Today, in The Financial Times, Daniel Dombey reports, see here, that “President Obama has personally warned Turkey’s prime minister that unless Ankara shifts its position on Israel and Iran it stands little chance of obtaining the US weapons it wants to buy”. A senior Obama Administration official told Dombey that “The president has said to [Turkey’s Prime Minister] Erdoğan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill…about whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally. That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress”.
According to Dombey, the Administration “was deeply frustrated when Turkey voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran in June”. Obama reportedly told Erdoğan that Turkey “had failed to act as an ally” when it voted against the sanctions on Iran, rather than abstaining.
This story is a remarkable statement about the Obama Administration’s willingness to damage important strategic relationships in order defend its dysfunctional Iran policy. The claim, as the senior Administration official puts it, that the Turks “need to show that they take seriously American national security interests” is preposterous with regard to a NATO ally of long standing.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1336
Can someone please say to me why they don’t sit in chairs? Someone explained to me why they don’t wear ties.
Thanks
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1336
It’s no use speaking to Scott Lucas. He merely wishes to play his small part in demonizing Iran.
Scott Lucas
I’ve just read your posts yesterday on raceforiran.com again and I think it would be a good idea for others to do the same and read your comments and the replies that others have made. It reveals a great deal about you.
Scott Lucas
It is you who have nothing to say, but propaganda. Anyone who reads your posts yesterday will see that you are carrying out an anti-Iranian propaganda campaign.
*Tajzadeh case
Salam Iranian@Iran,
OK, you’ve got nothing on either statements of fact or on the Tajzadeh, and there is no evidence you have ever read anything on EA.
That at least saves any more diversion of my time.
Peace,
Scott
Scott Lucas
I think you know quite well that your website is baically hardcore green propaganda. There is no debate on that front and I don’t see any use in debating someone who is too arrogant to admit his utter failure in analyzing Iran, Iranians, and the situation in Iran. If you really don’t understand this, then it shows you are more ignorant about the country than I thought.
I’m sure you know that your statement about Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi revealed your mentality and that your attitude towards him is based on ignorance.
Salam Iranian@Iran:
The link between Bolton and Mesbah Yazdi (whose words I have had the pleasure of reading) is only in your misunderstanding of the post to Iranian.
Try another line of denunciation — better yet, bring one piece of information from EA that you believe is factually inaccurate and/or contribute to the original topic (information on the claimed video/audio of Tajzadeh on Fars).
Scott
Scott Lucas
No. You miss the point. While I know John Bolton and I know his ideas, you know nothing about Mesbah Yazdi. How do you put the two together, when you are clueless about one of them? You just assume Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi is awful, merely because that’s what you’ve been told. You should stick to US history or whatever it is you teach.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Bring information, not polemic, and there will be something of value for discussion.
I fear you have missed the point of my analogy for Iranian: it is not between Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and John Bolton but on the tactic of linking Iranian and Mesbah Yazdi just to stigmatise Iranian and avoid consideration of his views.
Peace,
Scott
Scott Lucas
You have two major problems.
1- You are viewed as a public diplomacy tool of the Obama government and your writings reinforce this idea.
2- You know precious little about Iran and it shows all the time and when you write about Iran with such confidence it looks funny.
How do you compare Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi to John Bolton? You can’t read his books, you can’t understand his speeches, so why do you even use his name? Show me a book written by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi that links him to the Anjoman-e Hojjatieh. Even the Anjoman-e Hojjatieh is a very diverse group of people. When you don’t know something keep quiet.
Scott Lucas
Which books written by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi have you actually read?
Eric,
Don’t divert. Deal with the information that has already been presented — some of it from sources close to Tajzadeh.
As for reading and engaging information and analysis on sites beyond RFI, I fully understand if you are more comfortable in the fishbowl.
Best,
Scott
Salam Iranian,
If you believe that my views are — or ever have been — in sympathy with John Bolton, you have indeed given up any consideration of information or analysis based on reading, reflection, and discussion rather than narrow pre-conception. (Just as I would be doing if I tried to dismiss your points out of hand by saying “Iranian is just like XXXX” — fill in the blank with a hot-button name like Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi or a group like Hojjatieh.)
Peace,
Scott
Scott Lucas,
I’m sure you understand why I say people like you are in many ways similar to John Bolton. Your language is quite different, but the one sided portrayal of Iran is essentially the same. People who live in Iran would never take you seriously, because it is so extremely hostile and one-sided. Hard core greens may like what you write, but even they know that your work is largely propaganda. People over here have a lot of respect for the Leveretts though, because they have the courage to stand up and tell the facts as they are, despite the fact that they must be paying a heavy price for doing so.
Scott,
You wrote:
“As I said, any constructive comment about the Tajzadeh episode would be welcomed — 1. Has it received much attention inside Iran? 2. What has been the reaction to the Fars claims?”
Before we consider how much “attention” and “reaction” the “Fars claim” has received, how about if we find out whether it’s true? Just have one of your invaluable contacts ask Tajzadeh three simple questions:
1. Did you say what you appear to say in the video?
2. Where were you when the video was shot?
3. Which election were you talking about?
Truth, Scott. That’s what you’re seeking. Never forget that. Go right for it.
Matt,
I very rarely check the Enduring America site any more. If you want reasoned debate, there may be better spots to find it.
In the Financial Times today (“Saudi arms deal poised for smooth US passage”), Daniel Dombey mentioned the “private US warnings to Turkey that its position on Iran and Israel could endanger congressional backing for weapons purchases sought by Ankara.”
Salam Iranian,
It’s a shame that you (perhaps in a microcosm of US-Iran relations) reject engagement. With your position in Iran, you could offer valuable information on a number of significant political issues, related to and beyond the Tajzadeh episode.
To use your own reference, John Bolton — whom we had criticised repeatedly, including in a harsh comment this week on his war-mongering — talks to like-minded “analysts” and media to bolster his position. The opponents of Cordoba House in New York rely on supportive outlets for their anti-Islam statements. But I don’t think you or I should swim solely in the fishbowl of those who will offer unquestioning acclamation for our views.
Anyway, I have put my questions — thanks to the patience of RFI readers for allowing me to do so on this thread after Liz introduced the Tajzadeh topic and thanks to Pirouz_2 for valuable insight. If RFI readers return to issues inside Iran — it appears that RFI’s authors are now concentrating on geopolitics and the nuclear issue — then I will be back with more questions. Not for rhetoric’s sake, but in the spirit of continued learning and dialogue.
Peace,
Scott
This is a summary of the Persian:
http://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=9891
James Canning:
I am calling it the way I am seeing it.
This is finished.
Call it like it is, Phil.
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/the-atlantic-runs-a-rationale-for-iran-war-by-a-journalist-embedded-in-the-israeli-psychosis.html
I missed a lot of important stuff. One thing that I remember is that he said the way “they” behaved regarding the nuclear fuel swap for the Tehran reactor showed us that we can’t trust them to provide us with nuclear fuel and that we must be able to produce our own fuel.
fyi,
If the Obama administration indeed is cooperating with Turkey to get the nuclear fuel exchange into place, this would open an avenue for further discussions. Why do you play into the hands of the neocons who are trying to prevent the deal from going through?
Iranian,
Khamenei again is quite right, to deride US prattling on about human rights, when the illegal war launced by American officials on the basis of knowingly false intelligence, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and turned topsy-turvy the lives of millions of Iraqis.
Much of the rubbish about human rights emanating from the US is a device by the neocons and the Israel lobby to confuse the mass of ignorant Americans about what the real issues are in the Middle East.
Iranian:
Yes, one may conclude firmly that there will be no progress in the area of bilateral relations for the next 2 years.
I also think this speech by the Supreme Jurisprudent also confirms that the Fuel Swap deal is dead. Yes, there will be meetings in September but nothing will come out of them.
I doubt there will be any movement within the next five years.
Time to retire this Web Log (or at least send it on an extended vacation), regrettably.
A very impressive and important speech. Maybe later you can find it on http://english.khamenei.ir/
When it comes to human rights, he says, that the crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan make all their claims silly, as they are the worst violators.
The US is against democracy…Gaza.
He said that the previous negotiations with the US revealed the fact that since the US behaves arrogantly the negotiations could not bear fruit. When it can’t respond to reason and logic, the US government behaves like a thug and then when that fails it leaves the negotiating table.
He says that we will not give up our nuclear program.
He said it is doubtful that the US will attack, but if they do the response will not be regional.
Scott Lucas:
As I said, you are a person who basically engages in propaganda. You have to change first. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time. Sorry.
He is now speaking about the American calls for negotiations.
He says sanctions and military threats are nothing new. He says during the Clinton years there were serious threats being made against the country and that they were so serious that the Iranian president at the time was concerned.
Anti-Iranian propaganda is not new.
Salam Iranian,
I’m happy to set out the agreement — no “rhetoric”, just information. First priority, amidst a number of significant political developments inside Iran, is to establish what is happening. That’s why I put the questions — without rhetoric — to you, in the hope of getting a productive exchange of news and analysis.
Scott
He says the US has failed in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while we have succeeded.
He says that the fact that the enemy is hated by the people of the region is our success.
———
Sorry, if I’m writing so much.
Iranian,
Khamenei clearly is quite right that the US has no idea what to do in Afghanistan. The neocons and other elements of the Israel lobby do their best to block the obvious course, which is to discuss the situation with Iran.
Perhaps the UK can act as an intermediary.
Iranian,
Don’t miss the Laura Rozen piece (Fiorangela linked it with her Aug. 17th, 9:22pm post). She makes clear Obama is trying to achieve a negotiated resolution of the dispute. We all have to bear in mind the numerous Democrats facing re-election in November, and the pressure the neocons are putting on them.
He says the US lacks self confidence and he says that US leaders lack the confidence that existed during the Reagan years and it is much weaker.
He says they don’t know what to do in Afghanistan.
He says support for Iran in Muslim countries is very strong.
I hope so James.
Ayatollah Khamenei is saying that the US/Israeli “front” is growing weaker while our “front” is growing stronger.
It’s a pretty important speech, maybe his website will translate it. The whole speech is important.
Iranian,
It is a mistake to view the “US government” as a monolith. Clearly there are a number of Obama advisers who want a negotiated resolution of the nuclear dispute.
Iranian,
Khamenei says Iran is ready for talks with the US if sanctions are dropped and he sees an end to threatening language.
Obama should be able to comprehend that the threats bandied about by Israel, and to a lesser extent the US, are counter-productive.
Scott Lucas:
As long as you are in the business of spreading anti-Iranian rhetoric on a daily basis, it’s really no use trying to engage with you. You, John Bolton (yes John Bolton!), and the US government are all in many ways in the same camp.
Richard Steven Hack,
Wouldn’t the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf, and the subsequent sinking of an oil tanker or two, put insurance rates through the roof and effectively close the Gulf to shipping?
Ayatollah Khamenei gave a pretty important speech today and they are showing it right now. He is speaking about Iran and the US and so far he seems to be taking a pretty tough line o far. He says no negotiations (as long as there are threats, preconditions, and sanctions. He also said that if attacked, Iran’s response will not be limited to the region.
Serifo,
Did you read the Laura Rozen story linked by Fiorangela? Rozen says the US is cooperating with Turkey’s effort to arrange the nuclear fuel exchange.
Iranian,
As I said, any constructive comment about the Tajzadeh episode would be welcomed — 1. Has it received much attention inside Iran? 2. What has been the reaction to the Fars claims?
Similarly, any perspective on reaction to the complaint of Tajzadeh and 6 other prominent reformists against the military for interference in the 2009 election — and to the claimed audio of a Revolutionary Guard commander setting out intimidation of the opposition before and after the election — would be welcome.
Scott
Fiorangela,
Good story by Laura Rozen that you linked. Thanks. Turkey’s continuing effort to achieve the nuclear fuel exchange, with US approval, is a good thing.
Scott Lucas,
You must admit, you are beginning to sound weird and scary.
Scott Lucas,
You’re a joke. Put your last 3-4 posts together and you sound as if you head the CIA. lol
Audio Engineer’s Preliminary Findings on Claimed Tajzadeh “Confession” over 2009 Election
http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/18/iran-special-have-fars-revolutionary-guard-faked-a-reformist-confession-on-election/
Scott
paul:
Newsweek, Time, CSM, the Atlantic, etc. have no depth.
They are only useful for managing and shaping mass public opinion.
You need to consult sites such as CSIS and Brookings (but not CFR, CEIP, etc.) to get a better understanding of the actual situation.
I agree that the US (and EU) elites seem to be clueless. Certainly stability is not their concern, else they would not pursue such a revolutionary course in Iraq.
They seem to have an exaggerated opinion of US (E) power and an equally exaggerated opinion of the ease of accomplishing their various projects.
In that they very much resemble the leaders of General Motors before its demise.
Matt,
Exactly. It’s a waste of time, because it’s propaganda.
What’s the general opinion on this Enduring America website? To me, it looks like primarily inflammatory, tabloid-like material. Does it have any credibility whatsoever?
Thanks,
Matt
The point about the Iran election isn’t even whether there was fraud or not. The real point is that the whole issue of fraud would NEVER have been hyped the way it was if there wasn’t a desire amongst the media/political elites to demonize Iran. How many elections have been probably or possibly fraudulent? How many have been hyped the way the Iran election was? Not even the Urkaine ‘color revolution’ was hyped so much. Ah, and then there’s that eerie resemblance between the ‘green revolution’ in Iran and other Color Coups, which sought to install more US-friendly governments, and were helped along by what one might call the Soft Side of the CIA – money and assistance doled out to opposition groups, along with strategies centered on challenging elections.
We continue to see this selective hype. The media and political elites never stop finding damsels-in-distress that we need to save in Iran. One would almost think that Iran was the only place in the world where brutal oppression goes on, but what’s funny is that even more brutal oppression goes in the countries run by some of our bestest ‘friends’, Havens of Humanity such as Mexico, Honduras, Haiti, Colombia, Israel, Saudi Arabia (one can go on and on)…but this doesn’t seem to preoccupy the media nearly as much.
Fyi, I don’t doubt that the end result of an attack on Iran could be more chaos. I’m not sure that the elites that seem hell bent on such a war are concerned about that. Everyone repeats the mantra ‘but such and such a policy doesn’t promote stability’, as if anyone in power really gave a damn about stability. It’s not hard to recognize, if you look at most of the policies devised by the supergeniuses of the policy elites, that they seem rather more geared to instability than stability. It’s increasingly absurd to claim that such policies are just misguided. It increasingly makes more sense to suppose that instability was more the point than stability.
Everytime an upswell of concern about a possible attack on Iran ocurrs, various ’serious and responsible types’ rush to quell the uprising. Here’s a newsweek example…
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/08/16/talk-about-iran-attack-seems-very-overheated.html
… which calls the concern about an immanent attack on Iran “overheated”. Ok. Fine. I’d call the general ongoing lack of concern about the growing and thoroughly bogus confrontation with Iran extremely UNDERHEATED.
And if you pick through the arguments, they are, as usual, unconvincing. There is the usual claim that the Iran program isn’t actually at a red line (even though everyone knows Iran’s nuclear program is not in any real sense the issue), and there is the usual input from insiders (you know, which is obviously far more legit, of course, than the insider input saying the opposite), and there’s the usual claim that Obama wants to give sanctions time to work (meaning, I assume, time to degrade Iran’s ability to defend itself, since it’s long since been clear that the sanctions have no constructive function), and the claim that warnings about an immanent attack are intended to “goad” Obama into an attack (as if he hasn’t done enough on his own to heighten the confrontation with Iran, and to prepare the ground for war in a multitude of ways) … it all ends with the usual coup de grace:
“A European official described recent reports about these and other alleged preparations for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as “rumors” similar to other speculation that has surfaced, then died, then resurfaced on several occasions over recent years.”
See, that’s clear, right? The fact that the alarm has been raised before, and that we have in fact risen closer to war repeatedly, is clearly proof that there will never be a war, despite the constant threats of war, and so we can just ‘don’t worry, be happy’, while the supposedly harmless bluster continues…
is this some kind of absurdist theater? We are on the verge of war, and yet you are the evil, evil, bad, bad ‘alarmist’ if you point out that obvious fact. Oh, so much better are the folks who council doing nothing until the war actually starts, whenever that is (today or tomorrow or next week or next year or five years from now)…
Scott Lucas doesn’t have any sources. He just wants to sound important. His only sources are the people who fund his propaganda website.
Scott,
“[Sources] also suggested — before the appearance of the statement from the Tajzadeh camp today — that Tajzadeh was NOT referring to the 2009 election but to an earlier poll.”
I was going easy on you not to bring up the speculation that he’d been referring to an earlier election. That struck me as so implausible that you’d immediately dismiss it. I hope you did, without the need of any “statement from the Tajzadeh camp.”
Scott,
Here is some material from the Enduring America website link you provided:
“Doubts soon emerged, however. Sources in Iran said that the sound on the video appeared to have been manipulated, with subtitles added to cover up the “doctoring” of the audio; another theory was that Tajzadeh was referring to a previous Presidential election. The location of the meeting is clearly not Evin Prison; it appears to be a residence (possibly of the unidentified 4th person in the video?).…I asked an EA correspondent, ‘How many folks inside Iran will believe this is Evin?.’ Answer: ‘Very few.’”
You say the location is “clearly not Evin prison,” Scott, but you don’t mention why. Next time you talk to your “EA correspondent,” tell him that some skeptics couldn’t care less how many “folks” believe this is Evin. Suggest that your correspondent ask Tajzadeh this simple question: “Is this Evin Prison?”
No point in our quibbling about whether this is Evin Prison, Scott, if Tajzadeh himself doesn’t even deny it.
paul:
US-Iran War will not change the strategic situation in the Middle East.
Per chance, it could even usher in regime change in US.
I love the convenient logix of commentators who acknowledge, on one hand, that this whole confrontation with Iran has really nothing to do with nuclear weapons, but who, on the other hand, argue again and again that no attack is immanent because some nuclear threat red line is not being crossed (eg. Bushehr does not raise threat because it is a light water plant). See the contradiction there? If the confrontation isn’t about nuclear weapons, how can that issue be the one that determines the timing of attack?
The fact is that an attack has been immanent for years now. Several times, it seems, the attack process even started into motion, but was headed off (eg. by the 2007 NIE). Obviously it’s not crying wolf to raise the alarm, if in fact we have been on the verge of attack over a period of time, and that danger has in fact crested periodically. What we have is an constantly upratcheted economic war – and yes, that IS WAR – that can turn into a shooting war any time. Will it be tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Next year? Five years from now? Who can say?
Juan Cole appears to be little more than a Democratic Partisan Shill. Not only was he the one alternapartisan (well, along with Lobe), MOST responsible for pushing the hype about the Iran election, hype which was essential to demonizing Iran, but he continues to be a foremost apologist for Obama’s war policy against Iran, which he continues to portray in classic Orwellian style as a peace policy. But Obama isn’t making peace. He’s making war and he’s moving towards more war.
I’m reminded of the Clinton years, during which the Left was just soooooo happy about Clinton’s wars. Oh, they didn’t mind at all that he was killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands with his economic war, and destroying an ancient society. After all, he was making peace not war by ‘only’ doing sanctions. And when he humanely bombed the hell out of Yugoslavia, he had a lovely ‘humanitarian’ pretext, unlike those evil Republicans, who make war in the name of ‘democracy’, instead of war in the name of ’save the fillintheblanks’.
So what we have is the latest permutation of the filthy left wing lie that Democratic wars are good, while only Republican wars are bad ones. If only Martin Luther King could come back to confront us with the horrible hypocrisies we perpetuate.
The shooting war against Iran can start anytime. The economic war and covert war have ALREADY started. Will it start now? Next week? Next year? The year after that? Who can say? We are already in a war with Iran and we are on track to an even more brutal shooting war and we need to STOP this and stop making excuses to ‘don’t worry, be happy’, ‘trust the Obama’, etc.. It would be just amazing to watch nearly the entire alternapunditocracy miss the inescapable fact of Obama’s warmongering, except that partisanship just rules the political universe.
Eric,
1. Rouzbeh’s translation of what Fars put out as the claimed statement on the video is accurate.
2. Sources inside Iran confirm that the location is NOT Evin Prison, which raises the question of where and when this meeting took place (and how it occurred that there was a surveillance camera to record it).
3. Sources inside Iran believe — though they have not been able to establish — that the audio is doctored. They also suggested — before the appearance of the statement from the Tajzadeh camp today — that Tajzadeh was NOT referring to the 2009 election but to an earlier poll.
4. An audio engineer who works with EA has gone over the YouTube version of the video. His initial findings raise suspicions as to whether the audio is authentic, but he would prefer to base conclusions on the Fars original. Unfortunately, that video is no longer loading.
Scott
Pirouz_2,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the material. I’m still trying to sift through 1) the initial video from Fars (which no longer loads) and 2) the response from the Tajzadeh supporters which consists of A) his Q&A, in which he references comments made in 2008 about other elections (obviously not the 2009 election) and B) the counter-video, in which Tajzadeh does refer to the 2009 election, saying he has problems with its legitimacy.
My reading of the Tajzadeh’s camp response is 1) that they are claiming the audio on the Fars video — in which Tajzadeh supposedly said the reformists lost the 2009 election — is a manipulation of the statement he made a year earlier and 2) that they are saying Tajzadeh’s “real” view is in the statement he made just before his recent return to prison.
Best,
Scott
off topic.
a commenter on another blog responded to a request for information about the planes US promised to Israel:
“Any delivery on F-35s to Israel will not occur for several years, probably at least two to three. The plane hasn’t even been accepted in the US air fleet and continues to suffer from several developmental problems. Plus, we’ve all seen that continuing debate on politicians of both stripes trying to force the Pentagon to buy a “back-up” engine design which isn’t ready to go yet. I wouldn’t be surprised to find Gates putting the F-35 program on the chopping block just before he leaves early next year because it’s over budget, behind schedule and not meeting specifications.”
Scott Lucas is not worth talking to. He is paid to write.
@Scott Lucas :
Of course he never says objects that he said those words TWO YEARS AGO and therefore cannot possibly refer to the 2009 elections. Which by itself is very weird. If I were in his shoes my first answer would be that: “Although what you say is an incomlete and therefore interpretation of what I have said in an interview, it is worth mentioning that I gave that interview 2 years ago and it had nothing to do with the 2009 elections”.
But then again, he clearly refers to the numbers associated with the 2009 results and not the 2005 results. Of course it could be claimed (as you do) that the voice on the clip has been manipulated or perhaps the whole clip is fake, BUT Mr. Tajzadeh himself DOES NOT SAY THAT which again is very weird, he should have come out and completely denied the authenticity of that clip ALL TOGETHER.
Still I must say that I for one have my doubts about this clip. All in all the whole clip (with its luxuriously furnished prison cell) and Tajzadeh’s own reaction to it is VERY WEIRD, to me.
Scott,
You wrote to several people:
“Any constructive comment about the alleged video of Tajzadeh “confessing” that he knew Mousavi lost the 2009 Presidential election would be welcome. We are almost certain the video was faked or manipulated — the question of by whom and why, in the current of several significant political developments in Iran, is intriguing.”
I find “constructive” Rouzbeh’s translation of the video quoted below. It would be constructive to hear your statement on whether the translation is accurate, and whether the voice of Tajzadeh on the tape resembles his actual voice. Finally, it would be constructive to hear why you think the video was “faked or manipulated.” If you’re “almost certain” about that, it would seem you must have at least some evidence. If so, is there any reason you can’t share it with us? Maybe we can help you get to the bottom of this massive fraud.
Rouzbeh’s translation:
“There are four men in the room. Three of them are introduced as Tajzadeh, Ramezanzadeh and Safai Farahani.
Tajzadeh says:”… but I -as a person who is familiar with the [process of]
election- know that there was no fraud…
maybe the outcome is changed one million, but we lost…
maybe instead of 25 million to 14 million, it was 24 million to 15 million…we lost the election.”
@Scott Lucas (also to the attention of Eric A. Brill):
This is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, so I will try to keep it as short as possible. I went to your site and read both the main post in your website and the persian “question-and-answer” session with Mr. Tajzadeh reported on the Facebook and referred to by the post in your website.
“Assuming” that the contents of the “question-and-answer” session reported on the facebook is indeed authentic and that those are indeed Tajzadeh’s answers to the question being asked:
1) He does not deny the authenticity of the clip which has been shown on tabnak.ir. ON THE CONTRARY he implicitly CONFIRMS IT (by the way, your persian speaker friends have done a lousy job of translation from persian to English, it is either that or that they have WILLFULLY mistranslated what he has said). What he says is precisely this:
“First of all, what is being attributed to me [according to you], is APPARENTLY AN INCOMPLETE AND THEREFORE WRONG INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I HAVE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW TWO YEARS AGO. At any rate I strongly deny it. And in answer to your question as to whether it is possibile in Iran to do fraude in elections, the answer is ‘yes it is possible, but it wont stay in secret (it will come in the open)’ ”
So as you can see he clearly says that it has indeed uttered those words in an interview some 2 years ago, it is just that he says that his words have been taken out of context (partially reported) and have been wrongly interpreted.
Of course it is also quite possible that at the time of the question and answering session, Mr. Tajzadeh did not know what clip the question was referring to (perhaps he had not seen the clip at the time), so he guesses that the question refers to an interview that he may have made two years ago.
At any rate, in that question and answer he refers to NO EVIDENCE AT ALL regarding any cheating, nor is he producing even a “theory” or an “accusation” (even one based on a conjecture and speculation without any evidence to support it) as to how the election fraud or what election fraud has occured. His “main” problem with the 2009 election seems to be the “result”. He keeps complaining that his side has not been able to “monitor” the elections to his satisfaction and therefore since he doesnt like the results then therefore “fraud” may have happened!!
Iranian, you are aware, aren’t you, that Regent Univ., Herr Doktor Meyer’s alma mater, is Pat Robertson’s ba*tard child, and that Robertson, along with John Hagee and others of that ilk, is a member “Christian Leaders for a Nuclear Free Iran,” http // clnfi dot org/ which, in turn, is part of the “United Against Nuclear Iran” coalition http://clnfi.org/ that includes (among others)
Iran Watch and the Wisconsin Project are both the fevered project of a former U of Wisc law school professor;
Iran Task Force is a project of Ashkelon, Israel-based World Jewish Diplomatic Corps, established to promote “the interests of the Jewish people”;
Foundation for Defense of Democracy boasts of the presence of Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, and James Woolsey on its board of advisors.
Several other organizations complete the UANI coalition; there’s a lot of astroturf in the group, but enough big money members to create an effective presence. They’re all neocons or neocon wanted-to-bes who are stuck with having chosen to lie down with the wrong dog and now can’t get rid of the fleas.
People like Meyer should be encouraged to engage in more hyperventilated speaking engagements like the one in the video: they increase the chances that he will pass out and fall off his chair, possibly knocking some sense into his head; and they increase the opportunities for the public to see a genuine freak without having to drop a quarter into the bucket. (similarly, Lucas should be encouraged to keep on flogging that fraudulent election. I look forward to reading the geriatric edition of Enduring Lucas, circa 2039, when Israel, Iran, Turkey and US are an allied economic powerhouse and Lucas awakes from his nap to declaim, “the election was stolen.”
Rehmat,
Far be it from me to tell you how to run your website, but I am trying to help. The AIPAC ad that Google had placed on your website has been replaced by an ad touting an author named Bat Ye’Or. It appears Ms. Ye’Or has just finished a book highlighting the Islamization of Europe and laying out suggestions on how Europeans can stop it. Daniel Pipes contributes an enthusiastic recommendation.
Google has seen fit to place this ad on your website. It occurred to me that you might be unaware that it’s done so.
This is a bit old, but it’s interesting:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/August/Iran-Details-Plans-for-New-Nuclear-Plants/
Scott Lucas,
That has nothing to do with the first video. He admitted that they lost the election in private. You must be pretty well paid and well fed to spend so much time spinning propaganda.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Some more information for you….
Latest developments around the Tajzadeh video, including a counter-video supposedly of his comments just before he returned to prison:
http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/18/iran-special-have-fars-revolutionary-guard-faked-a-reformist-confession-on-election/
Scott
‘Iran will block Hormuz if attacked’
www dot presstv dot ir/detail/139100.html
This is the usual bluster one gets from an Arab military. I never take such talk seriously, except as an indication of what such a military might actually TRY to do, rather than what they CAN do.
I suspect that in the event of a US attack on Iran, Iran will TRY to block Hormuz but will not be entirely successful. However, I think it’s quite possible that Iran will cause enough damage and disruption as to have a serious impact on shipping in the Gulf, as well as significant damage to some US Navy vessels, in contrast to previous US Navy confrontations in the Gulf. For the US Navy, the next war will not be a “cakewalk”.
Is an Attack on Iran Imminent?
Transfer of Nuclear Materials This Weekend Will Make Attacks Inconvenient
news dot antiwar dot com/2010/08/17/is-an-attack-on-iran-imminent/
Personally I doubt Israel or the US will target Bushehr any time soon, simply because the reactor is a light water reactor which cannot be easily used to produce nuclear weapons. John Bolton is basically talking through his hat, just issuing propaganda to make the public believe an Israeli attack is imminent – or should be.
Juan Cole has a post pointing this out, also pointing out how even George W. Bush once said Bushehr was not a big deal.
www dot juancole dot com/2010/08/8169.html
Speaking of Jeffrey Goldberg and “The Atlantic”, a little history from Grant Smith on how Israel controls the US news media.
The Israel Lobby Swims The Atlantic
original dot antiwar dot com/smith-grant/2010/08/17/the-israel-lobby-swims-the-atlantic/
Quote
A huge trove of newly declassified documents subpoenaed during a Senate investigation reveals how Israel’s lobby pitched, promoted, and paid to have content placed in America’s top news magazines with overseas funding. The Atlantic (and others) received hefty rewards for trumpeting Israel’s most vital – but damaging – PR initiatives across America.
Unlike today, back in the 1960s Israel and its lobby were battling mightily to draw American attention away from the entire subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. A secret executive report [.pdf] subpoenaed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation into the American Zionist Council, or AZC (AIPAC’s parent organization), reveals the lobby’s careful tracking of and satisfaction with most mainstream U.S. media coverage about the Dimona nuclear weapons facility:
End Quote
Quote
In the early 1960s the AZC’s Magazine Committee [.pdf] met regularly with writers to prepare articles for top U.S. magazines such as Reader’s Digest, the Saturday Evening Post, and Life. In its program [.pdf] for “cultivation of editors” and “stimulation and placement of suitable articles in the major consumer magazines,” the committee pushed lighter subjects with prepared texts such as the thirteenth anniversary of Israel’s founding while killing investigative pieces at such publications as the Christian Science Monitor. The committee confronted two major news items challenging Israel: fallout from the “Lavon Affair” (a cover-up of failed false-flag Israeli terrorist attacks on U.S. government facilities in Egypt) and American peace proposals calling for the return of some expelled Palestinian refugees to their homes and property in Israel. The Israeli government and its U.S. lobby invested heavily in arguing against the return of Palestinian refugees through The Atlantic, according to yet another secret AZC report…”
End Quote
Scott Lucas,
The problem is that your job is propaganda. Therefore, discussing anything with people like you (unless there is money involved) is useless.
Political maneuverings in Iran.
Ahmadinejad feels the heat at home
www dot atimes dot com/atimes/Middle_East/LH18Ak01.html
Salam Iranian@Iran,
I think you missed the word “constructive” in my request :-)
Scott
Scott Lucas,
How do you KNOW the video is fake? Is that what the people who fund and feed you tell you to say? You have no integrity.
Castellio,
The ‘long shot’ I was inferring was the implementation of several counter-intuitive, anti-American, neocon/AIPAC-inspired policies in quick succession until loud bleating ensued. It has the potential to drive a wedge between neocons/AIPAC, the Administration, and the public opinion of US taxpayers.
Salam Liz/Iranian,
Great to know that we are all fighting for freedom.
Any constructive comment about the alleged video of Tajzadeh “confessing” that he knew Mousavi lost the 2009 Presidential election would be welcome. We are almost certain the video was faked or manipulated — the question of by whom and why, in the current of several significant political developments in Iran, is intriguing.
Scott
Liz,
Scott Lucas has been in bed with the US government from the beginning. What do you expect from the guy? He’s a well funded freedom fighter!
Back to Chossudovsky, who has an interesting point to make.
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/content/could-china-already-be-worlds-largest-economy
Arnold, you have a wicked streak of humor when aroused (4.42).
It helps.
I’m sorry, Neil, but could you define again this ‘long shot’ you’ve proposed?
Scott Lucas,
Sorry, but it wasn’t a confession. Since, your failure to get anything right about Iran over the past 14 months, I guess you have a right to make foolish comments. Mercenaries for the US government like you are a dime a dozen, so you have to try hard to stand out. Keep trying warrior.
Stratfor on Russia, Iran and Turkey in the Caucasus.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100817_dispatch_significance_caucasus
Faram; Your observation isn’t off topic. It’s right on topic. You aren’t the only one to notice. Or to think about it.
Talk about squandering treasure for the wrong reasons in the wrong place… and to think what could have been done!
Clinging to the hope that Obama might yet become an American president, rather than an AIPAC slave, is only a hobby for me now. However, the quickest way to get AIPAC’s jackboot off his neck would be to implement stupid AIPAC-inspired policies.
Peres went out of his way to alienate Turkey, post-Gaza. That could have been patched up but, with the raid on the Mavi M, Israel drove a stake through the heart of its friendship with Turkey by refusing to satisfy Turkey’s demands for an apology, compensation and a transparent inquiry.
My understanding is that there’s no USA military hardware which can’t be supplied by Russia/Italy/France/Germany and that Israel has the contract to supply drones to Turkey. Israel will probably fulfill the contract to preserve its plummeting GDP. Apart from the fact that USA jet engine technology is at least a decade ahead of Russian engine technology, there’s no significant downside for Turkey if Congress repudiates the deal to supply weapons to Turkey. (Russian military hardware is better and cheaper than American materiel). A widening of the chasm between the US and Turkey will enhance Turkey’s international image as an honest broker.
Turkey won’t rush to leave NATO. There are significant advantages to maintaining ties with as many alliances/factions as possible. However, Turkey could be expelled although this would be worse for NATO than Turkey – by confirming NATO’s aimlessness and irrelevance.
If Obama is playing the long shot I’ve speculated upon, it should become fairly evident, fairly quickly. Played with a straight face, he could beat AIPAC at its own game. The Zionists and neocons are so used to getting their own way, and believing their own propaganda, that they won’t see it coming until it’s too late. They should have paused for breath after their defiant victory over settlement activity.
Off the topic, but worth noticing how the likely prospect could be for the US in near future.
“…The US is currently spending at least $12bn each month prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and the broader ‘war on terror’. That is 25-times the amount the UN has asked for to aid the 20 million displaced Pakistanis.”
english dot aljazeera dot net/focus/2010/08/201081612554999771.html
A similar ultimatum was given to Lebanon’s pro-US Prime Minister Saad Hariri earlier after Lebanese soldiers killed a high-ranking Israeli military officer in a border clash.
Obama also asked Erdogan during their G20 meeting in Toronto to tone down his criticism of Israel for the May 31 naval raid by the latter on a Gaza Strip-bound aid flotilla in which nine Turkish citizens were killed, the paper said.
Turkey wants to buy American drone aircraft to attack separatist rebels of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has bases in the mountains in the north of Iraq near the Turkish border. PKK’s top 13 leaders are Jewish. There are 45,000 Kurd Jews living in Israel on land stolen from the Natives.
In June the International Strategic Research Organization, a Turkish think tank had reported that Israeli Mossad and former Israeli military officers had been sighted providing military training to PKK rebels.
Last year Ankara showed its interest to buy 13 Patriot PAC-3 units at the cost of US$7.8 billion – the biggest US sale to a foreign country.
Turkey’s geostrategic importance for the United States depends partly on Incirlik Air Base, located near Adana in southeast Turkey. KC-135 refueling planes operating out of Incirlik have delivered more than 35 million gallons of fuel to U.S. warplanes on missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s also reported that the base has 90 B61 nuclear bombs.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/obama-warns-erdogan-on-israels-behalf/
” – And where do you suppose Turkey would get its f-35s from? Turkey’s western orientation is precisely what gives it its power, both military and economic. It would be an act of extreme folly for Turkey to sabotage its future (like Iran did) because of some emotionally gratifying Islamic solidarity with the Palestinians. Luckily, the Turks are much smarter and more wordly than the Iranians to do something quite that stupid”.
Dear Nasser , one of the lessons we`ve learned from the U.S strategic deadlock in the region is that , being a military and economic super power will not necessarily earn you a ” victory ” ! You will need a good backup diplomacy. The truth is the U.S has yet again committed another diplomatic blunder , Turkey is the only country in the region with that natural ability to mediate the differences between the West and key regional countries such as Iran and Syria. If the U.S is really interested in ending the current diplomatic deadlock with Iran , then Turkey is currently the most viable candidate to mediate a deal. But I guess the Zionist regime doesn`t want any kind of U.S / Iran deal , unless the deal is 100% pro – Israel !
Ps – Both Russia and China will be very happy if Turkey leaves Nato. And thus they will sell weapons ( inclunding fighter jets ) to Turkey without any reservation! The only sad country will be the U.S and one or two E.U countries !
according to Laura Rozen at Politico, Dombey’s reporting in Financial Times is inaccurate. http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0810/White_House_denies_Turkey_arms_ultimatum.html
Fyi
“I think most Muslim states do not like Iran.”
What evidence you have for this insertion, I hope you have seen the recent poll
Do you mean the Muslim nations, or the Muslim Middle East western oriented governments?
“John McCain is a visionary, far ahead of his time. The people of the United States do not deserve his genius”
“Ron Paul tried to make the United States strong and that is why the people hated him.”
“The people of the United States are too stupid to follow a leader who knows what the country really needs, like David Duke.”
I can’t think of any policy or even political theory that this three individuals may share, not that I care for any of this three but I am interested to know what if anything on any of this three interests you?
fyi,
The Iranians indeed have made a number of overtures, and a combination of incompetence (and subservience to the Israel lobby), has caused those efforts to come to naught.
As you point out, the British did not want the Soviet Union to penetrate Iran, and the Brits were obliged to pull their own forces out in order to deal with the revolt in Iraq. Moreover, the Brits were concerned the territorial integrity of the country was under threat.
James Canning:
I do not know the complaint about that King.
As far as I know, he tried to act within the Iranian Constitution of 1905.
He did not act as an executive.
I think after the 1917 Revolution in Russia, the English, fearing for India and for Oil of Iraq and Iran, decided that a weak Iranian state was not in their interests after all and tried to build it up as a bulwark against USSR.
James Canning:
Bremer did not make that decision on his own.
Iranian leaders sent a trial baloon to test US intentions in 2003.
They concluded what they concluded based on the reception of that trial baloon.
And Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to send more trial baloons.
You cannot say that he did not try; he sent more letters and other signals than either Mr. Bush or Mr. Obama.
That he did not gain traction is indicative that US is not interested in the resolution of those differences on terms acceptable to Iran.
I tried to explain how such a situation could obtain by pointing out a number of facts that US planners did not seem to accpet.
I also, through Dr. Friedman’s article, tried to indicate why Iran may not be interested in a deal – the deal may not have much for her.
If I am correct, then it follows that no improvements are in the cards.
I also think it will be a good idea to setup a Web site called “The Race for America”.
On the alleged Tajzadeh video “confession” about the election, see http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/17/iran-special-have-fars-revolutionary-guard-faked-a-reformist-confession-on-election/
Scott
Salam Liz,
You are so sweet when you are agitated….
Scott
fyi,
Didn’t the overthrow of the Qajar dynasty owe a great deal to the fact the Shah was spending most of his time trying to obtain maximum funds for himself, and then was sending the money out of Iran (Persia)? Reza Shah was a reformer, reacting to an unsatisfactory situation.
Lets just say, to be kind, that any sociology which reduces to “they were stupid” is of limited value.
fyi,
As you are well aware, Iran if fact proposed a resolution of the US-Iran differences, that would have been fairly easy for the US to accept, had a competent National Security Adviser been in the White House.
Do you personally prefer continuing hostility between the US and Iran?
fyi,
L. Paul Bremer in effect caused the dissolution of the Iraqi army and security services, over the frantic objections of his predecessor in Baghdad. George W. Bush apparently did not even comprehend what was transpiring.
Eric,
Tajzadeh said: I who have experience with elections (Tajzadeh was in charge of holding elections in the Ministry of the Interior under President Khatami), know that there was no cheating in the elections. It’s possible that a million votes could be moved back and forth, but we lost the elections. Now instead of 25 million and 14 million, maybe 24 million and 15 million, for example, but we lost the election.”
Cengiz:
People believed that he had betrayed Iran by being a lackey of USA.
That he was not supportive of Shia Islam with enough vigor, that he was in fact undermining that religion. [And Iran has been, for 500 years, the Citadel of Shia Muslims - that is why that state exists.]
That he had destroyed democracy and freedom that had been bought by the Revolution of 1905.
That he was against Islam by being for Israel.
That he was stealing oil money to enrich himself, his extended family, and his servants.
“I wish Turks well, I hope they can achieve what no Muslim polity have achieved so far: real representative democracy and the Rule of Law while adhereing to Islamic Tradition.”
I wish Iran well too. But they should start wearing ties lol. It is like Shakespearean tragedy what happened to them I felt really sad.
“And I do not think that the Iranians betrayed the Shah, in fact, Iranians would claim that the Shah betrayed Iran.”
Can you please explain?
Cengiz,
You sound more like an American who spends his day watching c-span.
“But I don’t think you need to fear any such thing from Erdogan. Ozal and Erdogan brought in much needed economic and democratic reforms that was good for Turkey and helped in the modernization process.”
I said Erdogan is good for Turkey’s economy. Most secularists hate him but you need reforms in Turkey if you really want to be modern. But Erdogan needs to stop caring about Arab street so much and not sabotage Turkey’s relations with America. I admire Turgut Ozal even more than Ataturk he is the reason for Turkey’s economic success. But unlike Erdogan he really liked America and helped improve relations by opening up business and helping with Iraq.
“I also have greater respect for the intellectual capacity of the Turks and feel they are not susceptible to clerical seduction like the Iranians.”
“clerical seduction” lol
Arnold Evans:
Yes, no wonder Muslim states are not democracies; they want to put their brain on auto-pilot and let some (Great or Dear) Leader think for them.
Well said.
Can I play too?
John McCain is a visionary, far ahead of his time. The people of the United States do not deserve his genius.
Ron Paul tried to make the United States strong and that is why the people hated him.
The people of the United States are too stupid to follow a leader who knows what the country really needs, like David Duke.
Cengiz,
“Anwar Sadat was a great man unlike that fool Nasser. Sadat did what was best for his country and his people killed him for it. The Shah of Iran was also a great man that tried to modernize his country and make it strong. The Iranians killed him for it.”
- Well said. Thanks for the inconvenient truth.
“Turks will NEVER betray Ataturk because we have discipline and don’t want to be backward!”
- I think Turkey’s military tradition gives its citizens great discipline. The Iranians got too much too soon and they just couldn’t handle it till they finally lost it and brought in the Islamic retards. But I don’t think you need to fear any such thing from Erdogan. Ozal and Erdogan brought in much needed economic and democratic reforms that was good for Turkey and helped in the modernization process. I also have greater respect for the intellectual capacity of the Turks and feel they are not susceptible to clerical seduction like the Iranians.
Cengiz:
Japan is perfect example of what imitation means.
You can see it in their music – it is destroyed; there is no authentic Japanese music to speak of.
And if you think that country is Western, in any sense, you aree very much mistaken.
I think Iran and Turkey have a lot in common: one of them is the Absence of the Rule of Law. Of course, like everything else, this is relative and I suppose compared to Mexico, Turkey and Iran are not so bad.
However, in comparison to Anglo-Saxon norms, there is no Rule of Law in those 2 states.
And I do not think that the Iranians betrayed the Shah, in fact, Iranians would claim that the Shah betrayed Iran.
As for Mustapha Kemal Pasha: he also had concrete achievements but again he failed in creation of a state in which representative government could floursih and yet be Muslim.
So, he created a state that was neither democratic nor Islamic nor had any Rule of Law in it. People of all religions had more protection under the Meliyat system of the Ottoman Padeshah than under the Turkish Republic.
This situation has changed only now under AKP and pressure of EU.
I wish Turks well, I hope they can achieve what no Muslim polity have achieved so far: real representative democracy and the Rule of Law while adhereing to Islamic Tradition.
Personally, I would bet on Iran.
To: Eric A. Brill
Here is the English translation of the video you asked for
Title: “Mr. Tajzadeh’s Talk Regarding the Election of ‘88 (2009), speaking among his friends in Evin Prison (Safaii Farahani- Abdoullah Ramazaonzadeh)
With my experience in elections, I know that there were no cheating in the elections. It is possible that a million (votes) could have been changed up or down, but the final result was that we had lost the elctions. Now, it could have instead of 25 million and 14 million (votes,) been 24 million and 15 million, for example. We lost the elections. We lost the elections. We lost the elections.”
Hope this helps.
“I guess I can only ask if you’ve ever considered why the Shah led to Khomeini, or why Sadat led to Mubarak.”
Because those stupid Islamists really know how to seduce people and destroy countries. The Egyptians and Iranians were too backward and stupid to know what they were doing and they killed their good governments and imposed really bad ones. Islamists are trying to do the same today in Turkey but Turks will NEVER betray Ataturk.
Castellio:
Cengiz is not totally wrong.
Sadat had actual accomplishments such as getting back what Nasser had lost.
But he became Judas of Islam by abandoning Al Haram Al Sharif.
And his positive policies in domestic sphere were dismantled after his assasination.
The Shah of Iran’s intentions were not evil but he had concentrated so much power in his own hands that when things took a turn for worse there was no one to take the blame but him.
A alrge number of Iranian people, like many other Muslim people, have been under the impression that the source of all their troubles has been deviation from the tenets of Islam. And that a restoration (of a mythical past) will usher in the Islamic Utopia.
It is unfortunate that this fantasy project was first tried in Iran leading to the Islamic Disaster (nikba) there.
The other path, military un-Islamism, seems to have been the preferred method of other Muslim states, including Turkey.
The 2 experiments, one in un-Islamic Westernization and the other in Islamic modernization, in my opinion are partial failures. They are partial failures for different reasons: the Westernization one is not successful because it does not take into account, in a serious manner, the Islamic Tradition. The Islamic one failos because it gives overwhelming crdence to every obscure part of Islamic Tradition – as understood by weakly educated men.
Neither has been an adequate, independent, self-sustaining response to the challenges of Western Atheistic Modernity.
There are men like Cengiz who are thrilled at how well they are imitating Europe while there are others (not on this forum) who are happy that they are not touching their wives when she is mensturation thus guaranteeing their enterence into Paradise.
And the best response of Islam has been Ayatollah Khomeini with his fusion of the principles of Islam and those of Republicanism.
“No amount of imitation of the Western states is going to make Turkey any less backward compared to them. They are the dominant civilization of Earth and every one else is a barbarian – by definition.
Now there are different levels of barbarism. I hope Turkey could reach a very high one.”
Don’t the Iranians really admire the Japanese? The Japanese decided to imitate the West too and it brought them great success. The Chinese are old dominant civilization and they imitate the West too to bring them economic success. Ataturks vision of looking towards the West helped Turkey to have the largest economy and military in the region and we will never betray him like how the Iranians betrayed the Shah. Iranians can go on pretending but the Gulf Arabs are today far more advanced than the Iranians and they were far behind in the 70s when the Shah was in charge. Iranians refuse to wear ties hahaha and worship a guy (Khameini) who claims he is “God’s representative on Earth” rofl and they claim thats not backward?!!
Scott Lucas,
That’s why I wrote it. I wanted to remind you that you are a hypocrite.
‘Iran will block Hormuz if attacked’
A senior Iranian military official says Iran will take full control of the Strait of Hormuz should Washington opt to launch aggression against Iran.
“The country’s armed forces which are under the (Islamic Revolution) Leader’s command are in the highest state of preparedness.” head of the Operations Department of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Ali Shademani was quoted by Mehr News Agency as saying on Tuesday.
“Three measures are in store to counter any potential aggression against the country”, he said.
“The first action would be to take full control of the Strait of Hormuz whereby we wouldn’t allow any move by anybody”, the top military official underlined.
He said the enemy ‘will be brought to its knees’ as soon as it makes a move.
As for the second measure, General Shademani said, “We are keeping a close watch on all American military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
“With the slightest move against Iran, we will paralyze the troops stationed in those bases and won’t allow them to make any move.” he stressed.
The top general also elaborated on the third plan.
“Israel is the United States’ backyard”, he highlighted, “So we will disturb the peace there.”
“The US and Israel well know that we can do it”, he added.
Cengiz wrote: “Anwar Sadat was a great man unlike that fool Nasser. Sadat did what was best for his country and his people killed him for it. The Shah of Iran was also a great man that tried to modernize his country and make it strong. The Iranians killed him for it. Turks will NEVER betray Ataturk because we have discipline and don’t want to be backward!”
Wow! What to say to that!
I guess I can only ask if you’ve ever considered why the Shah led to Khomeini, or why Sadat led to Mubarak.
FYI: I agree that Egypt is far weaker than generally understood.
Cengiz:
No amount of imitation of the Western states is going to make Turkey any less backward compared to them. They are the dominant civilization of Earth and every one else is a barbarian – by definition.
Now there are different levels of barbarism. I hope Turkey could reach a very high one.
“If you don’t like either Iran or Egypt as your role models, and you believe that the Turkish government should reflect its people, then a whole new way of doing things will have to be invented. I wouldn’t contract that out to the US state department.”
Anwar Sadat was a great man unlike that fool Nasser. Sadat did what was best for his country and his people killed him for it. The Shah of Iran was also a great man that tried to modernize his country and make it strong. The Iranians killed him for it. Turks will NEVER betray Ataturk because we have discipline and don’t want to be backward!
Nasser:
Broadly speaking I agree with his predictions.
With the collapse of the Peace of Yalta in 1990, the dissolution of USSR, and the ending of US over-reach during the 20 year inter-regum period, the Western ascendancy in the Near East is coming to an end.
Turkey has understood this and so has Iran. Israel has not, it seems.
And the regional economic cooperation and integration is what all these polities need and want. And their economies could, in fact, complement each other.
There are specific items with which I disagree:
I think Egypt is far weaker than is generally understood; it cannot even influence its near abroad where its vital interests are at stake – namely the Upper Nile states and their management of Nile waters.
I think he is over-estimating the economic power of Turkey – she will still be in need of EU financial assitance for at least another decade. This could change if Arab petro-states invest there. And it is not easy for me to see Turkey having much more than symbolic presence in Central Asia.
I also think that Israel will play no role in the regional development or integration – unless Jerusalem is returned to Muslim control she will remain isolated.
I also take exception to his “balance of power” notion: it will not be based on the military rather on peace interest.
I think he is right about Iran in that Iran will maintain her power and influence in her near-abroad waiting for an opportunity to expand her power. That actually is something that makes more sense for Iran to do – consolidation of her position in Iraq, in the Levant, and in Afghanista.
And the Arab states can live with this arrangement – they can pursue their development projects without fear of an imminent war.
Salam Liz,
Why, I’m right here (and watching the news from Tehran to Kabul to Guantanamo Bay) — thanks for asking! Nice to know you’re still thinking of me….
Scott
Cengiz: If you don’t like either Iran or Egypt as your role models, and you believe that the Turkish government should reflect its people, then a whole new way of doing things will have to be invented. I wouldn’t contract that out to the US state department.
fyi,
Thanks for posting the article. George Friedman really is brilliant and Stratfor always has great insights. You should read his other articles on Iran though. Like how he ridicules Iran’s pretensions to regional leadership despite being such a weak state and how he finds the notion of even thinking of Iran and Turkey as being in the same league as downright laughable.
Stratfor’s very interesting decade forecast for the Middle East:
“The forecasts we made in 2000 and 2005 remain our driving model. We see the U.S.-jihadist war subsiding. This does not mean that Islamist militancy will be eliminated. Attempts at attacks will continue, and some will succeed. However, the two major wars in the region will have dramatically subsided if not concluded by 2020. We also see the Iranian situation having been brought under control. Whether this will be by military action and isolation of Iran or by a political arrangement with the current or a successor regime is unclear but irrelevant to the broader geopolitical issue. Iran will be contained as it simply does not have the underlying power to be a major player in the region beyond its immediate horizons.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran will remain issues by 2020, but not defining issues in the region. Two other countries will be more important. Turkey is emerging as a self-confident regional leader, with a strong military and economy. We expect that trend to continue, and see Turkey emerging as the dominant regional power. The growth of Turkish power and influence in the next decade is one reason we feel confident in the decline of the U.S.-jihadist war and the transformation of the Iran issue. The dynamic in the region between the Mediterranean and Iran — and even in the Caucasus and Central Asia — will be redefined by Turkey’s re-emergence. Of course, Turkey will feel tremendous internal tensions during this process, as is the case for any emerging power. For Turkey, the relationship between the Ataturkian tradition and the Islamic tradition is the deep fault line. It could falsify this forecast by plunging the country into chaos. While that is possible, we feel that the crisis will be managed over the next decade, albeit with much pain and stress.
By 2020, Egypt will be changing from the type of country it has been since the 1970s — for the past generation it has lacked the capacity to influence developments beyond its borders. Like Turkey, Egypt is caught between secularism and Islam, and that tension could continue paralyzing it. However, as Turkey rises, Ankara will need a large source of cheap labor and markets for exports. The result will be a “coattails” effect for Egypt. With this synergetic fortification we expect not only an end to Egyptian quiescence, but increased friction between Egypt and all other regional players. In particular, Israel will be searching for the means to maintain its balance between the powerful Turkey and the re-emerging Egypt. This will shape all of its foreign — and domestic — policies.
The United States, eager to withdraw from the region and content to see a Turkish-Egyptian-Israeli balance of power emerge, will try to make sure that each player is sufficiently strong to play its role in creating — while retaining its independence within — a regional equilibrium. Beneath this, radical Islamist movements will continue to emerge — not to the interest of Turkey, Egypt or Israel, none of whom will want that complicating factor. Washington will be ceding responsibility and power in the region and withdrawing, managing the situation with weapons sales and economic incentives and penalties. For the first time since the end of World War I, the region will be developing a self-contained regional balance of power.”
Richard Steven Hack:
You are entitled to your opinion of Cordesman.
James Canning:
Mr. Broujerdi, a senior member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Commitee, has publicly stated that US-Iran differences are not resolvable.
He made that comment in 2007, if I recall correctly.
He seems to have been correct so far.
James Canning:
The order for the dissolution of the Iraqi Army came from the either the White House or the DoD. It did not come from Ambassador Bremer.
Richard Steven Hack,
I join with you in deploring the foolishness of those who think the US could engage in war with Iran and not suffer severe punishment. War would be a catastrophe for the entire Middle East. And for the US.
Fyi: “I think Cordesman, as a military planner, always has to assume the worst. From a US perspctive, he is just doing his job.”
I disagree completely. Cordesman has been shilling for the US for some time time.
“And the other is that US and Iran cannot reconcile their differences but cannot afford to go to war either.”
What’s wrong with this picture?
What I’m seeing is that as the rhetoric for war with Iran heats up, the cognitive dissonance is becoming more pronounced in even the anti-war types. It reminds me of the period before the Iraq war.
I just did a Google search on the phrase “there will be no war in Iraq”. Amusingly, I only found this piece by a Haitian. Read it. It sounds exactly like the stuff I read here. All the same arguments about why “there will be no war in Iraq.”
How’d that work out?
www dot haitiwebs dot com/showthread.php?p=49217
fyi,
The US and Iran could reoncile their differences fairly easily, if it were not for the hundreds of stooges of the Israel lobby to be found in the US Congress.
fyi,
I agree George Friedman is a good writer with much insight. However, it should be borne in mind that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney expressly agreed, before the invasion of Iraq, that the Iraqi army and security services would be kept intact, to prevent civil war. The catastrophe in Iraq was the direct result of gross incompetence in the White House, especially on the part of Condoleezza Rice. It seems clear that George W. Bush was not even aware he was allowing the destruction of the Sunni power structure, contrary to what the pre-invasion game plan called for. L. Paul Bremer was the idiot who carried out the betrayal of Crown Prince Abdullah and the Saudis.
Cengiz: “Iran’s navy is a bunch of speed boats and they threaten America hahaha.”
When they sink a US Navy destroyer or two, the hundreds of dead US sailors won’t be laughing.
Richard Steven Hack:
I think Cordesman, as a military planner, always has to assume the worst. From a US perspctive, he is just doing his job.
I think he is correct that US and Iran are in a de facto competition for strategic influence in the lands of Islam.
I think most Muslim states do not like Iran.
I also do not think that they like US.
At the same time, they cannot comeup with an alternative to either US or Iran.
So they cooperate where they can with Iran or with US.
At the same time, Iran remains the only independent Muslim state which is consistently opposing US across the globe.
This from a country that entered 20-th century with ploughs and hoes; being 90% illiterate.
There are 2 interesting things about Cordesman piece: one is the acknowledgement – however implicit – the stupidity of US Iran policy which has ceded power to other states such as China and Russia to gain leverage on both Iran and US.
And the other is that US and Iran cannot reconcile their differences but cannot afford to go to war either.
A few more analysis pieces like that and we can actually hope for serious engagement.
Richard Steven Hack:
He has taken Iran off the table as an issue because he will be using the refrain: “Let sanctions work.” or “Sanctions are working.”.
I also have come to the conclusion that the September meetings will achieve nothing. Iranians will fuel TRR themselves.
James Canning:
Friedman is a very insightful man. And the Americans in Iraq pursued a Revolutionary strategy of destroying both the existing governing structures and the its legal structure, all the time thinking that they could repeat German and Japnese experience in Iraq. It is in that light that such comments to Saudi Arabia must be understood.
That their Revolution in Iraq led to another Shia Islamic Republic is beyond irony – it is almost like Divine intervention in human affairs.
Fyi: Re that CSIS article. Cordesman lies again when he refers to Iran’s “search for nuclear weapons” and “It shows that Iran continues to develop the capability to produce nuclear weapons, has chemical weapons, and may have a biological weapons program” and “There is a significant prospect that Iran will be able to equip some missiles with nuclear warheads in the next three to six years…”
Cordesman is a tool of the US military-industrial complex. He issues this report right now when once again the pressure is building for the US to attack Iran.
Fyi: “He has given himself space by effectively taking the Iran issue out of Presidential election of 2012.”
I don’t think he’s done anything about 2012 – he’s taken the issue out of this year’s elections. He has plenty of time to screw up by 2012. He could even screw up by end of this year, given that the negotiations won’t resume until fall.
Castellio calls it “Ottoman revisionism” but James Canning tells the truth like it is:
“Because Nasser courted support from the Soviet Union, the US was inclined to back Israel in response. This in part explains why Lyndon Johnson failed to force Israel out of the Sinai (and the West Bank and Golan Heights), when Dwight Eisenshower had insisted that Israel leave the Sinai.” Why is it Turkey’s responsibility when the Arabs themselves treat the Palestinians so badly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-2YGAInH5o
Now all these people want Turkey to suffer and sabotage its relationship with the US because of some stupid Islamic solidarity crap. But what would happen to Turkey economically and militarily then? We don’t have any oil! And Russia or China really hasn’t sold Iran ANY advanced weapons!!! Before 79 Iran was “the most feared thing east of Israel” thanks to the US and how did they thank America by taking their diplomats hostages! Today Iran’s military is such a joke I bet even Saudi Arabia can take them let alone Turkey, Pakistan or Israel. Iran’s navy is a bunch of speed boats and they threaten America hahaha. It took a great catastrophe of WWI for Turkey to learn maybe it would take something similar for Iran to come to its senses and end this Islamic nonsense. I think Mr. Erdogan did good for Turkey’s economy but he should have better relations with the Americans and not care so much about “Arab street”.
Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime
George Orwell wrote, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
A true journalist’s job is to expose government wrongdoing and propaganda, skewer hypocrites and liars, and speak for those with no voice. And wage war against mankind’s two worst scourges: nationalism and religious bigotry.
I’ve always felt kinship for free thinkers, rebels, and heretics.
That’s why I am drawn to the plight of Private Bradley Manning who apparently believed Ernest Hemingway’s dictum: “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”
The 22-year old US Army intelligence analyst caused a worldwide furor by releasing to Wiki Leaks secret military logs that exposed ugly truths about the brutal conflict in Afghanistan, including widespread killing of civilians.
To again quote Orwell, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
Manning also released a suppressed tape of a US Army helicopter gunship killing two Reuters journalists and a civilian.
A civilian hacker employed by some shadowy US government intelligence “contractor” spying on the internet turned Manning in.
Revenge was swift. Manning was thrown into solitary confinement and faces a long prison term. His case recalls another courageous whistleblower, Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed Israel’s large nuclear arsenal, was kidnapped, served 17 years in solitary, and still remains a semi-prisoner.
Wiki Gate provoked a flood of bombastic pro-war propaganda from America’s mainstream (read: government guided) media, its rent-a-journalists, and Canada’s wannabe Republican neocons.
Manning’s revelations were blamed on his being gay, a loner, or maladjusted. The Soviets used to lock away such “anti-state elements” and dissenters in mental institutions.
Those with an interest in keeping the US military in Afghanistan tried to divert attention from Wiki Gate by trumpeting the plight of a wretched Afghan girl whose nose had been cut off by her backwards tribal in-laws. She was turned into a pro-war martyr.
This crime was immediately blamed without evidence on Taliban and served up as the reason why the Western powers had to garrison Afghanistan. No pictures of Afghans blown to bits or maimed by US bombs were published. No mentions of oil and gas.
A few months ago, in response to Europe’s growing opposition to the Afghan War, CIA reportedly advised NATO the best way to keep marketing the Afghan War to the public was claiming it was a crusade to protect women’s rights.
Inconveniently, the US and NATO’s Afghan allies – Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara – mistreat their women as badly as Taliban’s Pashtun.
When I served in the US Army, we were taught that it was our duty to report up the chain of command all violations of the Geneva Conventions and war crimes. These included killing civilians, torture, reprisals, and executions.
Manning reportedly sought to report to his superiors just such crimes committed in Afghanistan by some US forces and their local allies and mercenaries.
He was ignored. Just as was the courageous Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin when he warned Ottawa that prisoners were being handed over to the brutal Afghan secret police for torture and execution.
Manning’s motivations for whistle-blowing matter not. What does matter is he revealed to the public the brutal nature of the colonial war in Afghanistan and the bodyguard of lies protecting it from public scrutiny. If Americans and Canadians really knew the truth of this resource-driven war, and its carefully concealed cost, they would end it very quickly.
I am reminded of the song from the great Harry Belafonte: “You can cage the bird, but not the song!”
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/they-cant-cage-a-song.aspx
Jitin Prasada, an Indian energy official, says India wants to resume negotiations for the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipline. This project should be supported by the Obama administration, as a means of encouraging cooperation in the region in the interests of stability and economic growth. But this would not please the Israel lobby and its numerous stooges in the US Congress.
fyi,
George Friedman says the US invaded Iraq for the purpose of destroying “the Baathist regime”. In fact, the Bush administration expressly assured Saudi Arabia that the Sunni power structure would be left intact after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
Cengiz,
The Cold War is over, as the new British foreign secretary, William Hague, likes to observe when discussing British policy in the Middle East.
Because Nasser courted support from the Soviet Union, the US was inclined to back Israel in response. This in part explains why Lyndon Johnson failed to force Israel out of the Sinai (and the West Bank and Golan Heights), when Dwight Eisenshower had insisted that Israel leave the Sinai.
President Johnson was dependent upon support from Jewish financiers, to be able to continue his insane military adventure in Southeast Asia. (I understand Mossad in effect blackmailed him.)
Surely Obama can comprehend that Turkey is doing its good friend and ally, the US, a signal service by showing the way forward in the Middle East. That this upsets the warmongering neocons should be ignored by the president. But of course he has to deal with the numerous stooges of the Israel lobby found in his own party.
“OTTAWA—The first batches of medical isotopes to come out of the Chalk River nuclear reactor in more than a year should start arriving at clinics within days.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. said the Ontario reactor has resumed isotope production after a 15-month shutdown. The company expects to ship the first batch of isotopes later this week.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/848793–chalk-river-producing-medical-isotopes-again?bn=1
Dan Cooper:
Realistically, US will do a combination of these activities.
Note that US personal debt stood at 133% of income – on the average – in 2007.
Now it is at 122% of income.
Another 5 years and it will be at 100% of personal income.
And 10 years after that it will be in the 70 % range.
So, on that basis alone, US is looking to 15 more years of low economic activity as individuals pay down their debts.
This 15-year time frame is also consistent with US Bureau of Labor Statistics that projects substantial job improvement to take equally long.
Other countries will not dump dollar-based assets suddenly since that would hurt them sell such assets. They will try to buy tangible and real goods with them: ships, weapons, mines, ports, airlines, factories, banks, buildings etc.
And since they are all in the same game, none of them would want to hold dollars. Paradoxically, the value of US-based assets will go up as others will try to exchange their worthless dollars with real property and real assets in US. That is, dollars have to be spent in US else the last entity to receive dollar will be holding the proverbial bag.
But undoubtedly, US is facing years of austerity.
Where is that hypocrite Scott Lucas?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100817/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cia_videotapes;_ylt=AlOUE4DRsM.sdKm05fATNZkDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTJtdmt0aW92BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODE3L3VzX2NpYV92aWRlb3RhcGVzBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDYXBleGNsdXNpdmV0
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100816_americans_are_history.htm
The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control.
Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existent recovery. As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times Column, Welcome to the Recovery.
As John Williams (shadowstats.com) has made clear on many occasions, an appearance of recovery was created by over-counting employment and undercounting inflation. Warnings by Williams, Gerald Celente, and myself have gone unheeded, but our warnings recently had echoes from Boston University professor Laurence Kotlikoff and from David Stockman, who excoriated the Republican Party for becoming big-spending Democrats.
It is encouraging to see a bit of realization that, this time, Washington cannot spend the economy out of recession. The deficits are already too large for the dollar to survive as reserve currency, and deficit spending cannot put Americans back to work in jobs that have been moved offshore.
However, the solutions offered by those who are beginning to recognize that there is a problem are discouraging. Kotlikoff thinks the solution is massive Social Security and Medicare cuts or massive tax increases or hyperinflation to destroy the massive debts.
Perhaps economists lack imagination, or perhaps they don’t want to be cut off from Wall Street and corporate subsidies, but Social Security and Medicare are insufficient at their present levels, especially considering the erosion of private pensions by the dot com, derivative and real estate bubbles. Cuts in Social Security and Medicare, for which people have paid 15% of their earnings all their life, would result in starvation and deaths from curable diseases.
Tax increases make even less sense. It is widely acknowledged that the majority of households cannot survive on one job. Both husband and wife work and often one of the partners has two jobs in order to make ends meet. Raising taxes makes it harder to make ends meet—thus more foreclosures, more food stamps, more homelessness. What kind of economist or humane person thinks this is a solution?
Ah, but we will tax the rich. The usual idiocy. The rich have enough money. They will simply stop earning.
Let’s get real. Here is what the government is likely to do.
Once the Washington idiots realize that the dollar is at risk and that they can no longer finance their wars by borrowing abroad, the government will either levy a tax on private pensions on the grounds that the pensions have accumulated tax-deferred, or the government will require pension fund managers to purchase Treasury debt with our pensions. This will buy the government a bit more time while pension accounts are loaded up with worthless paper.
The last Bush budget deficit (2008) was in the $400-500 billion range, about the size of the Chinese, Japanese, and OPEC trade surpluses with the US. Traditionally, these trade surpluses have been recycled to the US and finance the federal budget deficit. In 2009 and 2010 the federal deficit jumped to $1,400 billion, a back-to-back trillion dollar increase. There are not sufficient trade surpluses to finance a deficit this large. From where comes the money?
The answer is from individuals fleeing the stock market into “safe” Treasury bonds and from the bankster bailout, not so much the TARP money as the Federal Reserve’s exchange of bank reserves for questionable financial paper such as subprime derivatives. The banks used their excess reserves to purchase Treasury debt.
These financing maneuvers are one-time tricks. Once people have fled stocks, that movement into Treasuries is over. The opposition to the bankster bailout likely precludes another. So where does the money come from the next time?
The Treasury was able to unload a lot of debt thanks to “the Greek crisis,” which the New York banksters and hedge funds multiplied into “the euro crisis.” The financial press served as a financing arm for the US Treasury by creating panic about European debt and the euro.
Central banks and individuals who had taken refuge from the dollar in euros were panicked out of their euros, and they rushed into dollars by purchasing US Treasury debt.
This movement from euros to dollars weakened the alternative reserve currency to the dollar, halted the dollar’s decline, and financed the massive US budget deficit a while longer.
Possibly the game can be replayed with Spanish debt, Irish debt, and whatever unlucky country swept in by the thoughtless expansion of the European Union.
But when no countries remain that can be destabilized by Wall Street investment banksters and hedge funds, what then finances the US budget deficit?
The only remaining financier is the Federal Reserve. When Treasury bonds brought to auction do not sell, the Federal Reserve must purchase them. The Federal Reserve purchases the bonds by creating new demand deposits, or checking accounts, for the Treasury. As the Treasury spends the proceeds of the new debt sales, the US money supply expands by the amount of the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury debt.
Do goods and services expand by the same amount? Imports will increase as US jobs have been offshored and given to foreigners, thus worsening the trade deficit. When the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasury’s new debt issues, the money supply will increase by more than the supply of domestically produced goods and services. Prices are likely to rise.
How high will they rise? The longer money is created in order that government can pay its bills, the more likely hyperinflation will be the result.
The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher?
Whatever the size, the rest of the world will see that the dollar is being printed in such quantities that it cannot serve as reserve currency. At that point wholesale dumping of dollars will result as foreign central banks try to unload a worthless currency.
The collapse of the dollar will drive up the prices of imports and offshored goods on which Americans are dependent. Wal-Mart shoppers will think they have mistakenly gone into Neiman Marcus.
Domestic prices will also explode as a growing money supply chases the supply of goods and services still made in America by Americans.
The dollar as reserve currency cannot survive the conflagration. When the dollar goes the US cannot finance its trade deficit. Therefore, imports will fall sharply, thus adding to domestic inflation and, as the US is energy import-dependent, there will be transportation disruptions that will disrupt work and grocery store deliveries.
Panic will be the order of the day.
Will farms will be raided? Will those trapped in cities resort to riots and looting?
Is this the likely future that “our” government and “our patriotic” corporations have created for us?
To borrow from Lenin, “What can be done?”
Here is what can be done. The wars, which benefit no one but the military-security complex and Israel’s territorial expansion, can be immediately ended. This would reduce the US budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars per year. More hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved by cutting the rest of the military budget, which in its present size, exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined.
US military spending reflects the unaffordable and unattainable crazed neoconservative goal of US Empire and world hegemony. What fool in Washington thinks that China is going to finance US hegemony over China?
The only way that the US will again have an economy is by bringing back the offshored jobs. The loss of these jobs impoverished Americans while producing over-sized gains for Wall Street, shareholders, and corporate executives. These jobs can be brought home where they belong by taxing corporations according to where value is added to their product. If value is added to their goods and services in China, corporations would have a high tax rate. If value is added to their goods and services in the US, corporations would have a low tax rate.
This change in corporate taxation would offset the cheap foreign labor that has sucked jobs out of America, and it would rebuild the ladders of upward mobility that made America an opportunity society.
If the wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history.
Obviously, the corporations and Wall Street would use their financial power and campaign contributions to block any legislation that would reduce short-term earnings and bonuses by bringing jobs back to Americans. Americans have no greater enemies than Wall Street and the corporations and their prostitutes in Congress and the White House.
The neocons allied with Israel, who control both parties and much of the media, are strung out on the ecstasy of Empire.
The United States and the welfare of its 300 million people cannot be restored unless the neocons, Wall Street, the corporations, and their servile slaves in Congress and the White House can be defeated.
Without a revolution, Americans are history.
“Tajzadeh, who was one of the key people behind the riots in Tehran after the elections, telling two of his close friends in a private conversation in Evin prison”
That’s some kind of fully furnished prison, complete with Persian carpet and coffee table, all along I thought Bernie Madoff must have the best prison cell looks like our Green revolutionaries are not far behind
Eric,
I’m in a rush, but I’ll try later.
Here is a threat made by an Iranian military commander saying that if Iran is attacked, it will take the Straight of Hormuz, cripple US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and make life hell for Israel:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=114741
“It is only after Nasser’s betrayal that America started siding with the Israelis so much! The Palestinians paid for this but it is all Egypt’s fault Turkey shouldn’t pay for this let the Arabs handle the Israelis.”
Whoa! I didn’t know this Ottoman revisionism existed!
Eric,
There are four men in the room. Three of them are introduced as Tajzadeh, Ramezanzadeh and Safai Farahani.
Tajzadeh says:”… but I -as a person who is familiar with the [process of]
election- know that there was no fraud…
maybe the outcome is changed one million, but we lost…
maybe instead of 25 million to 14 million, it was 24 million to 15 million…we lost the election
Apologies for the very long post – wanted to keep it available.
Note that this is consistent with Cordesman’s analysis.
===========================================================
The U.S. Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq
August 17, 2010 | 0856 GMT ShareThis
By George Friedman
It is August 2010, which is the month when the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to leave Iraq. It is therefore time to take stock of the situation in Iraq, which has changed places with Afghanistan as the forgotten war. This is all the more important since 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, and while they may not be considered combat troops, a great deal of combat power remains embedded with them. So we are far from the end of the war in Iraq. The question is whether the departure of the last combat units is a significant milestone and, if it is, what it signifies.
The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 with three goals: The first was the destruction of the Iraqi army, the second was the destruction of the Baathist regime and the third was the replacement of that regime with a stable, pro-American government in Baghdad. The first two goals were achieved within weeks. Seven years later, however, Iraq still does not yet have a stable government, let alone a pro-American government. The lack of that government is what puts the current strategy in jeopardy.
The fundamental flaw of the invasion of Iraq was not in its execution but in the political expectations that were put in place. As the Americans knew, the Shiite community was anti-Baathist but heavily influenced by Iranian intelligence. The decision to destroy the Baathists put the Sunnis, who were the backbone of Saddam’s regime, in a desperate position. Facing a hostile American army and an equally hostile Shiite community backed by Iran, the Sunnis faced disaster. Taking support from where they could get it — from the foreign jihadists that were entering Iraq — they launched an insurgency against both the Americans and the Shia.
The Sunnis simply had nothing to lose. In their view, they faced permanent subjugation at best and annihilation at worst. The United States had the option of creating a Shiite-based government but realized that this government would ultimately be under Iranian control. The political miscalculation placed the United States simultaneously into a war with the Sunnis and a near-war situation with many of the Shia, while the Shia and Sunnis waged a civil war among themselves and the Sunnis occasionally fought the Kurds as well. From late 2003 until 2007, the United States was not so much in a state of war in Iraq as it was in a state of chaos.
The new strategy of Gen. David Petraeus emerged from the realization that the United States could not pacify Iraq and be at war with everyone. After a 2006 defeat in the midterm elections, it was expected that U.S. President George W. Bush would order the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Instead, he announced the surge. The surge was really not much of a surge, but it created psychological surprise — not only were the Americans not leaving, but more were on the way. Anyone who was calculating a position based on the assumption of a U.S. withdrawal had to recalculate.
The Americans understood that the key was reversing the position of the Sunni insurgents. So long as they remained at war with the Americans and Shia, there was no possibility of controlling the situation. Moreover, only the Sunnis could cut the legs out from under the foreign jihadists operating in the Sunni community. These jihadists were challenging the traditional leadership of the Sunni community, so turning this community against the jihadists was not difficult. The Sunnis also were terrified that the United States would withdraw, leaving them at the mercy of the Shia. These considerations, along with substantial sums of money given to Sunni tribal elders, caused the Sunnis to do an about-face. This put the Shia on the defensive, since the Sunni alignment with the Americans enabled the Americans to strike at the Shiite militias.
Petraeus stabilized the situation, but he did not win the war. The war could only be considered won when there was a stable government in Baghdad that actually had the ability to govern Iraq. A government could be formed with people sitting in meetings and talking, but that did not mean that their decisions would have any significance. For that there had to be an Iraqi army to enforce the will of the government and protect the country from its neighbors — particularly Iran (from the American point of view). There also had to be a police force to enforce whatever laws might be made. And from the American perspective, this government did not have to be pro-American (that had long ago disappeared as a viable goal), but it could not be dominated by Iran.
Iraq is not ready to deal with the enforcement of the will of the government because it has no government. Once it has a government, it will be a long time before its military and police forces will be able to enforce its will throughout the country. And it will be much longer before it can block Iranian power by itself. As it stands now, there is no government, so the rest doesn’t much matter.
The geopolitical problem the Americans face is that, with the United States gone, Iran would be the most powerful conventional power in the Persian Gulf. The historical balance of power had been between Iraq and Iran. The American invasion destroyed the Iraqi army and government, and the United States was unable to recreate either. Part of this had to do with the fact that the Iranians did not want the Americans to succeed.
For Iran, a strong Iraq is the geopolitical nightmare. Iran once fought a war with Iraq that cost Iran a million casualties (imagine the United States having more than 4 million casualties), and the foundation of Iranian national strategy is to prevent a repeat of that war by making certain that Iraq becomes a puppet to Iran or, failing that, that it remains weak and divided. At this point, the Iranians do not have the ability to impose a government on Iraq. However, they do have the ability to prevent the formation of a government or to destabilize one that is formed. Iranian intelligence has sufficient allies and resources in Iraq to guarantee the failure of any stabilization attempt that doesn’t please Tehran.
There are many who are baffled by Iranian confidence and defiance in the face of American pressure on the nuclear issue. This is the reason for that confidence: Should the United States attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, or even if the United States does not attack, Iran holds the key to the success of the American strategy in Iraq. Everything done since 2006 fails if the United States must maintain tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in perpetuity. Should the United States leave, Iran has the capability of forcing a new order not only on Iraq but also on the rest of the Persian Gulf. Should the United States stay, Iran has the ability to prevent the stabilization of Iraq, or even to escalate violence to the point that the Americans are drawn back into combat. The Iranians understand the weakness of America’s position in Iraq, and they are confident that they can use that to influence American policy elsewhere.
American and Iraqi officials have publicly said that the reason an Iraqi government has not been formed is Iranian interference. To put it more clearly, there are any number of Shiite politicians who are close to Tehran and, for a range of reasons, will take their orders from there. There are not enough of these politicians to create a government, but there are enough to block a government from being formed. Therefore, no government is being formed.
With 50,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, the United States does not yet face a crisis. The current withdrawal milestone is not the measure of the success of the strategy. The threat of a crisis will arise if the United States continues its withdrawal to the point where the Shia feel free to launch a sustained and escalating attack on the Sunnis, possibly supported by Iranian forces, volunteers or covert advisers. At that point, the Iraqi government must be in place, be united and command sufficient forces to control the country and deter Iranian plans.
The problem is, as we have seen, that in order to achieve that government there must be Iranian concurrence, and Iran has no reason to want to allow that to happen. Iran has very little to lose by, and a great deal to gain from, continuing the stability the Petraeus strategy provided. The American problem is that a genuine withdrawal from Iraq requires a shift in Iranian policy, and the United States has little to offer Iran to change the policy.
From the Iranian point of view, they have the Americans in a difficult position. On the one hand, the Americans are trumpeting the success of the Petraeus plan in Iraq and trying to repeat the success in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the secret is that the Petraeus plan has not yet succeeded in Iraq. Certainly, it ended the major fighting involving the Americans and settled down Sunni-Shiite tensions. But it has not taken Iraq anywhere near the end state the original strategy envisioned. Iraq has neither a government nor a functional army — and what is blocking it is Tehran.
One impulse of the Americans is to settle with the Iranians militarily. However, Iran is a mountainous country of 70 million, and an invasion is simply not in the cards. Airstrikes are always possible, but as the United States learned over North Vietnam — or from the Battle of Britain or in the bombing of Germany and Japan before the use of nuclear weapons — air campaigns alone don’t usually force nations to capitulate or change their policies. Serbia did give up Kosovo after a three-month air campaign, but we suspect Iran would be a tougher case. In any event, the United States has no appetite for another war while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still under way, let alone a war against Iran in order to extricate itself from Iraq. The impulse to use force against Iran was resisted by President Bush and is now being resisted by President Barack Obama. And even if the Israelis attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran could still wreak havoc in Iraq.
Two strategies follow from this. The first is that the United States will reduce U.S. forces in Iraq somewhat but will not complete the withdrawal until a more distant date (the current Status of Forces Agreement requires all American troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011). The problems with this strategy are that Iran is not going anywhere, destabilizing Iraq is not costing it much and protecting itself from an Iraqi resurgence is Iran’s highest foreign-policy priority. That means that the decision really isn’t whether the United States will delay its withdrawal but whether the United States will permanently base forces in Iraq — and how vulnerable those forces might be to an upsurge in violence, which is an option that Iran retains.
Another choice for the United States, as we have discussed previously, is to enter into negotiations with Iran. This is a distasteful choice from the American point of view, but surely not more distasteful than negotiating with Stalin or Mao. At the same time, the Iranians’ price would be high. At the very least, they would want the “Finlandization” of Iraq, similar to the situation where the Soviets had a degree of control over Finland’s government. And it is far from clear that such a situation in Iraq would be sufficient for the Iranians.
The United States cannot withdraw completely without some arrangement, because that would leave Iran in an extremely powerful position in the region. The Iranian strategy seems to be to make the United States sufficiently uncomfortable to see withdrawal as attractive but not to be so threatening as to deter the withdrawal. As clever as that strategy is, however, it does not hide the fact that Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf region after the withdrawal. Thus, the United States has nothing but unpleasant choices in Iraq. It can stay in perpetuity and remain vulnerable to violence. It can withdraw and hand the region over to Iran. It can go to war with yet another Islamic country. Or it can negotiate with a government that it despises — and which despises it right back.
Given all that has been said about the success of the Petraeus strategy, it must be observed that while it broke the cycle of violence and carved out a fragile stability in Iraq, it has not achieved, nor can it alone achieve, the political solution that would end the war. Nor has it precluded a return of violence at some point. The Petraeus strategy has not solved the fundamental reality that has always been the shadow over Iraq: Iran. But that was beyond Petraeus’ task and, for now, beyond American capabilities. That is why the Iranians can afford to be so confident.
Iranian @ Iran,
Is there an English translation of the video available? If not, it’s short enough (under a minute) that I’m wondering whether a Farsi speaker might be willing to watch it and provide a translation. Here is the link:
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=114576
Cengiz:
Iranian military planners concentrated on areas that they could make the most out of very limited military expenditures.
Airplanes, however desirable, are mostly useful in combined arms operations; say an invasion using infantry.
So Iran moved into the development of missiles against which there is no defense as a deterrent to wanton attacks on Iran.
http://csis.org/publication/iranian-strategic-competition
I agree with Nasser it would be stupid for Turkey to sabotage its relationship with the US because of some stupid emotional reasons like Iran. Russia and China haven’t even sold Iran any warplanes!! All Iran has is a bunch of reversed engineered weapons from the 70s haha we don’t want to end up like them.
“when the Americans pulled out of financing the High Damn in Egypt for the exact same reasons Turkey is being shunned now, Nasser got it built with Russian assistance. It got done.”
Egypt betrayed America even after they helped them with the Suez because America wouldn’t pay all the bribes that Nasser wanted. It is only after Nasser’s betrayal that America started siding with the Israelis so much! The Palestinians paid for this but it is all Egypt’s fault Turkey shouldn’t pay for this let the Arabs handle the Israelis.
@Kooshy:
Re: your comment on August 17, 2010 at 2:09 am
A very good observation. Although Turkey does use two type of “relatively” sophisticated weaponry against PKK: Tanks (Leopard made in Germany) and Choppers (Cobra I think). Also they are looking for predetor type of UAV.
But I agree with the main substance of your argument, that to “fight” against PKK Turkey does not need to rely on advanced weaponry, they fought against them when PKK was MUCH stronger in the mid-80s until late 90s without the benefit of any of those weaponry (although they did use Cobras in the mid 90s).
However, the most important issue not to be forgotten is that the real “solution” to the Kurd issue is socio-economical in nature and NOT military. USA has the ultimate military and no superpower is backing Taliban, does that help the American troops case in Afghanistan?
There are two important points here, one is as you mentioned, Turkey does not need F-35s and their astronomical cost to fight PKK, and two:
WHY WOULD TURKEY NEED F-35 AND SOPHISTICATED LONG RANGE AIR-DEFENCES (SUCH AS S-400 AND PATRIOT SYSTEMS) AT ALL?!?! I MEAN EXCEPT FOR MAKING THE DEFENCE INDUSTRIALISTS IN THE WEST RICH AND CREAT JOBS FOR MANUFACTURING TOOLS OF MURDER IN THE WEST AND RUSSIA?
Who is the enemy that Turkey should be trying to arm itself against, spending BILLIONS of dollars which could very well be spent on health care, education and even red meat (so that the overwhelming majority of the Turkish population would not see red meat at their table only from one Kurban holiday to the next!) or on coal so that people would not shiver in the bitter cold of the Anatolian winter!
Should Turkey protect itself against Greece’s invading armies?!?!? or perhaps Armenia’s?!?!? Syria’s Perhaps?!?!? No? Maybe Iran’s?? or even Iraq’s?!?!?
Or perhaps as some people here ridiculously argued for the insanely expensive arms purchases that Shah made for Iran in the 70’s perhaps Turkey should arm itself by F-35s and predetors against USA and Israel?!?!? Some times I dont know whether to laugh or cry at some of the comments that some people make.
By the way I am 100% sure that those F-35s that Turkey will get will be downgraded enough to give Israelis F-35s a considerable edge against them!
This was predictable. Lebanon is getting it in the neck too. Israel has encroached on Lebanon constantly, but when a conflict breaks out, it’s Lebanon that hears from the Obama Regime that there might be some issues about Lebanon’s funding if there are any further problems – while Israel continues to send planes over Lebanon.
And I think you’ve understated the perversity of all this. Obama isn’t just defending a dysfunctional policy. He’s defending a war policy.
Nasser addresses the real issue once again. The only thing that matters in world affairs is to figure out who is the Biggest Bully on the Block and then suck up to them. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Nothing. Find the Big Bully and suck up big time. Let them know that there is no principle you would not abandon, no friend or neighbor you would not betray, no beatdown you would not help with… after all, who wants trouble, right? It’s so much easier to live in the shadow of the Hegemon than it it’s crosshairs.
Like Iran, Turkey is basically taking a stance that is about sovereignty. It’s behavior is asking the question, is NATO really a security alliance of democracies? Or is it the Hegemon’s stepping stool, as it ‘projects power’ globally? If Turkey wants to do anything other than crawl back to Obama’s feet, what it needs to do is CONTINUE on the path of global networking. Russia and China have demonstrated what doesn’t work if you want to be sovereign and independent: appeasing the Hegemon. But standing against the Hegemon alone won’t work either. I think that probably the biggest mistake Russia and China made was choosing to deal with the US separately, rather than in some kind of coordinated way. The SCO was, I thought, supposed to change that, to allow Russia and China to cooperate, so as to strengthen their independence, along with other nations, but that seems to have fallen apart. One wonders what was the story behind the story there. I seem to recall that about a year ago, Putin talked to China about a joint currency strategy and was rebuffed. If something like that happened, I wonder if it was the decisive moment. China doesn’t seem to realize that it is held hostage by its dollars; it’s not the US that is hostage to China’s creditor status.
Imagine if a lot of your savings had been loaned to the Bully on the Block where you live. Would that put the Bully in a compromised position to you? Or vice versa? Would your savings be at the mercy of the Bully?
With China and Russia both now out of the picture, as far as any stand for a ‘multipolar world’ is concerned (remember Putin’s seemingly brave and uncompromising words? Seems like something that happened a hundred years ago now, but it was just – what- 3 years ago?), it’s more important than ever that those nations that don’t want to get caught up in the stickyweb of the Hegemon’s global military/political/economic power stick together. I’m sure Chavez doesn’t necessarily like Iran’s government that much, but he gets it. Smaller countries have to build alternative networks and alliances together. The SCO was a good idea. Too bad Russia and China preferred to dislike each other as the shadow of the Hegemon’s alliances, bases and wargames loomed over both of them.
This just shows how weak Obama is.َ
This is big in Tehran today. Below there is a link to a very interesting and revealing clip. It shows Tajzadeh, who was one of the key people behind the riots in Tehran after the elections, telling two of his close friends in a private conversation in Evin prison, that their was no fraud in the election and that fraud at a massive scale was not possible. The clip is especially interesting since he has never publicly made such a statement either inside or outside prison (he has been spending the last few days out of prison on leave).
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=114576
Kooshy, I agree that this is a playing of the Kurd card, an odd threat given that NATO is supposedly a mutual defense pact. I also think it is meant to indicate that the military status of Turkey will be reduced in comparison to Israel, which, we know, will be given the f-35s.
If you put those two facts together, the Kurd card and the always inferior military power to Israel card, one sees that the US is, effectively, ‘kicking out’ Turkey from NATO.
Given that the US has shown no sympathy for Turkish (and its own) citizens being killed and kidnapped on the open seas… and demonstrated no ability to effect Israel’s abhorrent treatment of Palestinians, which has genuine repercussions within the Turkish population… the question becomes: how good is Turkey at crawling?
The fallowing sentence in this FT article is an alarming eye opener with regard to the format of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Eurasia; I wonder what is becoming of US state department.
““The president has said to [Turkey’s Prime Minister] Erdoğan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill…about whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally. That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress”.
By reading the last sentence of the above quote, the question that comes to mind is: what did really Mr. Obama mean by saying “providing some of the weaponry that
it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress”.
It is hard to imagine and unlikely that turkey may need or use any high technology military equipment that is produced by American military for fighting a partisan guerilla organization, non high technology military equipment can be supplied by number of suppliers including China, Russia, EU and even Iran. So what is it that Mr. Obama really meant to pressure the Turks , was he really saying that if you don’t change your policy (behavior) with regard to Israel and Iran we actually will back and may found the PKK, like what we are doing with Jundlah and Pjak in Iran.
Since the early 90’s turkey is unhappy with Americans getting cozy with the Kurds in northern Iraq and the rift is widening specially from the beginning of Iraq invasion and now when The US combat troops are living Iraq, it is alarming how out of touch the American state department is with its capabilities, if Mr. Obama thinks he can pressure the Turkey with PKK he is totally out of touch and lacks any foreign policy experience for this job. Mr. Obama’s administration needs to learn that International thuggery can’t and wouldn’t replace a sound foreign policy.
I think it time for Nato to disband, having become a tool in the expansion of militant America. It is well past its ‘best buy’ date. Really, there should have been a revolt years ago.
However, one does want Turkey to remain straddling east and west; a bridge, not a used handkerchief in the breast pocket of a larger power.
But perhaps we should consider two things: 1/ when the Americans pulled out of financing the High Damn in Egypt for the exact same reasons Turkey is being shunned now, Nasser got it built with Russian assistance. It got done. 2/ in 2007 Turkey signed a MoU anticipating buying 100 f-35’s. That was a lot of money moving into the American defense industry. Does the US really want to lose that kind of sale?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-signs-f35-production-mou-02995/
“I think Turkey should leave Nato soon rather than later and start looking elsewhere in the region ( perhaps further East )!”
- And where do you suppose Turkey would get its f-35s from? Turkey’s western orientation is precisely what gives it its power, both military and economic. It would be an act of extreme folly for Turkey to sabotage its future (like Iran did) because of some emotionally gratifying Islamic solidarity with the Palestinians. Luckily, the Turks are much smarter and more wordly than the Iranians to do something quite that stupid.
I do not think Mr. Obama considers the policy to be bad.
He has mollified Israelis (and her domestic supporters) as well as his own domestic critiques by getting another set of UN sanctions against Iran followed by more US (and EU) sanctions.
He has given himself space by effectively taking the Iran issue out of Presidential election of 2012.
The policy is only “bad” if you consider the aim of any Iran policy to be the resolution of US-Iran differences.
In regards to Turkey, however, you have a point. That makes only sense if the President and the Secretary of State truly believe that there would be some sort of Iranian capitulation within reach.
Only in that light does public admonishment of Turkey makes any (however little) sense, believing Iranian surrender to be just around the corner.
[Or, else, believing that the AKP government is on its way out.]
Notice also the departure of Ambassador John Limbert; another indication that the so-called outreach to Iran is over and containment is the name of the game.
This is a clear sign of AIPAC influence inside the Obama Administration. I think Turkey should leave Nato soon rather than later and start looking elsewhere in the region ( perhaps further East )!