go read the rest. You’ll learn that there are more insults and flame wars on that site over military matters than anything that happens on this site – even with guys like Sassan! :-)
These pages should give you some information as to CEP and lethal radii.
http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/06/irans-indigenous-precision-guided.html
,http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/07/irans-anti-ship-missiles.html
,http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/05/tondar-69-tactical-ballistic-missile.html
,http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/05/fateh-110-tactical-ballistic-missile.html
,http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/06/news-iran-unveils-underground-ballistic.html
,http://wikileaks.nl/cable/2009/09/09STATE98727.html
,http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/missiles-and-rockets/ghader-missile-delivered-to-irin-and-irgcn/
,http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/missiles-and-rockets/geoffrey-fordens-blog-about-iranian-missle-capability/
,http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/missiles-and-rockets/iran-started-mass-production-of-anti-ship-smart-balistic-missiles/
Castellio says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
P.s. the 10 of the 10-to-1 is because of the article which that excuse for a human being, Alan Dershowitz, “coincidentally” published in wsj last night.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211611787862608.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Castellio says: February 13, 2012 at 11:45 am
I am saying that states may decide to ignore cause belli because war does not serve their interests.
Israel attacked USS Liberty, US did not retaliate.
Iraq attacked USS Stark, US attacked Iran instead (Japanese were laughing at US on that account).
US is not seeking war for Iran under Mr. Obama’s Administration.
Congress of the United States still can declare war on Iran – the first since the last time US Congress has declared war since the Declaration of War Against Romania during WWII.
Let them do so now.
Lobby: ‘India becomes Iran’s top oil customer’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/lobby-india-becomes-irans-top-oil-customer/
BiBiJon says: February 13, 2012 at 10:26 am
Iran does not need to attack Riyadh; just the water desalination plant for it that resides on the Persian Gulf.
Do not underestimate the historical stupidity of the Arab leaders; they lack strategic depth and yet they wish to imply that they can take on a sate that does.
Castellio says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
As bookie I would give odds at 10 to 1 in favor of false flag.
The 1 is for the possibility that it is a bloodless (for now) warning to Israel to stop murdering people in Iran.
FYI, I recognize I may be another on your list of those with whom you respectively refuse to engage, but are you seriously arguing that the US’s relation to North Korea in the late 1960’s is somehow analogous to the US’s relation to Iran in 2012?
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 8:55 am
Jesus, Richard, I can’t seem to get through to you. So I’ll make it simple. Forget the long range missiles, forget pump stations and other oil extraction and transportation infrastructure. Just stick to the deep sea ports, the berthing docks where the oil supertankers pull in to fill up. Let’s see.. there is the big one in Ras at-Tanur, then there are another 3 for Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE (I assume Bahrain and Iraq’s will be left standing). That is a total of 4 ports. You have already rightly stated that the US would pull out of the Persian Gulf, given the short ranges, else they would be sitting ducks. When I talked about tens of thousands, I was talking about short range missiles and rockets that can be launched from frigates and high-speed boats. Do you really think that if determined, given all that awesome firepower to which I linked, Iran could not take out those 4 ports? I would think that they could do it even without the use of tactical ballistic missiles. Those 4 ports alone would be enough to put oil markets in a complete tailspin. Add to that Iraqi, Bahraini and Iranian oil exports, which would also be out for the duration, and what you end up with is not something that the oil executives would welcome, to say the least. And of course, there *will* be attacks on the pump stations too, for good measure.
Kick that scenario around in one or two of the military chatrooms or blogs and see what others have to say about it.
And as far as the medium range ballistic missiles, what I would need to know before I dismiss the possibility of a single one taking out a pump station or oil well head would be (1) the CEP, and (2) the lethal radius of the multiple warhead (the spread area of the bomblets). I don’t know but suspect that the CEP of the most advanced misiles, the Sejjil 2, is less than 20 meters with a minimum lethal radius of 200 meters.
So I think you are underestimating not the strength of Iran’s armed forces, which, all things being equal, would be a joke compared to that of the US… no, you are undersetimating how vulnerable the US’s house of cards is. It has a glass chin in that the supply of oil which is its lifeline is extremely vulnerable to Iran (thanks to Iran’s geostrategic position). That’s all.
And because people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, the US is probably not about to start something that it cannot finish.
BiBiJon… were they tit for tats or as rd suggests, false flags? In one incident the bomb was found and in the other there were no fatalities, and no information regarding the nature of the wounds.
BiBiJon says:
“I’m going to fill both our cars’ fuel tanks right now, and top them off daily until the elections.”
yes, I forgot to add that disclaimer..
BiBiJon says: February 13, 2012 at 11:35 am:
A false-flag operation will not get US into a war with Iran unless US planners desire such a war – which I do not beleive that they do.
In another case, where US had cause to go to war, she declined. See below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)
Castellio says:
“The Israeli leader said there had been a number of attempts ”
I have not yet seen any reports on the US MSM>. Turkey’s today zaman, and Azarbyijian news have also reported the incident. guess the MSM is priming the news for the prime time!!!!!!!
Castellio says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:23 am
I kept thinking it’s going to take a Pearl Harbor size false-flag operation to start the war. Now I see what little it can take for a series of tit for tats that will quickly get out of hand.
I’m going to fill both our cars’ fuel tanks right now, and top them off daily until the elections.
Fiorangela:
State-Religion battles in New Jersey and how to get federal government support:
http://www.truthout.org/liars-yahweh/1328553200
A quote from the article rd just posted:
“The Israeli leader said there had been a number of attempts to harm Israelis and Jews in recent months, in places such as Thailand and Azerbaijan, in a series of attacks co-ordinated by Tehran and Lebanon’s Shia movement, Hezbollah.
“In all these incidents, those responsible were Iran and its protege Hezbollah,” he said.”
If you think the US is rushing to leave Afghanistan, you might want to think again:
http://www.truthout.org/450-bases-and-its-not-over-yet-pentagons-afghan-basing-plans-prisons-drones-and-black-ops/13291452
“The hush-hush, high-tech, super-secure facility at the massive air base in Kandahar is just one of many building projects the U.S. military currently has planned or underway in Afghanistan. While some U.S. bases are indeed closing up shop or being transferred to the Afghan government, and there’s talkof combat operations slowing or ending next year, as well as a withdrawal of American combat forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the U.S. military is still preparing for a much longer haul at mega-bases like Kandahar and Bagram airfields. The same is true even of some smaller camps, forward operating bases (FOBs), and combat outposts (COPs) scattered through the country’s backlands. “Bagram is going through a significant transition during the next year to two years,” Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Gerdes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Bagram Office recently told Freedom Builder, a Corps of Engineers publication. “We’re transitioning… into a long-term, five-year, 10-year vision for the base.”
Shades of Argentine?
Just as India decides to move closer (?) to Iran and continue to purchase its oil, we have,
“Israeli envoys targeted in India and Georgia “
and looks like as if someone actually photo’ed the explosion??? some false flag…
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/02/2012213124113985940.html
Voice of Tehran says: February 13, 2012 at 6:36 am
The Euro-American-based global ecomomy has disintegrated.
And with it the structures that had been put in place since the end of WWII.
The Peace of Yalta ended in 1991and was followed by the Unilateral Moment (an interregum period) from then until 2010.
The new structures to replace the Peace of Yalta are not yet on the drawing-board, let alone being implemented.
As a concrete example, take US dollar as the global reserve currency.
With a $ 60 trillion hole in US government balance sheets, it cannot remian in that position.
But there is no other currency yet ready to replace it.
Likewise for trade, finance, and security structures.
I also think that the US-EU Siege Warfare against Iran has clearly demonstrated the need to support alternative structures that could not be abused by Axis Powers in their hour of decline.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 13, 2012 at 8:55 am
Richard,
There are a couple of things in your line of analysis that I think needs a bit more work.
a) What is the relevance of the distance between Riyadh and Tehran? Surely, of more relevance are the 100s of 1000s of square kilometers of southern Iran from which a bevy of shorter range missiles can be launched from to hit not Riyadh, but southern PG coast line.
b) As for estimates of numbers of missiles, I think it might be useful to think in terms of capacity. One guide might be how many automobiles can a single Iranian car manufacturer produce. “Iran Khodro, the largest car manufacturer in the Middle East, produced 774,965 units of passenger cars and commercial vehicles in 2010 and aims to produce and market 850 thousand cars in 2011.” Frankly, I don’t find it credible that given the bitter lessons of Iran-Iraq war, Iran has chosen to produce almost a million cars per year, but given missile production short shrift.
Source: http://www.ikcopress.com/EN/News.aspx?docID=13278
c) Western oil companies are not the be-all and end-all of western economies. Yes oil companies (especially Russia’s) will laugh half way to the bank. The other half of the way, even the oil companies will cry as they realize no one can afford to buy their products at those prices, and indeed a long enough price hike might forever destroy their market. That is if they even make it half way to the bank with all the attendant social upheavals that are likely to clog up the streets.
Unknown Unknowns: “What if Iran chose to destroy the Saudi and Persian Gulf littoral states’ oil extraction infrastructure, and the pump-stations that bring the crude to port, and the port piers?”
The problem is there is no evidence Iran has sufficient and sufficiently accurate missiles to do so. I suppose there is the possibility that they might do so by a combination of missiles and local sabotage, possibly by Shia proxies in the respective countries.
Nonetheless I find it difficult to believe that short of a nuclear attack ALL these facilities can be damaged ENOUGH to make a cut off of oil exports last more than some months, if that.
First, all that needs to be hit is the control centers for the pump operations. I am not familiar enough with oil production methods to determine whether this would be easy or hard. Are you? Do you have a reference to indicate how easy or hard this could be?
“we have tens of thousands”
No, you don’t have “tens of thousands”.
The distance between Riyadh and Tehran, for instance, is 810 miles. The only Iranian missiles capable of crossing that distance are the:
Shahab-3 Estimated Number: 300
Shahab-4 Estimated Number: 16-35
Samen Estimate Number: Unknown
Sejjil Estimated Number: Unknown
Ashura Estimated Number: Unknown
Ghadr Estimate Number: Unknown
The three missiles whose inventory are unknown were introduced between 2005 and 2010, so the count of those missiles is likely to be less than the Shahab-3 which was introduced in 2002.
In 2006 Israeli military experts predicted Iran could produce 1,000 long-range missiles (meaning those listed above) as well as 500 launchers within six years. In other words about now. Which means Iran probably has no more than two thousand missiles tops which are capable of reaching Saudi Arabia.
Allegedly Iran started producing 12-15 Shahab-3 missiles starting in 1998. The larger the missile, the longer the range but the more time it takes to produce them, so the estimate of 300 seems reasonable. Also note that according to Anthony Cordesman, the estimates of 300 come from “opposition groups” (read: MEK) and not “experts” who believe the number is even lower.
All the rest of Iran’s missile arsenal can only reach a maximum of 500 miles (Shahab-2’s of which the estimate is 150 or so but probably more now) and most of them 100-200 miles.
So Iran doesn’t have “thousands of missiles” capable of affecting significant areas of the Middle East.
“the missiles would have to be equipped with multiple warheads (which Iran is in the possession of)”
Correct, they do have a few MIRV-capable warheads.
“missiles would not be able to sink the carrier, but would do sufficient damage to its landing strip and to its control tower to incapacitate it, and to make it even more vulnerable to supersonic ramjet cruise missiles”
IF the carrier is in the Persian Gulf – which they won’t be. A carrier is a MOVING target and a ballistic missile can not re-aim itself to track it. So the odds of Iran wasting a number of their long-range ballistic missiles to try to hit US carriers in the Arabian Sea is small. Once the US Navy “surges” into the Persian Gulf, as I predict, I suspect the carriers will remain in the Arabian Sea.
“Chinese C-802, itself an analogue of the Russian P-270 Moskit”
No, the C-802 is not a Sunburn. The C-802 is essentially a “better Silkworm”, an analog of the US Harpoon missile, which itself is from the ’70’s. A Moskit is something else. The only thing I can find about Iran having Sunburns is this statement: “In the early 1990s, these Silkworm units were allegedly augmented by eight supersonic SS-N-22 “Sunburn” anti-ship missiles supplied by Ukraine. However, this assertion has not been conclusively established.” Assuming Iran did manage to obtain some Sunburns, they may have been able to reverse-engineer them, which according to estimates with regard to China’s acquisition of Sunburns would take ten years. So by now, Iran may have reversed-engineered them. However, there is no evidence of this that I’ve read concerning their latest anti-ship missiles.
And in terms of getting those missiles into range of US ships without being detected, you might read up on this thing:
E-2C Hawkeye
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-2c.htm
Quote
The current model operating in the Fleet, the E-2C is equipped with radar capable of detecting targets anywhere within a three-million-cubic-mile surveillance envelope while simultaneously monitoring maritime traffic. Each E-2C also can maintain all-weather patrols, track, automatically and simultaneously, more than 600 targets, and control more than 40 airborne intercepts.
End Quote
When these aircraft are in the air, no Iranian vessel or missile is getting anywhere near a US Navy carrier battle group without being detected and destroyed. As someone over at IranDefence.com said:
Quote
“Basically, when the USN is out of visual range, those missiles will launched using guesstimates from human observers giving contradicting positions of the fleet, which will be moving. E2C Hawkeyes are optimized for water so any Iranian UAVs will be found and shot down. Its radar can monitor over six million cubic miles and track 20,000 targets simultaneously. Each carrier has a four-ship Hawkeyes complement, for each Hawkeyes, a four-six hour mission is routine. Two carriers can have the Gulf, the Strait and anything from the Iranian coast to the fleet under 24/7 electronic surveillance. Heck…With the Hawkeyes’ data links, we may even see the first UAV to UAV aerial kill as an armed US Predator drone take out an unarmed and inferior Iranian UAV trying to get close to the fleet.”
End Quote
Now there IS a problem with dealing with MULTIPLE anti-ship missiles overwhelming the ship-based defense systems because the Phalanx and Aegis systems can be overwhelmed and the Phalanx is not deployed on all ships.
But again, the US Navy will stay OUT OF RANGE of any Iranian anti-ship missile UNTIL the US Air Force and Navy air assets have bombed the crap out of everything within 300 miles of the fleet. Granted, Iran can withhold and secure quite a number of their anti-ship missiles which are LAND launched – as most of their naval assets will be destroyed relatively early. And thus Iran will be able to threaten the US Navy in the Gulf for much of the war. But it’s not certain that Iran will be able to do what Van Ripper did in those war games ten years ago – sink 16 US vessels…
This is why I say the Marines will be landed on the Strait shores and hills and secure those so there is much less risk of US naval assets being fired on from there, and then work north along the Persian Gulf, while other Marines and then regular US forces move from Kuwait into Iran and then work south along the Gulf shores. Meanwhile, the US Air Force will play hide-and-seek with Iran’s mobile launchers.
So in the end it boils down to how many mobile launchers Iran has and how long they can keep them from being destroyed.
And we just don’t know how that will play out.
“But the point is that these deep-sea ports and oil well heads are not hardened targets and multiple warheads are just dandy for achieving the objective.”
But again we don’t know HOW MANY targets need to be taken out to do the job or HOW MANY missiles would be needed versus HOW MANY MIRV warheads Iran actually has and would be willing to expend to hit those targets as compared to all the other militarily and strategically valuable targets those missiles could be used against.
“I’m not saying Iran would do anything so foolhardy as this unless cornered.”
It wouldn’t be foolhardy unless Iran couldn’t actually do it. If they can do it, they should.
“So forget the mining of the straights.”
No – mining is still cheaper and more efficient given the time it takes to clear mines at seas. Even though I expect the US Air Force and Navy to destroy the bulk of Iran’s Navy within a week or so, Iran can still dump mines from covert fishing boats forever as long as the coast is not entirely controlled by US forces – and that’s a hard job given the length of the Gulf. So I expect Iran will be able to toss mines in the Gulf indefinitely. The question is whether Iran can OVERWHELM the mine clearing operation sufficiently to effectively close the Gulf to shipping. As some studies have suggested, it’s not certain either way.
“It’s all going to be decided upon in the first 48 to 72 hours. My contention is that the pump-stations that bring the crude to port, and the deep-sea port piers themselves of Saudi Arabia and the PGCC littoral statelets are in the cross-hairs of the IRI army”
I don’t doubt Iran will expend some effort in that direction. I’m just not certain it will work based on number of targets vs number of missiles vs accuracy of missiles and then compared to the other possible useful targets in the region (Dimona, 5th Fleet, US bases in Kuwait, etc.
“Iran’s tens of thousands of Noor and Qaadir anti-ship cruise missiles”
Again, zero evidence of “tens of thousands” despite exporting them. They may be “mass producing” cruise missiles but we don’t know what kind of production numbers that means. If Iran had another ten years to produce them, I might buy “thousands” but I don’t think Iran will have that kind of time. Also, you need either aircraft, boats or ground launchers to use those thousands of missiles, and Iran’s aircraft and boats will be cleared out within a few weeks. Ground launchers will take longer but they will eventually be found and destroyed at a fast rate than they can be produced – that is the nature of modern war: weapons systems get used up fast.
“(which number in the several thousands and not “around 500””
Back that up with a citation that isn’t Iranian propaganda… There is zero evidence that Iran has more than 500 LONG-RANGE missiles and certainly not much more than one thousand.
“And so, given this, do you still not think this deterrent capability gives the US elites pause?”
Not for an instant. The oil companies would be ecstatic if Iran pulled that off. The oil price would spike, making every investment the oil companies make in new sources profitable for the next generation, not to mention all the oil in the US and South America would be ten times as valuable. Not to mention that all that destroyed stuff would have to be REBUILT by those same oil companies and war contractors like Bechtel all over again at even more hefty profits once the war is finally over – and even during the war. Rebuilding will start immediately – assuming it isn’t delayed by the oil companies so they can keep the profits high…
The ruling elites don’t worry about oil prices, and most of them make their money in ways that aren’t directly connected to the oil price (except the oil companies, who will be deliriously happy as I’ve said.)
“Are you then stating that the US ruling elite is monolithically suicidal?”
You keep assuming that there will be NO oil anywhere and that the ENTIRE world economy will be destroyed. Economics doesn’t work like that. As I’ve said, as long as the military-industrial complex gets their tax dollars from the government, they couldn’t care less what Iran does.
As long as the US economy can operate sufficiently that US taxes are not cut and thus US government expenditures are not cut, the ruling elites will make out better than any of us slobs.
And they know it. So they don’t care.
Developments in the Use of TBMs as Anti-Ship Weapons [TBM = Tactical Ballistic Missile]
http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/2011/02/developments-in-use-of-tbms-as-anti.html
The article focuses on the Khalij-e Fars TBM and is dated Feb 2011
Money quotes:
The Chinese DF-11 is an example of a ballistic missile that uses an radar for terminal guidance to give it a CEP of 500-600 m (the DF-11A uses an image correlator which improves the CEP to 200 m) (5) It is worth mentioning that the target during the test was static while real world targets are much more likely to be maneuvering. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of success as the terminal phase seeker could still track the target, whether it’s moving or not, it just makes it harder.
The number one concern is, of course, accuracy, can it hit a warship? Video, as well as circumstantial evidence suggest the 750 m CEP of the original Fateh-110 has been substantially improved upon as videos of the missile striking a naval target have been published. There are however several unknowns, including at what range the missile was fired at, the number of shots it took to get one that actually hit the target, and the degree to which the testing was pre-planned or actually represented battlefield conditions.
Submunition Warhead
Total Weight: 650 kg
Payload: 1,083 .45 kg bomblets
Threatened Area: 126, 426 sqm
Lethal Radius: 200 m
[ I imagine one of the significances of the newly launched Iranian satellite having successfully sent images of “the Persian Gulf” back to base is that these images can be cropped and close-ups of target topographies entered into the missile’s guidance system for correlation with images captured by the missile’s optical seeker.]
*
Richard-san: here is probably the best source of open info on Iranian missiles:
,http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/missiles-and-rockets/?PHPSESSID=73f415e1d46050786599cc0344993cb0
Should keep you busy for quite a few dogs fresh off the George Foreman grill :)
“I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
- Harry Truman
Kooshy: “I did contest your lack of a strategic argument necessitating a need for a tactical military undertaking. But all you always have tabled is that the US elites want war because they make money”
That happens to BE the strategic argument – war profits as well as economic domination as a result of hegemony which is what drives US foreign policy for the last hundred years.
“I have read many other on this forum have already contested your only one reason”
And no one has established their reasons as being the PRIMARY reason for US wars.
“you should know an anarchist would not enjoy exercise of power by the system”
When the HELL have I EVER indicated that I “ENJOY” US exercise of its power on ANY country?
You can take that accusation and shove it! I am opposed in all ways to the US state including any and all of its behavior foreign and domestic and always have been.
“you clearly show you enjoy the exercise of power by the US”
This is WHY I call you an idiot: you make assumptions of my attitude because I try to have an unbiased view of the FACT of the US ability to project military power compared to most other states in the world.
Your problem is that you are so fixated on Iran’s regional influence that you assume Iran is powerful enough to directly defeat – or even deter – the US by military means. You’re going to be sadly disappointed when the bombs drop.
I’ve said repeatedly that Iran WILL win the upcoming war. But it will suffer massive damage in the process. That is a FACT which no amount of hand waving can deflect.
Anyone who thinks Iran is powerful enough in military terms – conventional or unconventional – to DETER the US from attacking it forever is a fool.
@ RSH , UU , Fior , fyi and Others
From time to time I go to this website , Political Vel Craft dot org , where I find quite interesting and ‘radical’ articles regarding my favorite subjects , NWO & China , US domestic politics , secret societies , Rothschild & Co. etc.
(I do NOT approve with some view points of this website , especially regarding Islam and related issues)
By Andrew Gavin Marshall , co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky :
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/02/09/obama-the-rabid-rothschild-imperialist-absconding-americas-power-to-achieve-city-of-londons-economic-goals/
…
New World Order II
The American Empire is in decline, and is utterly bankrupt; however, its elites, which are in fact more global than national in their ideology and orientation, are seeking to not simply have American power disappear, or be replaced with Chinese power, but rather to use American power to construct the apparatus of a new global structure of authority, and that the American Empire will simply fade into a global structure. This is a delicate balancing act for the global elite, and requires integrating China and the other dominant powers within this system. It also inherently implies the ultimate domination of the ‘global south’ (Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia). This is an entirely new process being undertaken. Empires have risen and fallen throughout all of human history. This time, the fall of the American Empire is taking place within the context of the rise of a totally new kind of power: global in scope, structure and authority. This will no doubt be one of the defining geopolitical events of the next several decades.
Historically, periods of imperial decline are marked by a rapid acceleration of international conflict and war, as the declining power seeks to control as much as it can as fast as it can (thus we see America’s seemingly insane expansion of war, conflict and militarization everywhere in the world), while rising powers seek to take advantage of this decline in order to accelerate the collapse of the declining power, and secure their position as the next dominant power. Yet, in this geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, we are faced with this entirely new context, where the decline of one empire and the rise of a new power are taking place while both seek to integrate and construct an entirely new system and structure of power, yet both seek to secure for themselves a dominant position within this new structure. The potential for conflict is enormous, possibly resulting in a direct war between America and China, or in a mass of global proxy wars between them…
Oh, don’t be so grouchy.
UU,
this is a U.S. policy advocacy site. You think making use of childish name calling to mock the nationality of the intended audience of the Leverett’s advocacy helps them in their efforts? It doesn’t.
All you do is add to the negative stereotype of Iranians many Americans buy into. Speaking as a native son American of partial Iranian descent, and whose American side of the family has been here in North America since the last ice age, I’ve seen so much of this kind of thing by members of the diaspora toward their former motherland, I myself am nearly beginning to buy into the stereotype.
Richard-san:
Thank you for your detailed response to my two posts. I appreciate your having taken the time to put your thought in writing, and even more, I appreciate having an interlocutor who is very knowledgeable about the issues and who is by and large unencumbered by many of the preconceptions which act as blinders in other observers.
Now, in response to this question of mine:
“Does Iran have the ability, when cornered, to take out the ability of Saudi Arabia and the sheikdoms (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) to export oil for an extended period of time (say, a period as short as three months)?”
You responded in the affirmative, but your answer assumed that Iran’s way of preventing that oil export would be mining the Straight. OK. But what if that was not their chosen way? What if Iran chose to destroy the Saudi and Persian Gulf littoral states’ oil extraction infrastructure, and the pump-stations that bring the crude to port, and the port piers?
These are not hardened targets. And they are easily in reach of Iran’s ballistic missiles. Many of them are within striking distance of Iran’s smaller surface to surface missiles, of which we have tens of thousands. Galen Wright has posted an important study on his The Arkenstone blog where he attempts to answer the question: Can Iran’s ballistic missiles be used as anti-ship weapons (against an aircraft carrier). He answers the question with a provisional Yes, the proviso being that the missiles would have to be equipped with multiple warheads (which Iran is in the possession of) in order to make up for the lack of accuracy (assuming a CEP diameter of as much as 2 km). This fractioning of the destructive power of the (single) warhead means, he concludes, that the missiles would not be able to sink the carrier, but would do sufficient damage to its landing strip and to its control tower to incapacitate it, and to make it even more vulnerable to supersonic ramjet cruise missiles such as the Noor and the Ghaadir (the Iranian analogues of the Chinese C-802, itself an analogue of the Russian P-270 Moskit (,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskit; Sunburn)), which Iran has been mass producing for 17 years now (since 1995) and is in its fifth generation already.
But the point is that these deep-sea ports and oil well heads are not hardened targets and multiple warheads are just dandy for achieving the objective.
I’m not saying Iran would do anything so foolhardy as this unless cornered. But Iran has already stated that as far as it is concerned, if the West ever becomes intent on preventing Iran from selling its oil, then Iran will do its utmost to ensure that the West too is deprived of receiving its oil. This, it seems to me, is only logical. Like I said, If Bob’s Your Uncle can’t sell its oil, then Uncle [I’m being good; I’m really trying] can’t have access to its oil either: If The Mad Mullahs go down, they’re going to bring down New Atlantis with them.
So forget the mining of the straights. It’s all going to be decided upon in the first 48 to 72 hours. My contention is that the pump-stations that bring the crude to port, and the deep-sea port piers themselves of Saudi Arabia and the PGCC littoral statelets are in the cross-hairs of the IRI army and will be the first casualties of a war of aggression (unauthorized by the UNSC) against Iran. Here, browse the links in this page for a while, as well as that Arkenstone study, and I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with me that Iran does have the ability to bloody Uncle Sam’s nose, and because of his hemophilia, he could well die from something as seemingly innocuous as a bloody nose. Uncle Sam has a glass jaw, in other words, I think the boxing expression is.
And so given this framing of the issue, it is not a question of Russia China and India standing by while their oil supply is choked off, it is a question of them knowing that The Mad Mullahs will break Uncle Sam’s glass jaw, and wreck their economies and ways of life in the bargain, and a question of that knowledge informing their reluctance to go along with Uncle Sam’s lemming-like march into the Sea or better, Persian Gulf. India’s recent failure to abide by US wishes with respect to the oil embargo is a clear indication that she sees that step as taking her too close in support of that escarpment that the apparent bankrupt suicide wants to take everyone, the better for that misery to enjoy his company.
Well, I could go on, but I have rambled enough already. In closing, I guess I would sum up by asking you this question: considering Iran’s tens of thousands of Noor and Qaadir anti-ship cruise missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_%28missile%29) (we export them, so we have what we deem to be a sufficient quantity), and our short and medium range ballistic missiles (which number in the several thousands and not “around 500”, as you stated in response to BiBiJon) all of which make Iran perfectly capable of striking devastating blows to the Saudi and PG littoral statelets’ oil export infrastructure (pump-stations and deep sea port piers), would you not agree that The Mad Mullahs would pull that trigger if cornered? (Consider they have said that they will.)
And so, given this, do you still not think this deterrent capability gives the US elites pause? Are you then stating that the US ruling elite is monolithically suicidal? For that is what you would need to maintain in your assertion for the inevitability of war (if we grant that The Mad Mullahs will not go down without a fight).
James Canning says: What do you mean by “an armed and independent Iran”? Thatt “the west” cannot tolerate? In fact, “the west” would love to sell arms to Iran, if certain things were different.
> Yes, if “certain things were different”, as in if Iran was not armed and independent.
“I think Khamenei is screwing up the sensible efforts of Ahmadinejad to avoid further sanctions, and to avoid war.”
> James, you are a nice guy, but your British blinders have made you truly hopeless. Look: the niggers have burned the plantation down, ok? There IS no plantation anymore, and all you have left is Brixton and Birmingham to show for it. I’m sorry, Sahib, but such are the trials and travails of a journey into the Heart of Darkness. Were you not equipped to bear the White Man’s Burden, you should have stayed at home, and to hell with Manifesting your miserable Destiny.
*
Pirouz-san:
Believe me, I did TRY to stop. Honest. But I just couldn’t. I think it’s a force greater than me that compels me to it. A Force greater, perhaps, than both of us. Nonetheless, I will try again. I will redouble my efforts.
I was curious though to find out whether you find the reference offensive because it is true or because it is untrue? Or perhaps it is that you just favor a form of prosaic rhetoric that is free from symbolic embellishment irrespective of its truth content? I suspect it is the latter, only because I think you are too intelligent to deny the “weaseling” nature of US foreign policy… But anyway, like I said, I will try.
Meanwhile, I’m going to respond to Richard’s response to my post, and I would appreciate it if you would care to chime in. And now that this little avenue of pleasure has been closed off to me, I’ll be using ‘The Mad Mullahs’ and/ or some other such constructs to refer to the Islamic Republic. I pray and trust that will not be offensive to you? (Please don’t tell me you want to put me in a literary straight-jacket?!)
RSH… IF the Russians are supporting UN/Arab League troops in Syria, they can’t claim to have been “suckered”.
Offered something, maybe. But what?
Nor would Russia have changed course without conversation with China. Hard to see the logic of this… but there must be one somewhere.
What I find most interesting about the Peter Jennings interview is the light it shines on the Euro-American media.
Clearly, its not just a question of bias against Iran, but of out and out misrepresentation, and consistent misrepresentation of the known facts.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say there was a cabal of interests determining what is allowed within the news. (Eric Margolis happily excepted). But I know, of course, that surely can’t be.
Fiorangela:
Yes, I’ve read that book. In fact, the archeological case of the relative non-importance of the Israeli presence in historical Palestine has been well documented well prior to Whitelam’s book. The more information uncovered, the more the thesis is proven.
What his book does is argue that there are current actions, guided by nationalist and fundamentalist interests, which are happy to pretend the historical facts are 1/ not there or 2/ are controversial and 3/ are willing to destroy and misrepresent the history and heritage of the Palestinian people.
Really, its on-going, and burdens western society with fables, inaccuracies and willful ignorance… which all takes its toll on the larger society.
It’s hard, I think, for us all to realize that until a few hundred years ago the Bible, in the west, was perceived as a credible “best” source for world history. My name sake, Castellio (1515- 1563), was known to have wanted to correct known historical inaccuracies in the Bible, literally to rewrite it in light of emerging information. (Castellio, a bitter enemy of Calvin, fought for the separation of Church and State and was a strong supporter of the rights of individual conscience.)
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm
“You’e an idiot. You can’t answer the military points I raise, and you can’t deal with the reality of US military power, so you decide I’m not an anarchist.”
Rich- I didn’t contested any tactical military points you raised (was not necessary I don’t play war video games), I did contest your lack of a strategic argument necessitating a need for a tactical military undertaking. But all you always have tabled is that the US elites want war because they make money, for that only one point you ever raise, not only me, but I have read many other on this forum have already contested your only one reason for a war, which a while back made you declare that we are all idiots and left for a while, never less I am glad you are back, I do agree with some of the points you make here like your take on AP, but not all points you always make.
“I’ve been an anarchist since I got out of the Army in 1970. I explained that in detail. But because I’m not stupid enough to think I can overthrow the government by waving my hands, somehow I’m no longer an anarchist simply because of that.”
You just can’t deal with the fact that despite thirty years of effort by Iran, it’s STILL a “Third World” military compared to the US. That’s no fault of Iran; it’s just how history dealt the cards. The fact that the US can pretty much throw its weight around with any country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons without suffering much of a problem is just that – a fact. Deal with it.
You’re like Canning who can’t accept that the UK is just a US poodle at this point and is irrelevant in terms of world geopolitics. So he makes up his 20% crap and his “UK doesn’t want war” crap and puts in the mouth of his obviously lying politicians.”
Look that’s fine and dandy with me, it really make no difference what you claim your political orientation is, but you should know an anarchist would not enjoy exercise of power by the system he/she claims want to be entirely vanished, but from the comments you often write (similar to paragraph above) you clearly show you enjoy the exercise of power by the US you just don’t like the group who is exercising it, and benefiting from it. I never see or wish that Iran should become a military force like US, frankly like you wrote when you became disappointed with US army back in 60’s is a waste of money, and lives, I don’t even believe Iran should become a nuclear military power not because she needs to deter US which has already done for over thirty years without being a military nuclear power, but rather for not to agitate her Sunni neighbors like I stated in the past, Iran has already achieved deterrence point on the regional level with standing up to the US supported regional Arab states by standing alone in Iraq war and not losing an inch of territory, and achieving to rebuild on her own to be the most powerful country in the region again. Look the fact is that US has already been darted by Iran and like her British allies back in 70’s she will have to entirely leave the region soon, I have no doubt about that. That is something for someone who enjoys the exercise of American power hard to come by never less part of life.
Regards
Peter Jenkins, Nuclear Iran: A Diplomatic Solution?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ru681-R740
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Thanks for the link (repeated below) to the interview with Peter Jenkins (by Cyrus Safdari, it’s worth noting). Well worth reading the entire interview.
http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/71/bodyView/1897871/Sanctions.Could.Not.Force.Iran.to.Negotiate.html
text in comment at 9:07 pm is a direct quote; source is linked.
Castellio, others interested in Israel-Palestine conflict might be interested in this presentation Professor Keith Whitelam, author of The Invention of Ancient Israel, the Silencing of Palestinian History and Palestine, the Bible and the Imperial Imagination.
Keith Whitelam’s book has caused some controversy in academic circles, as explained by Simon Targett
Like other sceptics, Whitelam, a soft-spoken Quaker with a Lincolnshire lilt, contends that ancient Israel is an invention of modern scholarship. He believes that the picture of a thriving Iron Age Jewish kingdom headed by David and Solomon is “a fiction”. Unlike other sceptics, he goes one key step further, contending that the scholarly debate has been driven by a dominant “biblical discourse” fuelled by a tankful of “unspoken and unacknowledged” assumptions. The main effect, he says, has been “the silencing of Palestinian history”.
According to Whitelam, the history of Palestine has been distorted by the deference shown to the Hebrew Bible. All the great biblical scholars – from the earliest explorers like Edward Robinson through mid-century biblical specialists like the German Albrecht Alt and the American William Albright, to modern scholars like Israel Finkelstein – have been diverted by the search for ancient Israel, and particularly the Davidic empire. This search, he maintains, has sometimes been underpinned by more controversial political assumptions, which have a bearing on the fraught contemporary politics of the Near East.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 12, 2012 at 12:46 am
Good post
—————————–
Iran is next on the chopping block if the US American-Israel Public Affairs Committee has its way.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/stop-the-hysteria-before-war-erupts-with-iran.aspx
“All the parties involved are shamelessly playing to domestic audiences in this election year. Israel keeps issuing threats it will attack Iran’s nuclear power installations, though some of its senior security officials downplay an alleged threat from Iran.
US intelligence still maintains Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. UN nuclear inspectors confirm this view, though they have been pressured by the US, which pays a quarter of UN salaries, to suggest Iran might be working on something nefarious – though all Iran’s nuclear sites are under strict UN inspection and satellite surveillance.
Not a peep from the UN about what global damage would be caused by an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Radioactive dust storms, to say the least.
The US Congress pulsates with war fever, fuelled by oncoming elections and huge cash donations. North America’s media pounds the war drums.”
Pakistan Ambassador – The Lobby got to love
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/pakistan-ambassador-the-lobby-got-to-love/
Fmr. Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff: Russia Is Ready for War
http://www.deliberation.info/fmr-russian-joint-chiefs-of-staff-russia-is-ready-for-war/
Note that this is from “MEMRI TV” which is an Israeli front, so keep that in mind as you read the translation captions.
If true, however, at least some Russians get it.
A Presentation by America’s best strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power”
http://csis.org/event/strategic-vision-america-and-crisis-global-power
His short presentation was quite good but the Q/A session was very disappointing.
quirky comments on Ronen Bergman’s apologia pro assassination-ius ravings on Brian Williams’ program on Feb 9 2012, can be found on Gilad Atzmon’s new blog, deLiberation.
Sanctions Could Not Force Iran to Negotiate
Exclusive interview with Peter Jenkins, the former British Ambassador to IAEA.
http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/71/bodyView/1897871/Sanctions.Could.Not.Force.Iran.to.Negotiate.html
Quotes
IRD: In 2003, Iran agreed to suspend all enrichment-related activities, and did so for about 2.5 years. What where the circumstances in which enrichment was restarted? How has that affected the current state of affairs with respect to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program?
PJ: Iran’s leaders concluded around April 2005 that there was little point in pursuing the dialogue with the European Union (EU)3 (France, Germany, UK) launched by the October 2003 “Tehran Agreement”, because they sensed the EU3 were not open to compromise on the future of Iran’s enrichment program. In August 2005 they asked the IAEA to remove the seals on the Isfahan UF6 production plant. The EU3 responded by proposing that the IAEA Board find Iran non-compliant on account of the pre-2003 safeguards violations reported by the IAEA Director General, in the hope that fear of a non-compliance report to the UN would spur Iran to resume suspension at the UCF. The Board found Iran non-compliant in September but decided not to report this to the UN till an unspecified future date. Iran did not re-suspend the production of UF6. Instead in January 2006 Iran resumed the production and testing of centrifuge machines. So two months later the Board of Governors decided to report Iran’s past non-compliance to the UN and to ask the Security Council to turn suspension into an “international obligation” under Ch. VII of the UN Charter.
The creation of this obligation may well have complicated the search for a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The West has been reluctant to allow Iran, which has continued to engage in several enrichment-related activities, to defy the will of the UN Security Council with impunity, and equally reluctant to recognize that suspension no longer serves a useful purpose. Back in 2003 suspension imposed a halt on Iran’s attempts to master enrichment technology. Now IAEA reports suggest that Iran has overcome most, if not all, of the technical problems involved and has a basic centrifuge enrichment capability.
IRD: What are your thoughts about the latest (November, 2011) IAEA report?
PJ: The report has been misrepresented in the Western media. It does not contain evidence that Iran has decided to manufacture nuclear weapons (NWs), or to divert nuclear material to a Nuclear Weapon program, or to contravene the NPT in any other way.
The report went some way towards allaying my doubts about the authenticity of the material on which allegations of nuclear-related research are based. But I would have liked the IAEA secretariat to spell out the nature of the multiple sources that have led it to the conclusion that the allegations are well-founded. It is possible that these multiple sources are all drawing on a single original source, or that several sources have conspired to produce mutually supportive material (though my experience as a diplomat leads me to think this unlikely).
(There is an analogy with Iran’s decision, in 2006, to cease applying the Additional Protocol (AP). This decision denied IAEA inspectors the access they needed to produce the assurance that there are no undeclared nuclear activities or material in Iran. The absence of such an assurance plays into the hands of Iran’s enemies.)
There have been signs, though, that Iran might be ready to move on the Additional Protocols and code 3.1 if the UN were to lift the sanctions it has adopted in an attempt to force Iran into meeting these requirements.
Some Western policy-makers want to deny Iran a latent Nuclear Weapon potential – what a US State Dept. official once described as “nuclear pregnancy”. That requires eliminating all enrichment from Iranian soil. I am not aware of any basis in international law for making such a demand of Iran – for imposing an abortion, to pursue the metaphor. It is a political objective that in my view can only be pursued legitimately through persuasion, or if the Security Council determines that Iran’s possession of an enrichment capability constitutes a threat to peace.
Conclusion: it is hard to envisage any progress through talks/negotiations this year, even if the P5+1 were to drop its insistence on full implementation of all UN demands as a precondition.
The prevailing view there is that sooner or later, by hook or by crook, the US will succeed in imposing its will on Iran.
Of course this was not the mind-set with which President Obama entered the White House in 2009. But Western perceptions of Iran’s 2009 presidential election and its aftermath, and Iran’s inability to meet the US dead-line for responding to the October 2009 confidence-building proposal, caused his advisers to recommend that he change course. It remains to be seen whether he will tack back to engaging Iran on a basis of mutual respect if he succeeds in getting re-elected.
End Quotes
Read the whole thing, it’s pretty good. Jenkins has a clue – although like pretty much everyone else, he doesn’t appear to understand that the nuclear is just “the excuse”.
Reza,
India does not want to make the rupee readily convertible, and same applies to China with the renminbi. Both countries want to pay for Iranian oil with their own currency.
“Iran and America: From words to war”, by Richard Norton-Taylor, who notes that polls show about two-thirds of Israelis favor a Middle East free of nukes:
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/newsviews/181720-iran-and-america-from-words-to-war.html
Iran trading its oil in non-dollar currencies and gold through its bourse in Kish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9077600/Iran-presses-ahead-with-dollar-attack.html
Could be bad for the U.S if other countries catch on:
Syrian Rebels Plot Their Next Moves: A TIME Exclusive
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2106648,00.html
Note: These guys aren’t the Free Syrian Army, but the more indigenous groups. Still, it’s clear from this that they get their weapons from outside their own organization. Who is this “doctor” guy? CIA? Sounds like it – an ex-pat who claims military experience?
Quotes
“…a self-described Syrian military strategist living in exile that we’ll call “the doctor,” because that’s how the men in the room addressed him.”
“The opposition that has money is the Muslim Brotherhood, [radical Saudi-based Sunni cleric Sheikh Adnan] Arour, and the Free Syrian Army command. Forget about them, they won’t help you,” the doctor says. “The Free Syrian Army in Turkey is a game, a façade to tell the world that that there is a command. I am here to tell you that nobody on the outside says you are militias, everybody knows that [Turkey-based FSA commander] Riad al-Asaad is controlled by the Turks, the Syrian National Council (the de facto opposition group) represents itself. The revolution inside must unite and every area should set up an operations command center. I’m here to help you with that.”
“Brother,” the doctor says, “I went to [the Libyan rebel stronghold of] Benghazi. They told me how it started. When it took off nobody had a gun. They took over weapons depots with sticks, they lost only seven men in the first attack.”
The men, all devout Sunni Muslims, blame the Muslim Brotherhood. They are deeply suspicious of its role in the revolution. Some say it is arming its supporters but not helping them attack loyalist troops. Rather, most suspect it is creating sleeper cells that will be activated after Syrian President Bashar Assad falls.
“I was around in the 80s. They sold us then and they’ll sell us again,” the doctor says. “The Ikhwan [that is, the Muslim Brotherhood] and [its exiled leader Ali Sadreddine] Bayanouni sold us.”
“They are counting on the revolution weakening and they will ride in on foreign tanks, that’s the Ikhwan’s plan,” the doctor says. “Revolutions succeed either at the hands of the country’s sons or through foreign intervention. When you win…”
“Inshallah,” the men say in unison, interrupting him with the Arabic for “God willing.”
“When you win,” the doctor continues, “set up military councils in every area so that you can gather the guns. These revolutionary councils will then form the backbone of any transitional government. You have to make sure they don’t steal your revolution, the Ikhwan and the ones on TV. Have you heard them offer any plans?”
“No,” the men say, almost in unison.
“I have three ships full of Libyan weapons but I can’t get even a Kalashnikov to you,” the doctor says, “because [Turkish Prime Minister Recip Tayyip] Erdogan won’t let them in. We’ve talked to [other Arab leaders TIME was asked not to identify], but it’s hard.”
“Brothers, nobody is going to support you from outside,” the doctor says.
“We won’t go back, we have said, we will not stop until he is toppled!” Abu Hikmat says, getting agitated. “So what can we do? What about a no-fly zone?”
“It’s not going to happen, get it out of your heads,” the doctor says.
End Quotes
And there he’s wrong. It certainly will happen. Because these guys aren’t going to overthrow Assad on their own.
And then this:
Quote
“Doctor, if this continues for another three months we will have something worse than Al-Qaeda to deal with. The drunks, the womanisers, they’re not only devout now, they’re becoming extremists,” the captain says. “Won’t that scare Western capitals into helping us?”
“Europe is about interests, that’s it,” the doctor says. “They worked with [Libyan revolutionary Abdelhakim] Belhadj, I know him and he is practically Al-Qaeda, they don’t care. They just want somebody organized to deal with.”
End Quote
That pretty much reveals the reality: The West doesn’t care if the people they use are even Al Qaeda as long as they achieve their geopolitical goals. Talk about hypocrisy.
Fiorangela says:
February 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Thanks for the explanation. but I think it should have something to do with a possible earthquake:
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/static/gshap/iran/
“Al-Qaeda joins ranks of Syrian revolt backers”
http://rt.com/al-quaeda-syria-support-103/
Those following Sheldon Adelson should read “Sheldon Adelson: The American behind Israel’s right wing”, by Noga Tarnopolsky:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/israel-and-palestine/120208/sheldon-adelson-newt-gingrich-dononr-israel-media
Adelson has given $17 million to Newt Gingrich, and has poured tens of millions of dollars into Israeli news media, to help Bibi Netanyahu.
Persian Gulf says: February 12, 2012 at 3:01 pm
greening Qom & Natanz
And here we go…
Arab League wants UN peacekeepers in Syria
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/12/10389185-arab-league-wants-un-peacekeepers-in-syria
Quote
The League called for the U.N. Security Council to adopt its own resolution that provides for an immediate cease-fire in Syria, the protection of civilians and overseeing a humanitarian effort for victims of the violence.
End Quote
That “protection of civilians” is the precise argument used for the Libya intervention.
Quote
Elaraby told the Cairo meeting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote him a letter Saturday that conveyed what he called a partial change in Moscow’s stand on the Syrian crisis. He quoted Lavrov as saying Russia would agree to a joint U.N.-Arab League peacekeeping force.
End Quote
If true, the Russians are being suckered again. First because Assad is unlikely to agree. Second, because if a UN force is placed in Syria, it will come under attack by the Free Syrian Army while the MSM blames the Assad regime, once again leading to a breakdown of order and thus furthering the casus belli for a US/NATO intervention.
Not to mention that a UN “peacekeeping” force composed of GCC military and French and British military will be motivated to disrupt Assad’s military and support the Free Syrian Army directly by simply not implementing its mandate to reduce violence by both sides except selectively.
Russia would be fools to go along with this.
And this:
“The League also said it wanted to provide the opposition groups with political and material support.”
What does THAT sound like but the League directly supporting the insurgents? How can Assad agree to anything like that?
No, what is happening is that the UN force will be proposed, rejected by Assad, and then the West will proceed to the next step – establishing support for the insurgents and then a “no fly” zone (despite the fact that Assad is not yet using his air force at all.)
In short, we remain on a fast track to a US/NATO air campaign against Syria.
fyi,
With Aipac controlling the US Congress, you may well be right Iran will not be buying Boeing aircraft in the near future, or even for many years. Thanks, ISRAEL LOBBY.
Irshad
Thank you. I assume you meant these series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NgW3Q7OYU&feature=related
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oTKsNF6fpE&feature=related
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-brZfJZhg&feature=related
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naXfUl3GG3o
I think, the series depicted Medvedev as an idiot!
Eric,
Would it be fair to say the campaign to “delist” the MEK terrorists is a programme of the ISRAEL LOBBY?
R S Hack,
The CIA opposes war with Iran.
R S Hack,
You seem to suggest I invent comments by Rifkind or Hague. Scottish Jews for a Just Peace put out this account of Sir Malcolm’s comments last month in Edinburgh:
http://blog.sjjp.org.uk/index.php/2012-01-15/malcolm-rifkind-at-the-edinburgh-literary-jewish-society/
Eric: “I’m nonetheless surprised to read just how many prominent politicians and writers, with otherwise different views on most issues, have been involved.”
ALL of the politicians listed have ONE view on Iran and US hegemony – the War Party view.
This campaign to delist MEK has been going on for at least the last year or two.
And we’ve known since within a few months of April 2003 that Israel has been working furiously in northern Iraq to influence and make deals with the Kurds. So clearly they had access to the Iranian MEK in Iraq as well, probably since 2003 if not before.
Phil Giraldi indicated that he actually didn’t think the MEK were doing the scientist killing because the methods used would require trained individuals probably recruited from outside Iran. But if Israel has been working with the MEK for the last seven or eight years, they’ve had plenty of time to recruit and train personnel – possibly even in Israel – and insert them into Iran with Israeli financial support. And being native Iranians instead of Balochis like Jundallah, they would fit right in with Iranian society in places like Tehran.
Getting the delisted would merely mean that the CIA could also fund and train them and use them in operations against Iran – in “lockstep” with Israel, as Obama puts it… So this might be along the lines of the CIA wanting to take over Israel’s operation in Iran in order to avoid a repeat of Mossad’s posing as CIA in connection with Jundallah as well as gaining more first hand intel from Iran instead of relying on Mossad’s intel which the CIA probably recognizes as next to worthless due to bias and deliberate spin.
Giraldi says the CIA has next to nothing in terms of assets inside Iran, so it would make sense for the CIA to want to gain control of Mossad’s operation.
R S Hack,
I put no words into the mouth of William Hague or Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The Iranian announcement of a planned trebling of 20 percent enrichment led directly to the latest sanctions. Ahmadinejad tried to head them off by offering for Iran to stop enriching to 20 percent. These facts are well-established.
Without the UK, there likely would have been no western military intervention in Libya.
R S Hack,
You appear to be saying Iran would be quite mad to try to block all oil exports from the Gulf. Hard to argue that point.
Arnold Evans: “US confidence in the effectiveness of military strikes to prevent Iran from retaining legal nuclear weapons capabilities will begin approaching zero.”
Which of course will be completely irrelevant to anything except allowing them to justify regime change as the “only option” – even as they KNOW regime change is not feasible either.
So we still get a war.
Once again, the nuclear issue is IRRELEVANT except as “the excuse” for a war.
Unknown Unknowns:
“1. Would Iran retaliate in this way?”
It will try.
“2. Would Iran be able to achieve that objective?”
For several months, yes. For a year, maybe. Longer, doubtful. I’ve already explained how it will go. The US and the world simply won’t allow it.
So you think Iran will try to drag down Western civilization AND the Middle East?
And what do you think Western Civilization – not to mention Japan, India, China, Russia, etc. – will do while Iran is trying that?
“3. What are the decision-makers in the US, including Barry “White” Obama’s, answers to questions 1 & 2?”
1) They don’t believe it – for good reason.
2) They won’t allow it – in any case.
Look, if it looks like Iran is ACTUALLY going to prevent ANY oil from going anywhere in the Middle East – it will be NUKED. Period. End of story.
Iran does not have the missiles, the accuracy, and the capability in the Gulf to PERMANENTLY block the Gulf or the Strait.
What Iran CAN do is block the Strait completely for some time and intermittently for some time thereafter, perhaps throughout the war. But it CANNOT block the Gulf and the Strait permanently.
And no one KNOWS EXACTLY how MUCH damage a blockage for a month, three months or whatever will actually do to the world economy. I’ve never seen a direct estimate of that based on actual computer models or figures. If anyone has one, post a link.
There’s entirely too much “hand waving” in discussions of the war, as I’ve said before.
Unknown Unknowns:
“1. It will consolidate power in northern Afghanistan by arming the Northern alliance and the shi’a tribes, and will ensure that the northern supply route is shut to the US.”
The US won’t care that much because it will be moving out of Afghanistan anyway to deal with the Iran war. This is as I’ve said the perfect excuse to bail on Afghanistan without having to declare defeat. Also, the ruling elites have likely decided that Afghanistan has run its course and they can make more money from a bigger war in Iran.
However, Iran’s success in Afghanistan and the return of the Taliban and the resulting civil war there will mean the US is shut out of that area probably for a decade or more.
“2. It will try to reach an understanding with the Taliban, whereby they cede control of the north in exchange for sophisticated arms such as Iranian stinger-analogues. The Taliban will in turn use those arms to attack US interests in Pakistan.”
Maybe. I think the Taliban will be too busy fighting the north to agree to that. Also Iran wouldn’t gain much from arming the Taliban to attack Pakistan. Better to use those arms to assist the Shia groups in Iraq and Bahrain and Lebanon to attack US interests more directly.
“3. It will attack Saudi oil infrastructure and arm the shi’a in Qatif.”
Sure, I’ll go along with that.
“4. It will arm the shi’a is asir (sw Arabia), who will then break away and (re-) join Yemen.”
Maybe. I don’t know much about the Shia in that area. I think it would depend on how much leverage that would give Iran against the US.
“5. It will ask its native Arab speaker allies in Iraq, Syria, southern Lebanon and Palestine to attack all US and European interests in the Middle East and northern Africa, making it impossible for the West to conduct business in the ME and northern Africa.”
Yes, this would be a good idea. However, given the wars ongoing in Syria and Lebanon against Israel, my guess is most US business would be done for in those countries anyway. Most US citizens will be pulled out of those countries as well as Iraq before long once hostilities break out and some of them have gotten killed.
A better approach is to activate cells in Europe and the US and hit targets in those places.
“6. Depending on turkey’s stance, it will also arm and fund the Kurds in turkey to do the same there.”
Maybe. Iran might prefer to think of the future and avoid blowback. If they arm the Kurds against Turkey, some of that will come back against Iran. In fact, the Kurds in Iraq may already be working for the US and Israel against Iran in exchange for US and Israel support. Israel has been working a lot with the northern Iraq Kurds precisely for that reason. The Kurds might switch sides, though, if Iran offered help. But Iran would still have to deal with them later.
If Turkey is actively aiding the US against Iran, I suspect Iran will attack Turkey directly, at least to some degree.
Turkey is between a rock and a hard place. They will have to choose sides. Either alienate their direct neighbor Iran or refuse to allow their US ally to use its Turk facilities to attack Iran. It depends on which side they see their bread buttered on.
“7. It will cause so much chaos in Israel (remember how long it took them to put out a forest fire?) that the IDF will not be able to secure its borders. What it will hope to achieve is for Israel to attack Syria and Egypt, from which territories missiles will be raining down on Israel, thus dragging them into the conflict.”
Syria will no longer be an option if my prediction of a US/NATO campaign there is correct. Most of Syria’s military will be wrecked – although guerrilla operations in the Golan Heights are quite possible.
Egypt is unlikely to be able to attack Israel. I could be wrong about that, though.
What WILL happen with Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan is that Iran will send its agents and proxies like Hizballah across those borders where feasible to cause problems. Also I expect Iran will seriously up its arms support to both Hizballah and Hamas.
“Does Iran have the ability, when cornered, to take out the ability of Saudi Arabia and the sheikdoms (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) to export oil for an extended period of time (say, a period as short as three months)?”
I’d say it probably does. Since the US Navy can’t be expected to seriously risk its forces in the Persian Gulf immediately, and since it’s likely the start of the war will be a blockade, US forces will be outside the Persian Gulf initially. So Iran will be able to mine the Gulf and the Strait.
And since the US Navy can’t re-enter the Gulf until the Strait shores are controlled, it will take some time to get those Marines landed – some weeks probably depending on how much buildup occurred before the war started.
Once the Marines land, it will be some weeks or months before the Strait is secured because it will be ground warfare against continual attacks by Iranian small units. Iran will be infiltrating forces near the Strait to enable continued attacks on any shipping still moving.
Of course, if the US Navy is ordered to go in earlier, then the situation will be more chaotic. The Strait may not be closed but the Navy will take more damage if it operates in the Gulf without more or less securing the shores. And it will be more difficult to do counter mine operations if the Iranians still have significant assets to lay mines.
So I suspect Iran can close the Strait and the Gulf for anywhere from one to three months at a minimum, and intermittently beyond that.
“If the answer is affirmative, then it is not simply a matter of oil going up in price.”
Keep in mind that oil comes from other places, too, like South America and northern Africa and for the US, it’s own native sources. There WILL be oil flowing, albeit by slower routes and possibly subject to terrorist attacks. There won’t be a complete cut off.
“Iran will do anything in its power to avoid war also (short of capitulation, of course), and that includes giving up uranium enrichment for a period of time.”
I don’t think Iran will do that even at the threat of immediate war. While the Iranian leadership has explicitly said that the survival of the regime supercedes even Islamic law, I don’t think Iran is prepared to give up its technology and progress even at the threat of war.
Because once Iran surrenders that, it has surrendered completely. The West will NEVER allow it to have a nuclear program. That would be the economic death knell for Iran because its oil exports will be reduced to a trickle because of domestic energy consumption needs within a few decades.
Iran will never agree to that.
“Remember, time is on Iran’s side not just because the tide of the region has turned, and because the Iranian economy grows stronger every year”
But those oil prices will not help it if it must consume its oil production domestically. This is the entire reason Iran HAS a nuclear energy program. It has no choice.
BiBiJon: “Upon being attacked, within the first minutes (not hours) Iran will unleash what ever she has at her disposal.”
Probably a good idea since there’s no point leaving it behind to be destroyed before it can be used.
“After the initial salvo, Iran will be hezbolah-2006 on steroids, firing a couple thousand missiles a day at assorted targets.”
Only problem is they don’t HAVE “a couple thousand missiles a day”. Iran only has 500 or so Shahabs, maybe another 300 short range, and a bunch of stuff they might be able to launch across the Gulf at closer targets.
“Aim to capture hostile troops, etc.”
That will have to wait until there any troops within range – which won’t happen for weeks. Of course, they can try kidnapping some personnel in Iraq – which I suspect is why the US decided to halve the number of people at their Embassy there. Someone finally figured out that Embassy is going to get it five minutes into the war and if it’s crammed full of US personnel it will be an easy way to get a thousand casualties in five minutes for Iran.
Of course, Iranian agents can kidnap and assassinate US citizens throughout the Middle East, which will be a good tactic. But it won’t materially change the course of the war.
“Lastly Iran will aim to fight a long war. It may even leave the battlefield, only re-emerge again, and again, and again.”
How can it “leave the battlefield” when the battlefield is coming to it? It would be far better to wage a sustained long term campaign and not allow the US to ever stop spending money and blood.
“Without significant outside help, Iran will be toast.”
I disagree. Iran will suffer major damage, but the whole point of Iran’s strategy is to lure the US into putting ground troops into Iran, where a long guerrilla war like Vietnam and Iraq can bleed the US for a decade or more.
And since Iran CAN affect the oil price via the Strait of Hormuz, the US will have no choice but to put ground troops at least on the Strait shores.
And since the US would also like to control Iran’s oil, it probably will try to take control of Khuzestan. The alleged reason will be to cut off Iran’s oil revenue – but the blockade will already have done that. So the real reason will be control of the oil.
And both of those approaches are ultimately unsustainable. So Iran must necessarily win the war by eventually forcing the US to give up and go home.
Iran may be “toast” but it will be very dry toast that eventually chokes the US.
Kathleen,
“WHY DOES GLENN [GREENWALD] REFER TO THE MEK AS HAVING FORMERLY BEEN ON THE US TERRORIST LIST? WERE THEY EVER REMOVED?”
He wrote “formally,” not “formerly.”
I did notice a remarkable flurry of activity on behalf of MEK a few months back. It didn’t require brilliance to recognize that was more than coincidence, but I’m nonetheless surprised to read just how many prominent politicians and writers, with otherwise different views on most issues, have been involved.
Great question, Kathleen.
glenn Greenwald has a great one up
Friday, Feb 10, 2012 8:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/israel_mek_and_state_sponsor_of_terror_groups/singleton/
“One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”
There are several remarkable aspects to this story. The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing “material support for Terrorism” for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”; a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said “does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.”
WHY DOES GLENN REFER TO THE MEK AS HAVING FORMERLY BEEN ON THE US TERRORIST LIST? WERE THEY EVER REMOVED”
I am not sure why Iran built enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fardo and not in the Alborz mountain, if there was a fear of an air strike. The current sites are in a relatively open plateau compared to Alborz. and there is plenty of water out there too. Does Iran fear Russia for that matter?
James Canning says: February 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Around 10 to 15 – at the most.
But this is academic – there will not be new Beoings or Airbuses in Iran for a very long time indeed.
Russians have cornered that market.
In 2010, Iran Air said it would buy Boeing airplanes if the sanctions were dropped. Anyone know how many? Dozens?
BiBiJon,
Interesting that the German defence minister says Leon Panetta told him that he had not said Israel would attack Iran in the next few months. (In story you linked.) Panetta said earlier that journalists can write what they think, but not say what he thinks. Unless he tells them, of course.
Castellio,
Hirsh Goodman, husband of the NYT reporter, wants an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities because Iran is enriching uranium to 20 percent.
All:
A new book on the late Mr. Mossadeq:
http://www.payvand.com/news/12/feb/1122.html
Castellio,
As the Russians note, the Syrian government is secular. And Bashar al-Assad is married to a Sunni.
Castellio,
Yes, emphasis on “peaceful means” to overthrow the government of Syria. Did al-Qaeda endorse the revolt?
By William Hague MP Foreign Secretary 12 Feb 2012
“The Syrian people’s terrible ordeal shows no sign of ending. A week ago, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution supported by all 13 other members of the Council. They chose division when the international community should have shown unity. But President Assad should not think he is off the hook. We will use every peaceful means possible to tighten the diplomatic and economic stranglehold on this vicious regime…”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9076872/Britain-to-launch-new-initiative-against-Syrian-war-crimes.html
Arnold,
Maybe Iran will announce success with building a fuel plate for the TRR (using rods already produced and tested).
fyi,
Yes, you are quite right that Khamenei did allow the several Iranian presidents to attempt to restore normal relations with the US. Blocked every time by ISRAEL LOBBY.
fyi,
To whom do you credit the decision for Iran to treble production of 20 percent uranium? This is what led directly to the latest sanctions.
An office of the UN reports that 60,000 Palestinians living in the Jordan Valley and near the Dead Sea, in the West Bank, are at risk of displacement. One reason is that illegal settlers take most of the available water.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm
I’d address your comment, UU, had it not contained the “Uncle Weasel” reference.
I’ve told you before I find such name calling offensive. So you’ll have to have your question answered by others.
Fiorangela:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
Israel and Hollywood “The exchange between the two countries is now so substantial that people often speak of a “pipeline” going back and forth. And the mainstream media, including the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and Nikki Finke’s Deadline.com all have taken note. “Not since Golda Meir wanted everyone to make and write ‘Exodus’ has there been so much activity,” Ben Silverman, founder and CEO of Electus and the former co-chairman of NBC Entertainment, said in a recent interview. “I do think there’s a renaissance happening,” said Sherry Lansing, the former studio chief of Paramount Pictures.” (thanks Houssam)
James Canning says: February 12, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Rubbih!
If you take care to read Mr. Mousavian’s essay in the Foreign Affairs online, you will not that Mr. Khamenei did not interefere with the efforts of 3 Iranian presidents who sought to improve relations with US – Mr. Rafsnajani, Mr. Khatami, and Mr. Ahmadinejad – eventhough he disagreed with the premise of that policy.
Mr. Mousavian, in fact, belonged to the so-called “reformist” camp who opposed he concet of Vali-e Faqih and the Role of Office of Supreme Jurisprudent in the Iranian Constitution.
A big announcement is repeatedly reported to be imminent about Iran’s nuclear program. I guess it will be the fuel rods, but it might be the next generation centrifuges.
Later this year though, I expect to see Fordow 2 announced, much deeper under a mountain. Once all of Iran’s 3.5% LEU is under mountains, especially if it is under separate mountains, US confidence in the effectiveness of military strikes to prevent Iran from retaining legal nuclear weapons capabilities will begin approaching zero.
Earlier in this thread I believe it was James Canning who said that Anne Marie Slaughter was moderate on the situation with Iran. “too little time on negotiations” I have a favor to ask folks. Would you go and listen to from 7:49 where Ben from Virginia ask great questions. And then of course listen to Anne Marie Slaughters answers at 9:20. She claims that President Obama really reached out to Iran in the beginning and Iran refused to negotiate. Would really like to hear Flynt and Hillary’s response to what Anne Marie Slaughers whole take on Iran, Syria etc in this interview
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/303997-6
I find Slaughter far more nuanced than most but still pushing unsubstantiated claims about Iran
James Canning says: February 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm
There are 3 great powers now on this planet: the United States (and her allies in EU), the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China.
The United States and the European Union are bankrupt and the basis of their power rooted in their economic preponderance is gone, finished, kaput.
The Russian Federation is now back to where Russia was at the time of the Peter the Great; there is a long hard slog ahead to recover from the demise of the Soviet Union.
And the People’s Republic of China is now the Middle Kingdom on a planetary scale; with no onstraints on her (in contradistinction to US or Russia).
And then there is the German state that again is re-emerging as the center of gravity of Europe.
And in the Middle East, the Iranians are back after an absence of almost 180 years.
Africa is finally recovering from 500 yars of slave trade that destroyed her historical progress.
And South America states are dong what they always did; living in splendid isolation from the quarrels of the rest of the world in thir self-contained Latin Universe.
This is the way I see the world.
War with Iran is not an option for the United States.
The only thing that she could hope to achieve, vis-a-vis Iran, realistically, is a prickly but neutral Iranian power that will keep US, as well as the Chinese and the Russians at a safe distance.
There is nothing that US and EU could offer Iran or any other state for that matter that is worth much anymore.
The economic crisis of 2009-2011 (and continuing) has shattered the foundations of Euro-American power on this planet.
It is the equivakent of the distintegration of the Soviet Union and the Collapse of Communism.
Some thinkers in US graps that but not your typical politican ho was raised prior to 2009-2011 period.
Likewise for UK and France.
The games they are playing against Iran and indeed in the global stage are still informed by assumptions that no longer hold true.
At this moment, US is safely contained in the Middle East – to the relief of China and Russia.
For UK and also France, they will soon have to decide how to deal with German power again; they will be consumed by that issue.
And as medium-sized countries, they will be cut down to the size that is commensurate with the reality of their power and the world at large. I men, et us face it: UK has very little in the global supply chain; she produces not much that anyone else would like to buy. And this state, that is not expected to grow for more than 7 yer, is trying to prevent another state (Iran) across the world, from economically growing. You must admit that is an absurdity.
“Expats trickle back to Libya but business remains slow” in the Financial Times Feb. 11/12.
“In recent weeks business delegations from across the world have found their way to Libya. China is seeking to resume operations for 26 companies in 50 projects worth $19 b[illion] in the real estate, rail, oil and telecommunications industries.”
fyi,
I think Khamenei is screwing up the sensible efforts of Ahmadinejad to avoid further sanctions, and to avoid war.
Unknown Unknowns,
Are you aware that six million Indians work in the Gulf? Providing India with a vital source of income.
India makes clear it does not want Iran to build nukes. So does China. And Russia.
So, what do you mean when you say an “armed Iran”?
fyi,
And let’s remember that Sheldon Adelson, Israeli citizen and proponent of ethnic cleasing in the West Bank, gave the Republican Party $300,000 on condition Doug Feith was put into the Bush administration. Feith went into the Office of Special Plans, in the Pentagon, where he played key role in deceiving the president with false intelligence (to set up illegal invasion of Iraq).
fyi,
I think the focus should be on why Obama did not respond to Ahmadinejad’s September 2011 to have Iran stop enriching uranium to 20 percent.
Is there a conspiracy in Washington, to have Iran enrich to 20 percent to help set up “regime change”?
fyi,
I think you should be more specific. Yes, Aipac wants regime change in Iran. Many rich and powerful Jews in the US, wishing to facilitate Bibi Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansin programme in the West Bank, want regime change in Iran.
Let’s remember that the German Emperor in 1914, William II, did not want war with Russia, France or Britain. But he was duped by his generals. They led him to think the German General Staff did not want a European War when in fact they were planning one. The Emperor found out what was going on when it was too late to stop it.
Unknown Unknowns,
Given that Sir Malcolm Rifkind took pains last month to make clear he did not think Iran was building nukes at this time, and given that his opinion reflects the thinkiing of Britain’s intelligence services, why do you expect war? US intelligence also says there is no evidence Iran is building nukes at this time.
Kathleen,
Bravo. Yes, when American news media should be applauding Iran for helping to fund the repair of Gaza, after Israel’s insane smashing of the place in 2008-09. And that Hamas would seek further funding in Iran, should be applauded. But this would annoy the ISRAEL LOBBY.
Unknown Unowns,
What do you mean by “an armed and independent Iran”? Thatt “the west” cannot tolerate? In fact, “the west” would love to sell arms to Iran, if certain things were different.
“James Canning says:
February 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Anyone notice Netanyahu’s complaining about the visit of high Hamas official to Iran? Why would Israel object to the rebuilding of the damage inflicted on Gaza in Israel’s murderous rampage of 2008-09?”
The coverage of what is going on in Syria has been endless on CNN, MSNBC, Fox….NPR. Images, numbers of deaths etc. NPR’s Scott Simon did a long piece on Syrians not being able to get the medical care they need. Did you watch or see any of these outlets give even a small percentage of air time to the death and destruction in the Gaza? Did you hear Scott Simon do a piece on how injured Palestinian could not get medical care? Did you see any images of the dead, the destruction in the Gaza on MSNBC? Hell no
It seems its a slow news day, so before I call it a night, I’ll leave the floor with a question:
If the US attacks Iran, my thinking is that the only way Iran can hit back where it hurts is to cut off the supply of oil, which is the lifeblood of the economies of the the US and its cheerleaders, the Euro-Freaks. I’m not suggesting that in the event of war, the following scenario will happen, or is even likely to happen; I’m saying that it is a possibility. And the scenario is this: that Iran destroys the ability of the Persian Gulf littoral states to export oil for a minimum of 6 months to a year. No oil from Saudi Arabia on the Persian Gulf side (Ra’s Tanura), and no oil from Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, or the UAE. The war might take Iran back to the “Stone Age”, but it would be a Stone Age under the auspices of the Islamic Republic, still celebrating the anniversary of the Revolution every February 11th. But If Iran decided to take out the Persian Gulf littorals’ oil exports, it would be the end of the US and probably Europe too as we know them: anarchy would prevail before too long. That is one of the reasons an armed and independent Iran is intolerable to the West. So the questions are:
1. Would Iran retaliate in this way? (I think it would: if Uncle Bob’s going down, he’s taking Uncle Weasel down with him, and there is no love lost between Wahhabistan or the [P]GCC sheikhdoms and the Islamic Republic)
2. Would Iran be able to achieve that objective? (I would say, yes, in spades)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_missile_forces
3. What are the decision-makers in the US, including Barry “White” Obama’s, answers to questions 1 & 2?
FYI writes: “How such incompetent men get to those positions in Iran is a mystery to me.”
Does it have nothing to do with the perception that the US wants to (or must) de-escalate? Hasn’t that been one of your cornerstone arguments?
Persian Gulf says: February 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm
In my opinion, Mr. Ahmadinejad was serious and earnest in his desire ti impove relation with the United States.
In spite if numerous snubs by Mr. Obama, he persisted in that course.
Mr. Khamenei, in spite of his own skepticism of the sincerity of Mr. Obama and the United States, did not interefere ith the elected President.
In 2003, Iranians came to the table, US had nothing to say to them.
in 2007 NIE, US-EU had the political cover to de-escalete, they escalated instead.
In 2010, US President scuttled the 20%exchange deal.
To me, all these mean that Mr. Khamenei has been right all along.
That US policy is regime change.
In this, US planners are following the advise of the late Mr. Nixon: useful “tactical cooperation” where pssoble, but never strategic accomodation.
I am really disappointed with Mr. Mousavian and people like him that are supposed to be strategic thinkers and be able to supply informed opinion to the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Look at then: they are shocked and surprised that US wants to destroy the Islamic Republic.
How such incompetent men get to those positions in Iran is a mystery to me.
Hirsh Goodman (see below for his enlightened viewpoint) is the husband of the NYT Jerusalem corespondent Isabel Kirshner. Surprised?
“A prominent Israeli writer is advocating his nation attack Iran’s nuclear development facilities now because the risk is too great after that country builds nuclear weapons.
Hirsh Goodman doesn’t believe sanctions being pushed by Western nations will stop Iran and said something has to be done this year before Iran moves its nuclear work underground.
He said a nuclear Iran, along with a nuclear Pakistan, would plunge the world into “a new cold war, if not a hot one.”
“The minute Iran is nuclear, it’s a whole different game,” Goodman said Thursday night at the Beth Jacob Synagogue in west Hamilton.
“Not because they are going to blow up Israel. They’ve got missiles that can reach the east cost of America, but what happens if the ayatollah (Iran’s supreme leader) wakes up one morning and destroys the Saudi fields and the Kuwaiti oilfields and the West is left with no energy.”
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/668979–israeli-author-says-attack-iran-before-it-s-too-late
Sakineh Bagoom says:
February 12, 2012 at 11:12 am
I was discussing with a friend that the official news here might cherry-pick, and accentuate the positive (always!) and de-emphasize news that might be negative, but it NEVER outright lies (light certain flexible-spined diminutive predator mammals.
It is thought that the name “weasel” comes from the Anglo-Saxon root “weatsop” meaning “a vicious bloodthirsty animal”. – Wikipedia.
http://www.sinkspots.org/weasel/weasels_ripped_my_fleash.jpg
Are the warmongers drowning in their created floods of propaganda? Read this:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/loose_lips_7xvSwHsWqSoIjyXIWl8nmI
Quote
Let’’s be frank: Were the MeK to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention.
So why is the administration making such details public?
End Quote
MeK deserves Nobel Peace Prize for murdering Iranian scientists?
Ever-increasingly the evidence for “Madness of Likudniks” is piling up.
Hey Mr Murdoch…..can you understand sicko exaggerations from friends of Israel like you act as heavy blows to the face of your divine state?
b says: February 12, 2012 at 1:34 am
Nice work b!
Recently NPR and other MSM outlets have been playing alleged Syrian soundtrack/ video with the following disclaimer: “the content of the video/soundtrack could not be independently verified.” As if this absolves them of misreporting on the issues; you just decide for yourself. It’s not our job to verify. Not unlike the reporting on tweets from Iran in 09. MSM is hitting new lows every day.
Keep up the good work b.
According to German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière, “a success of an Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities is highly unlikely and (will cause) obvious political damage.” In an interview to the German newspaper Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung, de Maizière said that the European Union believes in the power of sanctions.
The EU-imposed oil embargo on Iran will begin in July.
The German Minister also mentioned that the report on Panetta was not a direct quote. “Panetta didn’t say Israel will strike Iran in the spring. I spoke with him. The report was made by a journalist.”
From http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4188583,00.html
Fio,
“I’ve studied C Span’s coverage of Iran from 1983- 2012. I wrote a lengthy comment to Mondoweiss about the results of that study; alas, it was deleted. I was subsequently banned from Mondo.”
Do you still have a copy of your findings?
Kathleen says: February 10, 2012 at 10:37 am –
“What is fascinating to me was not that Yochi was pushing the audience into supporting a military attack on Iran but who CSpans Washington Journal has had on over the last several months to address the situation with Iran. . . . CSPANS WASHINGTON JOURNALS list of guest on this topic are so terribly lop sided. Clearly they do not want to help inform the public based on facts. This is disturbing”
I agree almost completely, Kathleen. The quibble I would raise is that this has been going on for far longer then “the last several months.”
I’ve studied C Span’s coverage of Iran from 1983- 2012. I wrote a lengthy comment to Mondoweiss about the results of that study; alas, it was deleted. I was subsequently banned from Mondo.
Moderators at C Span are either biased or intimidated.
I should have pointed out what I found most important about Greta’s introduction of Dreazan. She said:
“You actually write that there’s a choice that Persian Gulf states are facing: Do they make peaceful programs focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands or demand of electricity and etc., or do they respond in kind to Iran?”
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JY
Brawner had already tried and convicted Iran.
The various moderators have their own styles. When Brawner is interviewing a guest on C Span, she frequently asks, “What is the evidence?” or “Based on what evidence?” i.e. do you make that claim. But when it comes to Iran, Brawner don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. Guilty as
chargedalleged, propagandized, relentlessly repeated.(don’t) Make love, not war
==================
“We may find that fighting a war with Iran is like making love to a gorilla: You don’t stop when you’re done; you stop when the gorilla is done.”
From http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0212-chapman-20120212,0,1730290.column
James Canning says:
February 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm
R S Hack,
Do you really think Warren Buffett or Bill Gates wants war with Iran?
Who is Warren Buffet and who Bill Gates ?
Those who control the BoE since 1815 , the Fed since 1913 and all other world financial institutions (IMF , WMF , ECB , BIS etc.) have the final say.
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2743
“Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks”
…Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.
The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day. It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family…
پادگان نظامی بزرگی
بنام کشور اسرائیل
http://www.jungewelt.de/2012/02-10/005.php
D’accord.
UU at 12.46…
Danke, much to consider, mais oui, je pensais plutôt dans cette direction là
b says:
February 12, 2012 at 1:34 am
Good work, b. But watch me weasel out of it. Its not that I don’t have a spine, as some have slandered. Its just that its flexible is all.
Sakineh Khanum says, “Let’s just say, I read a lot.”
Slick as santorum.
The State Department Lies With Its Satellite Pictures Of Syria – No Artillery “Deployed”
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/02/lying-with-pictures.html
/quote/
There is A note from Ambassador Ford on recent events in Syria which shows a satellite picture of Homs, Syria, titled “Security Operations Escalate in Homs” and “Bab Amr Neighborhood”. The picture was allegedly taken on February 6, 2012 though the copyright mark says “© 2011 Digital Globe”.
A deeper look at the ambassador picture reveals that it does not show what its labels say. In fact the picture shows only ambiguous stuff from the very border edge of Bab Amr not from within the city.
There are additionally satellite pictures at the State Department’s website allegedly showing “operational deployment” of Syrian artillery.
Analysis of the State Departments satellite pictures clearly shows that these pictures of artillery guns “operational deployed against XYZ” were all taken of guns training within military barracks or well known training areas and not in active deployment.
There is so far no proof that any artillery has been deployed at all though it is known that mortars have been used by the rebel side. The State Department obviously knows what the pictures really show but is trying to use the lie of artillery deployment against the rebels as a pressure argument for military intervention.
…
/endquote/
UU,
Let’s just say, I read a lot.
Sakineh Bagoom says:
February 12, 2012 at 12:22 am
Too much information? LOL. No, make that LMAO! How is it that there are actually *names* for that kind of stuff? And how is it that you were privy to that information?? Oh, I know: a “friend” told you. LOL.
Castellio/ Richard/ Kooshy:
What Iran will do in the event of a war is to do what it wants to do now but is prevented from doing so for fear of an American reprisal. I imagine the actions would include the following (at least this, I think, is the kind of response Castellio was looking for):
1. It will consolidate power in northern Afghanistan by arming the Northern alliance and the shi’a tribes, and will ensure that the northern supply route is shut to the US.
2. It will try to reach an understanding with the Taliban, whereby they cede control of the north in exchange for sophisticated arms such as Iranian stinger-analogues. The Taliban will in turn use those arms to attack US interests in Pakistan.
3. It will attack Saudi oil infrastructure and arm the shi’a in Qatif.
4. It will arm the shi’a is asir (sw Arabia), who will then break away and (re-) join Yemen.
5. It will ask its native Arab speaker allies in Iraq, Syria, southern Lebanon and Palestine to attack all US and European interests in the Middle East and northern Africa, making it impossible for the West to conduct business in the ME and northern Africa.
6. Depending on turkey’s stance, it will also arm and fund the Kurds in turkey to do the same there.
7. It will cause so much chaos in Israel (remember how long it took them to put out a forest fire?) that the IDF will not be able to secure its borders. What it will hope to achieve is for Israel to attack Syria and Egypt, from which territories missiles will be raining down on Israel, thus dragging them into the conflict.
All this is speculation, of course. But this is the bottom line, or better, this is the key question:
Does Iran have the ability, when cornered, to take out the ability of Saudi Arabia and the sheikdoms (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) to export oil for an extended period of time (say, a period as short as three months)?
If the answer is affirmative, then it is not simply a matter of oil going up in price. The world economy cannot operate without all of that oil (as well as Iran’s, of course) being cut off for even one month, let alone three or six, or more). The world food supply, for example, which is completely dependent on oil-based fertilizers in order to produce their current yields, would be disrupted to the point of millions being exposed to the real possibility of mass starvation. If this event happened in the winter, millions would be exposed to dying from cold. Etc.
And so, because the stakes are so high, the answer the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world give to that question (or whoever it is that makes these decisions) is neither a Yes or a No, but a “I don’t want to find out.”
It is that *deterrence* that has always been Iran’s strategy, and I think they have done well to increase their power to deter in the past two decades. The speedboats, the Noor missiles, the solid fuel Sejjils with multiple warheads, and not least their fostering the Axis of Resistance throughout the region all speak to that.
Another thing is that in the minds of the Iranian elite (Md Javad Larijani comes to mind) the entire region is going through a transformation that is going to boost their standing in the region. Larijani gave the Saudi regime 2 years. Iran will do anything in its power to avoid war also (short of capitulation, of course), and that includes giving up uranium enrichment for a period of time. The US would have to give Iran some sort of ultimatum on that prior to an attack, and there is no doubt in my mind that ayatollah Khamenei is perfectly capable and willing to bite that bullet if it will prevent war and buy Iran more time. Remember, time is on Iran’s side not just because the tide of the region has turned, and because the Iranian economy grows stronger every year (mainly due to the increase in oil prices, but also because infrastructural investments in higher education and industry are beginning to pay off), but because the US, which is beyond bankrupt (its raw numbers and key ratios are much worse than Greece’s), can hold off the coming collapse of the dollar for so long: it is bound to collapse sooner or later.
UU,
Just that we are clear, I was talking about the word santorum, not Rick.
Thank you, Pirouz, for that assessment. I was not aware that Hayden felt the same way, but it was reassuring to read that.
Sakineh Bagoom says: “he wanted to see Israel one day “be loved, and not just feared.” [emphasis mine]
Can’t just make up my mind, if this is escalation or de-escalation.”
LMAO. definitely escallation (more knowingly asking for the impossible). And no, I had not googled that fool, but now I am afraid to :D (but will anyway, of course)
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 11, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Rich, with the caveat of ‘I know nothing’, here is my guess.
Upon being attacked, within the first minutes (not hours) Iran will unleash what ever she has at her disposal. The goals would be to drive oil price up to the stratosphere, sink as many hostile naval assets as possible, destroy as many logistical depots in the region, airfields and the like.
After the initial salvo, Iran will be hezbolah-2006 on steroids, firing a couple thousand missiles a day at assorted targets. Aim to capture hostile troops, etc.
Lastly Iran will aim to fight a long war. It may even leave the battlefield, only re-emerge again, and again, and again.
I suspect though the emphasis is on the first few minutes. Iran hopes their capabilities act as a deterrent. If deterrence fails to deter, then well the rest is going to be a long slog. Without significant outside help, Iran will be toast.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm
“Unlike many anarchists who think they can overthrow the system, I’m not stupid. Recognizing how much capability the enemy has is important. I violated that precept and spent eight years, three and a half months in prison for it. The next time I move against the state, I will do so more carefully.”
Rich-
If so, this clearly will take you out of the anarchist category, for lack of a better political term I say what you describe your current position is can just be called
“Disappointed redneck” which really means an American nationalist who became disappointed with the current political system and don’t believe can be fixed politically. The difference between disappointed redneck and an anarchist is that the former still enjoys and respects an absolute American power. I have seen a lot of Vietnam War veterans became discounted with the system since they blame the system for losing the war but they never blame America itself, do you see the difference, is always someone else’s fault, the elite , the ruling powers and so on. This group I call disappointed rednecks. Many years back I learned a lot from a Vietnam War veteran who for many months was holing a sign to collect money on corner of Wilshire and Federal in west LA.
Kooshy at 4.57
Agreed, Iran seems to have succeeded with a broader diplomacy… will they stick?
(Don’t misunderstand me, I hope they stick).
Rd.: “http://www.voltairenet.org/Moscow-and-the-formation-of-The”
That was one of the more convoluted geopolitical-speak articles I’ve ever read…
In the end it said nothing specific about Iran or whether an Iran war could occur.
Until Russia and/or China are prepared to state unequivocally in the manner of the old Soviet Union, either privately or publicly, that it will militarily oppose a US attack on Iran, the ruling elites of the US will not back down from their war profits.
As the article states, a “multipolar world” may be forming but it will be another decade or more before it is sufficiently formed to be capable of containment of the US. In the meantime, we will have at least one more US aggression and probably at least two (Syria and Iran).
If the US should ever threaten a war on the scale of North Korea, Pakistan or China, THEN I think we will see Russia, China and other nations stand more firmly against the US but in all cases based on their own interests.
I don’t see them doing so over Iran for two reasons: 1) Iran isn’t worth it in terms of the cost of a military confrontation with the US, and 2) the US will lose in Iran just as it did in Iraq and is doing (in fact, has done) in Afghanistan, and both Russia and China – as well as other states – will benefit from that. So they will allow it (and probably will aid Iran covertly as well.)
Castellio says:
Remember that the Congress will be pushing for as much damage as possible. Literally. So, what will be the limiting factor: the will of the US people? international outrage?
What are you counting on?
The dynamics of Iran US confrontation is no longer one dimensional. One of the factors;
“The declaration of the Russian Foreign Ministry that the West would be committing a grave error if it ever thought of attacking Iran”
http://www.voltairenet.org/Moscow-and-the-formation-of-The
It seems, the secretary-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear ‘Watchdog’ has turned into an Israel-hater. On Friday, Yukiya Amano accompanied by his deputy director-general Herman Nackaerts attended the 33rd birthday party of 1979 victory of Islamic Revolution at Iran’s embassy in Vienna (Austria). At the event, Amano hailed Islamic Iran as a “peace-seeking” state.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/iaea-iran-is-a-peace-seeking-state/
February 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm
R S Hack,
Do you really think Warren Buffett or Bill Gates wants war with Iran?
James,
as I have said before, you are performing semantic gymnastics!
The very question obfuscates the real forces that drive war.
Who is going to come out and say “we want war”?! They say things like “all options are on the table”, “if diplomacy does not solve…”, “we want diplomacy to succeed” – which gives some individuals the license to say things like: see, they don’t want war!
War is not always fought with rows of soldiers shooting at each other. There is proxy war, economic war, covert war, drone war, all of which could have devastating impact on one society or another. No one in Mr. Cameron’s government is going to come out and say: we are waging economic war on Iran.
R S Hack,
The money that matters is Jewish campaign funding. Jews put more money into American politics than almost all other groups combined.
Last month before a Jewish group in Edinburgh, Sir Malcolm Rifkind said his understanding is that Iran wants to be ready to build nukes quickly, but has not decided to build nukes at this time.
Sir Malcolm also said Middle East free of nukes requires peace between Israel and the Arabs, and that this is blocked by the illegal settlements. True.
R S Hack,
My understanding is that Boeing opposed the sanctions for obvious reason airplane sales to Iran, and sales of spare parts and maintenance, are prevented.
Canning say Boeing lobbied against US sanctions on Iran.
This is not true.
Read this:
Boeing, Exxon say new Iran sanctions would hurt global sales
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20377:boeing-exxon-say-new-iran-sanctions-would-hurt-global-sales&catid=31:economy&Itemid=46
Quote
“We are up on Capitol Hill talking about the collateral damage,” William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a Washington-based group that represents Exxon and Boeing, said in an interview. “There is legitimate, non- Iran business that will be cut off.”
The lobbying is aimed at modifying certain provisions, not killing the bill, according to Wenk of the Chamber.
“We know we can’t stop this bill,” Wenk said in an interview. “But the provisions go far beyond Iran. There are some real unintended consequences.”
Exxon, the biggest U.S. oil company, wants to eliminate a prohibition on joint ventures with companies that separately have oil projects in Iran, said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for the Irving, Texas-based company. Lloyd’s of London and other insurers based abroad want an exemption for “cooperating countries” working with the U.S. to curb sales to Iran, Charles Landgraf, the insurance market’s Washington lobbyist, said in an interview.
Chicago-based Boeing, the world’s second-largest commercial plane maker after Airbus SAS, wants to strip out a provision banning U.S. companies from being aided by foreign export-credit agencies that also guarantee exports to Iran, spokesman Timothy Neale said.
End Quotes
This has NOTHING to do with reducing sanctions on Iran, and EVERYTHING to do with the collateral impact on the US military-industrial complex and oil company ability to make deals with companies who ALSO have deals with Iran.
Far from suggesting that these companies give a rat’s ass about Iran (although Boeing WOULD like to see Iran a whole new fleet of airliners!), these requests for “exemptions” reflect just how much clout these companies have in US foreign policy.
In short, it’a about MONEY, NOT Iran.
R S Hack,
Boeing lobbied against Iranian sanctions. Boeing is a major defence contractor.
R S Hack,
Do you really think Warren Buffett or Bill Gates wants war with Iran?
The Financial Times today said the Pentagon is very much opposed to any military intervention in Syria. And the Pentagon does not want war with Iran.
“AIPAC to Obama: Attack Iran or let Israel do it”:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/226156.html
Kooshy: “I have no contest with what you state as what the west’s end goal and desired aim is, but what they can achieve and how they can achieve is where I respectfully disagree with you.”
Of course. But the point of the post is to lay out HOW the goals I allege the ruling elites have CAN be accomplished, not just WHAT goals.
The question is: What can Iran do to PREVENT those military goals from being accomplished?
Specifically, what military actions on the ground can Iran take to REALLY pose a threat to, for instance, the Marines landing on the Strait shores and hills and taking control of a portion of the Strait? One can say, for example, well, the Iranians can fire missiles at the Marine landing dock ships. OK, that’s a possibility. Then the question becomes will Iran have such missiles in position at the point the Marines choose and despite US bombardment covering that insertion?
In other words, what aspects of all this will affect the outcome? In general, does Iran have the military strength and strategy and tactics to defeat the US directly in the air, on the sea and on the ground sufficiently to prevent the US from accomplishing the goals I’ve laid down for such a military campaign?
Can the Iranians consistently and permanently prevent US Marines from landing on the shores of the Strait?
Can the Iranians and their Iraqi Shia allies actually consistently and permanently prevent an invasion from Kuwait across southern Iraq into Iran?
Can the Iranians prevent the US from achieving air superiority?
Can the Iranians permanently prevent the US Navy from eventually entering the Gulf?
Can the Iranians permanently close the Strait of Hormuz as a result of the answers to some of the above questions?
These are the issues the US planners are considering, of that we can be sure.
If there is no clear reasons why Iran can achieve THEIR goals, then one must question the likelihood that the US cannot achieve its limited military goals.
The point of my post is to posit a context for discussing the actual war, and thus by extension whether such a war is at all POSSIBLE. Because some people here ASSUME such a war is impossible because of assumptions about the extent of Iranian military power, the capabilities of US military power, and the impact of other events in an Iran war.
I’d like to see these sorts of considerations more nailed down rather than rely on hand waving about generalities.
Here’s a question: At what point would the US ruling elites consider backing off on a war with Iran? Note I’m not talking about Pentagon flunkies here. I’m talking the guys who OWN the United States economy, i.e, the Fortune 500 or 1000 top investors and the banks who finance them, especially in the military-industrial complex.
I’ve just been thinking about that. I remember back in the days about two or three decades ago when I was interested in following the US economy prospects. I started doing that in the ’70’s as I was reading about the Austrian School of economics theory. These days I’m pretty much ignoring it since I’m so far down on the economic totem pole that there would have to be a major Depression to make me any poorer… :-)
But one thing I remember is that back when the US national debt was around 3-6 trillion dollars, the “experts” were saying that if it went to 7-9 trillion or so it would be a “disaster” for the US economy and would harbor hyperinflation or depression.
Well, we’re now at, what, THIRTEEN to FIFTEEN trillion dollars in national debt?
And the US ruling elites are perfectly happy with that AND in addition are happy to load on another one-half to one trillion for the Pentagon AND then on TOP OF THAT load on another $100 billion a year in direct war costs every year for the last ten years.
The financial arm of the ruling elites were also happy to load up on derivatives and the like to the tune of scores of trillions of dollars of unrealizable gains which resulted in the 2008 Crash. And then they got bailed out to the tune of $700 billion in taxpayer dollars!
So what will an Iran war cost and what will the effect be on the US economy – and will the ruling elites care?
If we assume that the Iran war will be at least four times the size of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined at a minimum, we can expect the cost of that war to be in the neighborhood of $400-500 billion a year.
The size of the US economy is now around the size of its national debt – about $15-16 trillion. That is thirty two times the size of the likely Iran war budget.
Even in WWII, defense spending did not exceed around 37% of the GDP. For the last three years of the war, it was between 30% and 37%. An Iran war is going to be FAR SMALLER than that.
Of course this doesn’t take into account the impact of an oil price spike to $250-300 a barrel or more for a considerable time period, or the ripple effects of that across an already shaky economy thanks to the excesses of the financial arm of the ruling elites in the world.
Nonetheless, it seems to me likely that the US and the EU will be able to absorb the cost of the Iran war for multiple years.
But that doesn’t even matter for two reasons:
1) First, the ruling elites know that there is always SOME “economy” going on – unless everyone is destitute and starving like some benighted place like Somalia. So as long as THEIR segment of the economy is not collapsed, they’re fine.
Especially since THEIR segment of the economy comes directly via US tax dollars extorted by force by the US government from the US citizen on pain of jail if it’s not paid.
In other words, as long as the US economy is not damaged so badly that the bulk of the US citizenry have no jobs and cannot pay their taxes so much that Federal tax revenues are so low that the US military budget MUST be slashed – the ruling elites are fine. They couldn’t care less about the rest of us.
2) Second, are the US ruling elites any smarter than the rest of the economics “experts” at predicting what will happen to the economy? I think not.
Therefore, the ruling elites can be expected to continue to press for policies which lead to their own profits HEEDLESS of the ultimate effects of those policies EVEN ON THEMSELVES and completely disregarding the effects on any other segment of the economy and electorate.
In short, the US ruling elites – and I believe this is generally true of elites worldwide and throughout history – will always continue to press national policies which are to their advantage and to everyone else’s disadvantage AS LONG AS 1) the effects of those policies do not OBVIOUSLY hurt THEM, and 2) they are CAPABLE of PREDICTING those effects (or guarding against them with various hedges).
And if 2) is NOT possible, I believe ruling elites NONETHELESS will continue to press for such policies based on the simple fact that greed rules regardless of the actual outcome.
“In the long run, we’ll all be dead.” The ruling elites therefore don’t care about what might happen in ten or twenty years. Most of these guys are my age or older and they expect to be dead by the time “the bill comes due”…
Which means in practice that there is NOTHING one can say to the ruling elites which will prevent them from pursuing their policies short of PROVING to them – without a shadow of a doubt – that they will harm themselves – and in the SHORT TERM – by such policies.
Which means there is no way that economic impact considerations of an Iran war will dissuade most, if not all, of them from pursuing policies leading to a war.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 11, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Rich-
Making many predictions like the one you just made on the comment dated above may eventually make you a candidate to be in one of the next few post by the Leveretts along with Soros and Goldberg, I have no contest with what you state as what the west’s end goal and desired aim is, but what they can achieve and how they can achieve is where I respectfully disagree with you. That said all the details you put in as what will become of Iran and who will lose what becomes irrelevant to me and just an opinion which never less I will keep respected.
Thank You
Persian Gulf – just a side note to your question to fyi – if you havent watched the programme, “Putin,Russia and West” – a 4part series in BBC – part 4, was about US foreign policy when Obama came to power- the programme says that Obamas no.1 FP was to reset relations with Russia and hence NOT Iran. He spent a lot of time and energy on this – so when Ahmednejad send him a letter – he did not wNt to deal with it as Iran is not his priority – it was Russia.
Iran became an issue for him when Fordo was identified.
Anyway watch it if you can.
Irshad: “Richard S Hack – I thought they was talking about you as the expert on Press TV”
“Great minds” and all…
Really, this stuff is so obvious it’s amazing everyone doesn’t get it.
A ten year old child can see what’s going on. (“Run out and find me a ten year old child, I can’t make head or tails of this.” – Groucho Marx – or was it Obama?)
Voice of Tehran: “no FOUL compromise will ever be made with the ‘ world arrogance ‘.”
I expect that to be true. Iran WILL win the war eventually.
The problem is that while Iran will win and the US will lose, the US ruling elites will continue to have their cake and eat it, too (short of a COMPLETE economic collapse that actually affects the ruling elites as well – which is rare in economic history.)
Which is why I recommend Iran concentrate on assassinating the US and Israel ruling elites. At least this will help delay the NEXT war… Iran would be doing the world a major service and we should be eternally grateful if they were to assassinate the top ten thousand members of the ruling elites in the US and especially all the top Zionists in the US and Israel. That should be Iran’s number one military priority.
fyi:
You have asserted, per your reading of the after NIE-07 events,that the U.s was never interested in resolving her differences with Iran as the goal has always been regime change. On the other hand you also said that the TTR offer was designed, by Ahmadinejad circle, as a means for the west to climb down the confrontation ladder.
are you suggesting that Ahmadijenad naively designed this plot without grasping the underpinning principle of the animosity between the two sides? doesn’t this imply that he wanted, at that specific time frame, to sell a better image of himself? if, per Ahmadinejad’s thinking, the deal was appropriate to resolve the dispute, isn’t it right to say the Obama admin’s policies regarding Iran was influenced by other parties?
considering the environment of the last few months of 2009, it was quite unlikely, at least in my view, for a small step like this to alleviate the long existing dispute.
Obama even didn’t respond directly to Ahmadinejad’s congratulatory letter before the election. it was obvious that he is not interested in any deal shortly after the election. if it was the urgency of the nuclear clock, we have long passed that stage and the U.S policy is practically the same.
Richard S Hack – I thought they was talking about you as the expert on Press TV
http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=226206
”
‘West to raid Syria to squeeze Iran’
A senior Middle East expert says the West, aided and abetted by Turkey, Qatar and Israel, is plotting to overthrow the Syrian regime in a bid to strip the Islamic Republic of its regional sway.
“The extremist Wahhabis, the neo-colonist Zionists and the Western imperialists have taken up arms against those who fly in the face of extremism and expansionism in the region each with its own agenda on Syria as a whipping boy with the ultimate goal of relegating Iran to the outer fringes of political power,” Ismail Salami wrote in an article titled “West’s shenanigans against Syria, Iran” on Press TV .
Salami, author of Iran, Cradle of Civilization , added that the “exorbitant efforts” the West is expending in Syria to overthrow its President Bashar al-Assad regime are “in fact directed against the Islamic Republic.”
The Iranian expert added that “presstitute media” such as the state-funded BBC, the Qatar-funded Al Jazeera and the Saudi-run Al Arabiya are also constantly distorting the facts on the Syrian ground to abet their respective government’s policies.
To this end, the events in Syria must be so choreographed that they should lead to the overthrow of Assad regime and consequently result in the supposed debilitation of the Iranian establishment, the senior political analyst said.
Efraim Halevy, head of Mossad from 1998 to 2002, wrote in an article posted on The New York Times on February 7 that the West should focus on terminating Iran’s influence in Syria instead of seeking a military assault on Tehran as this is the “safer and rewarding option.”
“The public debate in America and Israel these days is focused obsessively on whether to attack Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons ambitions; hardly any attention is being paid to how events in Syria could result in a strategic debacle for the Iranian government,” Halevy said.
Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Hundreds of people, including Syrian security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.
The West and the Syrian opposition accuse the government of killing the protesters, but Damascus says “outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist groups” are responsible for the unrest, which it says is being orchestrated from abroad.”
Kooshy: In comparison to your somewhat incoherent description of how you see an Iran war being conducted, let me offer the following considerations and timeline:
1) I predict that the US/NATO will attack Syria at some point this year. The US/NATO attack will degrade Syrian air defenses to the point of allowing US/NATO mostly air superiority if not completely.
2) During the course of the Syrian air campaign, Israel will attack Hizballah in Lebanon, also engaging Syrian forces with an armored division in the process as a means of protecting a second armored division sent into Lebanon via the Bekaa Valley. In addition a third armored division will attack Hizballah in southern Lebanon.
3) During the course of these two conflicts, they will in essence merge into one conflict, with the US/NATO assisting Israel in bombing Hizballah positions and Israel assisting the US/NATO in suppressing Syrian forces in order to allow the Syrian insurgents to attack the Syrian government offices in Damascus (which is relatively close to the Lebanese border.)
4) Subsequent to these events, the US and NATO, noting that the previous oil EMBARGO has failed to seriously cut Iranian oil revenues or make any change in Iran’s nuclear energy program or spur any further negotiations, will attempt to set up a naval blockade of Iranian oil exports. This blockade will operate in the Arabian Sea and not in the Persian Gulf per se to avoid threats to the coalition vessels engaged in it.
5) This blockade will produce a war with Iran when Iran militarily attempts to break the blockade by preventing all other oil tankers from exiting the Strait of Hormuz by mining the Strait and perhaps the Persian Gulf.
6) An alternative possibility up to this point will be an Israel air strike via either the Israeli Air Force or via cruise missiles from an Israeli sub (possibly along with the Air Force.)
7) At this point, hostilities have erupted.
8) The immediate action taken by the US and NATO will be a sustained and intense air campaign to destroy the following:
a) All Iranian naval assets which can be attacked by air or cruise missile.
b) All Iranian anti-aircraft defense systems including radar installations and antiaircraft missile batteries. Much of this will be done by cruise missile until the defense systems have been degraded sufficiently to allow US Air Force air superiority.
c) All Iranian military command-and-control locations which can be identified and attacked by air or cruise missile.
d) All Iranian electrical power generating facilities.
e) All Iranian ballistic missile launch or storage facilities which can be spotted and attacked from the air or by cruise missile.
f) All Iranian airfields will be carpet bombed by B-52 bombers at high altitude to prevent Iranian aircraft from taking off.
g) All Iranian military aircraft will be swept from the skies by US/NATO fighters.
9) The next step will be to re-open the Strait of Hormuz. This will entail:
a) Continual air bombardment of every Iranian military (and perhaps non-military villages as well since they can serve as cover for Iranian military assets) along the Strait of Hormuz. This again is likely to use B-52 carpet bombing as well as more precise air strikes.
b) Continual naval bombardment of the same targets from range via ship and submarine launched cruise missiles.
c) The insertion of US Special Forces on to the shores of the Strait to precisely identify local targets.
d) Eventually insertion of probably 15-30,000 or more Marines via amphibious assault and air drops onto the shores and hills above the Strait of Hormuz at the southern end with full air and naval support. These Marines will secure a beach head and any hills overlooking the Strait at one end.
e) There may be an additional insertion of Marines on the northern end of the Strait. The two Marine forces will work north and south to eventually secure the entire length of the Strait.
10) Subsequent to the securing of the Strait, the US Navy will “surge” into the Persian Gulf accompanied by Marine amphibious landing ships, submarines and the full complement of combat craft – with the probably exception of the carriers themselves which will likely remain in the Arabian Sea until all Iranian naval assets have been destroyed.
11) The US Navy in the Gulf will complete the destruction of most of the remaining Iranian naval assets and begin mine clearing operations which will take anywhere from six weeks to six months to (mostly) complete.
And of course as mines can be dumped anywhere at any time, this will be an ongoing effort that will never be fully “complete”. They will also resume escorting oil tanker through the Gulf and the Strait, assuming that Iranian missiles are not at this point a major threat. That last part is “iffy” since Iran is likely to be able to fire missiles to some degree throughout the war.
12) The US will then rotate in another 15-30,000 regular Army to take over from the Marines in securing the Strait. The Marines will then move en mass north along the Persian Gulf dealing with whatever Iranian forces they encounter. Since they will be fully supported by US/NATO air power, Iran will have to resort to harassing attacks by small units to attempt to impede the Marines, since any concentrated Iranian forces will be attacked by B-52 carpet bombing which would destroy them. In other words, the Marines will NOT be seriously impeded although they will take continuous casualties.
13) What the next military goal of the US and NATO will be is hard to predict. If the assumption is that one goal is to seize the Khuzestan oil fields, then presumably some efforts will be made in that direction. This would have to entail a large scale movement of perhaps 50,000 or more US troops – a couple full armored divisions fully supported by air power – from Kuwait in a push across Iraq from Basra to Abadan into Iran.
This of course will be complicated by Iraqi Shia guerrilla war against the US forces. However, as this will be a mass invasion by a large US force, it is unlikely the Iraqi Shia will be able to stop it. What the Iraqi Shia CAN do, however, is seriously impede US supply routes into Iran unless they are heavily guarded – which in turn means more US casualties as well as those actually occurting IN Iran.
It is expected that the US will be able to seize the Khuzestan province. What it will NOT be able to do, however, is HOLD IT – not without major levels of ongoing casualties as Iranian guerrilla forces attempt to evict the US forces. This guerrilla war will make the Iraqi insurgency look like a picnic and we can expect US casualties to be in the thousands if not greater every year the war goes on.
14) At this point, the war will essentially be a stalemate. The US will be unable and unwilling to push further into Iran without running into literally hundreds of thousands of armed Iranian militia. Whether or not the US can obtain control of the entire Persian Gulf is also questionable, although it is likely the US can gain about as much control as it had during the Tanker War in the 1980’s. The US should be able to retain control of the Strait of Hormuz.
On the Iranian side, the Iranians will suffer about as much major damage to its infrastructure – at least in the Western portion of the country – as Iraq did in 2003. Iran’s major conventional forces will be degraded to the point where no major combat operations are likely to be successful against militarily more powerful if less numerous US forces.
However, Iran WILL be able to mount a very successful guerrilla war campaign against US forces which will result in hundreds of casualties per month and thousands per year on US forces. There will be no such thing as “4-5,000 US casualties over five years” like it was in Iraq – it will be more like 5,000 PER YEAR, much like Vietnam – a war which ran for ten years or so and produced 50,000 US casualties. Casualties could even go as high as ten thousand per year although I think the US will make strenuous efforts to avoid that.
The Iranian government will remain more or less intact, its leaders will survive and continue to prosecute the war indefinitely. The Iranian population will unite around that leadership and provide hundreds of thousands of volunteers for the military. At least a million Basiji militia members will be produced, if not more, and will be pressed into service as guerrillas.
Now let’s turn to the international theater of the war.
1) Subsequent to the attacks on Syria and Hizballah, those two parties will be in one of two conditions: 1) either weakened and unable to intervene, or 2) not sufficiently weakened and able to intervene. Or one may be in one condition while the other is not.
2) If unable to intervene, Israel will only have to deal with the following problems:
a) Iranian missile strikes which may or may not be accurate enough or powerful enough to do serious damage to Israel’s military or infrastructure or affect the psychology of Israeli civilians. Depending on how effective US air power has been in suppressing Iranian long-range missiles, this situation should resolve itself within a relatively short time.
Large numbers of Iranian missiles will only rain down on Israel in the first few weeks of the war. Subsequently much smaller numbers will be launched and the impact on Israel will be reduced to “manageable” levels. The only situation which might change that is if the Dimona nuclear facility is hit and damaged enough to produce a radioactive release.
b) Terrorism exported from Egypt and Syria and Lebanon into the border areas of Israel. This will be manageable by Israel.
c) Terrorism attacks against Israeli assets around the world. This, too, is manageable and will be mostly irrelevant to Israel’s actions.
3) If, however, Hizballah and/or Syria ARE able to intervene in the war, things will be much worse for Israel, depending on how weakened Israel was able to make either of those parties prior to the war:
a) Hizballah, if it retains most of its missile arsenal and remains in a position of being able to hit much of Israel with those missiles, will be able to commit enough of its arsenal to keep large numbers of the Israeli population in bomb shelters for much of the day on most days. This will have a significant impact on the already somewhat shaky Israeli economy. More importantly, it will have a huge impact on the Israeli electorate’s opinion of Netanyahu and the Likud Party.
b) Hizballah may also be able to conduct significant guerrilla attacks into northern Israel, capturing Israeli soldiers, ambushing Israeli units on the border or in southern Lebanon.
c) Hizballah may also be able to continue guerrilla operations against Israeli forces in the Bekaa Valley, if those forces have not withdrawn prior to the Iran war.
In both cases, Israel can expect significant casualties in the hundreds for as long as hostilities continue.
d) Syria, too, may remain in a position to conduct either guerrilla war via the Golan Heights, as well as supplying arms and fighters into Lebanon in support of Hizballah. Although Syria may be mostly engaged in its own civil war by this time, it is possible that the regime manages to crush the insurgents despite the US/NATO campaign. If so, Syria could remain a combatant against Israel, forcing Israel to split its war between two fronts, both using guerrilla means rather than conventional forces (which Israel would be able to manage normally.)
4) Saudi Arabia and the GCC: I don’t expect these countries to be very relevant in terms of the overall progress of the war. While Iran may be able to stir up Shia rebellion in these countries, it is unlikely to be an existential threat in Saudi Arabia, although it might be a major problem for the Bahrain government. If the latter, it is expected that both Saudi Arabia AND the US will commit some forces to suppressing any rebellion in order to protect the US Fifth Fleet headquarters.
5) Iranian missile strikes at other countries: Depending on whether Iranian missiles are sufficiently accurate and sufficiently powerful (or enough of them are committed to specific targets), these are unlikely to strategically affect the course of the war. An exception might be if Saudi Arabian oil production or distribution is significantly degraded which clearly would have a major impact on the world economy.
6) Arab unrest in other countries: While a problem for the government of countries like Egypt, Jordan, and others, none of these are likely to affect the strategic course of the war, short of an overthrow of the Saudi Arabian rulers or the overthrow of Bahrain addressed above.
7) International Operations by Iran or its proxies: Basically I don’t see these as being significant in determining the strategic course of the war. There are obviously situations which would be psychologically influencing on either the US or international populations or both. But in terms of directly affecting US and NATO capacity to prosecute the war, I don’t see any major effect being likely.
The one exception would be an attempt by either Iran or its proxies to conduct large-scale terrorism in the continental United States or in NATO countries. This could seriously affect the perceptions of those countries’ electorates to favor a negotiated end to the war, provided such terrorism was 1) effective, 2) chronic, and 3) wide spread. Alternatively, such terrorism, if handled improperly by either Iran or its proxies or both, could produce the opposite effect and harden those countries’ electorates into prosecuting a more extreme form of the war against Iran.
In short, I believe an Iran war will have the following characteristics:
1) It will be primarily between the US/NATO on the one hand and Iran on the other. The contribution of other countries, notably Israel, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the Arab monarchies and the new “Arab Spring” nations, will be relatively unimportant in determining the outcome of the war.
2) While the war will have regional impact, it will not be a “regional war” in the sense that, say, WWII in the Pacific was, i.e. involving multiple nations in the immediate region in serious military conflict. There WILL be military impact on many nations in the region, but most of them will NOT be militarily active directly against either the US/NATO or Iran.
3) The war will have little world wide impact except of course in the effects of an oil price spike on the world economy, and in the perceptions of the world’s Muslim community and the international community generally against the US and NATO.
4) There will be no “WWIII” involving the addition of either China or Russia militarily on Iran’s side, although I would expect covert and perhaps some overt support of Iran by either or both countries which will likely lead to increased tensions between the US/NATO and Russia/China.
5) There will be no significant antiwar movement in the US comparable to that of the Vietnam era. This isn’t the ‘1960’s… In addition, the US electorate will be mostly distracted from the war by the economic problems the war will produce – paradoxically.
Whichever President starts the war will be re-elected (if he has another term coming.) Subsequently Presidents who intend to continue the war will become one-term Presidents once the war drags on past a couple of years. This will not stop the next couple of Presidents from continuing the war just as it did not stop Obama from doing so in Afghanistan. By about the second or third Presidential term, however, the candidates will be campaigning on a “stop the war” basis…whether they actually do or not is irrelevant.
James Parrot Canning: Do you actually read anything people write here on RFI? Why are you still parroting this 20% nonesense? If UK and KSA are concerned about this, tell them to send Vague Hague and Princess Nayan to Tehran and bang out an agreement thats satisfies everyone. Pres. Ahmednejad will support you in this as he offered to stop 20% production.
If they are not prepared to do this, then Shut Up! And stop parroting 20%!!!!!
Margaret Mead the pioneering American anthropologist has said:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Although she was unaware of modern style findings on Genetics, Neuroscience, fMRI brain scans, dynamism of the brain etc she was astute enough to realize how a small group of determined individuals can change the world.
The above famous quote reminds us there were also a small group of Nazis whose strong dedication to Nazism, were instrumental to successfully brainwashe the Germans ( using Goebellsian tactics),causing the most colossal destruction in the history of humans.
In recent times a small group of committed Neocons cleverly allied themselves with powerful American profiteers dragging US to Iraq war. They are the same ones who are now pushing for war with Iran which, with a high probability, would change the world by nullification of the ‘superpower status’ of America.
If Margaret Mead was alive today she would have observed that great majority of humans do not develop their inductive (analytical) mind, live and die using only their Chimp Mind. She would have known about the correlation between the Nationalistic zeal (cultivated in the mind through intense brainwashing) and warmongering. She would have known that for those who had become proficient in analytics and are able to scape from all types of indoctrination, war is the most gruesome folly of human species.
If she was alive and had observed the likes of Cheneys, Sabans, Adelsens, Netanyahus, Haliburtoners, Neocons, and hegemonists she might have said:
“Never doubt that a small group of powerful, determined and psychopathic individuals can destroy the world to the point of jeopardizing the survival of all life forms on earth”
James
Stop blaming others, obama will start a war unless Iran change its basic rights and the warmongering uk will support US no matter what, just like Iraq war.
James canning
Like the level of enrichment is the problem…. Why do you keep pushing for war. Because you obviously think that Iran must be invaded if they get nukes or even enrich at the legal level of 19,75%. You cant build a nuclear warhead with 19,75%, that is basic knowledge. You fail to understand that if you have a nuclear fuel cycle, you already have the capability. A capability that US have rejected for Iran. Iran was sanctioned because they enriched at 3,5%, so your warmongering is not only false but damaging to find a solution to the conflict.
R S Hack,
Obama sees the purpose of the sanctions as causing an alteration in the actions of the government of Iran. This is position of France and the UK as well.
Yes, some neocon warmongers and other supporters of Israel right or wrong, want the sanctions to set up a war, by “boxing Obama in”.
Voice of Tehran,
You think it is worth war, Iran’s accumulating more 20% uranium than is needed for the TRR?
The Financial Times reported today that China has been trying to get numerous contracts in Libya underway again, after the interruption caused by overthrow of Gaddafi. $19 billion worth.
Glenn Greenwald at salon.com is calling attention to the report Israel and the MEK are killing the Iranian scientists.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“Yes, I noted that in an earlier post. I suggested it would be more effective at delaying the war than sending General Dempsey or Panetta down there to beg…”
Yeah , I guess the slobber of the elitist’s war beast cannot be overlooked anymore.
From now on daily major world events ( and there are a LOT ) will determine the outcome and the date of a hot war.
Meanwhile you should know how the mind of Iranians works : If the war comes , then it comes and it was meant to be , no FOUL compromise will ever be made with the ‘ world arrogance ‘.
I am sure and confident that Iranian leaders will act wise and decisive and Almighty God will never abandon those who seek for true justice , OK Richard ?
مبارک باد 22 بهمن!
استقلال، آزادی ، جمهوری اسلامی
عدالت اجتماعی، آزادی فردی
Castellio says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Castellio-
One point of importance that I meant but failed to mention on my 3:14 pm comment is the change in dynamic of Iran – US/West 33 years old on going conflict, which is, Iran successfully since 2006 was able to widen and bring in other important actors to the table like Russia and China making this more of an international issue now one even can claim that Turkey, Brazil and India somewhat see this issue as one of theirs, still later since 2011 Iran became able to even further expand this issue by further defining it as part of an ongoing conflict between political Islam and the west.
Voice of Tehran: “Richard , it seems that Iran still has time until May 2012 , after Madonna’s concert in Israel .”
Yes, I noted that in an earlier post. I suggested it would be more effective at delaying the war than sending General Dempsey or Panetta down there to beg…
Richard , it seems that Iran still has time until May 2012 , after Madonna’s concert in Israel .
“Blood Thirsty Israelis: Don’t Blow Up Iran Until After Madonna Concert!”
http://grantjkidney.com/blood-thirsty-israelis-dont-blow-up-iran-until-after-madonna-concert/
…Madonna recently performed a seemingly Satanic ritual at this year’s Superbowl event. The so called ‘talented’ artist adorned herself with devil horns and posed in such a way so as to stir up images of the ancient pagan god, ‘Baphomet’.
Madonna’s Israeli concert to take place this Spring will no doubt tantalize many blood-thirsty Israeli demons who are pushing for the end of humanity by advocating a war with Iran. Considering how warped the state of Israel truly is, it may just be that the request to postpone the forthcoming nuclear travesty is honored. If such is indeed the case, we can surely place all bets that in June of this year, all hell will break loose as Israel and her western partners invade the Islamic Republic of Iran…
Castellio says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Sorry- I was stating why in my opinion a war will not happen unless is in wider context, and expecting you to extract the answer you asked me, which is the limiting mechanism to limit the possible damage, if you did read my original post to RSH earlier you would note that I had stated that everyone believes that if a war get started Iran will inflict a lot of damage correct but so does US, for that the mechanism to limit the damage is what has worked in past there will be no hot war, and a lot of cold war for an internally triggered regime change. I have fallowed this conflict for over thirty years, and the best possible time for a US strike has already passed.
Kooshy, I asked “what would set the limits of destruction in this case?”
And your answer, effectively, is that:
since the air war is not in preparation for a ground war it will be limited;
there is no possibility of tactical hukes because who knows where it would lead;
it suits the US purposes to maintain a limited 1 on 1 war,
the war will broaden (your points 3 and 4)
Well, you’re contradicting yourself. The damage will be limited because the war will be limited is contradicted by Iran’s strategy of broadening the war to undermine US hegemony in the region (your points 3 and 4)
Which is it?
A limited war that Iran accepts with (supposedly) limited damage to Iran, or a broader war with who knows how much damage will be inflicted?
Castellio says:
February 11, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Castellio-
Simply
1-The context of war here is different with both WWII and even the Korean War which were conducted in a brother context which both sides in the conflict did and had to get involve in a land based war by various actors directly involved in the war.
2-The world has changed since there is no possibility for anyone to use a limited tactical nuclear attack without getting a lot more people involved and widen the war possibly to world scale.
3-In case of the war US strategy will remain to a limited one on one war on the contrary Iranians will for sure widen the war at least to a regional war, which eventually will diminish the western regional hegemony faster than what the current trajectory is (Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan soon)
4-An Arial limited conventional war does not topple the governments on the contrary will strengthen it and will eventually require a wider
land war once the other side start to shooting something somewhere of importance. (Lebanon)
I think I can name a few more if I check my past notes
Pirouz: “I tend to agree with USAF General Michael Hayden’s assessment: it really is beyond Israel’s capacity, as well as being counterproductive.”
Hayden’s a fool or more likely a liar. Obviously Israel can’t hurt Iran short of nuking Tehran.
Duh…
Everyone with a brain knows the SOLE purpose of an Israeli strike is to drag the US into the war.
So why are we discussing some US flunkie’s random notions about “capacity”.
Counterproductive? That’s the whole POINT!
People talk about these random statements from the military like it matters somewhere in the real world. MOST of the Iran discussion falls into that category: irrelevancies that don’t matter in the real world.
The only thing that matters in the Iran situation is WHEN and HOW the war starts – and of course, what happens NEXT.
Yemi: “Here, you sounded not like an analyst but a wishful thinker!”
Did you see Iraq in April 2003?
“Here, you tend to look at one side of a coin!”
That was the point because people like you only look at the other side of the coin.
“Here, you sounded like an angry Zionist!”
Please, no one here could confuse me with a Zionist.
“Why can’t you be more refined and remember that you can only start a war but the outcomes are beyond your imaginations.”
I’m well aware of the fact that wars are somewhat unpredictable. But mostly somewhat. Someone once said that most of the time it’s easy to predict who would win a war given the basic capabilities of both sides, at least in conventional war. Germany tried to conquer the world. That wasn’t going to work.
Similarly, the US was going to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn’t work due to the changing nature of war from conventional “Second and Third Generation War” to “Fourth Generation War” as William S. Lind calls it.
As I’ve said repeatedly here, the US will NOT win the Iran war.
That doesn’t mean the US won’t severely damage Iran’s infrastructure and economy and conventional military forces. Iran will be unable to damage the US military forces to the same degree. What will end the war is the US inability to continue bleeding economically and geopolitically and in terms of internal public dissent once the US military damage is deemed unacceptable by the electorate (despite being too little to actually prevent the US from prosecuting the war).
But it is likely to take a decade to come to that point. Meanwhile, those ruling elites who started the war will profit by it, achieve some if not all of their goals, and will then wind down the Iran war and start preparing for some other war – against Pakistan, or North Korea, or China or who knows where.
This is the history of the last two decades of the US – and some would say the last century. It will continue to be the history of the US until the US suffers one (or more) of three things:
1) REAL military defeat (i.e., an inability to physically fight a war.) This is unlikely short of nuclear war or perhaps a ground war against a foe the size of China which is highly unlikely.
2) Economic collapse. This is quite likely.
3) Internal insurrection. This is unlikely until one of the other two outcomes occurs.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 11, 2012 at 11:19 am
I tend to agree with USAF General Michael Hayden’s assessment: it really is beyond Israel’s capacity, as well as being counterproductive.
A Strike by the IDF/AF would only serve to initiate hostilities with Iran. There would be an exchange, with IRGC/ASF IRBMs hitting Israel. With such an exchange taking place, the popular perception would be a more or less equal military standing for Iran with Israel, which is not the object of Israel’s political goal in launching a strike. They’ve already been seen as such with comparatively miniscule Hezbollah during the 33-Day war.
More importantly, due to the distance involved, the IDF/AF can’t conduct the type of damage it inflicted on Lebanese infrastructure back in 2006. Such a sustained campaign is beyond the capacity of the IDF/AF.
So it would be a tit-for-tat, were the U.S. not to become engaged.
I can’t predict Israeli moves. Their current leadership, as well as its support lobby in Washington DC, appear to be, in certain respects, emotionally driven (as are most Republican presidential candidates on this issue). For their part, I find the Iranians more sober in their thinking, and thus more predictable.
Kooshy: “majority of the American are brought up with to believe they are untouchable”
Given how few Americans have actually DIED in the last sixty years compared to how many foreign civilians and military types have died, Americans have some reason to be complacent.
And the ruling elites even more so, because NONE of them have died (outside of the Kennedys and that was internal.)
“I gather you still do retain and enjoy and believe in the American power regardless of your claim of being an anarchist.”
Unlike many anarchists who think they can overthrow the system, I’m not stupid. Recognizing how much capability the enemy has is important. I violated that precept and spent eight years, three and a half months in prison for it. The next time I move against the state, I will do so more carefully.
“US will not enter a war that from the start will be long and will lead to stalemate, while not achieving her political aims.”
That wasn’t my guote, BTW.
“obviously as numerously stated by various inside and outside government official the goal would ultimately be a regime change.”
For SOME of the ruling elite it would be regime change. And MOST of the ruling elite probably would LIKE regime change.
But for SOME people, just the war itself is justification. And for others, weakening Iran will be sufficient.
“I don’t think US is willing or capable to be dragged in that scenario no matter how much Israelis cry.”
Then Obama should say so. But he hasn’t. Instead he’s said he is in “lockstep” with Israel.
The ruling elites want war. They will get war. How the war develops and how much it costs US forces is irrelevant to them. All that matters is they will profit from it. Rational considerations are irrelevant.
As I’ve laid out before, while a large number of troops (20-30,000 Marines and perhaps as many regular Army to rotate with the Marines) might be committed to things like securing the Strait of Hormuz, and while eventually some idiot might get the idea to try to seize the Khuzestan oil fields which might require another 50-100,000, I don’t anticipate half a million US troops in Iran. There’s no need because the US won’t be trying full scale land war for regime change. This isn’t WWII.
That’s not the goal. The goal is to weaken Iran but at the same time PROLONG THE WAR.
The weakening is done from the air and at sea. The US doesn’t care much about the Iranian ground forces, they can’t do anything externally to Iran (which is also why Iran can’t be defeated). So they won’t engage those ground forces except in a “defensive” manner – either to secure the Strait and/or to secure Khuzestan (IF the US pursues that course) – and fully supported from the air.
There will be no ground war for regime change, that’s quite true. There doesn’t have to be. The purpose was never to occupy Iran in the manner of Iraq or Afghanistan, because the country is too big and the population too large compared to either of those other two countries.
The purpose as I keep saying is:
1) For SOME people, weaken Iran so it is not an effective international actor. That would be Israel’s goal, for instance, obviously.
2) For SOME people, drive up the oil prices. That would be the oil companies goal, obviously.
3) For SOME people, make war profits. That would be the military-industrial complex goal, obviously.
People keep raising straw men about the inability to achieve “regime change” and this and that as if any of that matters. It doesn’t. The only people who might be interested in that are the neocons – and we don’t know that because we can’t trust anything they say, so what goals they really will settle for are unknown.
Nonetheless the US can and will reduce Iran’s infrastructure to the state of Iraq in April 2003. It will just take longer. That will not make Iran surrender or cause it to be unable to fight. It will do just so much and no more than I’ve stated it will do.
Arnold and fyi have clearly come down on the prediction that the sole purpose of US actions is “regime change” and that the US is willing to sit around for the next ten years (or forever) waiting for that to occur.
The rest of us know that isn’t going to happen. And we’re not THAT much smarter than the ruling elites of the US and Israel. So THEY know it isn’t going to happen either. And they don’t WANT it to happen. What they want is as I’ve said above in my bullet points.
What Arnold and fyi predict is a result of their inability to understand how the US ruling elites work and what they want. It’s a result of an emotional inability – cognitive dissonance – to believe the world works the way it in fact works as has been CLEARLY demonstrated with US wars over the last twenty years since the Cold War ended. Since that time, the US has expended enormous effort to expand its military power paid for by the taxpayers and then ON TOP OF THAT started one war after another paid for with SUPPLEMENTAL appropriations costing the taxpayer currently over $100 billion dollars a year.
Sanctions don’t get you $100 billion a year more profit. War does.
There will be no “slo-mo regime change.” It will be war.
Kooshy, RSH can stand up for himself and clarify what he thinks.
However, when I read his statement about the bombing of Iran, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he was asking the following: once begun, what limits the extent of the bombing campaign against Iran?
So, if the US does destroy the anti-aircraft defenses of Iran (I said if…), then what will limit the damage that the US can inflict?
Remember that the Congress will be pushing for as much damage as possible. Literally. So, what will be the limiting factor: the will of the US people? international outrage?
What are you counting on?
I don’t believe my asking this is rooted in American exceptionalism, rather its rooted in knowing what happened in North Korea (Korean war) and Japan (WW2), where no limits on destruction were set. And I’m wondering what would set the limits of destruction in this case.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 10, 2012 at 10:16 pm
“Iran can be bombed into a state where there is nothing but a local, rural, subsistence economy. The cities can be bombed to rubble. The infrastructure wrecked. Look at Iraq. Iran can be reduced to that. With a long enough war, Iran can be reduced to the state of Afghanistan. The US can do this and they will do this.”
Here, you sounded not like an analyst but a wishful thinker!
Here, you tend to look at one side of a coin!
Here, you sounded like an angry Zionist!
Why can’t you be more refined and remember that you can only start
a war but the outcomes are beyond your imaginations.
Thank you.
Anyone notice Netanyahu’s complaining about the visit of high Hamas official to Iran? Why would Israel object to the rebuilding of the damage inflicted on Gaza in Israel’s murderous rampage of 2008-09?
kooshy,
Let’s remember the US-Israel conspiracy to have Fatah take control of Gaza. Not so successful.
Any Israeli attack on Iran would strengthen the government.
BiBiJon,
Is Stephen Walt “upper-crust”? If he is, so is Ahmadinejad.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 10, 2012 at 10:16 pm
“Iran can be bombed into a state where there is nothing but a local, rural, subsistence economy. The cities can be bombed to rubble. The infrastructure wrecked. Look at Iraq. Iran can be reduced to that. With a long enough war, Iran can be reduced to the state of Afghanistan. The US can do this and they will do this.”
Rich- frankly, your above sentences reminds me some of Eric’s past replies to those of us who don’t agree with his idea of AP adoption by Iran for goodwill reasons.
Usually those debates end with Eric resuming that the consequences of Iran standing up to us will eventually end similar to what you have asserted in above sentences.
Firstly I must say that I think majority here agree that if there is a shooting aerial war, yes Iran will inflict a lot of damage but so those US, for the consequence of that see my reply a few days back to fyi (copy and pasted below). But what is more interesting to me on this conversation is the mindset of majority of Americans commentators for the eventual end result on an aerial attack, which accordingly will end with the American side bombing Iran to the stone age and goes home happily ever after without being touched (in a Steven Seagal-ish way).
What I meant by interesting is the inherent mindset which is the derivative of Exiptionalisem(which often I point to on my comments here) that majority of the American are brought up with to believe they are untouchable no matter how many wars in past sixty years they have lost, they always have justification for why it was a just and necessary war and why the end result did attain new sets of goals even though in reality it didn’t.
Frankly, when a few days ago I asked what made you to become discounted with the system was for this exact same reason, I was interested to know how much an anarchist which is disgusted with the system still retains the exceptionalism he has inherited from the system, and I gather you still do retain and enjoy and believe in the American power regardless of your claim of being an anarchist. Regardless as stated before I have a lot of respect for yours and Eric’s opinions and tremendous contributions, and I have learned from both of you a lot.
“US will not enter a war that from the start will be long and will lead to stalemate, while not achieving her political aims.”
You are correct, if US chose to go to war with Iran, what would be her ultimate goal, obviously as numerously stated by various inside and outside government official the goal would ultimately be a regime change. Considering this as the ultimate goal and the only vehicle to achieve that remains to be a military action, US will encounter two choices a limited overt Arial war (06 Lebanon style) or a long war involving ground troops and land invasion with covert action by Special Forces. Most analyst and even the US military has continuously dismissed any possibility of a land war, and frankly impossible considering size and train of Iran, on the first option of an Arial war, US has already tried to do that, which is back in 06 in Lebanon and didn’t achieve its goal, due to not achieving the goal set forward from the beginning she lost the war, besides US has already tried a regime change in Iran using the green movement without shooting a single bullet and it didn’t work as well, what would make US thinks an Arial war support will make people go to the streets and topple the government and if didn’t or couldn’t, is US ready to be dragged in to a long war which will requiring to amass half million troops on Iran, in this case if the Arial war doesn’t achieve a regime change one way or another US will be forced to go to a ground war once Iran start shooting at US installations nearby, I don’t think US is willing or capable to be dragged in that scenario no matter how much Israelis cry.
So the only hot war US is willing and has been involved is a cold war of words and that will continue for foreseeable future.”
Castellio,
Many Zionist warmongers, including Sheldon Adelson, appear to want war with Iran to allow further large-scale ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from the West Bank.
Adelson played key role in setting up the illegal and idiotic US invasion of Iraq.
BiBiJon,
Bravo to Paul Pillar for bringing attention to NBC report Israel and the MEK have been assassinating the scientists in Iran. No surprise, of course, but this fact needs as much attention in the media as possible.
The excerpt below is from: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004712
“But implementing ethnic cleansing on a sufficiently large scale – while technically quite easy, as explained by the Israeli military theorist, Martin van Creveld[7] – is politically very tricky. It cannot be done in normal, politically tranquil circumstances. It requires what in Zionist parlance is called she’at kosher: an opportune moment of major political, and preferably military, crisis.
Interestingly, quite a long time ago, on November 16 1989, a junior minister in the Shamir government made precisely this point in a speech delivered at Bar-Ilan University, a hotbed of clerical ultra-chauvinist Zionism.
The Jerusalem Post of November 19 1989, quoting a tape recording of the speech, reported that the deputy foreign minister (roughly equivalent to parliamentary under-secretary of state in Westminster) “has called for Israel to exploit political opportunities in order to expel large numbers of Palestinians from the [occupied] territories”. He told students in a speech at Bar-Ilan University that “the government had failed to exploit politically favourable situations in order to carry out ‘large-scale’ expulsions at times when ‘the damage would have been relatively small. I still believe that there are opportunities to expel many people’.”
Oh, the name of that junior minister: Binyamin Netanyahu.”
BiBiJon,
Walt has excellent piece on his site about the very poor design for a memorial to Eisenhower in Washington, and he uses it to underline Eisenhower’s warnings about the dangers to the US posed by arms manufacturers and their stooges.
Unknown Unknowns,
Rick Santorum is but one of a number of apparent excapees from the asylum, seeking the Republican nomination for president.
A few years ago, Newton Leroy Gingrich thought Israel should stopp building illegal colonies in, and get out of the West Bank. Now, he pretends the Palestinians are “an invesnted people” (to please Sheldon Adelson).
Sakineh,
Sarkozy does get full points for backing Palestine’s membership in Unesco. Contrast that with Obama’s stupidity.
Sakineh,
Sarkozy has warned against war with Iran many times.
An Israel living within its own borders (pre-1967) could enjoy good relations with its neighbors.
Jonathan Laing has interesting piece in Barron’s Feb. 13th (“What happens if Israel attacks Iran”), where he interviews George Friedman – - who predicts oil at $300 and heavy casualties fron attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.
UU,
Ever google Santorum?
I’d seen “nuclear-capable”, “nuclear-armed”, “nuclear-haves”, and “nuclear-have-nots”, but I hadn’t seen this one before: “nuclear-minded” Iran.
I got nukes on my mind!
Oh, and this takes the cake: said Sarkozy, adding that he wanted to see Israel one day “be loved, and not just feared.” [emphasis mine]
Can’t just make up my mind, if this is escalation or de-escalation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501714_162-57375788/sarkozy-advises-against-military-strike-on-iran/
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Dear uu , Would you please translate these for our friend sassan he cann’t read farsi :)
A couple of more revolutionary slogans in support of our Leader heard today:
Taa khun dar rag-e maast
Khamenei rahbar-e maast
Khuni ke dar rag-e maast
Nesye-ye rahbar-e maast
Well, it seems David Bromwich (and Richard, too, of course) was wrong. The authoritative sanatorium escapee Santorum has spoken:
Santorum: Obama Choosing Iran over Israel
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/February/Santorum-Obama-Choosing-Iran-over-Israel-/
Richard Steven Hack says:
With the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles winding down
Richard, those debacles may be winding down, but this one is yet to hit the fan,, Being an election year, you have to wonder, what politics behind the scene is driving the issue..
http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf
Marines Commandant apologizes to Jewish groups
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/marines-commandant-apologizes-to-jewish-groups/
Pirouz:
Thanks for that link to sean O’connor’s very informative and authoritative work, which I was aware of. I had based my statement on that piece, which as you know is 2 years old, as well as the development a year ago where Iran has “optimized” the system and produced its own domestic version.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9004213282
I’d be interested to know your opinion on the risk the Israeli air force runs in undertaking the kind of operation that they keep talking about. My own gut feeling is that the risk is so high that it is prohibitive to the operation, and that all the talk is just another psyop mainly directed at the US audience (just another tail wagging the dog operation, trying to get the US to fight their war for them).
Eric A. Brill says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:17 am
Eric,
Is it your hope that Sassan will admit that he was either: a) a cog in propaganda propagation, or b) a propaganda master, or c) simply duped by his naivety?
bibjohn
The core of the problem is that people like Walt doesnt recognize that all people in the world doesnt want to live in western liberal democracy like himself, for various reasons.
Walt assumes that the gov. is hated by everyone by their population and that the people want regime change. Its the constant ignorant view that have been popular by even more ignorant western politicians, analysists, media. Just look how every politician in the west said that the egyptian uprising was carried out because the egyptians wanted democracy (as its practiced in the western states) and that this had nothing to do with religion. Now after the egyptians have voted, the brotherhood and salafists entered the game and the same politicians that said that egyptians wanted western influenced states are shut.
Maybe Walt thinks that Egypt too is “nothing to like” about Egypt too? If so, he clearly reject the fundamental part of democracy and the election by the egyptian people.
BiBiJon says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:34 am
Its just his envy of not living in a democracy. I’m listening to Hasan Rahimpour Azghadi (who is on Youtube and is highly recommended for Persian speakers) who made the excellent point that American democracy fails to obtain the requisite quorum election after election (with turnouts in the 30 percentile range, or maybe reaching a high watermark of 43%), and when Iranian participation is consistently around 85%, they say the regime has no legitimacy.
No, it is not that we envy you, Mr. Bernard Lewis. It is that you envy us, but are in denial. But just remember, denial does not mean that the portrait of Uncle Dorian Grey is not getting uglier and uglier in the attic.
nahid says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:24 am
Yes indeed. It was a glorious day, and the weather was great too. I hope you were out there too :)
Millions poured out into the streets, chanting revolutionary slogans in support of out beloved Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, such as:
Ay rahbar-e azadeh,
Amadeheem, amadeh!
Another one was:
Amrika be fekr-eh chi-ye?
Iran por az basiji-eh!
The second line of which some teenagers around me would change to “Iran por az afghani-eh!” and give everyone a good laugh.
I haven’t heard what the official estimates are yet, but suffice it to say that several millions turned up in support of our revolution. alhamdu li’llah wa subhan allah.
The price for club admission: “drive-by assertions”
==================================================
Stephen Walt, a tenured (his job is safe) Harvard professor blogs gibberish and he needs to know his nonsense is more toxic US-Iran relations than the usual suspects.
The only useful thing in his blog, ,walt(dot)foreignpolicy(dot)com/posts/2012/02/10/a_martian_view_of_the_iran_debate is this link to Paul Pillar’s piece up at The National Interest: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/deeper-terrorism-6491
First his drive-by assertion
————————–
“Let’s be clear: There’s nothing to like about the current Iranian regime — to include its clerical rulers, its buffoonish president, and the various thugs that keep the regime in power — and I for one am very glad I live here and not there.”
Nothing to like, Professor? 17th largest GDP-ppp, fastest growth in scientific publications of any country for the last 2 years, kilometers of roads built, Mississippi-admired healthcare system, female youth literacy at above 96%, female college graduates comprise 70% of all students, number of damns built, extension of irrigation & electricity to every nook and cranny of rural Iran, IMF-praised subsidy reform program, etc. etc. Really Professor, “nothing to like?”
It isn’t all dislikes, however. Walt likes “to live here not there.” And, for a professor who has never lived ‘there’, and always lived here (and a brief spell in Germany) professing that preference means exactly what, professor? Is belittling the 75 million who prefer to live there and not here part of the ‘etiquette’ to be accepted as an American patriot? How much more can American patriotism be demeaned?
The “buffoonish” label for Ahmadinejad is not exactly original, is it professor? Xenophobes have been bandying that around since 2005. Could you please point to something Ahmadinejad has said that qualifies him to be likened to a monkey? And, while you’re at it, could you do a compare + contrast with Bush, Sarkozy, Blair, etc.?
How can you be sure that from an upper crust twat’s vantage point , all blacksmith’s sons wouldn’t appear monkey-like?
—————–
And the rest of your dangerous theses: Iran is a third-rate nation, and wonderful, lovable, advanced Israel and America should not be so exercised about it, so says your Martian.
——————
You are a Martian, professor. Iran’s $10 billion worth of defense holding Israel and US back only shows that $690 billion of US-Israel military expenditures are for naught.
Happy anniversary, and congratulations to Bus_In_Bassij
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1530412
I second Mr. Smith’s motion.
My comment is not really directly relevant to discussion at hand but since I could not find the email of Mr. Eric A Brill, I decided to put it here since he frequents this site. I had read Mr. Brill’s analysis of Iranian election and was quite impressed by it (as I am also impressed by Leveretts works).
I actually have a suggestion for Mr. Brill on the issue of the election and since there are so much myths going on around Iran issue and this is making the western public perception “muddy” with regard to Iran, I would appreciate if Mr. Brill or indeed Leveretts write a book no matter how small in size over the issue and debunk all doubters once and for all. I guess simple articles here and there has not been as effective. A book on the issue of election, debunking the myth that Iran is a dictatorship devoid of any support inside the country with 2009 election being a fraud, is long overdue. It would be nice if the book in question would be co-authored with a prominent statistician having a strong background on such kind of statistics. I am sure it would be a drain on the personal time of the authors without much main stream appreciation or financial return, but it would certainly help to set the historical records straight.
The other question I have is if Mr. Brill or Leveretts have ever visited Iran and whether such a visit would be helpful in anyway to fix things or understand things even if in a very small way?
Thank you for tolerating my irrelevant general comment.
Thanks RSH. I’ve been looking for the outline of the Russian proposal for a long time.
http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2012/02/four-stage-russian-proposal-on-irans.html
Sassan says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:06 pm
And why not Sassan, you got Ford and Feltman and countless CIA sppoks!
fyi says:
February 10, 2012 at 10:57 pm
fyi-
After reading Mr. Mousavian article, one item that that actually interested me the most, which it turn increased my respect for Ayatollah Khamenei was his respect for the mandate that the elected presidents receive by the electorates.
What I mean is this, as per Mr. Mousavians own admittance he was on the reformers camp all along meaning he was in the circle of Mr. Rafsanjani and Mr. Khatami which were recommending to trust the Americans in form of conceding strategic points, again per Mr. Mousavian, Ayatollah Khamenei although did not agree with their overall assessment, he went along with what mandate they had received by being elected, up to when Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected, which we know per his foreign policy camping agenda the mandate he received from the electorate was much closer to what Mr. Khamenei’s recommendations was, manning not to trust the Americans and negotiate from an strengthen point.
This means that although Ayatollah Khamenei constitutionally has the final say on the foreign policy direction and matters, he has accepted to go along with the mandate given by the electorates to the elected governments.
“The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.” Sen. Barack Obama
We have come a long way…
Arnold says, “This is a difficult fundamental problem I think. Does anyone have any ideas?”
Before too long, the inexorable logic of the situation will lead to a pass where Iran can state her case, to Russia and China and India in any case, that “We are in a position of detonating a nuclear device and building several nuclear bombs should we wish to proceed in that direction. If you fail to lift the sanctions, there is no incentive for us not to proceed in that direction. If the sanctions are lifted, we will certainly not proceed to test, as that has never been our intention to do so anyway.”
Off to the celebrations.
There’s been mention of Iranian SAM defenses earlier in this thread.
Here is an open-sourced analysis from two years ago:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/09/iranian-sam-network.html
There may be a more up-to-date analysis available but I’m pressed for time. Will provide an update when time permits, should I find one.
kooshy says: February 10, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Per Dr. Friedman’s observations, Iranians have nothing to talk about with the United States.
Mr. Mousavian’s assessmnt – that the goal of US has always been regime change and that Mr. Khamenei has been correct in that assessment for 20 years – indicates that no grand-bargain of any sort is possible in any near future ( < 1 year) or mdium term (< 5 years).
Iranians have correctly asessed that US has no answer to Iran and are proceeding on their projects.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 10, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Mr. Mousavian, like very many in Iran, failed to comprehend that the nuclear issue was the wedge used by US and EU for the estruction of the Islamic Republic.
Finally, he has grasped how wrong he had been and hpow right Mr. Khamenei – “the Paranoid” – has been.
Arnold Evans says: February 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Iranians need only supply a plauible victory (for US) as a face-saving opportunity for US (and EU).
Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to do so through the Brazil-Turkey-Iran deal.
Kooshy: Also, I can’t repeat this enough:
What matters is not whether the US ACHIEVES ANYTHING BUT WHETHER IT ACHIEVES PROFITS FOR THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
Nothing else is critical. Of course the neocons want one thing, the oil companies another, the Israel Lobby a third, etc., etc.
But the primary purpose of this war is MONEY. As long as the military-industrial complex that consumers twenty five percent of the Federal budget gets what it wants, the war will happen and the war will go on.
Like the guy said in the article I cited below:
With the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles winding down, America’s military-industrial complex is tired of “crappy little countries” and on the lookout for a big score. And their friends in government, who have staked their careers on 70 years of constant “pro-defense” propaganda, are happy to help them find one.
Kooshy: “Rich Iran officially by IMF is the 17th largest economy in the world, in Obama’s own term she simply is “TOO BIG TO FALL””
There is NO country “too big to fall”. If any country would fit that description, it would be either the US or China.
Iran can be bombed into a state where there is nothing but a local, rural, subsistence economy. The cities can be bombed to rubble. The infrastructure wrecked. Look at Iraq. Iran can be reduced to that. With a long enough war, Iran can be reduced to the state of Afghanistan. The US can do this and they will do this.
As I said, this doesn’t mean the regime will fall, or the population will revolt, or anything like that. But Iran will be nonfunctional on the international scene in terms of non-military influence.
Nonetheless, at the end of another decade or so of war, Iran WILL “win” the war in the sense that the US will be forced to stop and retreat.
Arnold: “I’ve always thought the whole point of the nuclear dispute is for the US to get as broad sanctions as possible.”
But as a lot of people have pointed out, sanctions aren’t an end in themselves. The end is either slo-mo regime change via internal responses to external pressures – or war.
“The main problem is that Iran is close to turning a corner. Iran is reaching the point where it does not have to expand its nuclear program, and so the threat it seems to pose can only diminish over time.”
Which is what I’ve said repeatedly. If Iran continues its nuclear program WITHOUT ever actually BUILDING nuclear weapons, then by definition at some point NO ONE will believe the US or Israel that Iran is intent on acquiring them. At that point the “crisis” atmosphere falls apart and the justifications for the sanctions collapse.
“You’ve mentioned something like this before.”
Sorry, missed this line. Yup, as stated above.
“Iran was really not going to enrich to 20% if the TRR deal had gone through.”
Probably. It might have done so if it thought it was worth getting the technology to do so and possibly if it thought there was an international market for the results, but I’m sure if the Tehran Declaration had gone through, Iran would have taken the win.
“Whoever is inaugurated in Jan 2013, by the end of their term”
Which is why I’ve said repeatedly that this crisis can’t go on forever, and likely not even more than one more Presidential administration. It’s fish or cut bait…
“Everyone assumes there are (the equivalent of) alleged studies in Japan and Brazil’s weapons plans before it joined the NPT weren’t shredded. Presenting Iran with new studies will have the same impact as presenting new studies about Japan or Brazil. People would only yawn.”
I wouldn’t go that far. It could still be spun. But I agree it would be a tougher sell once THOSE plans were sitting around for years with no actual weapons in evidence.
“The nuclear issue is the US and Israel’s strategy for slow motion regime change.”
But that doesn’t follow.
I assume what you’re arguing here is as follows:
1) Ratchet up nuclear crisis.
2) Impost maximum sanctions based on the nuclear issue.
3) ???
4) PROFIT! i.e., wait for Iran’s regime to collapse due to the sanctions.
Nope. Not buying it, precisely BECAUSE of the time issue. If you can’t keep the crisis going for more than another 4-8 years, the sanctions aren’t going to collapse the regime in that time frame.
And if you try to keep them imposed for the next ten or twenty years, well, as I said, you could have done that WITHOUT the nuclear crisis. Just tout all the other “evils” Iran is guilty of. And maybe they will.
And Israel sure as hell isn’t going to wait that long either.
And neither are the military-industrial complex boys who always want their war profits NOW, not later.
Because Iran isn’t going to collapse in that time frame – or ever, most likely. And since that was clearly the case in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, you are therefore not only arguing that Obama and company are as stupid as every other administration which has tried sanctions on countries, but that they really expect to sit back and wait for another decade for Iran to collapse – after waiting for a decade for Iraq to collapse and seeing that it didn’t.
Unfortunately for your thesis, the fact that the US and Israel ARE making comprehensive preparations for an Iran war does not square with that. You could of course claim that those preparations are all for show, just as all the Israel threats are all for show, to force the international community to impose those maximum sanctions.
Well, all I can say is, we’ll see within the next four years and probably sooner. I can’t believe that all this effort is just to impose maximum sanctions and then sit back and wait for the regime to collapse.
The main problem for your thesis is: no one makes any (real) money from sanctions. Only war.
So we’re still going to see a Syria and Lebanon war this year, and an Iran war within the next couple to say five years.
Nice try, but no, you’re wrong.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Rich Iran officially by IMF is the 17th largest economy in the world, in Obama’s own term she simply is “TOO BIG TO FALL” in any which way that the Americans can try, it was not possible for US to achieve that goal back in 80’s today, today it is a just impossible no matter what US and her allies threaten Iran or say or do.
Tonight is going to be the anniversary of revolution speech by Ahmadinejad, for sure it will be broadcasted live on Press TV; I guess around midnight our time, it will be important to see what he will say, it can be viewed live on the web live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Arnold Evans says:
February 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“So my question is there anything short of a US capitulation that Iran might accept. I haven’t been able to think of one. Has anyone else?”
I think the US has no choice but to continue on a policy foundation built on “rude and emotional outbursts, erratic challenges, public bullying, contemptuous disdain, efforts to isolate and demonize,” attempts at starvation, and ultimate bombing and carnage.
Alternatively, a little humanity, and mutual respect will open many vistas of possibilities.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137095/hossein-mousavian/how-to-engage-iran
Kooshy: Thanks for the link to the Mousavian article in Foreign Affairs. He does indeed mention Iranian outreaches during 2009 and up until December of last year which I was not aware of and which the US allegedly rejected.
I think Khamenei is quite correct – the US is interested in regime change and only regime change. Or if regime change is not achievable, then weakening Iran economically, militarily, and geopolitically by any means necessary including war.
Note that “regime change” as I refer to it explicitly does not necessarily mean “overthrowing” the IRI and putting in a puppet or client government that bows to US will. I believe regime change also includes what I’ve described above as a massive weakening of Iran to the point where its influence is negligible in the region.
So fyi’s argument is irrelevant whether “regime change” in the sense of an actual overthrow is feasible or not. What IS indubitably feasible is the US “bombing Iran into the Stone Age” like it did Iraq. Even if the end result is still an intact IRI with most of the population still in full support of the Islamist regime, as opposed to the divisions in Iraq, if Iran is so weakened economically and militarily that it can barely function internationally, it won’t matter.
Also note that from the point of view of the military-industrial complex, regime change or even weakening Iran doesn’t matter, as long as the profits flow from a war.
Arnold: Found it! It was this article:
U.S. missed chance to resolve Iran nuclear issue: ex-Iran negotiator
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/02/140735.html
Quote
According to Mousavian who seemed to maintain contacts with diplomats and specialists inside and outside Iran, the Russian proposal calls for a ‘’step by step” approach that stipulates that both Iran and P5-plus-one take concrete measures to resolve the nuclear problems.
As ”Step 1,” Iran should take action to limit its uranium enrichment program to just one existing site at Natanz and Iran is also prohibited from adding new centrifuges or producing new-generation centrifuges. In return for this, P5-plus-one would suspend part of the international sanctions stipulated in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929.
In the next phase, Iran would allow the IAEA’s surveillance of centrifuges and implement an additional arrangement with the IAEA for enhanced design inspection of nuclear-related facilities, while Iran’s enriched uranium production rate would be limited to 5 percent or lower, far below the weapon-grade enrichment rate of 90 percent. The P5-plus-one side would begin gradually lifting the unilateral sanctions by the United States and key European nations.
During ”Step 3,” Iran would implement an additional protocol with the IAEA — an agreement between the nuclear watchdog and each nation that would allow broader and more intrusive IAEA inspections of atomic energy facilities. At the same time, P5-plus-one would suspend all U.N. Security Council sanctions.
In the next and last stage, Iran should suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities for three months, while P5-plus-one would begin final lifting of all sanctions and remove the Iranian nuclear dispute from the IAEA Board of Governors agenda. The P5-plus-one side would also start to implement ”incentives on cooperation in different fields.”
End Quote
Note they don’t even MENTION Canning’s 20%, although presumably prior to step two when Iran would limit itself to 3.5% that would have to be addressed by the provision of the fuel for the TRR – if Iran even needs it at this point.
Castellio @ 8:03 pm, re Rollingstone Report on operations in Afghanistan
quoted from the report (emphasis added):
“In any case, the situation demonstrates a growing and expanding willingness on the part of our country’s senior military leaders to use “Information Operations” even on domestic audiences to manipulate the system in order to get what they want.”
Mike Hastings, author, The Operators, US Military in Iraq & Afghanistan
QUOTE
“LAMB: You say in your book that there are 27,000 working P.R. people in the Pentagon spending $4.7 billion a year, 27,000? Where do you get that number?
HASTINGS: It’s the number – that includes – it’s a broader number, not just sort of their propaganda folks, but advertising, and everyone who’s working on shaping the message at the Pentagon wants to – wants to put out there. It goes from software programs the Pentagon is now making that monitors our social media, for instance. There’s been a recent example where the Army is using a program that monitors how many times Bradley Manning is mentioned, Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaks leaker, is mentioned on Twitter.
It goes to the massive public relations apparatus that all branches of the military have. I mean, there are more – I’ve often thought about this – there are more public relations people on a general’s staff in Kabul than there are reporters in Kabul, in Afghanistan.
LAMB: Do you ever ask them why?
HASTINGS: Well, they need all the help they can get, apparently, because even with this message machine, they haven’t been able to put too positive a spin on this on occasion. ”
END QUOTE
Iran sends head of elite force to Syria to advise Assad regime on repression tactics
Alex Spillius, London
February 11, 2012
THE head of Iran’s elite Quds Force is reportedly visiting Syria to advise the regime on repressing protests and the armed resistance, as consternation grows in Western capitals about Iranian involvement in the crisis.
Members of the opposition Syrian National Council said they had reliable intelligence that Qassem Suleimani was intimately involved with the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and his ruling coterie.
”It is his second visit at least,” said Radwan Ziadeh, an executive member of the council. ”The Quds Force is working mainly with training, helping militias and snipers.”
Opposition fighters of the Free Syrian Army claim to have captured 29 Iranians during the uprising and last week posted a video of five captives with their passports. Reports in the Arab media have claimed that snipers from Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces have been brought in from Lebanon to support government forces fighting the FSA.
The rebels this week appealed for the US to supply weapons and other equipment. Identifying himself only as Mohammed, one rebel spoke via the internet to experts and journalists at a Washington think tank. ”The major point is logistical material support. We can do this ourselves, we’re not asking for any troops,” he said.
Diplomatic initiatives have so far yielded very little. The US is supporting a leading role for Turkey in organising international pressure on Syria, as the two allies seek to build a coalition able to back the Syrian opposition movement and help broker an end to the violence.
A US State Department official said time was running out before the international community would have to ”militarise” the situation, which would involve arming rebels or military protection for humanitarian aid.
The diplomatic manoeuvring comes as the embattled city of Homs remained under siege for a seventh day on Friday, with sporadic tank shells ripping into contested neighborhoods.
”Nobody dares venture into the streets,” said a 65-year-old resident named Mohamed.
A constant stream of videos, said to be from Homs and posted on YouTube, left a grim impression of streets cluttered with rubble from damaged buildings and a constant flow of victims being treated in makeshift medical clinics.
Under such extreme conditions, with bodies believed trapped under the rubble, estimates of the death toll by activist organisations ranged widely, from about 50 to more than twice that.
The Quds, or Jerusalem, brigade is a special unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for external relations that reports directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Western and Arab experts and diplomats estimate that the number of troops and advisers from the Quds force in Syria to be in the high hundreds or low thousands.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/iran-sends-head-of-elite-force-to-syria-to-advise-assad-regime-on-repression-tactics-20120210-1skxs.html#ixzz1m2DwQnMs
Arnold: “Richard, have you seen a detailed explanation of the phased plan?”
I read something in one of the recent articles which laid in out in general strokes per phase. Let me look around…
Bloody hell, I can’t find it ANYWHERE now! And it was just in the last 24 hours or so I saw it! I’ll keep looking.
“The later stage full suspension strikes me as a non-starter unless a fast resumption is spelled out.”
Yeah, I think the notion was just a matter of months or so, not years, while the sanctions were being lifted. By this time, many of the sanctions would have already been lifted and Iran would be under the AP.
“I think Iran is going to reach the point where it already has all of the uranium it wants to enrich in five or so years. If it’s reached that phase by then, it may stop, as long as it doesn’t commit to a permanent stop or a stop until the US gives permission in any form.”
I suppose that’s possible, depending on their nuclear power plans for new plants, which of course will take years (if not decades) to build.
james, RSH
I posted my replies to your relevant posts in in the previous.thread over there.
RSH:
I just left off the punch line: The nuclear issue is the US and Israel’s strategy for slow motion regime change.
RSH:
In other words, if the West REALLY wanted only “slow motion regime change”, it could drop the nuclear issue tomorrow and ramp up the other charges it makes against Iran, such as civil rights, terrorism support, etc. Getting a deal on the nuclear issue then would be relatively easy.
The nuclear issue is the best issue the West, especially the US on behalf of Israel has ever gotten to expand the sanctions they’ve wanted to impose on Iran since 1980.
I’ve always thought the whole point of the nuclear dispute is for the US to get as broad sanctions as possible.
The main problem is that Iran is close to turning a corner. Iran is reaching the point where it does not have to expand its nuclear program, and so the threat it seems to pose can only diminish over time.
There will come a time that Iran has had enough 20% enrichment underground for two or three weapons if it was to enrich further and has had that for years. You’ve mentioned something like this before. At that point, it would be useless to try to convince others to increase or even maintain their sanctions because it would be impossible to gin up a new sense of urgency.
We are close to the last new urgency. The truth is, I don’t think Iran even planned on getting here. Iran was really not going to enrich to 20% if the TRR deal had gone through. But then Iran would have had seven or eight tons of 3.5% enriched LEU underground and the same thing would have happened, after some amount of years, it would stop being menacing.
Whoever is inaugurated in Jan 2013, by the end of their term, Iran will have been sitting on what is without dispute enough LEU at both 20% and 3.5% to build weapons if it had wanted to. And the IAEA will still certify that it has not. Alleged studies in that context would draw the response: what are you talking about? If we wanted weapons, everyone knows we’d just make them.
Everyone assumes there are (the equivalent of) alleged studies in Japan and Brazil’s weapons plans before it joined the NPT weren’t shredded. Presenting Iran with new studies will have the same impact as presenting new studies about Japan or Brazil. People would only yawn.
You’ve said before that the danger Israel and the US face is that the world gets used to Iran’s legal nuclear weapons capabilities. Once that happens, it will be very hard to get cooperation with the sanctions the US has been trying to impose since the revolution.
I’m not sure if anyone has posted this earlier.
http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf
It’s a full and harsh review of the Afghan mission, dated January 27, 2012
Hey James, read the article Kooshy (6.59) pointed to in Foreign Affairs, and then consider the 20% in light of that.
Okay?
Egypt: ‘US Zionist group caught with pants down’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/egypt-us-zionist-group-caught-with-pants-down/
Kooshy at 6.59
It’s a great article, clear and to the point. The difficulty, as always, is that it doesn’t take into account Israel’s intentions, and the “unbreakable bond”.
fyi,
I think Russia is not surprised that the US so foolishly failed to respond to Iran’s offer to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, leading to the latest round of sanctions and much higher tension in the Gulf. Disappointed, but not surprised. Russia’s plan for a staged reduction in sanctions clearly made good sense.
Castellio,
Leon Panetta does not want war with Iran and I doubt he thinks “regime change” is achievable.
EU use the old trick “its you not me” by trying to portray that it is Iran that doesnt want talks while we all know that it is exactly the other way around.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-syria-untre8191wh-20120210,0,1072690.story
Just to mention the offer to cease 20% enrichment in the end of 2011. Or the fact that Iran and IAEA had talked recently.
eu maybe should understand that support for jundallah, the M-e-k, assassinations, destabilization, terror and sanctions wont make iranians love eu more.
I don’t know if anybody noticed ne Mousavian’s article in Foreign Affairs, it has some interesting points regarding the past Iran relations and approaches to US
February 9, 2012
SNAPSHOT
How to Engage Iran
What Went Wrong Last Time — and How to Fix It
Hossein Mousavian
HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN is an associate research scholar at Princeton University and former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear file.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/134361
by the way Leveretts — the picture is perfect. It’s grainy, slightly out of focus; Obama’s face looks vacant, his lips are crooked like Cheney’s. The text at the bottom gives it the appearance of a mug shot. Well done.
The Russian phased approach might be feasible. One of the later phases entails Iran suspending ALL enrichment for a period of time in exchange for a major lifting of the sanctions. I doubt Iran would go for that, but it’s not impossible if the previous phases clearly showed what the Leveretts would call a “clear signal” that the US is prepared to adhere to its promises.
Richard, have you seen a detailed explanation of the phased plan?
The later stage full suspension strikes me as a non-starter unless a fast resumption is spelled out.
I think Iran is going to reach the point where it already has all of the uranium it wants to enrich in five or so years. If it’s reached that phase by then, it may stop, as long as it doesn’t commit to a permanent stop or a stop until the US gives permission in any form.
fyi,
Thanks for Stratfor link. I agree with most of what George Friedman had to say. He said something like their weapons program cannot be set back by an attack, because they don’t have any. While on the face of it, this statement is true, I don’t think in any war with Iran any of the nuclear plants/enrichment facilities will be touched/bombed.
First, any war with Iran will have to become a land war, after a period of bombing from the air.
Studies show that fallout from bombing of for example Isfahan plant would not only kill thousands as far as Pakistan, it would render half the country impassable. I mean, real men go to Tehran, don’t they? How are the Americans going to reach Tehran in their humvees if you can’t go there by land? I am not even going to get into bombing Bushehr means.
Arnold, why not this:
US:
1/ lift sanctions on central bank of Iran and oil shipments
2/ accept enrichment to 3.5
3/ accept contract between Iran and another provider for strictly limited amount of 20% for medical reasons, renewable as necessary
Iran:
1/ sign the AP and 3.1
2/ Cease enrichment beyond 3.5 percent
3/ accept the contract for amounts of 20% which will be limited to proven current usage
Of course, though, Arnold, the larger issue is simply that Israel wants Iran to stop all shipments of assistance to Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and to withdraw any influence it has in the reforming Iraq. And that is not going to happen. Israel wants regime change, and America wants that, too. And if there is a war, that will be its intent. I agree that the intention will not be achieved.
So the pretense of the nuclear issue will continue and, more than likely, there will be a hot war simply because no knows how to walk back policies which have gained a momentum and political life of their own.
fyi: “All flights in that part of the world are being monitored by US, China, Russia, and others. The take-off location will be known to Americans and others.”
Not that I’m arguing for the scenario, but it IS possible to spoof aircraft transponder IDs and also it’s still possible to “fly under the radar”.
Also, whether you can SEE an aircraft or not doesn’t matter unless you can INTERCEPT said aircraft in time.
And in this case, even THAT doesn’t matter because the whole POINT of this exercise IS to fly a MIG with Iranian insignia where someone CAN see it – and then preferably shoot it down or have it escape and land somewhere where it can be hidden. Before the plane debris can be retrieved and forensically analyzed or its landing location visited and the provenance revealed, the war would already be on.
The Northwoods Documents suggested a plan where a US Air Force fighter was to be “shot down” by Cuban MIGs near Cuban waters. The plan was to have an Air Force flight take off, with one pilot – the only one in on the plan – instructed to break off out of sight of the rest of his flight, then radio he was under attack by Cuban MIGs, then dive down under the radar ceiling and return to his base unbeknownst to his fellows in the flight. Or maybe he was suppose to eject and be picked up, I forget which. Either way, his fellows in the flight would believe he had actually been shot down since the plane would never be found again.
Obviously there are problems with such a plan which would need to be worked out, and in addition there is the fact that all this would be under the control of the country carrying out the operation, as opposed to operating in “neutral waters” under the surveillance of other countries which is what the Iran operation would require, as you correctly note.
But it’s not impossible.
Arnold: “I wonder what a reasonable offer would even be.”
Since the entire “crisis” is bogus, NO offer can or will be made. So this is all irrelevant.
But if we ASSUME Obama does NOT want an Iran war, or at least ASSUME that Obama would like to make another “gesture” towards negotiations, then we can speculate, I suppose.
“Basically, we’ve reached the point where the US has to surrender. It has to say, “we wanted to prevent Iran from attaining legal nuclear weapons capability like Brazil and we failed.””
I’d agree with that. This is what I would call the US “blinking.” Or as some others here might call it, “de-escalation”.
“The US can still use the limited wiggle room of saying that if Iran accepts the AP and other inspection regimes, that actually are strategically unimportant, that it is preventing Iran from getting actual weapons.”
That sounds dangerously close to the notion Eric has that Iran’s agreeing to the AP – albeit in this case not unilaterally but in return for “something” – would have some impact on the course for war by the ruling elites.
The problem remains Israel. Only if one assumes the US actually CAN prevent Israel from acting unilaterally does this make any difference in predicting the outcome. And I don’t think the US can do so.
“On the other hand, I have read statements that the US can tolerate Iran being 12 months away from a weapon, but not six months, or something of that nature.”
I don’t recall any such statements. Who has said that – I mean, officially, not just some guy doing another “mind-reading game” with Obama?
Since Iran’s building ONE UNDELIVERABLE weapon is utterly irrelevant to the strategic calculus (at least until Iran has a warhead design it can put on one of its missiles – which itself is estimated to be even more years away), the only value to that notion is for PR value for the West to claim things are “safer” with a one year deadline than a six months deadline.
The problem for the West there is once again Israel. Israel will complain bitterly if the US decides that “six months to an Iranian nuke” is not acceptable, but “one year to an Iranian nuke” IS.
Picture the MSM reporting of THAT decision by Obama:
“Obama accepts Iranian nuclear weapon in one year”.
Yeah, that’ll fly with the Republicans and the Israel Lobby…not.
“might be able to agree to stay at least 1 year away from a nuclear weapon for the next ten years, in terms of enrichment capacity.”
You mean tonnage of LEU remaining in Iran? So Iran would have to agree to have no more LEU around than would allow it to weaponize in less than a year?
Same problem as the previous: the US has to accept and somehow spin the desirability of Iran being able to make a nuclear weapon in one year as well as telling Israel to shut up about it.
“The problem with a deal like that is it raises the question: what do you plan to do before ten years pass that Iran being able to build a weapon in six months would be a problem?”
Yeah, I don’t see the point of some “ten year deal”. The US claims to have military plans in place now and continuously updated that they could attack Iran immediately at any time. So even six months is mostly irrelevant, let alone a year. We know Iran couldn’t weaponize without explicitly withdrawing from the AP, kicking out the IAEA and blowing their cover anyway. The US – and certainly Israel – would attack tomorrow in that case and be easily able to spin it.
“I’m really trying to get an idea of specific terms Iran could and might accept in a nuclear deal with the US and am coming up blank.”
The only thing Iran might go far is suspension of 20% enrichment in exchange for the original TRR deal in the short term.
Long term the only deal Iran will accept is acceptance of domestic enrichment to 3.5%. The US (AND Israel) would have to completely back down on that.
The Russian phased approach might be feasible. One of the later phases entails Iran suspending ALL enrichment for a period of time in exchange for a major lifting of the sanctions. I doubt Iran would go for that, but it’s not impossible if the previous phases clearly showed what the Leveretts would call a “clear signal” that the US is prepared to adhere to its promises.
“Any time limited deal, no matter the duration, while the US remains hostile as it is, sounds like the US is trying to set a time limit for its regime-change or attack efforts.”
Again, even there, it would be irrelevant for its attack plans unless it really needs to settle some earlier matters such as I suggest is the case for Israel in regards to Syria and Lebanon. I doubt any of that would require ten years – at most maybe two or three.
And if they make a deal for that length of time, we’re back to “Iran will get nukes in five years” all over again…
Regime change by non-military means might require that approach, but again as I’ve said if that were the case, the West wouldn’t even be pushing the nuclear issue because that’s the ONLY issue that would justify a military solution.
In other words, if the West REALLY wanted only “slow motion regime change”, it could drop the nuclear issue tomorrow and ramp up the other charges it makes against Iran, such as civil rights, terrorism support, etc. Getting a deal on the nuclear issue then would be relatively easy.
The fact that isn’t happening is a clear sign that the West wants war, not a “slo-mo” approach.
So we’re back to “there’s no possible deal because the entire issue is bogus to begin with.”
Stratfor had some video up talking about “negotiations”, linked by someone below. I didn’t even bother to listen to it. Negotiations are now dead and buried. Nothing is going to happen there at all from now on – unless the Pollyannas here are right about ‘de-esclation”.
If we don’t see SERIOUS negotiations actually occurring this year at least on a par with the Fall 2009 negotiations, then it is utterly clear that the West wants war and there is NO “de-escalation” in the cards.
FYI:
Yes, there are no technical issues remaining if the US accepts Iran with full legal nuclear weapons capabilities, in other words if the US fully surrenders.
It was an unreasonable position from the beginning. But completely backing down, even from an unreasonable position, is not a compromise but a capitulation.
So my question is there anything short of a US capitulation that Iran might accept. I haven’t been able to think of one. Has anyone else?
Dumping to Defeat the Oil Sanctions
An influx of cheaper oil by Iran can neutralize the sanctions.
Interview with Gholam-Reza Kiamehr.
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/20/bodyView/1897810/Dumping.to.Defeat.the.Oil.Sanctions.html
Quote
But apart from all these speculation on the impacts, I don’t think the oil sanctions against Iran could be actually materialized. Oil is not a commodity like an automobile which would bear Made in Iran label. It can be transferred from one oil tanker to another, and then sold in the market.
Plus, Iran is not a country like Iraq who only has Basra as its passage to free waters, which could be easily blocked. Iran borders on the Sea of Oman, and in the meantime, it does not export its oil cargo exclusively via the Persian Gulf. There could be problems if we were a landlocked country like Afghanistan.
End Quote
HOWEVER, a US/NATO naval BLOCKADE can stop Iranian oil exports via sea from the entire country…
I predict this is the next step which will be taken sometime either later this year or more likely next year or perhaps after the Syria war situation is resolved.
More “conspiracy theory” from the same source…
USA to stage another “Pearl Harbour” in the Persian Gulf
http://www.iraq-war.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=265338
Theorizes that the order of battle of the ships taking part in the drill indicate that the US wants Iran to severely damage, say, at least one of the carriers, presumably the Enterprise which is on its last mission in any event before being retired.
The trigger might be a false flag attack by the aforesaid MIGs or an Israeli attack on Iran which would trigger an Iranian response against the fleet.
I kinda doubt the US would allow three carriers to be at risk all at once. Makes no sense to me. ONE carrier, maybe, but not three – that’s almost thirty percent of the force.
There are a lot easier ways to start the Iran war.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 10, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Rubbish!
All flights in that part of the world are being monitored by US, China, Russia, and others.
The take-off location will be known to Americans and others.
Silly….
Arnold Evans says: February 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Dr. Davutoğlu’s remarks on the subject – in his speech today at CSIS – states that there are no technical issues involved.
Of corse, we all know that that was indeed a case.
Axis Powers have been using the Iran nuclear file as a wedge to destroy the Islamic Republic.
We are the end stages of that strategy.
I doubt very much that Axis Powers, India, China, and Russia ever expected to be in the situation that they find themselves now – a loose-loose situation vis-a-vis Iran with a better than 50% chance of WWIII.
But the threat of that war finally seems to have concentrated their minds.
Interesting notion…
Why are there Hungarian MIG-29 in Israel?
http://www.iraq-war.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=265342
Theory is Israel will fly Hungarian MIGs with Iranian insignia to attack US ships in the Gulf…
Conspiracy theory, of course, but not impossible… It’s similar to the stunts the Pentagon considered doing against Cuba in the ’60’s in the Northwoods Documents (Google for that.)
Only problem with the theory is it would likely be a “suicide mission” for the Israeli pilots…unless the jets managed to escape US retaliation long enough for the pilots to eject to a waiting pick up…because the jets would have to either be destroyed in the process or go into hiding and never be found or the game would be up.
All:
Turkish Foreign Minister:
[The last 4 minutes is about Iranian nuclear file]
http://csis.org/event/turkeys-foreign-policy-objectives-changing-world
The state of America…
Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-finds-broad-support-for-obamas-counterterrorism-policies/2012/02/07/gIQAFrSEyQ_story.html
Quotes
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.
…83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.
But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.
Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas…
End Quotes
You think if Obama attacks Iran, these morons won’t support it?
fyi says:
February 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Iranians had nothing to say to Ambassador Burns since it was mainly irrelevant. US planners are not willing to forge a reasonable offer to Iran.
I wonder what a reasonable offer would even be.
Basically, we’ve reached the point where the US has to surrender. It has to say, “we wanted to prevent Iran from attaining legal nuclear weapons capability like Brazil and we failed.”
The US can still use the limited wiggle room of saying that if Iran accepts the AP and other inspection regimes, that actually are strategically unimportant, that it is preventing Iran from getting actual weapons.
But it is really binary. Iran can get legal nuclear weapons capability or it cannot.
On the other hand, I have read statements that the US can tolerate Iran being 12 months away from a weapon, but not six months, or something of that nature.
Iran would not be able to permanently commit to anything like that, but, I guess, might be able to agree to stay at least 1 year away from a nuclear weapon for the next ten years, in terms of enrichment capacity.
The problem with a deal like that is it raises the question: what do you plan to do before ten years pass that Iran being able to build a weapon in six months would be a problem?
I’m really trying to get an idea of specific terms Iran could and might accept in a nuclear deal with the US and am coming up blank.
Any time limited deal, no matter the duration, while the US remains hostile as it is, sounds like the US is trying to set a time limit for its regime-change or attack efforts.
This is a difficult fundamental problem I think. Does anyone have any ideas?
My guess is this is likely to be more effective than Obama sending Dempsey down there again…
Israeli fans beg PM to hold off Iran attack over Madonna show
http://www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/israeli-fans-beg-pm-to-hold-off-iran-attack-over-madonna-show-1.412014
At the Pentagon and in Israel, plans show the difficulties of an Iran strike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-pentagon-and-in-israel-plans-show-the-difficulties-of-an-iran-strike/2012/02/07/gIQAWQs5zQ_print.html
Walter Pincus’ rather general article on the Iran war plans.
The important line is the lede:
If you are not prepared to go to war, you cannot threaten that “nothing is off the table” as you search for diplomatic solutions.
Fiorangela: “Who is James Canning and what is his game?”
Ya got me… I still think it’s heavy chemical dependency…
Oh, wait, maybe he’s one of those “faux artificial intelligence” programs like the old “Eliza” program that fakes human responses.
Those programs are easy to fool, and they can be tricked into dropping into repetitive responses…like “20% enrichment”…
fyi: “You need to get out of your limited, pre World-War II model of the game of nations.”
No, respectfully, it is the *US* which needs to get out of that game.
Here’s Johnny: “I was wondering if Israel is scheduling an attack on Iran to occur prior to the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliament taking control of Egypt in June.”
Good point. I’m sure Israel takes that into consideration. I don’t think it’s a primary concern, since Egypt as you say is unlikely to attack Irael, as I believe Hizballah and Syria are much larger considerations, but it’s probably part of their overall strategic calculations.
Kooshy: “Analysts however suspect this missile is based on the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn missile”
“Based on”… Like I said, no one knows if Russia has actually SOLD Sunburns to Iran.
Someone who gets it…
If You Have to Ask Why, the Answer is Usually ‘Money’
http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2012/02/09/if-you-have-to-ask-why-the-answer-is-usually-money/
Quotes
In order to explain Obama’s indisputably insane actions without concluding personal insanity on his part — that is to say, in order explain a sane man’s insane position — we have to place him in the iron grip of an institutional insanity reaching back more than half a century.
And hey … that’s something we can do.
The primary activity of the US government since 1941 — first due to those military exigencies, and later as a matter of policy — has been to ongoingly transfer as much wealth as possible from the pockets of America’s productive class to the “defense” establishment.
And it’s a big business. The direct transfers, not counting the stuff hidden in line items other than “defense,” are the US government’s single biggest budget item, coming to about 25% of federal spending. Big business indeed, and keeping that big business in business requires a constant diet of “wars and rumors of wars.”
With the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles winding down, America’s military-industrial complex is tired of “crappy little countries” and on the lookout for a big score. And their friends in government, who have staked their careers on 70 years of constant “pro-defense” propaganda, are happy to help them find one.
Enter Iran: Plenty big and sophisticated enough to knock down some US aircraft — hell, maybe even a carrier or two! — but probably not powerful enough to land a few divisions on the Maryland shore and burn Washington. It has all the makings of a long, expensive conflict, with 30-odd years of mutual belligerence to help the pill slide easily down the American electorate’s throat. Exactly what the doctor (Doctor Strangelove, that is) ordered.
What could possibly go wrong?
End Quotes
The recent foggy atmosphere over Iranian issues might puzzle many of us yet it seems there are patches of clearances that allow us to see some links and clues. The thicker fog started since early November 2011 when the Israeli grand hype for war with Iran began by using an intense multi-prong tactics including plots, using political pawn, religious rallies and intense barrage of media propaganda.
For me, as I’ll explain later,All that looks like an unprecedented stupid self-defeating (if not suicidal) blitzkrieg by Israel.
The Israeli activities were not confined only to Israel, US and EU, it also included incidents in Iran affirming my long time conviction that ‘Iran is infested by various hordes of stooges planted inside different echelons of the Iranian society‘. All hired by (or are indoctrinated free Jezebels of) the determined enemies of their own country’
All this appears to me like Jane Goodall’s chimps on the war frenzy once again…Or maybe this is another new deceptive game?
Regardless, viewing the whole issue from a higher perspective,one might wonder what a frightening crazy world we live in today where just a small group of hegemony and/or profit crazed entities inflict severe pains on simple people, cause heinous mass murders and bring about destructions in ever-increasingly more colossal scale…and get away with it as the astounded suspicious sheeple is staring at them and at their egregious crimes!
How is this possible… the sheeple allowing these psychopaths roam free screwing them over and over without any retribution?
Over such a background the main question in back of my mind was/is ‘Do Israeli leaders really believe in what they are saying or they, as many cases in the past, are following a deceptive tactic to alter all the relevant circumstances in the involved countries? (such as regime change by brewing mass dissatisfaction in Iran, altering circumstances in US political or militaristic affairs to pave the way for an unwanted US war with Iran and so on).
The above question requires extensive clarification which is beyond my amateurish abilities. Here I just express my subjective view on a limited part of what Israeli leadership is saying:
The interesting cover of January 29 of New York Times Magazine is ‘ Israel vs Iran’ In my view the cover is a subtle (devilish?) piece showing a part of Iran is on fire while only the smokes of the fire are reaching a very small part of Israel. At the bottom of cover with smaller fonts one can read ‘WHEN WILL IT ERUPT?.
The text of article is 1000s of words long. It is written by Ronen Bergman, an Israeli journalist who has had close contacts with Israeli decision makers for quite some time.
Inside, a whole page is allotted to the title of article which (in huge fonts) is ‘WILL ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN?’. In the next page one reads:
Only if:
1- Israel has the ability to cause sever damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and can withstand the inevitable counterattack.
2- There is at least tacit support from the international community, particularly from America, for carrying out an attack.
3- All other possibilities for the containment of Iran’s nuclear threat have been exhausted and Israel has arrived at the point of last resort.
In the area for the next condition we read:
“For the first time since the Iranian nuclear thereat emerged, Israeli leaders believe these conditions may have been met”.
Wow, what a truly mind boggling narrative…..three outright false premises and a totally moronic conclusion!
Are Israelis really this stupid.? Or they believe in their own lies? Or are they deceiving the world?
I don’t have a decisively convincing answer for the above questions.
However I can imagine some of the Israeli leaders really believe in some utterly absurd ideas or believe in their own propagandist lies. As an example in the following I copy 2 separate segments from the above mentioned NYT Magazines article.
“Moshe Ya’alone Israel’s vice prime minister and minister of strategic affairs, is the third leg in the triangle supporting a very aggressive stance against Iran. When I spoke with him on the afternoon of January 18, the same day that Barak stated publicly that any decision to strike preemptively was “very far off”, Ya’alon while reiterating that an attack was the last option, took pains to re-emphasize Israel’s resolve. “Our policy is that in one way or another, Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped,” he said “it is a matter of months before the Iranians will be able to attain military nuclear capability. Israel should not have to lead the struggle against Iran. It is up to international community to confront the regime, but nevertheless Israel has to be ready to defend itself. And we are ready to defend ourselves”, Ya’alon went on, “in any way and anywhere we see fit”.
And couple of paragraphs later:
“Now that the facts have been largely agreed upon, the arguments Ya’alon anticipates are those that will stem from the question of how to act — and what will happen if Israel decides that the moment for action has arrived. The most delicate issue between the tow countries is what America is signaling to Israel and whether Israel should inform America in advance of decision to attack”.
Depends on what America signals to Israel? Did Obama read this article or knew Israelis are eager to know his response?
Damn….Obama’s signal as Ray McGovern describes below was……SHOCKING.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/07/obamas-super-bowl-fumble-on-iran/
I think if Israeli rulers are really this crazy and are going to drag US to war then they are making their grandest mistake ever. Since America will one day realize what has happened in the last 30 years especially on the tricks behind the US wars in the Middle Eastern countries. Such a realization could instigate drastic measures against Israel by US and EU citizens, driving their ‘Zionist Regime’ towards the cliff.
My open message to powerful Likudniks, to Mr Netanyahu, Mr Barak and Mr Ya’alon:
Iran is not an existential threat to Israel. The real existential threat will keep on getting more potent as long as you follow the principals of Zionism and Apartheid, as long as you believe you don’t make mistakes, others do, as long as you believe you are special people, as long as you employ Nazi tactic of Goebellsian lying, as long as you deal with the outside world ‘by way of deception’, as long as you carry out perpetual disproportionate wars with your defenseless opponents and as long as you, ruthlessly and remorselessly keep on committing heinous war crimes.
You are the EXISTENTIAL threat to Israel not Iran. Israel is doomed because of you ….you can’t so arrogantly abuse the people of the world forever……doomed,unless you yourself drastically change the course before it is too late.
It is not hard to imagine your enemies are now eagerly rubbing their hands and praying with zeal hoping you attack Iran and you succeed in dragging US to your entirely unjustifiable war.
Sakineh Bagoom says: February 10, 2012 at 2:55 pm
James is doing this [repeating "20% . . .] to disrupt real discussion.”
-Sassan posts massive cut-and-pastes to “disrupt real discussion.”
-Wilbur posts unsubstantiated rants to “disrupt real discussion.”
-James posts “to disrupt real discussion.”
Questions: What do they have in common?
Why are they trying to disrupt real discussion?
Why is James trying to disrupt real discussion?
Who is James Canning and what is his game?
Jay says:
February 10, 2012 at 2:18 pm
I haven’t given enough thought to the prospective electoral-vote map to draw any conclusions, but you’re certainly right to focus on that. Those who don’t understand the US electoral college system may not recognize that “election year politics” focuses principally on just a few swing states. No matter what happens, for example, Obama will win New York and the Republican candidate will win Texas, and the outcomes in many other states are nearly as predictable. It’s “winner take all” in the electoral vote count for a state if a candidate wins the state by a single vote.
I don’t know (but I’m sure Obama’s and Romney’s campaign people know very well) which states are in play this time, other than the recent “usual suspects” of Florida and Ohio. As you note, what might be done to sway the Florida vote may have little effect on the Ohio vote, and vice-versa. Even if one focuses only on Florida, however, candidates have been known to grovel for votes from different groups (Cuban-Americans, for example). It never hurts in Florida, of course, for a candidate to reaffirm his strong support for Israel, but I’m not sure that will get Obama very far this time.
Fio,
Since the beginning of this month the mantra of 20% has been repeated a total of 97 times (give or take a couple). 35 times by James and 62 in response to.
In this thread alone James has mentioned it 5 times and drawn a response from yourself and another from fyi.
James is doing this to disrupt real discussion.
This is a tick that no intervention can cure.
Gotta scratch that itch!
Scratch, scratch, scratch…
Purrr, purrr, purrr.
James Canning says: February 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm
There are two salient facts that you have to absorb about Iran:
1- The power to undo the nuclear Iran does not exist in the international arena.
2- Iran’s power is enhanced in the Middle East since US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
There is a salient fact that you must understand about US in the Middle East:
1. US objective of stability in the Near East (and the future pivot unto the Far East) is not possible without reaching a modus viviendi with Iran (all US Presidents have understood that except Mr. Bush.)
So, there will be no war on the pretence of 20% accumulation in Iran.
On the other hand, the Siege War against Iran, to cause regime change there, will almost certianly fail and thus brings US planners into what they should have done 6 years ago.
The Russian Step-by-Step plan is currently the only game in town.
Its execution will give the P5+1 to ratchet down this issue that could lead to World War III (under certain circumstances).
I think the threat of a World War has finally been understood by very many states; you cannot ratchet up tensions without consequence.
Iranians had nothing to say to Ambassador Burns since it was mainly irrelevant. US planners are not willing to forge a reasonable offer to Iran.
I find the “election politics” argument restraining Obama’s outreach and negotiation with Iran insufficient.
The key state where obama may be vulnerable in terms of jewish vote is Florida. He is vulnerable in other states like Ohio, but it is not singularly and primarily the jewish vote. Obama won florida with ~3% margin in 2008 – winning roughly 70 odd percent of the jewish vote (from memory). The jewish population is 3% in Florida. A swing of 30% will translate to a total change of less than 1 percent.
Obama can take away a soft spot in one single swoop by negotiating and settling the nuclear issue with Iran. It may at first generate some heat. But, by election time, the settling of tensions with side effects of improving economy, as well as the trend toward improvements of the job picture will more than compensate for the moment of heat. Therefore, the election politics argument is insufficient.
US policy is driven by goals more complex than one man’s election. If powerful forces can restrain his decisions, they are more than capable of restraining his re-election. Therefore, as a minimum, it is inaccurate to say that Obama is restrained by national politics. Obama is restrained by elite politics setting US policy.
In this case, negotiations with Iran will only take place when elite political forces determine a clear upside to negotiations, or, alternatively, a clear downside to not negotiating – or a mix of both leading to a positive for the US.
James Canning says: February 10, 2012 at 1:16 pm
“I think it is clear Obama sees war with Iran as inevitable, if Iran tries to build nukes.
If Iran ended production of 20% uranium, I very much doubt Obama would favor war with Iran.”
I think you’re right, James!!!
O Mi Gawd, the SOLUTION!! Iran needs only end production of 20% uranium!!
Without a doubt, Khamenei & Ahmadinejad, Larijani and Salehi will get right on it.
Bibi will be thrilled beyond knowing — he will not have to prepare the Jewish Israeli people for war; he can spend all that money he gets from US on making better lives for Palestinians rather than on weapons.
James, you are a genius. Swords to ploughshares.
James wrote: “A singularly important question is: Why did Obama ignore Iran’s offer to end production of 20% uranium? Obviously, 2012 elections figured into the matter in a major way.”
say what? Didn’t you just say that if Iran stopped producing 20% uranium then Obama would not favor war with Iran? What changed? When? How did it happen??
oh, I did have my hopes set so high.
ohh. sigh. now I am so depressed.
Please, James, do come up with another solution. The 20% solution seemed like such a good idea. It is such a shame that Obama doesn’t give a fig about it.
fyi,
And remember that Russia and China adamantly oppose Iranian nukes.
fyi,
Are you arguing that Iran can continue to stockpile 20% uranium, and avoid war?
I agree P5+1 need to come up with deal acceptable to Iran and saving face.
How would you propose working out a deal? You applaud Iran’s failure even to talk to William Burns last year.
James Canning says: February 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Professor Slaughter is not a strategist and fails to grasp what is going on.
The world have moved on and her suggestions – while useful in 2005 – have passed their shelf-life.
If anything, a face-saving formula must be found for the P5+1.
The latest sanctions of the Axis Powers, have effectively disrupted international trade to and from Iran.
While it has harmed Iran, it has harmed many others who are ostensibly friends of Axis Powers.
Producers and sellers in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Russia, Ukraine, Ceylon have been harmed.
Axis Powers have effectively exported the costs of their strategic confrontation with Iran to the rest of the world.
I think this disruption is temporary and new mechanisms by-passing Axis Powers institutions will be found (if not already in place and being activated).
Clearly, their geopolitical defeat has been so severe that they have taken these steps; telling the rest of the world, in effect, to grin and bear it.
Kathleen,
Maybe I should say that given the fact there is virtually zero chance Iran would attack Israel on a first-strike basis, Israel only pretends to have a national security issue with Iran.
But Israel pretends Hamas is a national security issue, but this arises soley because of the insane Greater Israel programme.
Kathleen,
Yes, Anne-Marie is no Flynt or Hillary. But she does have better access to Obama.
Israel actually does not have a “national security issue” with Iran, but only pretends to have one.
fyi,
Yes, there is plenty of incentive for the US to settle the nuclear file. Read Anne-Marie Slaughter’s comments I just linked, regarding issues of saving of face (that apply in the US and Iran).
Obama obviously does not want to have the Democrats lose control of the Senate. Domestic politics in the US prevent (or help to prevent) sensible development and implementation of policy re: Iran.
James I heard Anne Marie on Washington Journal and more recently on Chris Hayes Up program discuss Iran. She kept repeating that US and Israeli national security are one and the same. Amy Goodman was on the Up program also the distance between Goodman and Slaughter was wide. I know she is more moderate than many of the others Washington Journal guest that they have on recently about Iran but she is no Flynt and Hillary Leverett
“And yet, this president — it was the single great difference between him and the other candidates in 2008 — said he would negotiate with Iran. Nothing on any intelligence estimate has changed the nuclear status of Iran since he made that pledge. If he meant what he said, it was his business to lead public opinion to support the idea of negotiation and to educate the American people about the desired result.”
he did say he would negotiate. He could have used some of this time to help educate. But has not. And neither has the MSM. Have allowed the unsubtatantiated claims about Iran to be repeated over and over again with no challenges
Kathleen,
I think Anne-Marie Slaughter is quite sensible on Iran. You might enjoy her Jan. 9th comments (“Saving face and peace in the Gulf”):
http:www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/slaughter4/English
Quote: “Iran may or may not be planning to go all the way to production of a nuclear weapon.”
Bravo for your monitoring of CSpan.
James Canning says: February 10, 2012 at 1:20 pm
The Americans have fallen into their own web.
Now they really have incentive to settle the nuclear file.
If they are rational actors, that is.
Flynt & Hillary:
I noticed Asia Times is carrying a review of Parsi’s new book. You might want to suggest they include yours in one of their upcoming editions.
fyi,
Donald M. Snow says the “fairly clear intent” of the US is to restrain any Israeli attack on Iran. Fair statement. Leon Panetta and General Dempsey made it very clear the US did not want Israel to attack Iran, but for domestic political reasons Obama muddied the water subsequently.
This is rich: King Abdullah (as-Saud) has criticized Russia and China for their veto, saying that their action undermines the credibility of the UN Security Council.
I shit ye not.
Fiorangela,
I think it is clear Obama sees war with Iran as inevitable, if Iran tries to build nukes.
If Iran ended production of 20% uranium, I very much doubt Obama would favor war with Iran.
A singularly important question is: Why did Obama ignore Iran’s offer to end production of 20% uranium? Obviously, 2012 elections figured into the matter in a major way.
All:
If Israel attacks (or Why US needs to close the nuclear file)
http://whatafteriraq.wordpress.com/
kooshy says: February 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Thank you for the link, kooshy, and belated Thanks for information about the talk at Berkley.
May your travels be safe and your reunion with family nourishing. May your father rest in peace and be well remembered.
hans,
Since Hamas won the Palestinian elections, possibly “Arab Spring” is not what might be happening, unless you mean Hamas may gain more power in the West Bank if the deal with Fatah holds.
Qatar has done a good service for the Palestinians.
fyi,
Interesting comments by George Friedman that you linked. But he appears to suggest the US is weaker in the region for having pulled all troops out of Iraq. The US benefits from ending ill-considered military adventures.
Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal will not be returning to Damascus at this time and is expected to temporarily carry out Hamas activities from Qatar.
Democratically-elected Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh arrived in Tehran on Friday at the head of a high ranking delegation and was welcomed by Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi at Tehran’s International Mehrabad Airport.
Are we to see coming soon to Palestine an “Arab Spring” in Gaza?
Kathleen,
Zbigniew Brzezinski was adamantly opposed to illegal US invasion of Iraq ,and of course he is well known for opposing any Israeli attack on Iran.
Fiorangela
I don’t know if have ever visited the Jadid on line sit, it’s a nonpolitical site mostly with lots of interesting cultural clips around the events, places, and people in Persian speaking countries, you also will find some clips on cultural effects of Shahnameh on the modern period. Unfortunately they a lot more clips in Persian than they offer in English.
http://www.jadidonline.com/english
Rd. says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:54 am
Rd. that’s why I translated that news from Tabnak, I suspected that Iranian were making a deal with Turks, for the Iranian engineers and pilgrims for the captured Turkish intelligent officers,. Turks are learning in a hard way that the Masjid is no place for you know what. In mean time Iran just announced land travel to Syria is no longer allowed.
Fiorangela says: February 10, 2012 at 11:38 am
the late mr. Jefferson as his Sedition Act, the late mr. Jackson and his illegal seizure of Cherokee land, the illegal and unjustified war against Mexico, the late Mr. Lincoln’s illegal war against the CSA etc.
There is a long list here.
You might like to read the poem “Shine, Perishing Republic” by the late Robinson Jeffers.
Kathleen says: February 10, 2012 at 11:34 am
Will never happen.
Americans will not do any such thing since they are in love with Israel – or the Romance of Israel.
Just the only time that Americans could be doing something like that would be if Israeli airplanes are attacking American targets.
In such a hypothetical situation, Americans will be attacking iran – for good measure – blaming Iran for the causing the attack in the first place.
When democracy degenerates and gets corrupted, Caesarism steps in.
That Obama will wage war on Iran IS influenced by a zionist agenda, but it is not solely a zionist agenda. Earlier American leaders have been just as murderously greedy. Andrew Jackson ethnically cleansed the South for the benefit of American ’settlers’ who used slave labor to create what became, by the time of the eruption of the US civil war, the most prosperous region in the known world.
[Sidebar: It is worth noting that Jewish immigrants from Germany and Russia-Poland flocked to the South at that time because, as Turitz and Turitz state in their book, "Jews in Early Mississippi," "land was cheap." ;http://books.google.com/books/about/Jews_in_early_Mississippi.html?id=4YJ6AAAAMAAJ Jews were a major group and force in Charleston, SC, a major port for slave trade and the site of the first shot that started the US civil war.]
The major point is that the US is not, as I wish to believe, the innocent virgin who has been led astray by the zionist seducer. The seeds of the US’s voracity are deep within its nature; nod to fyi — we have ALL fallen short of the glory of god.
2. Andrew Jackson’s predations, and those of Thomas Jefferson before him and Teddy Roosevelt after him, were home-grown, all American, native stink-weed pie.
3. America’s subsequent wars — from World War I to Viet Nam to American adventurism in South America, to the wars in the Middle East all have zionist involvement.
4. What distinguishes the United States – zionist wars in the Middle East:
The US is engaging the rape and pillage and attempt at domination of the states of the Middle East out of its own voracious appetite and in partnership with Israel in the belief that together, Israel and the US will dominate the region as partners. In that, the United States is mistaken. It is not the zionist dream/plan/intention to share power and dominance with anybody. That is the fundamental fact of all Jewish history and “longing for zion,” from Joseph in Egypt to Esther in Babylon/Isfehan to Untermyer and Warburg’s dreams for Germany: It is not ‘the land’ that zionism craves with a biblical passion, it is domination, pure and unshared. When zionism has achieved its goals in the Middle East, it will mark its doorways with the blood of a lamb and the angel of the lord will pass over those marked houses and slay OUR firstborn. Elijah will slay OUR “pagan” preacher. Esther will slay her 75,000 Persians and the offspring of the King as well as his prime minister.
Read the bible, folks.
If zionists cite the bible as their authority to take the land of the Palestinians; and given that Israelis name their weapons systems and military and spy operations after tales and figures from the Tanakh, it might be a good idea to take them seriously and study the bible not as a path to holiness but as a battle plan.
Many temples, like one in my neighborhood, have this passage from Deuteronomy ch 6 carved above the doorway: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.”
First, reflect on the rest of that chapter:
“And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, and vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;”
…
To anyone’s knowledge, has this passage been expunged from Tanakh?
Also, it would be a mistake to assume Israel’s god enfolds Christians with the same loving care.
Some on this forum may find this comment distasteful. I agree. I also believe there is a reality that must be confronted. I can’t persuade myself to think anything other than that zionists — Benjamin Netanyahu as SuperZionist or whoever follows him if he fails to fully realize zionist goals, and his acolytes — intend anything other than to kick the US under the bus when he is finished bleeding its army and its treasury. That’s what was done to Egypt, to Esther’s Persia, and by Untermyer and Warburg to Germany. Why should the United States think we will be treated any differently?
Netanyahu is aware that should Israel attack Iran, and engage the US in an attack on Iran, the safety of Jews in the United States will become imperiled. He doesn’t care. He is the wind inexorably blowing the trees and if limbs fall off, that is the price to be paid. Bibi will use them for firewood to demand reparations from the US.
But one way or another, Jewish people will live with us and among us as our friends, our daughters-in-law, our grandchildren, our colleagues. How shall we confront this “inexorable” pattern of history and force the outcome to take a different path from the pattern I think I see? How can we indeed avoid another ‘holocaust’ that cost the lives of so many Jews but also multiples more of German, Polish, Russian, British, Italian, and Arab and Iranian lives? How can we make this turn out differently, both for Jewish people and for the rest of us?
I don’t know.
What I DO know is that this massive problem cannot be resolved without horror and violence and bloodshed if we do not recognize it for what it is; define the parameters of this pattern. That’s why “Holocaust denial” is such a dangerous agenda — those who intend another holocaust –Benjamin Netanyahu and his henchmen in the US State Department and DoD and think tanks etc. — are eager that the pattern not be understood by its intended victims. That’s why lies and disinformation are the first order of waging war. Exposing the pattern to the full light of day is the first step to ensuring “Never again.”
Ameen.
“The U.N. council is not a tool for intervention in internal affairs and is not the agency to decide which government is to be next in one country or another,” Ryabkov said. “If our foreign partners don’t understand that, we will have to use drastic measures to return them to real grounds.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Feb-10/162821-russia-accuses-west-of-arming-syrian-rebels.ashx#axzz1lzvFm4cU
All:
Saudi King laments UNSC’s decision on Syria:
http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-monarch-criticizes-un-over-syria-140150309.html;_ylt=Arz9QrbLBOu6hFMpr.DEyTVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNncGVzZHRkBG1pdAMEcGtnAzBkMDMzODk4LThmNGMtM2M3ZS05MWJjLTM5M2UxMzg0MDVlMQRwb3MDMTAEc2VjA2xuX01pZEVhc3RfZ2FsBHZlcgM4YjhmODI0MS01M2YwLTExZTEtYWZmNy01OTRiN2UyODNhZGI-;_ylv=3
of course, Saudis, US, EU, and UNSC were happily silent when Iraqis were gassing Kurds and Iranians.
Gash says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:28 am
Surprising comment by Brezezinski:
Brzezinski: U.S. should forcibly stop IAF flying over Iraq to reach Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/news/brzezinski-u-s-should-forcibly-stop-iaf-flying-over-iraq-to-reach-iran-1.7531
While Brezezinski have been a great warmonger it seems that he has been drifting away from that label, taking a more realistic response to US foreing policy nowadays. Not a dove of course but still.
THAT WAS A LIGHTENING BOLT THAT DID NOT EVEN GET MENTIONED ON MSNBC ETC WHEN DR. ZBIG SAID THAT.
All:
Saudi King laments UNSC’s decision on Syria
of course, Saudis, US, EU, and UNSC were happily silent when Iraqis were gassing Kurds and Iranians.
Nothing could be more disastrous for America and nothing could be less necessary than war with Iran. Obama’s idea, if it is his idea, that he can assist or countenance or be party to an attack by Israel without deep repercussions against the United States and many of its assets and its people the world over, is the most desperate of fantasies. The repercussions, if they are not felt at once, will be felt for a generation and more. Obama has let the war party have their innings until they are sure that they control him. All the signs now, and above all his reluctance to make a case for negotiation or even to hint at the progress of diplomacy that may be under way, suggest that the people who pitched for the Iraq war and have Iran in their sights are counting Obama as one of their own. He is reluctant, yes, but he is almost a committed man. The latest propaganda for war has gone so far that it will be a full-time job to resist the momentum building to a “test” some time this year. As it stands, Iran is headed to become for Obama in 2012 what the economy was in 2010: a controllable crisis which, through personal inaction and conventional acquiescence in failed policies, threatens to pass utterly beyond his control.”
Dr. Zbig says very similar things
Rd writes:
“Iranian engineers kidnapped in Syria released.”
Are these the same Iranian engineers who were shown in the video Sassan posted, confessing to being mercenary soldiers who’d killed Syrian women and children?
I’m surprised. It’s very unusual that mercenary soldiers who confess to murdering women and children are released. Have their Syrian captors explained why they released them? It’s odd that we heard so much about their confessions from a few posters on this website, but nothing but silence so far about their release. Odd.
All:
On the possibility of US-Iran negogiations:
Stratfor:
http://bcove.me/gqxrxv0y
Fiorangela says:
February 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Yochi Dreazan — Iran really should have signed AP. UAE did and US is helping it get nuclear plant.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-choice-on-nuclear-power-20120202
in an appearance on C Span Dreazan and his article in National Journal magazine were introduced by Greta Brawner:
“You actually write that there’s a choice that Persian Gulf states are facing: Do they make peaceful programs focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands or demand of electricity and etc., or do they respond in kind to Iran?”
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JY
What is fascinating to me was not that Yochi was pushing the audience into supporting a military attack on Iran but who CSpans Washington Journal has had on over the last several months to address the situation with Iran. All five guest Barbara Slavin, Anne Marie Slaughter who are more moderate but still repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran, push the idea that Israel’s national security are one and the same and that negotiations with Iran have been exhausted as well as Micheal Singh, Anas Jan both from the WINEP and Yochi Dreazen who were definitely pushing a military confrontation with Iran. CSPANS WASHINGTON JOURNALS list of guest on this topic are so terribly lop sided. Clearly they do not want to help inform the public based on facts. This is disturbing
Maldives: ‘Pro-Israel President booted out’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/maldives-pro-israel-president-booted-out/
Dr. Zbig came out before the invasion of Iraq and questioned the validity of the intelligence and the wisdom of the invasion
Fiorangela says: February 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm
I doubt that any of these deals (with Arabs in particulars and Muslims in general) will ever be realized.
2 years ago Turkey published a Request for Proposal for a Nuclear Power Plant and only Russ-Atom replied.
The Turkish plans were shelved.
Persian Gulf Arabs specially will never receive nuclear material.
Lest we forget that 19 Arabs attacked US on 09/11/2001.
And UAE Arabs held days of celeberations afterwards.
The Leveretts and Bromwich attempt to convey the idea that it is the flaws in Obama’s character, or style of leadership, or handling of foreign affairs, that will “LEAD US TO WAR WITH IRAN.”
It’s becoming more and more obvious — and Castellio certainly pried open eyes with an aesthetic meditation — that the title of this essay of the Leveretts’ is either inverted or contains unnecessary words. Whether “BY NOT LEADING,” or in some other “HOW,” OBAMA WILL LEAD US TO WAR WITH IRAN, because that is what he intends to do.
To paraphrase Herzl in “Der Judenstaat,” “If you will it, it is no
dreammistake.”unknown unknowns, actually that article was from 2009 but I guess Brezezinski is still if not more critical of the US actions. Heres a video from 2011 where Brezezinski also makes some good points.
http://www.lobelog.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-engage-iran/
Nasser says: February 9, 2012 at 7:38 pm
I cannot answer the costs question.
I have no information.
India’s GDP is $ 1.7 trillion, whcih could give it a similar number of nuclear weapons as UK.
In case of the Trident SLBMs, I believe they are developed by US and given to UK.
This one is for Fior to complete her history lessons by who else, Niall warmonger Ferguson
“Ferguson’s toxic fusion of arrogance and ignorance – about the Middle East, about Persian culture, about Asia, about the nuclear issue, about the oil industry, about, in fact, “the Rest” – would be just innocuous hadn’t he be hailed as a top public intellectual. The best thing about his piece are actually the comments, ranging from “I’m shocked that a research fellow at Jesus College would advocate the bombing of Muslims” to “What’s with all these Brits that look to the USA as a platform to re-inflate their dreams of Empire?”
Last sentence reminds me of one Gavner James of our own, doesn’t it.
THE ROVING EYE
The return of the Keyboard Warriors
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB11Ak02.html
Gash says:
February 10, 2012 at 9:28 am
I am not sure of this, but I am pretty certain that Russian S-200 anti-aircraft systems as well as natively developed enhanced S-200 radar arrays and missile batteries are deployed all along Iran’s western border with Iraq, and are perfectly capable of taking out any number of Israeli jets. These jets would have to fly well in excess of 20 miles above sea level in order to be safe, at which altitude the CEP of their munitions would make their mission meaningless.
Zbig’s statement is a good omen. It is yet another indication that the realists in the administration are finally starting to pull the handbrake. (Obama of course is a protege of Zbig’s from their Harvard days, and I suspect that Obama places much weight on Zbig’s advice. Zbig in turn is a realist and not a Neocon ideologue, and as such, realizes the catastrophe that such a war would be for the US.)
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I respectfully decline to further discuss this issue with you since you have, as Americans say, : a one-track mind”.
“profit: is not a motive for US policy at this stage.
And hegemony is unachievable for the United States – both globally and locally in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.
You need to get out of your limited, pre World-War II model of the game of nations.
James Canning says: February 9, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Janes’s figures in this respect are not to be rlied upon than mine.
At least my estimate is based on concrete numbers and costs.
Gash says:
While Brezezinski have been a great warmonger it seems that he has been drifting away
Dr. Brezezinski has been commenting numerous times recently about the definite decline of the US power and the west in general. He makes it clear a war with Iran will hasten that decline beyond hope. He has been promoting the notion of expanding the west east ward to Turkey and Russia (after Putin) in time.
Surprising comment by Brezezinski:
Brzezinski: U.S. should forcibly stop IAF flying over Iraq to reach Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/news/brzezinski-u-s-should-forcibly-stop-iaf-flying-over-iraq-to-reach-iran-1.7531
While Brezezinski have been a great warmonger it seems that he has been drifting away from that label, taking a more realistic response to US foreing policy nowadays. Not a dove of course but still.
Fiorangela says: February 10, 2012 at 8:28 am
One wonders how he would feel once bombs start falling on Israel?
Anyway, he is a historian and not a strategist.
The brutal fact for the United States and EU is that their policies, especially the destruction of Ba’ath state in Iraq, has irreversibly enhanced the Iranian power.
Until and unless this fact is absorbed by US planners we will see a continued confrontation across the Mulsim world and elsewhere between the Whites and the Browns.
kooshy says:
According to Iranian site Tabnak, in reply to Turkey’s request( apparently Turkey has confirmed 49 officers are being held by Syrian army) Syria has set 3 conditions to release 49 Turkish inelegant officers currently captured by Syria
Iranian engineers kidnapped in Syria released
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1530729
and from Today’s Zaman;
“Still, the two countries work to stay cordial. This week, Iran said 11 Iranian pilgrims abducted in Syria had been freed with the help of “friendly and influential” countries, and Turkey confirmed it had secured their release through contacts. “
;http://www.todayszaman.com/news-271010-turkey-and-iran-diverge-over-syria.html
You wonder who works quietly without much fan fare behind the scenes, is the power broker.
Niall Ferguson’s ‘creative destruction’ echoes Rice’s ‘birth-pangs’
“The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever. We would have acquiesced in the creation of an empire of extortion.
War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.
It feels like the eve of some creative destruction.”
Here’s Johnny says:
February 10, 2012 at 7:17 am
“I was wondering if Israel is scheduling an attack on Iran to occur prior to the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliament taking control of Egypt in June. I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood government would declare war on Israel but it could do a lot to hinder the Israeli/American war machine.
It could close off the Suez Canal, intercept and jam communications and shut off natural gas supplies….
Any comments?”
Johnny, adept at fishing in muddy waters, the fisherman prefers muddy waters. So, the thinking could go along these lines:
Yes, yes,yes, there would outrage in the Muslim world if yet another large scale war was started in the mid east. But, that outrage could be used by our lackeys in the Arab/Turkish militaries to stage coups to dislodge not just Turkish, Egyptian, and Tunisian budding democracies but, also dislodge other teetering monarchies with military junta rule that will last several decades.
Another words, the otherwise irrational (suicidal) attack on Iran/Syria/Lebanon, could be given a region-wide rational. Thinking big is a hallmark of neoconservatives. I wouldn’t put it past them.
Needless to say, neoconservatives are “right to be wrong.” Their intellectual shield is: think big; So darn big that easily predictable failures that await their hair-brain schemes are shrugged off as a mere battle wound along the way forward, and onward to the last drop of American blood, and the last cent of American treasure.
re: Castellio says: February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am
1. Foreign Minister Speaks on Turkey’s Foreign Policy Goals
Washington, DC
Friday, February 10, 2012
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu delivers a foreign policy address at CSIS. He is in Washington this week to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials.
During September’s meeting of the United Nations’ General Assembly, the Foreign Minister and Secretary Clinton met and discussed Turkey’s part in the new missile defense system for Eastern Europe as well as Turkey’s role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the turmoil in neighboring Syria. Today, Foreign Minister Davutoglu speaks at CSIS about “Turkey’s Foreign Policy Objectives in a Changing World.”
_________
In Booming Istanbul, A Clash Between Old And New
by Peter Kenyon
“The Prime Minister’s Plan
It’s all part of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s drive to revamp Istanbul and make its future as glorious as its past. [and] his plans for large-scale building in Istanbul.
With the new convention centers, sports and cultural centers that we’re building, we’re preparing the way for a modern future on a historic foundation. At the same time, we’re investing to turn Istanbul into the financial center of the world.
Erdogan’s comment is included in a new documentary film on the impact of growth on Istanbul. It’s called Ecumenopolis, a term coined in the 1960s to suggest a future in which sprawling metropolises merge into one giant urban dystopia.
He’s also distressed by a trend that began well before Erdogan — the transformation of open and public spaces in the city into profit-generating commercial properties.
One example is playing out in Istanbul’s main Taksim Square, part of which has been a park since the early 1940s.
Until World War II, an Ottoman military barracks stood on the spot. The historic building fell into disuse and was demolished to create the park. But now, many trees have red marks on them, signifying that they will be cut down so the park can be turned into a shopping mall. . . .”
I was wondering if Israel is scheduling an attack on Iran to occur prior to the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliament taking control of Egypt in June. I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood government would declare war on Israel but it could do a lot to hinder the Israeli/American war machine.
It could close off the Suez Canal, intercept and jam communications and shut off natural gas supplies….
Any comments?
Castellio says: February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am
Elegant, Castellio. Thank you, Empty, for drawing attention to Castellio’s allegory.
The copy of Shahnameh that I am reading has a paisley design on the front cover. The paisley shape is a fundamental element of Persian art. The west calls the shape paisley; its an abstract replication of the pine cone. The wind that bends the tree also casts the seeds of new life.
Castellio says: February 10, 2012 at 12:19 am
A nice, clear, and appropriate use of an allegory to illustrate a socio-political phenomenon in an exact manner.It was enjoyable to read.
To all the war mongers who would like to see a war breakout I say it is not certain that it will happen. Check this chart of Silver :http://www.kitco.com/charts/livesilver.html
and you will see that the difficulty in achieving $35 when I believe that an attack of some kind will be certain. In the mean time why do you want a war? You think it will not affect NATO/USA citizens. There are about a million of them living around the Gulf, ME!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QH7s7DyVeeY#!
ToivoS.
You see the trees along the coast exposed to the prevailing westerlies. They lean away from the wind. Their branches twist away from the wind. They look sculpted. Beautiful in their own way.
One never sees the force that does it to them. One feels it, but hey, its just a wind.
But a constant wind is something else. It’s ceaseless. Has a power of its own. Maybe invisible in the moment, but the result of it is obvious everywhere for those who can see why a shape is the way it is.
There’s a constant wind in the west. It’s profit. How do you make it? We need as much as last year and perhaps a bit more. If you own a billion you won’t accept a return of 20 million. That’s 2%. Might as well fire everyone as accept that. 50 million is 5% percent and that’s more or less okay but the aim is 8% or above. Need 80 million increase in profits which means a revenue increase of what? Depends on the margins. Maybe 100 mill for some lucky industries, more like 800 mill or more for the mature industries. Every year. Every year broken down into quarters and those broken down into graphs of expectations studied every day. Studied closely by all the intelligent people all bending the same way.
Cut the costs or increase the revenues. Everyone works for that. Either one or the other and everyone bends to it. Day after day. You bend to it. It shapes you. Sometimes there’s a technological innovation. You celebrate and begin again. Next year has to be the same or better. You bend a bit deeper.
The industries are shaped by it, the people are shaped by it and together they shape the government. The government, too, is shaped by the prevailing winds. Sculpted as surely as the trees or the sand dunes.
Foreign policy is one way to both cut costs and increase revenues. Find cheaper labour, find cheaper raw materials, find new markets. Foreign policy can ensure that investments have real returns. You want to know what unifies Western policy in the Middle East. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking France, UK, US or Belgium.
The prevailing wind. It shapes everything. Constantly blowing, gentle enough in any moment, but persistent.
What is it, 97% of American income tax revenues goes every year to the military, much of it to the military industrial companies, privately owned and publicly funded? How did that happen? Was it really the growth of enemies? And every year they need more. From somewhere.
That is the shape.
Iran integrated into the system offers more revenues, more profits. Big numbers. Like Iraq was big numbers. Even bigger numbers than Iraq. Much bigger. Even the struggle to integrate Iran is big numbers. No, not now, not necessarily, but still…. soon… not now, no, but … soon, right?
It doesn’t really matter who walks into Obama’s office today or tomorrow. Because everyday someone walks in and is worried about how to deal with the fact that Iran is out of the system, making it harder to do what has to be done to earn the money that keeps everyone hired so the system won’t collapse.
The system is always collapsing. But never quite. The tree bends a bit further.
Everyday a thousand official reports flow in with the same suggestions, some with black covers, some with white covers. Everyday a thousand thousand accountants, lawyers, managers and investment analysts come to the same conclusion, talk to the same politicians. Well, when the time is right. What did you say? Has that fallen into place? It has? Yes, well, when the time is right.
Oh yes, the ruling elites are fractured, they fight each other, look for advantage, stab the other in the back, but the wind to which they bend always blows in the same direction.
It’s not that there’s just one voice to which the President listens. There are, indeed, millions of voices, and they all say different things, they surely do, but what they say, as different as it sounds, all share a certain lean, shaped by the prevailing winds.
And RSH, to his credit, will tell you straight up that there’s precious little you’re going to be able to do about that.
RSH here it is back in 06
Iran tests upgraded surface-to-sea missile
Dated 26/8/2006
Iran is said to have successfully tested an upgraded, indegenious, guided surface-to-sea missile, media reports confirmed on Saturday
The missile was tested at the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman during the ‘Blow of Zolfaqar’ military exercises which began last Saturday.
Wargames spokesman Habib Sayari told reporters that the missile accurately hit its pre-determined targets. Sayari said that the missile has a suitable range, high shooting power and precision.
He added that the successful testing of the missile showed the strength, innovativeness, scientific and technical expertise of the country’s defense forces and equipment as well as the potential and specialized skill of its experts.
Analysts however suspect this missile is based on the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn missile that Iran is said to have acquired via China in 2004. The Sunburn missile is a Russian missile of the Soviet era and can carry a warhead of upto 300kg and is said to have a range of 100km-120kms.
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- In another phase of Iran’s extensive war games codenamed ‘Blow of Zolfaqar’, the naval force of the Islamic Republic’s army Saturday tested an optimized remote controlled coast-to-sea missile successfully.
According to FNA dispatches, the missile hit and destroyed a prespecified target in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. The operation efficiency (missile destruction capability) was reported to have been one-hundred percent.
Other reports also said that optimization of the missile has been a product of the creativity and innovation of Iranian military experts.
War games spokesman Admiral Habib Sayyari mentioned appropriate range, high striking capability and high flexibility and precision in targeting among the special features of the missile.
Sakineh Bagoom: “How does one kiss the others ass on-line?”
I’ll settle for the phrase “You were right, Richard, and I was wrong.”
I expect I won’t get ONE admission of that sort from anyone here, except maybe from Arnold who seems to be reasonably intellectually honest (and we have a long standing argument on whether the war will occur, so he can’t really duck it.)
I expect it’s a good bet since as I mentioned below I only have to be right once, everyone else has to be right forever, i.e., no war ever with Iran. Since I expect said war within the next couple of years based on how things are going right now (and as long as some other major crisis doesn’t derail events), I expect it won’t be long before I’m proven right.
And we have the Syria war lining up THIS year, which means all those who said that won’t happen will get to admit I’m right THIS year. I’m looking forward to that.
ToivoS: “But you still maintain that Obama is listening to some single voice.”
Never said that.
I said he is OBEYING the people who got him elected. You think he is DEFYING those people? Really? Or do you think the Crown and Pritzker families are against an Iran war?
“There are real divisions in the American power structure.”
Not on Iran, there isn’t. Not even on war generally.
Like Arnold and I asked Eric, I don’t think you can cite ONE person in the current ruling elite who has come out definitively against an Iran war.
Kooshy: “:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30468.htm”
I posted that 11 posts below yours…
Kooshy: “Playing on Iran’s Home Court: The Great Strait of Hormuz Test”
The problem with that article is: no one has yet seen a Sunburn in the Iranian inventory…
Not saying they DON’T have them… Saying no one knows for sure.
You’ll notice I never cite the Sunburn in my posts for that reason. Iran has other more or less equivalent anti-ship missiles, but as far as anyone knows, no Sunburns.
Castellio says: February 9, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I wish! He was a prolific writer. I am a minimalist in mine.
Sakineh, influenced by Bukowski?
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm
”Once again, when the bombs drop, I want every mother one of you who said that to be here to kiss my ass. Because trust me, *I* will be here for that.”
I’ve been wondering how this works on-line.
How does one kiss the others ass on-line?
Does one have to bend over to get his ass kissed?
Oh, and what happens when the said ass is kissed?
What then?
Does one gloat – oh look, I got my ass kissed?
Will you be here for sure RSH?
You left at least a couple of times in the past if memory serves, just to come back because you know we like you.
Will any of us be alive to see it for sure?
Oh, I get it! It is the rhetorical ass that is being kissed. Ne’er mind!
so Richard Steven Hack says:
February 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm
“ToivoS: “The problem with such a view of life is that there exists a single voice that gives instructions to our leaders and that they have no choice but to obey. Who is this voice?”
The world does not work like that.”
Good as far as it goes. I know the world does not work that way. But you still maintain that Obama is listening to some single voice. Nope, not at all, he is hearing from many competing voices. There are real divisions in the American power structure.
That is a fact. The questions that you posed above convince me that when challenged on one of your more stupid points that you go into dissembling. Then you list a bunch of irrelevant questions. Sorry Hack, I find it difficult to take you seriously.
And this one is for Richard to brush up on his military formation for the coming war in Hormooz straight
Playing on Iran’s Home Court: The Great Strait of Hormuz Test
By Russ Winter
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30482.htm
This may be interested for Eric,
one may say quite of a record for the self-declared champion of hypocrisy sorry democracy
US Says Russia/China UN Veto
“Disgusting”, “Shameful”, “Deplorable”, “a Travesty” . . . Really?”
By Arab Studies Institute
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30468.htm
Richard Steven Hack,
The line about AP was for Eric’s benefit.
I was intrigued by Greta’s introduction, and wondered if signing the Additional Protocol would change her unwarranted assumption that Iran’s nuclear program is NOT for peaceful purposes. She said:
““You actually write that there’s a choice that Persian Gulf states are facing: Do they make peaceful programs focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands or demand of electricity and etc., or do they respond in kind to Iran?”
Happily, Mrs. Brawner, “making peaceful programs focused on demand for electricity” IS “responding to Iran in kind.”
Brawner seems to have dropped her usual demand, “Where is the evidence?”
Perhaps her pregnancy is claiming her focus.
Fiorangela: Re http almashriq dot hiof dot no/lebanon/300/320/327/notes/index dot html ARAMCO and Building TAPLINE
Interest bit about resettling Palestinians in Syria. Never thought that might be part of the game plan today, too. Planning for future ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank by weakening Syria and Lebanon. Makes sense.
Fiorangela: “Yochi Dreazan — Iran really should have signed AP. UAE did and US is helping it get nuclear plant.”
That has nothing to do with the AP. It has to do with US selective desire as to who gets to do domestic enrichment. If you’re a client state of the US, you get domestic enrichment, like Saudi Arabia; if not, you don’t.
Most countries are on the AP. Iran would be, too, if the US hadn’t resorted to lies about its program. But only Iran is not allowed to not have domestic enrichment, AP or no AP.
Nasser: “- Could any one of you actually tell me around how much money does it take to maintain, say a hundred nuclear warheads? I honestly don’t know but my understanding was that it takes more money to deploy and maintain the delivery systems of those nuclear weapons than the warheads themselves.”
I’d agree with that last. I don’t know in dollar figures what it would cost. Also depending on the technology used, nuclear weapons “decay” and need to be rebuilt from time to time, IIRC.
“I have read from various (what I considered reputable) sources that Pakistan has around 10-30 and India around 100 nuclear warheads.”
Arms Control.org says Pakistan has 80-90, about on a par with the minimum usually quoted for Israel. They agree with the India figure of 100. They indicate 75-200 for Israel.
Wikipedia says about Pakistan:
Quote
Estimates of Pakistan’s stockpile of nuclear warheads vary. The most recent analysis, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2010, estimates that Pakistan has 70-90 nuclear warheads.[52] In 2001, the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimated that Pakistan had built 24–48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[53][54] In 2003, the U.S. Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimated that Pakistan possessed between 35 and 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[55] In 2003, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimated a stockpile of approximately 50 weapons. By contrast, in 2000, U.S. military and intelligence sources estimated that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal may be as large as 100 warheads.[56]
The actual size of Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is hard for experts to gauge owing to the extreme secrecy which surrounds the program in Pakistan. However, in 2007, retired Pakistan Army’s Brigadier-General Feroz Khan, previously second in command at the Strategic Arms Division of Pakistans’ Military told a Pakistani newspaper that Pakistan had “about 80 to 120 genuine warheads.”[
End Quote
I did find this:
"There are currently nine countries with a total of over 20,000 nuclear weapons, spending $105 billion annually on their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems."
So I guess one could do the math...
The US spends sixty percent of that $105 billion, more than the other eight nuclear states combined...
What THAT says is nukes are PROFITABLE...
I've always said that all these nukes were never meant to be USED - just PAID FOR...
"India is a relatively poor country and Israel has been a weapons state for much longer than India and so I don’t find it ridiculous to assume Israel could have the same number of warheads as India."
Agreed.
"Israel is not a global power and its adversaries and targets are local. So Israel has none of these expenses that these other nuclear countries do. So (theoretically) it could deploy a large number of warheads at its regional adversaries."
That makes sense. Although do note that Israel has developed a version of the Jericho which is intended to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon over 5,000km, which brings all of Europe and much of Russia within range. Of course, no article mentioned that they could probably hit Washington with that range, too...
From Wikipedia:
Quote
The Jericho II forms the basis of the three-stage, 23 ton Shavit NEXT satellite launcher, first launched in 1988 from Palmachim. From the performance of Shavit it has been estimated that as a ballistic missile it has a maximum range of about 7,800 km with a 500 kg payload.[3]
Jericho III
It is estimated that the Jericho III entered service in 2008. The Jericho III is believed to have a three-stage solid propellant and a payload of 1,000 to 1,300 kg. It is possible for the missile to be equipped with a single 750 kg nuclear warhead or two or three low yield MIRV warheads. It has an estimated launch weight of 30,000 kg and a length of 15.5 m with a width of 1.56 m. It may be similar to an upgraded and re-designed Shavit space launch vehicle, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries. It probably has longer first and second-stage motors. It is estimated that it has a range of 4,800 to 11,500 km [7] (2,982 to 7,180 miles).
According to an official report which was submitted to the American congress in 2004,[7] it may be that with a payload of 1,000 kg the Jericho III gives Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia and almost all parts of North America, as well as within large parts of South America and North Oceania.
End Quote
In other words, Israel IS developing nuclear weapons capable of threatening states FAR beyond the range of its local adversaries – including capable of threatening the US.
Think about that…
And the US is putting up a missile shield supposedly to defend Europe against Iran…
We need a shield to defend against Israel… They’re not churning out nukes to threaten Egypt or Jordan or Syria or Lebanon… In fact, it was explicitly stated some years back that the assessment was that Israel was developing long range missiles precisely because they were concerned about RUSSIA, NOT their local adversaries.
Israel could use their air force local air superiority to drop nukes on most of its local neighbors. They don’t need missiles for that.
Those missiles are intended to threaten Europe, Russia and the US some day…
News | Mousavi’s Daughters Threatened; Israel’s Role in Assassinations
by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles
10 Feb 2012
Kaleme reports that after the release of the public letter written by the three daughters of Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife, Dr. Zahra Rahnavard, together with the children of Mehdi Karroubi, in which they asked Iranians to echo their call to free their parents from house arrest, the Ministry of Intelligence has threatened the Green Movement leader’s daughters. According to Kaleme, the website closely linked to Mousavi, the ministry said that they will be arrested and “taken to an unknown location where nobody will know what is happening to them.” One of the three daughters, who is a lecturer at the Al-Zahra University in Tehran, has already been prevented from teaching her arts course, and her name has been eliminated from the school’s Internet system. This is not the first time that the children of the two leaders have been threatened and harassed. At least two sons of Karroubi have been physically attacked and detained.
Meanwhile Fatemeh Karroubi, wife of Mehdi Karroubi, said in an interview that her husband is optimistic about Iran’s future. By her account, he stated that, concerning the struggle for democracy and the rule of law, “Although the path has been difficult, the people’s rightful demands have developed deep roots [in the society] and, given the political maturity of the nation, the future of the nation is bright…. The era of dictatorial governments has expired, and [such] government have no way other than reconciling with the people and undertaking deep reforms that will transfer power to the people.” According to her, Karroubi is barred from having any visitors, and his medical doctors are “trusted by the Ministry of Intelligence.”
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has issued a statement declaring that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei is directly to blame for the extralegal detention of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard. “Khamenei bears the ultimate responsibility for these house arrests, which indeed are nothing short of a kidnapping,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the Campaign’s spokesperson. “Khamenei is operating above the law of the land, and the intelligence and judicial apparatus are tools of repression in his hands, operating with impunity and without any regard for the law or the Constitution,” he added. “These continued illegal detentions demonstrate the epic hypocrisy of Iranian leaders. On the one hand, they want to claim the mantle of Arab uprisings against dictatorships, and on the other hand they are kidnapping opposition leaders and keeping them under house arrest without any due process whatsoever.”
Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Dastgheib, the popular cleric and Green Movement supporter, has written a letter to three members of the Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body that can theoretically sack the Supreme Leader, in which he reminds them of the illegal actions taken by the ruling elite in the aftermath of the June 2009 presidential election. The three are Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani, assembly chairman and supposed spiritual leader of the principlists; Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council; and Ayatollah Mohammad Momen. In his letter, Dastgheib, himself a member of the Assembly, says, “I am asked why I do not attend the meetings of the assembly to warn against such illegal and anti-religious acts. But the question is, Is there security in this country for someone who talks about the truth and tries to correct the wrongdoings? They have attacked my home and mosque, and the mob insults [me and the people] during Friday Prayers. Can we still claim that this nation is secure and can we still call this an Islamic Republic?”
Addressing the numerous cases in which the Constitution has been violated, Dastgheib writes, “Should the Guardian Council, whose existence is allowed by the Constitution, not protect the articles of the Constitution and correct implementation of them? What are the answers to such questions? Are the arrests made by vigilante groups in accordance with Islamic teachings and the laws of the Islamic Republic? Can one issue verdicts against people without putting them on trial? Are extracting confessions in jail while the accused has been blindfolded and threatened, and getting his fingerprint on an already prepared ‘confession’ form to submit it to the court in accordance with Islam?” Regarding the Green Movement leaders, Ayatollah Dastegheyb writes in his letter, “Is the house arrest of Mousavi and Karroubi without proving their offense in accordance with Islam?” He asks, “Is the judiciary not supposed to be independent? Why, then, do the security forces intervene in its work and build [fake] cases against people? Is the Majles not supposed to be ‘at the helm of affairs’ [a reference to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's famous statement about the legislature] and oversee everything? If it really had independence, all those election violations would not have occurred on June 12, 2009 [the presidential election].”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/02/news-mousavis-daughters-threatened-israels-role-in-assassinations.html#ixzz1lwQu4O6k
http almashriq dot hiof dot no/lebanon/300/320/327/notes/index dot html ARAMCO and Building TAPLINE
from: “Notes from the Minefield: United States Intervention in Lebanon and the Middle East, 1945 – 1958″ by Irene Gendzier, 1997
QUOTE
From Part II Formative Years in the Evolution of U. S. Policy: 1944 – 1952, Chapter 5. The Foundations of U. S. Policy, PACLIFT, page 97 – 98:
“The situation in Damascus was dramatically different. Given the economic ties between Syria and Lebanon, and the dependence of Lebanon’s pipeline on Syrian approval, the resistance of the Syrlan regime to TAPLINE’s concessionary offer became a major problem in Beirut. Syria signed an accord with TAPLINE on September 1, 1947, but parliamentary ratification was delayed for political and economic reasons. The regime was critical of U.S. policy in Palestine, and it wanted more favorable commercial terms from TAPLINE. But then U.S. oil executives were unwilling to bend on matters of profit, preferring instead to pressure President Quwwatly of Syria and Prime Minister Mardam indirectly through Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, as well as directly through TAPLINE’s officers.
When in 1948 it appeared that the Syrian negotiations might fail, preparations for construction in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan ceased, only to continue exclusively in Saudi Arabia to assure the ARAMCO operation. In practice, the March 1949 military coup in Damascus solved the problem. Within two months, in the presence of William Owen, attorney with TAPLINE and ARAMCO and later TAPLINE’s general counsel, and William A. Campbell of TAPLINE, the concession was approved, leading to the completion of construction at the Sidon end.
Recent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the first military coup in Syrian postwar history indicates that CIA agents Miles Copeland and Stephen Meade, who acted as U.S. military attache in Damascus, were directly involved in the coup in which Syrian colonel Husni Za’im seized power. According to then former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland, the coup was carried out in order to obtain Syrian ratification of TAPLINE. Douglas Little writes that “Meade and Zaim completed planning for the coup in early 1949. On March 14, Zaim ‘requested U.S. agents [to] provoke and abet internal disturbances which [are] essential for coup d’etat’ or that U.S. funds be given him [for] this purpose as soon as possible.” Assistant Secretary of State McGhee, according to the same source, put in an appearance in Damascus at a critical moment in the course of these events, “possibly to authorize U.S. support for Zaim” in addition to discussing settlement of Palestinian refugees in Syria.
On March 30, the coup took place, followed by the arrest of the Syrian president and the prime minister and the suspension of the constitution. In less than a month, the new Syrian regime was involved in negotiations with Israel, planning for the resettlement of Palestinian refugees and, in mid May, approving the TAPLINE concession.
END QUOTE
RSH… yes, good information, the Wikileaks, the Australian report, the blog.
Arnold, this is good information for where you’re going on your blog… important!
test
Nasser, I think your question a good one and I look forward to any response. I can’t help but reference the 3 billion a year military assistance to Israel by the US government.
Who’s to say who’s picking up the cost of maintaining the Israeli nuclear arsenal?
Yochi Dreazan — Iran really should have signed AP. UAE did and US is helping it get nuclear plant.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-choice-on-nuclear-power-20120202
in an appearance on C Span Dreazan and his article in National Journal magazine were introduced by Greta Brawner:
“You actually write that there’s a choice that Persian Gulf states are facing: Do they make peaceful programs focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands or demand of electricity and etc., or do they respond in kind to Iran?”
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JY
Wow…Check this site out…
Syria: Exposing The Lies Behind The Campaign To Invade Iran
:http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/02/08/exposing-pysop-justify-war-syria-psyop-exposed-82031/
ESPECIALLY watch this video on how Syrian news was faked:
Syria – ABC News (AU) expose the lies of Reuters, ABC and other Medias
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kaNei6tuiUU
A Quick Listing of The United States’ Record of Veto Use at the United Nations (UN): 1972–2011
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30468.htm
Five out of every six used to defend Israel.
Wikileaks cable from 2006 exhibiting the plan proposed by the US embassy in Damascus to destablise the Syrian regime
http://wikileaks.cabledrum.net/cable/2006/12/06DAMASCUS5399.html
Quotes
We believe Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as a the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there
may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.
PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though
often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate
more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.
ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING:
The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should
be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rif,at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime,s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction.
Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused) extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG,s argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria.
End Quotes
Turmoil deepens bleak Tehran winter
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB10Ak04.html
Quotes
The reality is that the situation is not that bad, yet. Most signs point to a financial well-being at its lowest levels for average citizens than at any point since Iran’s eight-year war with Iraq, when shortages were the norm.
While Iranians have complained about their lot for years, statistics simply have not matched up with the population’s level of economic discontent. Heavily subsidized fuel and utilities, access to basic necessities and a decent education never seemed to register for a population who wanted to have their cake and eat it, too.
Until last year, Tehran consistently ranked as one of the cheapest major cities in the world for its residents.
Says small business owner Majid, “I never had a bad thing to say about [United States President Barack] Obama until he signed that bill [on December 31]. Now I’m really angry with him. Lots of people feel the same here.”
End Quotes
Latest from Kaveh Afrasiabi on Hiatus in European debate on Iran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB10Ak03.html
Quote
It seems that in Europe, ad hoc policy such as France and England’s naval bandwagoning with the American armada in the Persian Gulf has replaced rational defense strategies that could entertain an Iranian-European security debate and even cooperation.
“The Europeans have joined the Americans in declaring an economic war on Iran and are refusing to see the light of reality, which is that this is not an alternative to war but a prelude to it,” said a Tehran University political science professor who spoke with the author on the condition of anonymity.
End Quote
Syria: another US stepping stone
By Ardeshir Ommani
:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB10Ak01.html
Ardeshir Ommani, President of the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), is a writer and political analyst with a background in Political Economy. AIFC was created in 2004 to promote peace and dialogue between the US and Iran, and prevent any NATO instigated war on the Iranian people.
Quote
If there is no contest to the resolution well-prepared by the US government, then Washington gets to work and with the help of the coalition of the willing, permission in hand, begins the bombarding of Syrian logistics, every kind of arms depot, the electrical grids, the factories, food depots, water reservoirs, city sewer systems and schools and hospitals. Does this scenario have precedence? Yes, about six months after extracting the license to impose a “no fly zone” over Libya, the Western powers with carpet bombings flattened that country, liberated the country’s light sweet crude oil and succeeded to install one of the senior ENI SpA executives (Italy’s major oil company) as Libya’s oil minister and in two months the Western oil companies were sucking out 1.3 million barrels a day.
End Quote
Note that part about an Italian oil company exec being installed as Libya’s oil minister.
Where have we seen that before? Oh, yes, Karzai in Afghanistan, allegedly a former consultant with Unocal – although Unocal denies that. Of course they couldn’t be lying especially since Unocal was negotiating with the Taliban pre-war for a pipeline…
Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?
(:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html)
And of course there was:
Oil company adviser named US representative to Afghanistan
By Patrick Martin
3 January 2002
:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/oil-j03.shtml
“President Bush has appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan.”
In any event, who was it said Libya had nothing to do with oil? Idiot Canning, wasn’t it?
fyi, Richard Steven Hack:
- Could any one of you actually tell me around how much money does it take to maintain, say a hundred nuclear warheads? I honestly don’t know but my understanding was that it takes more money to deploy and maintain the delivery systems of those nuclear weapons than the warheads themselves.
- I have read from various (what I considered reputable) sources that Pakistan has around 10-30 and India around 100 nuclear warheads. India is a relatively poor country and Israel has been a weapons state for much longer than India and so I don’t find it ridiculous to assume Israel could have the same number of warheads as India.
And besides it seems it takes India more money to develop and maintain a system like this than it would cost it to maintain its nuclear warheads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant_class_submarine
- UK’s money is spent on developing and maintaining its fleet of nuclear ballistic missile submarines, nuclear attack submarines to escort and protect those submarines, and the expensive Trident SLBMs that are launched from those submarines. It seems to me the UK hasn’t developed additional warheads not because it couldn’t or it would find it prohibitively expensive but because it has no need for it and finding additional delivery vehicles for those warheads is what would be too costly.
- Israel is not a global power and its adversaries and targets are local. So Israel has none of these expenses that these other nuclear countries do. So (theoretically) it could deploy a large number of warheads at its regional adversaries.
Hezbollah says gets support, not orders, from Iran
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120207/wl_nm/us_lebanon_hezbollah
Quote
Nasrallah said Iran had not issued orders to Hezbollah since the movement was founded 30 years ago, adding that if Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear sites, the leadership in Iran “would not ask anything of Hezbollah.”
He said if that were to happen, Hezbollah’s own leadership would “sit down, think and decide what to do.”
End Quote
Of course, Israel cannot ASSUME Hizballah won’t join in. So the imperative to weaken Hizballah before the Iran war remains.
Libya Begets Syria?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-begets-syria-6464
Quote
At the time of the Libya debate (to the extent that there was one), the president and his foreign-policy advisers dismissed concerns that the intervention in Libya would set a precedent. “It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs,” President Obama said in a televised speech to the nation on March 28, 2011. But, he continued:
that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country—Libya—at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. . . . To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.
At other times, the administration alluded to a loose set of guidelines to explain why it might choose to use force, guidelines which the Libya case met but other cases supposedly did not. These included the likelihood that a large-scale loss of life was imminent; the belief that prompt military action would prevent this violence; and the support of the international community, ideally a formal sanction in the UNSC (absent that, the approval of a regional body, such as the Arab League, might suffice).
End Quote
Let’s veto the West’s moral posturing on Syria
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12054/
Quotes
No, the real reason Russia’s and China’s actions appear so alien, so ‘incomprehensible’, to Western observers is because they are quite explicitly motored by geopolitical interests rather than by the fashion amongst Western foreign-policy departments for teenage moral bluster and highly changeable international positioning. The creeping consensus that Russia and China have inflamed instability in Syria glosses over the fact that today’s unhinged Western foreign policy-making, with its elevation of the short-term PR needs of Western leaders over any consideration of ‘the long game’, is far more destabilising than the occasional veto.
So a couple of years ago, America, Britain and France were courting the Assad regime, believing, in the words of Hillary Clinton, that Assad was ‘a reformer’. Under George W Bush, Syria was described as ‘evil’, of course, but following the election of Barack Obama in 2008 America’s attitude towards Assad became more conciliatory. Former presidential candidate John Kerry was sent to meet Assad, enthusiastically describing him as someone who ‘wants to engage with the West’, and in 2009 America appointed its first ambassador to Syria in five years. Meanwhile, in 2008 French president Nicolas Sarkozy invited Assad to become a member of the European Union’s Mediterranean Union and entertained his wife in Paris. As a news report in 2010 put it, ‘Assad is now courted by the West’.
Yet today, Western leaders describe Assad as ‘evil’ and anyone who refuses actively to condemn him as complicit in his crimes against humanity. This shift can’t be explained simply as a result of Assad’s brutal response to the Syrian uprising – after all, even when Kerry and Sarkozy and the rest were laying out the red carpet for Assad, while wearing what Time magazine described as ‘high-wattage smiles’, he was a ruthless ruler without a democratic bone in his body, known to lock up or beat up his political opponents. No, the West’s turnaround, its malarial leap from courting to condemning, reveals the lack of any political anchor in Western foreign policy-making today, which leads to a situation where Western foreign policy can become highly suggestible, shaped more by the short-term PR needs of people like Clinton and Hague than by anything so old-fashioned as carefully worked-out national interests.
End Quotes
Where have we seen that behavior before, i.e., “courting a dictator”?
Oh, yeah, someone named..let me think…Gaddafi…
And before that, uhm, who did the US support in the Iran-Iraq war? Saddam, right?
And before that, back in Vietnam, some guy named Nguyễn Văn Thiệu…
See a pattern here? The only difference is Thieu didn’t last long enough for the US to turn on him…
R S Hack,
I do think Haim Saban has compromised the Brookings Institute to a fair degree, however.
R S Hack,
Sheldon Adelson appears to favor an expulsion of all non-Jews from the West Bank. This is not Haim Saban’s position.
A good article and a more honest explanation on overall situation in Middle East
Seale: Syria and the new Cold War
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/seale-syria-and-the-new-cold-war/
“The Syrian crisis is no longer a purely Syrian affair. Its wider dimension was highlighted on February 4, when Russia and China cast their veto at the U.N. Security Council, thereby aborting a Western-backed Arab resolution that had called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down. At a stroke, the debate was no longer simply about Syria’s internal power struggle. Instead, with their vetoes, Moscow and Beijing were saying that they too had interests in the Middle East that they were determined to protect. The region was no longer an exclusive Western preserve under the hegemony of the United States and its allies.”
Those unsure who Haim Saban is, should read Philp Weiss’s piece that followed the New Yorker’s profile of Saban.
Quote: “[Connie] Bruck elided the fact that Zionist cipher Doug Feith joined the Bush administration following Adelson’s gift of $300,000 to the Republican Party.”
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/new-yorkers-haim-saban-profile-is-pretty-good.html
Lebanon seizes USAID cargo for Syrian rebels
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/lebanon-seizes-usaid-cargo-for-syrian-rebels/
Richard Steven Hack – Not only Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson – but Abe Foxman and Rev. John Hagee also agree 101% with each other when it omes to Americans dying in Israeli wars against her neighboring countries.
Phil Giraldi on The World Turned Upside Down
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/02/08/the-world-turned-upside-down-2/
Quote
But the real kicker last week was an op-ed by neocon-lite David Ignatius of The Washington Post, who is in Europe traveling with Panetta, in which he spelled out the steps the White House was taking to stop Israel from starting a war with Iran. Oddly, or perhaps not, the article included the following referring to possible U.S. abstention from the conflict: “Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.” Ignatius is unusually well-plugged in to White House and Pentagon circles, so what he says should be regarded as reliable. If his “could” should be understood as meaning “would,” his comment basically means that if Israel starts a war, even without warning Washington that it is coming, an Iranian reaction that hits civilian targets in Israel, either deliberately or not, would require a U.S. response because America is pledged to “defend” Israel no matter what and no matter who started the fighting. As Israel is physically a small country and Iranian missiles cannot hit targets with pinpoint accuracy, it is hard to imagine any Iranian response that would not strike civilian targets. If the U.S. response would be automatic, that means that the White House has effectively turned over its foreign po
End Quote
Ben-Obama being a smart cookie – knows that his future is stuck between two rocks. If he pleases he AIPAC masters and attack Islamic Republic – America will stuck with a non-ending war for the next three to four decades. But if don’t do it – he will be assassinated during his second term of presidency.
Don’t blame me for saying that. I’m just repeating Andrew B. Alder’s prophecy.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/jewish-editor-mossad-should-assassinate-obama/
James Canning says “I think Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson do not agree on Israel/Paletine.”
SERIOUS drug problem… Earl Grey can’t explain this…
Has to be something like Ketamine at the very least – some powerful hallucinogenic…
Scott Horton Interviews Muhammad Sahimi
Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering and political columnist on Iran issues, discusses the latest anti-Iran talking point from World Net Daily and serial propagandist Reza Kahlili (“Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel“); what Alireza Forghani, the blogger in question, really said about Israel and preemptive strikes; and why many Americans want to believe every anti-Muslim propaganda piece they see.
:http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/07/muhammad-sahimi-13/
MP3 here:
:http://dissentradio.com/radio/12_02_06_sahimi.mp3
Think Sassan has the balls to listen to this? This is the exact subject people here wasted umpteen posts debating that freak show with in the last thread…
R S Hack,
A primary reason the illegal invasion of Iraq took place is simply that G W Bush relied upon the advice of a person entirely unfit for her role as national security adviser. Condoleezza Rice and G W Bush were duped by the neocons.
R S Hack,
I think Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson do not agree on Israel/Paletine.
Newton Leroy Gingrich, writing in the Middle East Quarterly seven years ago, stated: “The US government should become the protector of the Palestinian people’s right to have a decent amount of land .. . It is vital to our credibility in the entire Middle EAst that we insist on an end to Israeli expansionism.”
ToivoS: “The problem with such a view of life is that there exists a single voice that gives instructions to our leaders and that they have no choice but to obey. Who is this voice?”
The world does not work like that.
I’ve said this before repeatedly. There are THOUSANDS of people involved. It’s simply the way society – virtually every civilized society in history – has been organized.
It’s not “one voice”. There is no “Illuminati” running everything. I am not a “conspiracy theorist”. I’ve said this repeatedly.
But there are people who call the shots and people who don’t. The Leveretts are people who don’t. Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson, by virtue of being billionaires, are people who do.
It’s that simple.
There are people who profit from the direction the US government goes in vis-a-vis foreign policy. There are people who profit from the direction the US government goes in vis-a-vis domestic policy.
There are people who profit if the government goes in the OTHER direction.
At any given time, some of these people are getting what they want and others aren’t.
The end result is what we call a “culture” and what we call “history.”
Is this so hard for people to comprehend?
Do you think the Iraq war came about the antiwar movement WON the debate? Or because it LOST…
Do you think the antiwar movement is WINNING on Iran? Or is it LOSING?
Do you think the people who run the US are backing down from a war with Iran? Based on what? WHAT EXACTLY – not some “gee, we haven’t attacked yet” or “de-escalation” hand waving…
It always comes down to this on this site. I say war is inevitable. People pop up to say, “Oh, no, everything is fine, be happy…”
Once again, when the bombs drop, I want every mother one of you who said that to be here to kiss my ass. Because trust me, *I* will be here for that.
An important article from Stratfor, I think. It mentions Iraq’s output could potentially rival that of even Saudi Arabia.
“US Energy Influence in Iraq”
An excerpt: “Iran typically holds the upper hand when it comes to influencing Baghdad and controlling Iraq’s sectarian conflicts, but it cannot compete with the investment capital and technologies that U.S. firms can bring to bear.”
http://stratfor.com/analysis/us-energy-influence-iraq
fyi: “This makes no sense to me since I fail to see what policy objective does US achieve through a war that will wreck her position globally.”
I have to say I’m beginning to think you’re as dense as Canning.
What part of “NO POLICY OBJECTIVE BESIDES PROFITS AND HEGEMONY” don’t you comprehend?
What part of “DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY CAN DO IT IN REALITY” don’t you comprehend?
Yes, the result of the Iran war will be a bleeding of the US economically, militarily and geopolitically.
Yes, this will make it MORE difficult for the ruling elites to achieve their hegemonic and profit goals in the future.
All of this is obvious to a RATIONAL person who is NOT blinded by the lust for money and power.
Are you unable to comprehend that this is EXACTLY the SAME position the neocons were in in 2003?
DID THAT STOP THE IRAQ WAR FROM HAPPENING?
Is it not OBVIOUS to you that the SAME neocons who blew Iraq are now pushing for war with Iran? With the SAME SUPPORT from the Israelis, the military-industrial complex, the oil companies and the banks that they had in 2003?
Try to comprehend. There is ZERO difference between the two situations except that Iran has a slightly elevated capability to cause trouble internationally for the US, more than Saddam had.
That difference is IRRELEVANT to the neocons and their supporters, otherwise we WOULD see a “de-escalation” of the situation – which, I repeat, we are NOT seeing.
I’m as done arguing with you as I am with Canning. It’s a waste of time. You’re set on your theories and your predictions.
Good luck with that. We’ll see.
fyi: “The CIA estimate is based, per your comment, on Dimona output.Not all of that output can be weaponized, based on cost alone.”
What, you think the CIA didn’t think of that? You’re the only one who thought of that?
And again, estimate based on GDP is absolutely irrelevant.
The only problems with the CIA estimates is that because Dimona is not under IAEA observation there can be no assurance of its capacity.
But the CIA was estimating 10-20 nukes back in *1968*. The notion that Israel only has the same number now is absurd.
They have at least 50-100 Jericho missiles they might need to arm with nukes. That alone says they have at least 50 nukes. Plus they have 200kg warheads that will fit on the cruise missiles they have and they have at least 12 of those.
Your estimates are ridiculous and I’m going to ignore anything further from you on that since you’re just hand waving.
Castellio, FYI,
“2010 According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, Israel has between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads, most of them are probably being kept in unassembled mode…”
I very much doubt Israel has nukes on its missiles (Jericho, etc) because they would have to be removed to allow the missiles to take a conventional payload.
ToivoS,
Yes, who would be the person “telling Obama what to do”? Joe Biden told Obama not to increase hugely the American military presence in Afghanstan; Hillary Clinton told Obama to do just that.
b,
Thank you for posting a link to the Ayatollah Khamenei’s February 3 Friday prayers. There are many interesting passages, but this one reminded me that I’d noticed the same thing about Obama’s State of the Union address a few weeks ago. I don’t know what a US president should say about the Occupy Wall Street protests that have been going on for four months in the US, but they certainly deserve mention:
“A few days ago, in his address to the US Congress, Obama did not even mention the fact that the people of America have been in the streets for more than four months. In this cold weather, so many people come together in the streets in different states of America and they stand up against the pressure and persecution by the police. Was this not worth mentioning? He did not at all mention this issue.”
fyi says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:45 pm
With the current military structure in Iran possibility of a military cope is as long away as a trip to mars, whoever is dreaming of that must have been on high dosage of sleeping pills maybe Valeume or Prozac 40 mil or above.
But i think that is the solution in Syria considering a civil war.
If the sanctions don’t work, Ehud will strike!
==========================================
“India emerged as a major new irritant on Thursday in Western efforts to isolate Iran, announcing that it was sending a large trade delegation there within weeks to exploit opportunities created by the American and European antinuclear sanctions that are increasingly disrupting Iran’s economy. ”
From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/world/middleeast/india-sees-economic-opportunities-in-iran.html
O.K. Ehud, show us what you’re made of.
————–
Richard,
Folks don’t have to be ready to fight the lone superpower militarily to thrash her fantasies. They just have to increase the superpower’s costs. In India’s case, they can even profit short-term, and establish a long-term steady stream of economic/financial/banking benefits.
The painful part is the US will lose to India/Russia/China whether or not they start a war with Iran. They have lost already. Bromwich’s is a postmortem.
kooshy says: February 9, 2012 at 5:29 pm
By military logic, air war results in land war.
I think US leaders expect regime change through coup – like 1953 in Iran and 1973 in Chile.
I think Iranian leaders clearly are avoiding being provoked and continue their policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
I expect Syria to remain an Iranian allie in the post-Assad period.
Anyone wants to expand on “the eastward expansion of NATO: a disaster whose consequences the American people have yet to appreciate fully”?
“Obama was told what to do”
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
fyi says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm
“US will not enter a war that from the start will be long and will lead to stalemate, while not achieving her political aims.”
You are correct, if US chose to go to war with Iran, what would be her ultimate goal, obviously as numerously stated by various inside and outside government official the goal would ultimately be a regime change. Considering this as the ultimate goal and the only vehicle to achieve that remains to be a military action, US will encounter two choices a limited overt Arial war (06 Lebanon style) or a long war involving ground troops and land invasion with covert action by Special Forces. Most analyst and even the US military has continuously dismissed any possibility of a land war, and frankly impossible considering size and train of Iran, on the first option of an Arial war, US has already tried to do that, which is back in 06 in Lebanon and didn’t achieve its goal, due to not achieving the goal set forward from the beginning she lost the war, besides US has already tried a regime change in Iran using the green movement without shooting a single bullet and it didn’t work as well, what would make US thinks an Arial war support will make people go to the streets and topple the government and if didn’t or couldn’t, is US ready to be dragged in to a long war which will requiring to amass half million troops on Iran, in this case if the Arial war doesn’t achieve a regime change one way or another US will be forced to go to a ground war once Iran start shooting at US installations nearby, I don’t think US is willing or capable to be dragged in that scenario no matter how much Israelis cry.
So the only hot war US is willing and has been involved is a cold war of words and that will continue for foreseeable future.
Richard Hack reveals: “that Obama has been told what to do”
The problem with such a view of life is that there exists a single voice that gives instructions to our leaders and that they have no choice but to obey. Who is this voice? Theories abound; from free masons to Jewish bankers to the trilateral commission to whatever conspiracy one prefers. There is no evidence for these cabals. There is however, abundant evidence of competing blocks of power at the highest levels of government and international relations. Reality is complicated and it is sometimes very difficult to figure out what the power blocks are doing and who works for whom. Hence lazy thinking gravitates to simple minded conspiracy theories.
Voice of Tehran: “It seems that the cabals as of today think that a war with Iran is feasible , however the current world matters are evaluated on an almost daily basis , thus be patient.”
I’m patient with events. It’s hard to be patient with people with blinders on about those events.
The “grasping at straws” here over this hallucinated “de-escalation” nonsense is annoying as hell. All these people who believe that crap are on Quaaludes…
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Your assertions will no cause my estimates to be wrong.
The CIA estimate is based, per your comment, on Dimona output.
Not all of that output can be weaponized, based on cost alone.
I stand by my estimate – 16 to 25.
ToivoS: “I think Bromwich extracts the salient points of the book. That is Obama the politician and leader is being torn by competing factions and is reacting with paralysis.”
That is one interpretation. The other is mine: that Obama has been told what to do but doesn’t particularly like being told what to do. But he does it anyway because he also has no desire to be someone who is NOT at the level he has achieved. He got where he is because he sucked up to the powers that be. Like anyone else, he doesn’t like that. But also like most people, he can’t do anything about it.
“The information we have indicates that he is not interested in and probably opposed to going to war with Iran.”
Not exactly. As I’ve said, actions speak louder than words. Who cares if Obama has misgivings about starting an Iran war if he starts one anyway?
The assumption is always that Obama CAN prevent an Iran war. This assumption has never been explained in terms of what actions he can actually take to do so, short of simply declaring “I’m not going to do that.”
He has never said that. He has never even INTIMATED that. What he has repeatedly said instead is “all options are on the table” – and we know what that precisely means.
If Obama had ANY independence at all as a US President, there is a lot he could do to derail the push for war. The fact that he does not tells us all we need to know both about him and about any alleged “independence”.
“He has the backing of the military, CIA and most of State in this regard.”
First, he does not have the backing of “the military”. A couple flunkies have said they didn’t want an Iran war, or that an Iran war would be “bad”. We don’t know how the leadership of the Pentagon thinks because we have never seen a poll of all the civilian Assistant Secretaries of Defense or the service generals. So saying he has the “backing of the military” is a very large over statement.
The same applies to the CIA. The CIA (and the rest of the 16 intelligence agencies) to their credit appear to have refused to fudge the facts about Iran as they did in the run up to the Iraq war.
This is NOT “backing”. Again, we don’t know WHAT “the CIA” thinks. We have a pretty good idea what the current head of the CIA – Petraeus – thinks – and it’s not good.
As for State – they’re irrelevant and always have been. The ultimate in flunkies.
More importantly, Obama has NEVER at ANY time to my knowledge referred to 1) anyone in the military or state or intelligence agencies who opposes an Iran war; 2) either the 2007 or 2011 NIEs or the recent Mossad statement that agrees with those NIEs; 3) anyone at all in the MSM who has ever opposed an Iran war.
He has never ONCE admitted ANY doubt that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. He has never ONCE admitted ANY doubt of IAEA reports concerning Iran despite several MSM news reports that blew up, for example, the notion that Iran had Russian nuclear scientists helping them build trigger mechanisms.
In short, Obama has NEVER EVER EVEN ONCE attempted to make it anything less than CERTAIN that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
“On the other hand there is Israel, AIPAC and their control over Congress pushing for a war.”
AND let’s not forget the REAL power in the United States: the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, the banks. Again, it’s NOT JUST ISRAEL. Long before Israel existed, the ruling elites of the US were getting the US into wars for profit…
“His superbowel Sunday interview telling the world that US policy is in “lockstep” with Israel is probably worse than nothing in that Israel might interpret that as the green light they are seeking.”
Agreed. Obama was supported by the Pritzker and Crown families in Chicago precisely BECAUSE they knew he could be instructed to be subservient to Israel. They actually issued a statement during his election campaign that he would be firmly on the side of Israel. Their primary interests are in Israel, as well as in their stock holdings of General Dynamics.
Finally, there is the FACT that if Obama had ANY DOUBTS AT ALL about a war with Iran, he would NOT be pushing the bogus “nuclear weapons” EXCUSE because that is the ONLY subject over which he could conceivably “justify” a MILITARY option against Iran.
1) Obama KNOWS Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, only a legal enrichment program (however much he might not like ANY country to have domestic enrichment.)
2) Obama KNOWS he cannot get a war based on any OTHER criticism of Iran he might produce to justify NON-MILITARY regime change in Iran.
3) Therefore Obama, by pushing the equivalent of Bush’s “WMD” charge, is deliberately pursuing a course which can ONLY be resolved by MILITARY means.
Q.E.D.
OR…Obama is just too stupid to understand that…
Take your pick. But no one ever called Obama stupid…
Gash says: February 9, 2012 at 4:48 pm
No.
He does not need more money to win.
And he has Black, Hispanic, and a (minority) of White poople’s votes.
He will be re-elected.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm
I find your arguments incoherent.
If I may paraphrase:
“There will be war, because Obama is an “Uncle Tom”, who will wage a war (against iran) becuase of his masters have told him to do so.
And the reason is for the war is to make money.”
This makes no sense to me since I fail to see what policy objective does US achieve through a war that will wreck her position globally.
Castellio says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:47 pm
That’s it in a nutshell, Castellio. And I’ve pointed out these deficiencies to Parsi many times in the past, so he can’t claim ignorance.
I can’t say for sure but I suspect he’s just full of himself, with his high level government access and television appearances. No one serious about improving the lives of ordinary Americans and Iranians would contribute towards the demonization campaign against Iran, which only effectively serves the needs of hawks pushing for war against Iran. But that’s what many national level leaders in DC want to hear (like Rep. Eshoo), and their little boy Trita so eagerly wishes to please them. I mean, our family Lhasa Apso is eager to please, too, but he’s a heckuva lot more independent than Trita!
Looking back, I think Bush maybe werent that bad, compared to Obama, Bush actually had a backbone even if it was corrupt, and despite the harsh rhetoric and actions Bush administration decided against war on Iran.
Obama on the other hand is something you could move in the right direct due his incompetence and lack of authority, a insecure president.
Obama, Ban ki-moon and Amano all belongs in this position, weak leaders that are fronts for bigger interest.
Will Obama intiate a war just so he can get cash and the israeli-vote to be reelected?
RSH, thanks for that info. So it would make sense, until further information is made available, to assume at least 50 operational nuclear warheads…
It was b who posted the official English translation of the full text of the Supreme Leader’s Friday Prayer Address (see first post on this thread).
Thanks, b!
Yes, ToivoS, understandable but not particularly helpful.
Better if the organization said: We insist that direct negotiations be opened between the US and Iran, however they may be arranged, through whatever intermediary possible, for however long it takes.
They aren’t going to get rid of the regime by supporting the bombing, and they aren’t going to stop the bombing by hating the regime. They should be pushing extremely hard for a deescalation rooted in their long term faith in Iran’s continuing evolution.
Castellio: On Israeli nukes, some info:
Submarine nuclear capability:
Popeye Turbo
:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm
Jericho 2
:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/jericho-2.htm
Cordesman has a book out some of which is available for reading at Google Books:
Israel and Syria: the military balance and prospects of war
By Anthony H. Cordesman, Aram Nerguizian, Ionut C. Popesc
:http://books.google.com/books?id=Yr_DsC59L3UC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=israel+operational+warhead+deployment&source=bl&ots=FLkCe6SXbh&sig=VfPyOs-zkE4WzibMoHRghazQf8s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MTk0T4aWCYihiALxiPC1Cg&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=israel%20operational%20warhead%20deployment&f=false
According to pages I read there, the actual deployment of Israeli missiles is not clear. At least 30-50 Jericho missile silos were deployed on mobile launchers in shelters in caves southwest of Tel Aviv. Another source claimed that Israel had 50 Jerichos deployed on mobile launchers on flat cars that could be wheeled out of shelters in the Negev desert. More recent reports indicate 50 Jericho II missiles in underground bunkers carved into limestone hills near a base near Kefar Zeharya.
The book says “the number that are on alert, command and control and targeting arrangements, and the method of giving them nuclear warheads has never been convincingly reported.”
Best info I can find…
Eric A. Brill says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:22 pm
To me what’s more interesting is that Washington Post find itself obliged to print the Chinese ambassador’s extended reply.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:59 pm
“How many TIMES do I have to tell you that it DOES NOT MATTER whether ANY of those goals CAN BE ACHIEVED in THIS reality?”
Richard , easy , in the last thread you mentioned yourself that the cabals need the ‘rubel to roll’. ( even if they have to move to Switzerland )
It seems that the cabals as of today think that a war with Iran is feasible , however the current world matters are evaluated on an almost daily basis , thus be patient.
Castellio asks : “So, another way of asking the same question might be this: Doesn’t Parsi represent the confusions of the ex-pat Iranian community, which is not playing any effective role in the bridging of Iranian and US interests?”
There is that too. I am friends with a few Iranian expats who are intensely nationalistic, support Iran’s nuclear program (including weapons if they so desired) and oppose US military attacks against their country. They hate the Islamist regime with a passion. Some days they are against sanctions because of their innate nationalism, other days they support them because they see them weakening the hated regime. Contradictions to be sure, but quite understandable.
Interested says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Obama pretends to be a man of reason, but he’s even worse that Bush because of his hypocrisy.
That’s why , Michelle for president.
In the sketch I mentioend earlier , she had an impressive appearance , a ” Zuchtstute ( broodmare) ” kind of thing :-)
Obama pretends to be a man of reason, but he’s even worse that Bush because of his hypocrisy.
fyi: “GDP of Israel is less than 1/10-th of that of UK’s. So I estimate the number of their operational warheads at 16 and total number no more than 25.”
I’ll dismiss that as an absurdity. The CIA estimated more than that back in the ’70’s, based on the output capacity of the Dimona reactor.
Your GDP estimate is just ridiculous and irrelevant.
“In four years, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama, the agent of hope and change, has become the prince of darkness and his presidency has become a farce ~ an absurdly futile exercise in pretense and broken promises from a president who cloaks himself in armor and answers only to the global elite”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/08/obama-2012-may-the-farce-be-with-you/
fyi: “You are not thinking like a strategist, you are thinking too tactically; like an infantry man.”
I disagree.
“The Axis Powers are aiming to cause regime change in Iran through intimidation and economic destablization.”
Yes, of course.
“[I surmise also that they may have had some communication from some poeple inside Iran who claim to represent this or that faction in Iran and who have encouraged them in this course of action.]”
Irrelevant, but OK.
“That is the fundamental reason that US-EU elected to escalate in 2007. And again in 2010. And again in 2011.”
No cause and effect established here at all. Wrong.
“Even Mr. Mousavian, a critique of the Iranian government, is now expressing schock and surprise that US did not act upon the chance in 2010 to resolve the nuclear issue.”
So what? He doesn’t understand the US ruling elites, either.
“But now they have alarmed other states as well, for war with Iran will force Russia to reinforce Iran and also jeopradize China’s position in the Middle East. Even Indians have moved against US in this regard.”
True. But not yet relevant until those countries are prepared to tell the US – the world’s major superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and the largest military on the planet, spending over 40% of the ENTIRE world military budget BY ITSELF and twenty times more than the next largest nations – that they are prepared to resist MILITARILY.
“And the Iranians came and said that they are ready for war and will go to war.”
Yes. And the Pentagon has great confidence they can defeat Iran any conventional war. And while the Pentagon SHOULD have learned it CAN NOT defeat Iran in unconventional war, the lesson of Afghanistan is that they have NOT learned that.
And in either case, it is irrelevant because the Pentagon is not calling the shots.
“And that was when Americans started back-tracking.”
Now you’re just hallucinating. There is ZERO evidence for ANY “back tracking.”
Really, you people come up with this “de-escalation” nonsense out of whole cloth. The US has just imposed the heaviest sanctions ever imposed on any nation in history. The US has moved dozens of naval vessels, hundreds of aircraft, thousands of troops and the largest conventional bombs in history into position around Iran. The US CONTINUES to ramp up the rhetoric against Iran, inventing “terrorist plots” and “Mexico drug gang connections” and who knows what. Obama continues to talk about “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” and “all options are on the table”.
Yet somehow you people see “de-escalation” here…
Like I asked about Canning, fyi, WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU ON? Can I get some?
“US will not enter a war that from the start will be long and will lead to stalemate, while not achieveing her political aims.”
How many TIMES do I have to tell you that the US HAS NO POLITICAL AIMS except WAR PROFITS, OIL PROFITS, and HEGEMONY?
How many TIMES do I have to tell you that it DOES NOT MATTER whether ANY of those goals CAN BE ACHIEVED in THIS reality?
You’re completely out of touch with reality, just like Canning.
Every single thing you talk about was ALSO TRUE about BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq! And yet we had the war ANYWAY! What part of that can’t you understand?
And I just posted an article explaining how Obama is the SAME sort of NEO-CON that started the war in Iraq, masquerading as a Democrat!
Well, fyi, when the bombs start dropping, I WILL BE HERE to tell you that you were wrong. And I expect you to be here to acknowledge that fact.
I can be wrong any number of times about when the Iran war will start. I only have to be right once when it does. You have to be right forever. Good luck with that.
ToivoS says: February 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Yes.
US diplomats could forge and execute a realistic Iran strategy in less than a week if they were authorized to do so.
But they cannot until ordered by people in higher pay grades.
ToivoS writes: “My read on this is that Parsi is a political player and if he had pushed realistic diplomacy too hard, it would have undercut his influence inside the beltway.”
This is a serious question: if he had pushed realistic diplomacy harder wouldn’t he have more influence inside the beltway?
Right now his position is expendable, tolerated but of no significance nor resonance.
Or was he actually playing to his support, which is anti-Islamic Iranians in America who themselves can’t tolerate thoughts about the Iranian regime?
So, another way of asking the same question might be this: Doesn’t Parsi represent the confusions of the ex-pat Iranian community, which is not playing any effective role in the bridging of Iranian and US interests?
Relevant to the discussion of Obama in particular…
What’s Up With Obama?
Why the Neo-Con Turn?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/09/why-the-neo-con-turn/
Quotes
Therefore, even in this post-Citizens’ United world, where corporations and plutocrats are free to spend all they want, Obama – who is no slouch at raising malefactor money in his own right — can hardly lose. That should be OK with Romney’s backers; they like Mitt better, but they win either way.
And they can still hope: the Israel lobby, with Congress in tow, could force Obama to stumble into a devastating war with Iran – spreading death and destruction and economic catastrophe. (Could installing a Republican in the White House be among Israel’s reasons for pushing so hard for a war with Iran?) [MY NOTE: Yes... - RSH]
Obama, or at least the Obama of term one, will be remembered, above all, for disappointing the hopes of the constituencies that put him in office. He will also be remembered not just for having raised the level of ambient hypocrisy, but for the audacity with which he talks the talk, while walking a very different walk. The more Obama waxes ‘populist,’ the better the rich do, and the more corporate criminality flourishes. The more he speaks of peace, the more the drones fly, and the more his very own Murder Incorporated (Navy Seals and the rest) spread murder and mayhem.
He gets away with it, in large part, because he’s good at fooling some of the people all of the time – not all liberals, but a sizeable number of them. Once it becomes clear to all that the Republicans will nominate their least scary contender, expect those liberals to make fools of themselves big time.
If you can’t scare them into voting for Obama, then tell them how, in the face of powerful entrenched interests and Republican obstinacy, he has been the best of all possible presidents. It is a nauseating prospect.
In taking up where Bush and Cheney left off, Obama has always conducted a neoconservative foreign and military policy. Now he seems to be moving towards talking up a neoconservative line as well. It isn’t clear why; one would think that there would be as little percentage in talking that talk now as there was four years ago. But it is happening, and whatever Obama’s reasons are, it is a disturbing development.
But Obama’s readiness of late to signal approval for neoconservative ideology marks a new departure. What makes it all the more astonishing is how unnecessary it is. It is not as if anything is changing at the policy level. In deeds, not words, Obama has always been a practicing neocon; from Day One he could justifiably have declared “we are all neoconservatives now.” But he had too much sense to do anything of the sort — then.
Instead, in recent weeks he has conspicuously paraded about with Robert Kagan’s latest book-length neocon apologia, The World America Made. How far we have come from those halcyon days when it was just the anodyne pop history of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals upon which the Presidential blessing was conferred.
Unless we have all been wrong about how smart Obama is, it could hardly be because he finds neocon musings intellectually engaging. [MY NOTE: Maybe you WERE wrong about how smart he is... Maybe just TALKS a good game...- RSH] And we can only hope that he isn’t testing the waters, seeing how much liberals of the Obama-is-the-best-of-all-possible-presidents school will accept. The most likely explanation is that, with an election coming, this is a calculated move on Obama’s part to close what space there is that separates him from Romney, the better to capture the rightward veering center.
Whatever the cause, there are indications of late that Obama has taken on board Kagan’s main contention – that American power is not in decline; that, quite the contrary, we are on the threshold of another glorious American century. The plain implication is that there is no hard crash in the offing, and therefore no need for the empire to change course. American world dominance isn’t over yet, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. And for this, the argument goes, the world can only be grateful.
This conceit was especially evident in Obama’s State of the Union address, where it was directly proclaimed. And it is implicit in Obama’s increasingly frequent harping on military themes.
But Obama’s words, in the State of the Union and other venues, are above and beyond the now customary norm; increasingly, he sounds more like an ardent militarist than a Nobel laureate burdened with tragic choices.
Neoconservatism is a geopolitical doctrine about how to keep the American empire going. Its principal contention is that the way to do so is through war and preparation for war, and that the point of America’s wars should be “regime change” undertaken to make the world safe for American domination, neoliberal globalization, and Israel – not necessarily in that order. There isn’t much more to it than that.
Obama has been walking the neocon walk since Day One. Despite mighty America’s (unacknowledged) differences with tiny Israel, he hasn’t even pushed back against Benjamin Netanyahu’s bullying; he doesn’t dare with Congress in AIPAC’s pocket. And he could hardly be more subservient to the Pentagon brass. But until now he has at least tried to be discreet about it; he was just a closet neocon. Now that is changing. Is it because he feels that the pressure to go to war against Iran is becoming irresistible, and that the wisest course for him, in an election year, is: if you can’t beat them, to join them? [MY NOTE: Exactly what Bromwich said... - RSH]
End Quotes
Here is another person who clearly shows that Obama WANTS WAR!
Seriously, you guys can mouth “Obama doesn’t want a war with Iran” right up to the day the bombs start falling.
Well, but he does.
And the article finishes with this:
Quote
Why is impossible to say because while Obama’s governing style and his willingness to be pushed around by the powers that be are there for all to see, his deepest wishes remain obscure. As term one winds down with term two in the offing, the deepest mystery about this President remains unsolved: what is he up to with his countless capitulations and his vain efforts to strike “bipartisan” compromises? What does he really want?
End Quote
He wants to be America’s first black President.
But he can’t. Because he isn’t. He’s America’s first black Uncle Tom. He is owned and operated by Jewish corporation heads who MADE him America’s first black “President”.
In reality, he’s a flunkie who does what he’s told by the people who REALLY run the United States. And he knows it.
And like any black man, he hates it. But he can’t do anything about it because, like every slave, he yearns to be the master – even if it’s just a matter of being the foreman of the plantation.
Obama is the foreman of the American plantation. Nothing more.
The OWNERS of the plantation are the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, the banks and the Israel Lobby billionaires.
We’re just the cotton pickers.
Thank you, Eric, no offense taken, and the respect is reciprocated.
To note, I had several postings to Cole’s site censored, which surprised me as they were, at least in my opinion, neither controversial nor in bad faith. So I rarely post there anymore. Why post to a site that only wants fluffy comments?
Best wishes to you.
“”British troops involved in Homs operation”"
http://www.presstv.com/detail/225801.html
James this cannot be true , British troops no way , your comment please.
It should be noted that much of Bromwich’s essay relies on Trita Parsi’s book “one throw of the dice” that the Leverett’s reviewed below. I think Bromwich extracts the salient points of the book. That is Obama the politician and leader is being torn by competing factions and is reacting with paralysis. The information we have indicates that he is not interested in and probably opposed to going to war with Iran. He has the backing of the military, CIA and most of State in this regard. On the other hand there is Israel, AIPAC and their control over Congress pushing for a war. Obama is too fearful to confront them so he does nothing. His superbowel Sunday interview telling the world that US policy is in “lockstep” with Israel is probably worse than nothing in that Israel might interpret that as the green light they are seeking.
In any case Bromwich I believe is pointing out the positive message in Parsi’s book. That is, there is a very dangerous political game in play and Obama does not have the skills to manage it. The Leverett’s review focused on a much narrower aspect of Parsi’s book and that was the unproductive diplomacy that he was advocating. My read on this is that Parsi is a political player and if he had pushed realistic diplomacy too hard, it would have undercut his influence inside the beltway.
Castellio,
No offense intended. I have great respect for you.
An interesting passage in a Washington Post article today about the upcoming visit to Washington by China’s vice president:
QUOTATION:
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice called the [Chinese veto of the Syria resolution] “disgusting and shameful.”
At the Thursday briefing, Cui [another Chinese official] repeatedly defended China’s veto — a rare move for the country, which has traditionally abstained on controversial votes. He said China reserved the right to use its veto more often in the future, noting growing concern in Beijing that the United States and its allies might use Security Council resolutions to justify military interventions to overthrow governments.…
“We did not do it to provoke anyone,” he said. “But maybe some countries that tend to use force or tend to interfere in the affairs of other countries might be angered by China’s attitude. We can’t help that.”
Responding to Rice’s heated comments, Cui said, “To trade accusations against each other will not help solve this issue.”
China abstained last March, along with four other Security Council members, on a resolution setting up a “no-fly zone” over Libya and authorizing “all necessary means” to protect civilians — only to see NATO warplanes launch a wave of airstrikes that helped rebel forces oust Moammar Gaddafi.
Cui said China has always been “cautious and responsible” in using its veto power as one of the Security Council’s five permanent veto-wielding members. “We’ve only used our veto power on eight occasions,” Cui said, adding, “If someone should be criticized for using the veto power, then the U.S. should be blamed for using its veto power the most,” Cui said.
END OF QUOTATION.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-us-clash-on-syria-other-global-issues-ahead-of-xi-visit/2012/02/09/gIQAGWNa0Q_story.html
For the record, note the source:
“Debka: Massive US Military Buildup on Two Strategic Islands: Socotra and Masirah
Sources estimate from the current pace of arrivals on the two island bases, that 50,000 US troops will have accumulated on Socotra and Masirah by mid-February. They will top up the 50,000 military already present in the Persian Gulf region, so that in less than a month, Washington will have some 100,000 military personnel on the spot and available for any contingency.”
http://www.pacificrimcoins.com/pacrim/content/debka-massive-us-military-buildup-two-strategic-islands-socotra-and-masirah
James, I don’t think any Arab nation is about to attack Israel, nor any Persian nation, either, for that matter. Why are you repeatedly addressing that point to me?
Richard,
“Stop thinking like YOU. Start thinking like THEM.
Then you might get a clue as to what’s really going on. As Sun Tzu said, if you don’t understand your enemy, you will be unable to predict his actions and you will lose.
Of course, given the relative level of power, you’re gonna lose anyway, but hey, that’s life…”
Let me teach YOU a few things, young man.
1. If I’m going to lose anyway, why would I bother “starting to think like THEM.” It would give me a headache. It would waste my time. It would be futile. Why not eat, drink and be merry and enjoy life, since I’m going to lose anyway?
BUT
2. I don’t intend to lose.
2a. Knowledge of the enemy is THE number one MOST potent weapon against it –
especially this particular enemy that is so threatened by, for example, Ahmadinejad’s exposure of the holy caustic secret. Truth is the mortal enemy of the enemy regime.
2b. Relative level of power may be determinative if you’re waging symmetric war, but not if you’re fighting an overweight overarmed overconfident thug. Then, all you need is a piece of wire to trip him up.
In other words #1, the bigger they are the harder they fall;
in other words #2, old age and cunning beats youth and vigor almost every time;
in other words #3, David slew Goliath
in other words #4, Persia conquered Lydia
James Canning says: February 9, 2012 at 2:52 pm
None.
US strategy has been to use the nuclear issue to destroy the Islamic Republic.
In 2007, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Ross were in the US government.
As the US position in Iraq deteriorated and eventually eliminated, the urgency of rducing Iranian power increased.
As for Mr. Obama; there is no arena in US foreign policy that you can point to in which he has had any lasting success.
Castellio,
The secretary of the Arab League says there is no chance any Arab country would attack Israel, on first-strike basis. No chance.
Castellio,
As FYI notes, simple cost-benefit calculations say Israel does not have nukes mounted on missiles and ready-to-go. Would make zero sense. Will look for something more authoritative.
fyi,
Yes, nukes are expensive. The UK stores its nukes in South Carolina.
Israel currently has zero need to have nukes mounted on missiles ready for send-off.
James, I find that interesting, and I thank you for your direct answers.
Given that you think Israeli warheads are not mounted on missiles nor programmed at targets I agree that it is not necessary to answer the last two questions.
Does anybody reading this site know whether the Israeli nuclear weapons are mounted on missiles?
Eric,
After the US saw it could not get the further UNSC resolution on Iraq, it double-crossed France, Germany and Russia and concocted the lie that Iraq posed a threat (which the CIA knew was rubbish). Doug Feith admitted the Bush administration agreed on the lie, as best cover for attacking Iraq.
http://rt.com/usa/news/iran-us-drone-obama-933/
“we will step on the United states”
I’m looking forward to the anti-Iranian crazies telling us how they literary believe this means Iran is going to “step” (that is “with a big shoe”) on the United States and killing everybody. The Horror.
Anyway. I like the pink touch to it. I’m sure Obama is going to love it.
(In other news, my firefox spellchecker red-lines Obama. Offers Osama instead… :)
James Canning says: February 9, 2012 at 2:49 pm
During a debate on the Queen’s Speech on 26 May 2010 Foreign Secretary William Hague reiterated that the UK has no more than 160 operationally available warheads, and announced that the total number will not exceed 225.
GDP of Israel is less than 1/10-th of that of UK’s.
So I estimate the number of their operational warheads at 16 and total number no more than 25.
Their warheads are almost certainly using plutonium and need to be periodically dismantled and upgraded – at fixed cost.
Castellio,
Mormons would have to be “honorary Christians” to be Christian Zionists, since most Christian Zionists do not think Mormons are Christians.
Remember “honorary whites” in South Africa?
fyi,
Very interesting that Mousavian would say in effect the US blundered in 2010 by not resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran. He is quite right, of course.
How much credit should go to Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross for Obama’s blunder in 2010?
RSH, you make important points at 2.41 and I agree with you.
It’s also important to point out that ZOG includes Christian Zionists, who will use the ideology to present their moral credentials for election to an ill-informed American public. True, these Christian Zionists have received substantial assistance from the Jewish Zionists, but they have developed a momentum of their own.
The transformation of the whole Mormon Church into a Christian Zionist institution is a possibility.
To be fair to Juan Cole, I thought I ought to pay a visit to his website.
I find that not much has changed, except that there appear to be marginally fewer commenters and even less “robust debate” (with the exception of comments from a few prominent posters from the Race for Iran website).
Today, for example, Dr. Cole wrote about a Chinese official’s explanation for China’s veto of the UNSC resolution on Syria. Among other reasons, China had been concerned that the US would overstep the language of the Syria resolution, as the US had tried unsuccessfully to do in Iraq (1441) and had done blatantly in Libya last year (1973).
That begat numerous comments reminding the website’s audience of the perfidy of the Bush/Cheney crowd in trying to overstep the authority granted under UNSC Resolution 1441 on Iraq (which effort the US eventually abandoned, falling back instead on a “self defense” argument that enabled the US to ignore the Security Council entirely). A “robust debate” indeed, entirely permissible because Dr. Cole had been strongly opposed to the US invasion of Iraq.
But how about the Chinese official’s reference to Libya (Resolution 1973) as another example of the US overstepping the authority granted under a UNSC resolution? (For those who have forgotten or never knew, Dr. Cole was a fervent (for lack of a stronger adjective) supporter of the Libya war.) How “robust” was the debate on that observation by the Chinese writer?
Answer: Not very.
Only one comment made the cut, and probably only because the comment consisted of a “rhetorical” question whose answer was so “obvious” that Dr. Cole allowed the commenter to answer it himself:
“Would you re-think your position on the Western intervention in Libya because China links it to that in Iraq? Of course not.”
Note all that is implicit and explicit in that brief comment.
First, the writer assumes that his audience’s “position on the Western intervention in Libya” was identical to that of Dr. Cole: strongly in favor of it – that’s what makes his question “rhetorical,” after all. And well he might assume that, since Dr. Cole was ruthless last year in barring posters who disagreed with his position on the Libya war (unless, of course, the disagreeable comment had flaws, in which case Dr. Cole would eagerly post it and gleefully pounce on the hapless commenter).
Second, the commenter, by answering his own question with Dr. Cole’s approval, makes clear his view (with which Dr. Cole strongly agrees) that it was absurd for the Chinese (and Russians) to have been skeptical about the UNSC Syria resolution merely because they felt the US had overstepped the authority granted in Libya under Resolution 1973.
Though it would be pointless even to try to get the following point across on Juan Cole’s website, there are many others out there -– not only the Chinese and Russians who vetoed the Syria resolution –- who seriously doubt that the US would have considered the UNSC Syria resolution as anything less than another “blank check.” I certainly think that. As Resolution 1973 was being stretched beyond recognition in Libya last summer, I predicted (hardly alone) that Russia and China would think very long and very hard before approving another UNSC resolution granting any authority whatsoever to intervene in a Middle East country.
That is exactly what has since happened in Syria. Predictably, Juan Cole, and many others like him who press for yet another US war in the Middle East, are whining about it. Perhaps he and his echo-chamber commenters would be less surprised and annoyed if they considered more carefully China’s “linkage” of its Syria-resolution veto with its displeasure over the US’ blatant stretching of Resolution 1973 in Libya.
Castellio,
Israel has at least 240 nukes? Maybe even 300? Are any of those weapons already mounted on missiles, and targeted? I doubt it. But I confess I have seen no secret intel on this topic.
There is virtually zero chance Egypt would attack Israel. Or Syria, for that matter. Or any other Arab country.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 2:12 pm
You stated:
“Either you believe Obama wants war or you believe he does not. If he does not, then why is he pursuing a course leading to war.”
You are not thinking like a strategist, you are thinking too tactically; like an infantry man.
The Axis Powers are aiming to cause regime change in Iran through intimidation and economic destablization.
[I surmise also that they may have had some communication from some poeple inside Iran who claim to represent this or that faction in Iran and who have encouraged them in this course of action.]
That is the fundamental reason that US-EU elected to escalate in 2007.
And again in 2010.
And again in 2011.
Even Mr. Mousavian, a critique of the Iranian government, is now expressing schock and surprise that US did not act upon the chance in 2010 to resolve the nuclear issue.
But now they have alarmed other states as well, for war with Iran will force Russia to reinforce Iran and also jeopradize China’s position in the Middle East. Even Indians have moved against US in this regard.
And the Iranians came and said that they are ready for war and will go to war.
And that was when Americans started back-tracking.
US will not enter a war that from the start will be long and will lead to stalemate, while not achieveing her political aims.
That is why I do not see any chance of war.
The US-EU sanctions will remain, the nuclear file will remain unresolved, and Iranians will cope and the rest of the world will adjust (sanctions will be busted and eroded).
This is the most likely scenario.
The nuclear negogiation track is dead for now.
May be they Axis Powers will revive it in 2013 but the deal that was on the table from Iranians in 2003, or 2005, or 2010 will no longer be there (there will be a new government in Tehran).
The Iranians believe that they are on the verge of a strategic victory.
R S Hack,
The “oil companies” is one arena where Israel lobby is comparatively weak.
James, I know you sometimes have a hard time answering direct questions, but here I ask four nonetheless:
Do you think Israel has nuclear weapons?
Do you think any of these weapons are programmed to be aimed at targets?
If so, what might those targets be?
Given that many highschool students in the Middle East imagine those targets to include, but are not limited to, Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh, do you think those highschool students wrong?
Pirouz: “The Iranians are operating under the assumption they’re going to be attacked.”
They’d better because they will be.
“we’ll all be victims of ZOG. I know, that’s not a PC term and I hate using it, but on the Iran issue it applies virtually across the board.”
Not quite. Again, while the Israel Lobby is highly influential, without the fact that many of its members ALSO belong to the military-industrial complex, the oil companies and the banks who finance them, they would not be quite so influential.
You have to identify ALL your enemies if you want to know what’s going on. Focusing on just one allows the others to slip by you and achieve their goals. Notice I almost never focus entirely on the Lobby in terms of the Iran war. I always acknowledge that the goals of this war are NOT merely in terms of Israel but in terms of war profiteering and oil profits and regional hegemony for the benefit of the ruling elites who are primarily motivated by money and power – mostly power because money conveys that.
It’s the same “perfect storm” of converging motivations that enabled the Iraq war.
This is an interesting quote from Khamenei:
“Our people had been isolated from political issues. Our people used to turn their backs on political issues. It used to ignore the events that happened in the country. The Revolution put an end to this and turned us into a politically aware nation. Today even in the most distant parts of the country, our teenagers are presenting political analyses. They understand political developments. They interpret every issue. This was not the case before the Revolution.”
I forget who posted this site, but thank you. A worthwhile read.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1583&Itemid=4
fyi: “Irrelevant to my point. Not at all.”
Would you have an actual REASON to attach to that? Making assertions is not debate.
“While correct, to be more precise we have to say that the reason Obama does not drop that demand is because the nuclear issue was always just an excuse to cover regime change.”
“I think it will be a good idea to be a bit more coherent in your argumentation.”
This is perfectly coherent. Obama does not care about Iran’s nuclear program. That’s “the excuse” to prosecute a war for regime change just as Bush used “WMDs” to prosecute a war on Iraq.
Nothing could be clearer.
An accurate description of where we are with this weakling of a president. About the best thing I can say of him is at least he hasn’t started the war, yet.
The Iranians are operating under the assumption they’re going to be attacked. They didn’t blink in 2007 (Bush did) and they’re not going to blink in 2012/2013.
It pains me to describe our national level elected leaders in this way, but if/when war comes and we ordinary Americans have to deal with the everyday economic fallout, we’ll all be victims of ZOG. I know, that’s not a PC term and I hate using it, but on the Iran issue it applies virtually across the board.
ALL: I’ll say it again.
Stop thinking like YOU. Start thinking like THEM.
Then you might get a clue as to what’s really going on. As Sun Tzu said, if you don’t understand your enemy, you will be unable to predict his actions and you will lose.
Of course, given the relative level of power, you’re gonna lose anyway, but hey, that’s life…
Canning says “Richard Silverstein is not a fool. He thinks it is in Israel’s best interests to end the occupation of the West Bank.”
Why he’s a fool is because he thinks that is possible or that he has any notion of what the people who actually RULE Israel think is “Israel’s best interests.”
Fyi: Re Mousavian interview.
”If Western states are sincere, a diplomatic solution would not be complicated,”
Email me when this happens – because the West is NOT sincere. Mousavian is correct when he says he is “compelled” to believe that the West is only interested in regime change.
Which again I say is irrelevant to whether it can actually be achieved.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Canning says “Israel is not threatening Iran with nukes. Nor is the US.”
“They have to be unusually potent to produce this level of disconnect from reality’
Just ordinary Earl Grey , I assume…
fyi,
Some imporant Demorcrats advising Obama appear to favor “regime change” in Iran. I doubt Obama sees it as a realistic object to pursue. But, it is better to appear to be leaning that way than to be advocating war with Iran.
R S Hack,
Obama does not want to lose the election. Thus, he does not want war, but he must tread carefully give nthe extreme ignorance of the American people and their consequent susceptibility to demogogues like Gingrich, Santorum, Romney.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 2:18 pm
fyi: “War will not bring about regime change in Iran. Americans know that.”
Irrelevant to my point.
Not at all.
You stated the following:
“While correct, to be more precise we have to say that the reason Obama does not drop that demand is because the nuclear issue was always just an excuse to cover regime change.”
I think it will be a good idea to be a bit more coherent in your argumentation.
Canning says “Israel is not threatening Iran with nukes. Nor is the US.”
What planet is this guy on? Or what drugs? Can I get some? They have to be unusually potent to produce this level of disconnect from reality.
fyi: “War will not bring about regime change in Iran. Americans know that.”
Irrelevant to my point.
The purpose of this war is PROFIT and US and Israeli regional hegemony. You can GET BOTH OF THOSE WITHOUT SUCCESSFUL REGIME CHANGE.
All you need to do is WEAKEN Iran sufficiently to make them more or less irrelevant to your pursuing your goals.
Not to mention that whether such goals are actually ACHIEVABLE IN REALITY is ALSO irrelevant. The people behind this are going to try ANYWAY.
See, you keep talking about what makes SENSE. THAT DOESN’T MATTER to these people! They have an agenda and they’re going to pursue it whether it is achievable in the reality WE live in or not.
Stop thinking like YOU and start thinking like THEM.
Quote from Gene Lynos’ piece I just linked:
“Netanyahu ‘told visitors that…a careful attack on [Iran's] nuclear facilities might even be welcomed by Iranian citizens.’”
Possibly, Netanyahu does not believe this, but he is being the whore of the foolish American politicians in the US Congress who need cover for the elections this year.
fyi: “Attributing “slave mentality” to Mr. Obama is both specious and insulting.”
Not at all. It precisely describes his attitude.
Either you believe Obama wants war or you believe he does not. If he does not, then why is he pursuing a course leading to war. If he does want war, then clearly he’s not proceeding as fast as Netanyahu wants him to.
Bromwich’s article clearly articulates someone who is obeying orders but is in no hurry to do so in order to establish his “independence” – which is exactly how slaves behave.
“I do not believe any of his ancestors were slaves. His father was a prominent man among his tribesmen as well as in larger Kenya.”
So what? What does that have to do with this individual’s personality and situation? Are you suggesting I’m making a RACIAL observation here? Nothing could be further from the truth.
I’m talking about how Obama behaves with regard to the fact that he is owned and operated by persons who are responsible for his political success and who have an agenda towards Iran which he may or may not fully agree with but in any case is furthering.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
You are right, MAD would require 2nd strike capabilities.
Kathleen,
Thanks. The warmongers clearly do wnat Obama defeated. Newton Leroy Gingrich as president would be a catastrophe for the planet.
R S Hack,
Richard Silverstein is not a fool. He thinks it is in Israel’s best interests to end the occupation of the West Bank. This is an object sought by all Arab countries.
@All
George Galloway live on PressTV , worth watching…
James will read. Have been thinking for quite awhile that Israel and right wing Israeli lobby in this country want to take Obama out
Eric: “But I’d hesitate, if I were you, to press for banning people merely because they “disrupt” this site. To a great extent, “disruption” is what free speech is meant to accomplish. Sites that too quickly exclude objectionable posters often end up boring and useless.”
While I agree with the latter, there is a difference between “disruption” by making posts which produce “flame wars” and disruption which is intended to PHYSICALLY disrupt the site, which is what Lucas was doing (as well as being a “link leech” which was altogether different.)
If one is posting huge articles without commentary – and doing so CONSISTENTLY – one is intending to disrupt the actual site, not just start pointless flame wars.
I say that is justification for banning. A site owner really has no choice in that situation in my view.
“On some websites, the effect of a heavy-handed monitor is immediately obvious.”
Agreed. And it is VERY difficult for humans given ANY sort of “power” to not immediately become heavy handed in its use. I’ve been banned at sites before as a result of “site Nazis” who ban anyone whose posts rankle their hot buttons. I’ve cited the case of Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo as a clear example.
But again, if the Leveretts made it clear that people here are only allowed to post excerpts and preferably with commentary included rather than large full articles, that would constitute a site rule and a warning. If Sassan then continued to do so, it would be fully within their prerogative as site owners to ban him.
Or they could just get better blog software which would make it easy for them to “disable” exceptionally long posts. It doesn’t take a long time to scan a thread and disable truly “useless” or disruptive posts. Five minutes a day would resolve the problem.
Also, “user moderated” forum software would allow the readers to “like or dislike” an article and articles below a threshold would not appear to the other readers unless they enabled that individually. Such a system is often abused by readers to shut out posters they don’t like, frequently for herd mentality reasons, so I’m not crazy about such a system either. But it could be done.
this report
Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s … – Rock Center – MSNrockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_…/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-gr…You +1′d this publicly. Undo
7 hours ago – |Rock Center with Brian Williams … ROCK CENTER EXCLUSIVE … Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the … Then the Iranians claim, ‘This is Israeli Mossad trying to sabotage our attempts to be …
comments blowing out the sides
I recommend “Israel’s real target: Obama”, by Gene Lyons, as an interesting take.
Quote: “Natanyahu’s threats have more to do with challenging Washington than with actually attacking Iran.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/israels_real_target_obama/source=newsletter
All:
Mr. Mousavian’s interview:
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/02/140735.html
Eric writes: “But I’d hesitate, if I were you, to press for banning people merely because they “disrupt” this site.”
I did hesitate.
Look, I think that repeating a litany of unsubstantiated claims of rape and sex with children to create racist associations against Iranians is a disruption that banning should correct.
You are trying to present me as intolerant of debate or differing ideas. Hardly, I want the debate of differing ideas, I seek it out. However, I am not indifferent to those who use the weakness of unmediated on-line technology to disrupt that debate.
You are suggesting, by implication, that I support Juan Cole’s mediation of postings on his site. I do not.
Castellio: “This is from Richard Silverstein’s site today.”
“the State of Israel, at least as we conceived it when we were young idealistic liberal Zionists”
He STILL has “rose-colored glasses”.
Israel was NEVER more than a colonialist, imperialist, racist grab for territory and political power at the expense of the Palestinians. It was achieved by means of terrorism indistinguishable from that of Al Qaeda today. It was supported by military ethnic cleansing and massacres. It is supported today by military occupation.
The fact that some Zionists in the early days thought they were some kind of “socialist idealists” who thought they could come into Palestine, buy up some land and co-exist with the Palestinians is basically irrelevant to the actual goals of the Zionist leaders.
And even if they did, that dream was DEAD long before 1947. Once the Palestinians and the Arab world knew that a Jewish state ruling over Palestine was the goal, their resistance was inevitable. At that point ONLY terrorism and military rule could enable such a thing – and the Zionist leaders of the ’40’s and since knew it.
Silverstein is a fool. There was NEVER a chance that Israel could become a reality without brutal occupation and murder, just as most colonial endeavors required it.
Israel is a colonialist, imperialist, racist, religiously fanatic, rogue, illegal, terrorist state. It has literally NO “right to exist” whatsoever. The goal of the international community should be to eliminate it as much as they desired regime change in Iraq or desire it in Iran. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the theocracy in Iran could ever be as directly a threat to regional peace as Israel is.
R S Hack,
I think you are completely mistaken to believe war is inevitable. Was it inevitable that Obama would ignore Ahmadineajd’s offer last September (to stop Iranian enrichment to 20%)?
fyi,
War certainly would not bring regime change in Iran.
Castellio,
Obama has charged Ellen Tauscher with assessing the matter of how to have Israel adhere to the NPT and get rid of its nukes so Middle East can be free of them. She thinks it cannot happen without a deal on Israel/Palestine.
Israel is not threatening Iran with nukes. Nor is the US.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 1:41 pm
War will not bring about regime change in Iran.
Americans know that.
That is why they are hoping that an Iranian faction will remove the current government in Iran.
Once that does not happen, they might possibly contemplate negogiations with Iran (after 2013).
R S Hack,
Zbigniew Brzezinski has known Obama for a number of years now and does not believe Obama wants war with Iran. The real question is whether Obama has the intestinal fortitude to block the warmongers.
Castellio: Excellent post and excellent logic at February 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm.
Agree completely.
Bottom line: BY DEFINITION the Iran crisis cannot be resolved without a war.
Castellio,
Clearly Israel is undermining itself with its insane illegal colonial programme in the West Bank. And undermining the national security of the American people. One purpose of the Iraq War was to facilitate continuing illegal colonisation of the West Bank.
Arnold: “The entire dispute over Iran’s nuclear program only exists because Obama refuses to drop the demand that Iran relinquish what everyone acknowledges is its legal right, expressly retained under the NPT to enrich uranium.”
While correct, to be more precise we have to say that the reason Obama does not drop that demand is because the nuclear issue was always just an excuse to cover regime change.
And once we acknowledge that, then the fact becomes clear that Obama is NOT trying to avoid war with Iran, but in fact is pursuing a course for war.
And beyond that, we can say with confidence that if Obama did NOT want a war but ONLY regime change from WITHIN Iran, as some have alleged, he would be pursuing that in OTHER forms ONLY: propaganda about Iran’s internal problems, Iran’s civil rights record, Iran’s “support for terrorism”, plus funding for covert action to destabilize Iran, heavy sanctions, etc., etc.
All of which he is doing, of course.
BUT ONLY the nuclear issue can justify a MILITARY option and a justification for a MILITARY attack.
When Bush wanted war with Iran, he made all the charges I’ve listed above about Saddam Hussein. But WITHOUT the threat of WMD’s, there is NO WAY Bush could have gotten a WAR started with Iraq – not without much clearer proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, which would have justified a war in “self-defense”. While Bush could have manufactured such proof if he wanted (and he did try), the threat of WMDs was a much easier way to get a war, given that it was already KNOWN that Saddam had some sort of nuclear weapons program in the past.
Therefore by definition Obama is CLEARLY intent on an eventual WAR, NOT JUST regime change in some non-military manner.
Don’t know why I didn’t notice this before.
There can be absolutely no doubt now that Obama wants a war with Iran. Otherwise he would not be harping on the ONE SUBJECT which can FULLY “justify” a MILITARY option.
Richard Steven Hack says: February 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Attributing “slave mentality” to Mr. Obama is both specious and insulting.
I do not believe any of his ancestors were slaves.
His father was a prominent man among his tribesmen as well as in larger Kenya.
For your own safety, I suggest you avoid that line of argumentation.
R S Hack,
I obviously agree with you Iran should have nothing to do with nukes. Iran condemns all WMD. This stance should continue.
I think Obama does not want Israel to attack Iran, and this message clearly was delivered to Israel by Leon Panetta and General Dempsey, in separate visits. Obama blundered in his comments the morning of the Super Bowl, by muddying the water.
Fiorangela/UU: “Russia-Syria-Iran can create a MAD formula:
Actually, no. A submarine torpedo launched nuke could basically affect Haifa and that’s about it. Now if they had the capability to put it on a cruise missile – as Israel is reported to have done or at least intending to do – they would have something which could be launched at Tel Aviv from the Med. THAT is a MAD formula, provided they had more than one (at least two or preferably three – you never rely on ONE thing) and provided they could evade US submarine detection in the Med consistently.
Not to mention that the requirement for MAD is not a “first strike” capability but a “second strike” capability, i.e., once you’ve been nuked you can still fire back. Israel has that capability both from the land and sea (assuming their subs have nuclear cruise missiles or will have). Iran would not unless it had at least two or three subs or missiles whose locations are consistently unknown.
And then there’s the problem of counterattack by an ally of the country you’re threatening, which in this case is the US. Iran would have to have the capability of threatening the US with retaliation as well, at least to the extent of the US losing one city (or perhaps the Saudi oil fields a la the movie “The Soldier I referred to once.)
And then there’s the problem that Iran could never get to that point without the US nuking Iran first. The only thing that could forestall that would be Russia and China threatening nuclear war first.
The whole thing is a recipe for WWIII.
Better Iran doesn’t even try to get a nuke.
Voice of Tehran,
Tony Judt, who died not long ago, wrote that Israel “stands out for its slightly paranoid national political culture and has become unhealthily dependent on the Holocaust – - its moral crutch and weapon of choice with which to fend off all criticism.”
Foolish American politicians pander to this Israeli paranoia.
I recommend Tony Barber’s review of Judt’s “Thinking the Twentieth Century”, in the Financial Times Feb. 4/5.
This passage from Dr. Bromwich’s article prompts me to suggest that Nima Shirazi should consider updating his amusing and useful chronology of “any day now” predictions for Iran’s nuclear bomb:
“So the Times cues and the Times Israel reporters, especially the ones favored with front-page stories and cover stories, are saying this is a last chance for Iran. David Sanger said it was the last chance in May 2009 and, to repeat, Jeffrey Goldberg said it in 2010, but both have been saying it again over the past several months. Others, too, are saying it now…”
I know it’s hard to keep up with all these Iranian-bomb predictions, Nima, but you’ve taken that heavy burden upon yourself, and every update makes your list more amusing and useful than it already is.
I referred to Bromwich’s article in a previous thread. It’s a very good analysis of how Obama is basically an eighteenth or nineteenth century slave with the same attitudes a slave back then would have had toward his masters, i.e. he will do their bidding but he might drag his feet and do it slowly.
At the very least, Bromwich shows how Obama does not have the characteristics to be a “good President” – assuming that it isn’t a contradiction in terms given the degree of power lust, greed and venality someone needs to be able to become President in this country – or for that matter even a Congressman…
I need to apologize and correct a mistake I made. The 761 prisoners I reported were released were not necessarily “political” prisoners. The IRIB source stated it that way and I just repeated it, but I doubt there would be that many political prisoners here, and in a second news bulletin, the newscaster just referred to them as (normal) prisoners who are being pardoned on the anniversary of the revolution.
Sorry for the confusion.
I am glad to see Obama finally came to comprehend the US was squandering billions of dollars per year, just in operating the gigantic (and idiotic) embassy in Baghdad.
Hillary Clinton surely gets credit for some of the billions of dollars wasted on this grotesque production.
I continue to think Obama blundered badly by failing to respond to Ahmadinejad’s offer last September for Iran to cease production of 20% uranium. Do we credit Dennis Ross for this bit of stupidity on the president’s spart?
David Bromwich clearly is quite right to cite Obama’s reliance on Dennis Ross as a major blunder.
Fiorangela says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Voice of Tehran at 12:36 –
“don’t you know we Americans are exceptional? ”
Certainly YOU are dear Fior , I have no doubt.
It’s a pity and I could cry , the great US nation is hijacked by Zionist elitists.
The other day I watched an interview with ‘Menachem’ Dennis Ross on Euro News with a female Iranian interviewer , it was a torture believe me.
And then there was this stupid sketch with Michelle Obama in the White House with ” Sackhüpfen ” , I was disgusted ( to use the words of Susanne Khanoom after the Double-Veto in the UNSC )
Castellio,
“Eric, you haven’t a clue if Sassan, who double posted the Hitchens, is young or not. And why you see fit to try to explain posting etiquette to someone whose purpose was to disrupt the site is a bit beyond me.”
Not that it matters much, but Sassan did disclose his age: 27. I’d have guessed a couple of years younger, but I was close enough that Sasson probably wouldn’t have won a teddy bear if I’d been an “age guesser” at an amusement park.
I agree that Sassan doesn’t add much to this website, and I certainly don’t like his wholesale cutting-and-pasting, as I’ve made clear. But I’d hesitate, if I were you, to press for banning people merely because they “disrupt” this site. To a great extent, “disruption” is what free speech is meant to accomplish. Sites that too quickly exclude objectionable posters often end up boring and useless.
The best example is Juan Cole’s Informed Comment. The arguments posted there are rarely sharp, since the writers need not deal with the tougher counter-arguments: Dr. Cole simply excludes them.
On some websites, the effect of a heavy-handed monitor is immediately obvious. On others, it’s not. On Informed Comment, for example, one could read it for a week or so and come away believing that a lively debate is occurring there. It is only when one recognizes that a few strong arguments contrary to Dr. Cole’s viewpoint don’t seem to have been presented, and thereupon tries to present such an argument himself, only to find it’s excluded, that one finally recognizes how narrowly the apparently robust debate is in fact being kept. It’s difficult not to lose interest once one recognizes this.
Years ago, and once again about six months ago, I engaged in some careful self-censorship in an effort to get past Dr. Cole’s censorship on Informed Comment. And many of my posts indeed “made the cut.” But one day I took a careful look at my comments that had been deemed acceptable and concluded that few if any had been useful contributions. They were largely trite observations. And so I asked myself what I should have asked myself much sooner: Why should I spend time in the self-demeaning exercise of censoring myself if the only outcomes of doing so will be either that (1) I succeed, in which case a more or less useless comment will make its way onto Dr. Cole’s website; or (2) I will fail, in which case I will have wasted my time.
As a result, I lost interest in Dr. Cole’s website and haven’t visited in several months.
One must give Dr. Cole credit, though. He does manage what other website owners cannot. I suspect that virtually all people who post regularly on his website (a relatively small number — far fewer than here, last time I checked), a smaller but still sizable chunk of the people who read the website, and possibly even Dr. Cole himself, honestly believe that his website is a forum for open debate. Dr. Cole is a master at identifying and featuring contrary viewpoints that have fatal flaws, which he eagerly posts and then destroys. He excludes only the comments that are contrary but NOT flawed.
Fiorangela says: February 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Pride indeed brought down “Iblis” – the Lord of Flies/the Lord of Lies/Satan etc.
Both Man and the Devil fell since they disobeyed God.
The thread reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQauP3VizI0 which happened only a few hours before this ;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXa0qJ7wO2U&feature=related …..except that the role of Jack Dawson is played by BO instead of DiCaprio.
Voice of Tehran at 12:36 –
“Imagine Iranian leaders with immense and genuine experience in psychological and real warfare against a ’super power’ by coincindence”
huh
uppity Iranians
don’t you know we Americans are exceptional? Newt Gingrich said so.
____
fyi, Your “fallen nature” assertions imply that falleness is inherent in each human being. I find it more useful to consider that Pride goeth before the fall.
fyi says:
February 9, 2012 at 10:05 am
“I think you are under-estimating the resistance of US Government bureaucracy to war with Iran.”
fyi , I agree with you , US military planners after several years of continued wars in the MENA region have to take huge amounts of parameters into account that it will definitely ” mission impossible “.
Or they will do something hasty , that will backfire badly on them.
Imagine Iranian leaders with immense and genuine experience in psychological and real warfare against a ’super power’ by coincindence , it will be a mess…
Castellio says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Castellio, in other words, US and Israel share one additional characteristic: both are on the edge of social and moral disintegration. (Both brought about by zionist ideology, one could observe.)
This is from Richard Silverstein’s site today.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2012/02/09/paul-austers-moral-ambivalence-about-israel/
“In short, the situation in Israel is grim, much grimmer than Auster acknowledges. Instead of seeing the situation for what it really is, he wears rose-colored glasses and talks about his “mixed feelings” about Israel and the “complications” that settlers cause. The real situation has gone far beyond the point of ambivalence and complications. Israel is in a crisis. It’s existence is threatened. Not from without, but from within. Settlers aren’t just a complication, they are strangling the secular democratic state he raised money for as a child.
My feeling is that soon the State of Israel, at least as we conceived it when we were young idealistic liberal Zionists, will be doomed. I don’t know what will replace it. It could be something far worse. It could be something better. But its fate hangs in the balance. And Auster’s moral blindness hinders, rather than helps.”
Castellio says:
February 9, 2012 at 11:34 am
… in either case, let sleeping dogs lie…
I studied a hasbara handbook , where it was mentioned that hasabaras are vulnerable to animal language , thus I wrote to him using :
“Chekhe , Pekhe ,Osha , Yabu etc.”
Apparently it worked , pssshhht :-)
The posted article points out that if delay is the path forward, then the plans that others are enacting will force the administration into a war it may not want but for which it has, let it be understood, diligently prepared.
There are several ways out for Obama and the administration if it were willing to level with the American people about the actual situation. Yet it is mum. There is no clear indication from Obama that Israel has many nuclear weapons aimed at Iran and is not a signatory of the NPT; nor a clear statement about the many inspectors current in Iran; nor honesty by the President about the information presented by the American intelligence community about the state of Iran’s nuclear program; nor any indication to the American people (and hence Iran) that the US would accept uranium enrichment as is Iran’s legal right under the NPT… one could go on.
The way out, for those who want a negotiated settlement, is to speak the many truths that have been hidden, and therefore create the conditions for conversation and mutual influence.
And here is where it gets eerie: apparently it is political suicide to speak a few simple historical truths and current facts to the American public. Well, why is that? And why not speak of that as well?
And if free and public speech among those who have influence is not possible, then the war, and others to follow, is an inevitable outcome of a failed, or failing, society.
Eric, you haven’t a clue if Sassan, who double posted the Hitchens, is young or not. And why you see fit to try to explain posting etiquette to someone whose purpose was to disrupt the site is a bit beyond me.
In any case, Sassan and his twin Faux Sassan have been relatively quiet, or perhaps not allowed access, in either case, let sleeping dogs lie.
Arnold Evans says:
February 9, 2012 at 10:55 am
Very true. And eloquently put, as usual.
If we go with the assumption of this present post and, among others, Pat Buchanan’s recent piece, that the present administration does not want war… then, the danger would be that Israel (for whatever reason) might provoke a response from Iran hoping to draw the US in. Nothing new there. I’m just wondering whether this possibility has been discussed in back-channel negotiations between Iran and the US? And if so, whether an understanding has been reached?
I assume the answer to both is negative. So assuming that, it would be incumbent on Iran to somehow try to get the US to let Israel know that it will be on its own in the event that it strikes Iran without a US green light.
Now. This will tell you what little I know of these things, and call me crazy, but maybe a way to get the US to make such a commitment is to demand it at the upcoming 5+1 talks. After all, what is the point in sitting down with a government who imposes sanctions on Iran for not having violated any international laws, but refuses to impose the same sanctions (sanctioning the Israeli central bank, etc.) in the event of an unprovoked attack that does not have UNSC approval?
Just a thought.
We should all bear in mind two points about the “slow-loading” problem caused by 1100+ posts on the preceding thread:
1. The Leveretts have become victims of their own success — the ever-increasing number of people visiting this website, and the more and better comments they post.
2. The second point is not a reason to celebrate:
A great deal of loading time owes to the many extremely long pieces that certain posters are cutting from other sources and pasting here, often verbatim and in full. In the most egregious example, one zealous young poster copied and pasted a 5,000+ word Christopher Hitchens article from 2005, and then, for good measure, pasted it a second time, presumably to emphasize just how important it was that we all read this (I’m pretty sure I already had — seven years ago).
A suggestion for the poster who did that:
Explain in your own words why you think we should read some third party’s article, and then provide a link. If you like, expand your commentary and paste in some illustrative quotations from the article at appropriate spots. We all do that, probably more than the copyright laws actually allow, but I’m fairly confident authors and publishers don’t get terribly upset by that level of cut-and-paste.
That will be more effective than “Here’s a “must read” article by Christopher Hitchens” followed by the full text of that 5,000+ word article.
Kathleen,
on the other hand, perhaps Ahmadinejad’s deliberately and repeatedly misquoted statement is precisely congruent “with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people.
Kathleen says,
““The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.”
Yes. I simpler terms, he was calling for “regime change” in Israel, just as that half-human half-lizard Billary calls for regime change for Iran all the time. The only difference is that the Iranian “regime” is legitimate, whereas the Zionist entity is far from it.
I want to just note that the way out would be for Obama to say in public that there is no course of action the US or Israel could take that could be expected to prevent Iran from attaining legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Brazil and Japan have, so, the US will not waste US and Iranian resources and lives trying to prevent something that ultimately would not be prevented anyway.
The entire dispute over Iran’s nuclear program only exists because Obama refuses to drop the demand that Iran relinquish what everyone acknowledges is its legal right, expressly retained under the NPT to enrich uranium.
I have no idea who Yossi is either, dear. Its just a handle for a commenter at ACW (Arms Control Wonk).
“The president has made no comment on the situation. He has let it heat up for three years now, while the public mind grows swollen with false facts, and while negotiations, to the extent that there are negotiations, proceed under cover and in secret. As if negotiation were a shameful thing.”
Yochi Dreazan, Anne Marie Slaughter, Mr. Singh, Anas Jan, Barbara Slavin have all been on Cspans Washington Journal over the last several months all repeating that negotiations with Iran have been tried and exhausted.
The other day on Cspans Washington Journal Yochi Dreazen repeated several times that negotiations with Iran have been exhausted. Greta I feel a very biased host on this issue came in at the end of his time on the program and came to his defense saying that he was not pushing for a military confrontation with Iran. Greta was clearly not listening very well.
Is Obama waiting until the polls report that the now 48% of American people polled would support an attack on Iran moves to over 50%? If the MSM keeps allowing the unsubstantiated claims about IRan to be repeated with no logical challenging questions being asked of those who repeat these false claims. Or host of shows like Chris Matthews saying “strike them” the other night on Hardball or Terri Gross’s Fresh Air repeating these false claims herself tipping the American public over the 50% mark is not far off
“They seek to lure Iran to attack American forces or American assets or Israel. In the latter case, they can claim that unless America does its duty and agrees to a joint attack, or takes the matter out of Israel’s hands, Israel itself will attack.”
This one up over at Huff Po today
Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News
Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:16 AM EST.
“Daniel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and also a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said that if the accounts of the Israeli-MEK assassinations are accurate, the operation borders on terrorism.”
“borders on terrorism” Israel knows NO borders
”
“Ronen Bergman, while not speaking on behalf of the Israeli government, suggests that there is a justification, citing an oft-repeated but disputed quote in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.”
And there we go again that false claim that the Iranian President said “Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth that has been repeated over and over again by the Iraq and now Iran warmongers over the last five years is repeated once again. University of Michigans Professor Juan Cole who speaks Persian debunked that false neocon created claim yearago.
From Informed Comment
Hitchens Hacker And Hitchens
“The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time”
UU (stomping foot petulantly)
wish you had posted a link to this item –
“Unknown Unknowns says:
February 9, 2012 at 8:01 am
Cross-posting a post from Yossi at ACW which I thought was illuminating, both in terms of the whole irrationality of the deterrence of a break-through only capability, and possibly as well as the question of Syria: why now?”
I don’t know who Yossi is or what ACW is and I’m late for my Italian class for trying to find it. It’s all your fault, but then, it’s always Iran’s fault.
childishness aside, I thought the comment you posted was very important — Russia-Syria-Iran can create a MAD formula.
Richard Silverstein’s blog mentioned it here:
:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/11/16/republicans-tell-israel-u-s-will-back-strike-against-iran/
still don’t know who Yossi is.
ciao
The Leveretts:
I think you are under-estimating the resistance of US Government bureaucracy to war with Iran.
Chutzpa: ‘Peres sends peace message to Iranian’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/chutzpa-peres-sends-peace-message-to-iranian/
All:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-defeat-iran-6479
Number of Iranian scientific articles in peer-reviewed international scientific journals by year:
1357 (1978): 700
1390 (2011): 20,000
IRIB reports that the Leader of Iran’s revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, pardons 761 political prisoners on the eve of the revolution’s anniversary. That should empty Evin Prison up pretty good.
Despite the fact that political prisoners exist in Iran (as stated earlier), as they do in all countries in various forms, Iran remains the largest and most robust, representative and independent democracy in the Middle East.
In other news, the Firefox spellchecker red-lines Khamenei and offers Tutankhamen instead :)
Unfortunately it sounds true.
—
Official English translation: Full Text: Supreme Leader’s Friday Prayer Address [03/02/2012]
What a contrast of leadership.