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

The Race for Iran

IRAN RESPONDS TO U.S. CHARGES

Since the Obama Administration first announced its charges of Iranian government involvement in a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, a growing number of Western journalists and commentators have suggested that, whatever their merits, the allegations have upped the “pressure” on an increasingly fragile Iranian political order.  Some hold that the purported Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador is itself an “act of desperation” by a country already reeling under tighter sanctions.  Others assert that heightened pressure by the United States over the alleged plot has exacerbated tensions between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; still others claim it has sparked deepening “divisions” within the Iranian political class over how Tehran should respond.    Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act, with her recent observations on Voice of America’s Farsi-language service that “we’re not quite sure who makes decisions anymore inside of Iran”.  (Although she does seem quite sure that the Islamic Republic is becoming “a military dictatorship”.)      

These perceptions are all treated as indications of Iranian vulnerability to what is described as the Obama Administration’s unprecedentedly tight squeeze on Tehran—encompassing intensified criticism of Iran’s human rights record and a regional balance of power that is shifting against the Islamic Republic because of the shakiness of Syria’s Assad government and Western “success” in Libya.  For some analysts, this means that Washington can begin reaping a diplomatic harvest, including Iranian concessions on the nuclear issue and in Afghanistan.  For others, the Obama Administration’s accusations of Iranian government complicity in the Saudi assassination plot mean that Washington has an opening to apply even greater, potentially fatal pressure on the Islamic Republic—including sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, an escalation of covert attacks on Iranian targets, and perhaps even military strikes.      

But, as is so often the case in Western assessments of Iranian politics and foreign policy, these arguments are the product of wishful thinking rather than informed analysis.  We have commented previously on the Western proclivity to see any kind of contestation over positions and policies in Tehran—the kinds of contestation that, in virtually any place else in the world, are routinely described as “politics”—as a sure indicator of systemic “crisis” in the Islamic Republic.  And, from March 2011, we have argued that the Assad government was not at serious risk of being overthrown; see, for example, here, here, and here.  (Now, even parts of the mainstream media are beginning to report that “Assad’s government is confident that it has weathered the worst of the turmoil sweeping Syria and will soon be able to overcome any remaining challenges to its survival” and that “Assad and his allies appear to be in no imminent danger of falling”.)  More significantly, Iranian officials estimate that Assad is unlikely to lose his hold on power, something that even former Obama Administration adviser Vali Nasr recently acknowledged

Furthermore, if one actually speaks with Iranian officials (something that the United States government, as a matter of policy, bars itself from doing)—or even Iranian analysts supportive of the Islamic Republic (which the mainstream media are reluctant to do)—what comes across is a strong sense that the Obama Administration’s recent accusations against the Islamic Republic are a manifestation of American desperation.  In this regard, Tehran has now responded formally to a letter it received two weeks ago from the U.S. government regarding the purported Saudi assassination scheme.  The response hardly suggests that Iran is feeling intimidated or eager for diplomatic relief from its current predicament.  As an Iranian diplomatic source described it, the Iranian government calls on the United States to officially apologize for making baseless accusations against Iran—accusations which, the message states, are based on “dishonest” information.  The source said that, in Tehran’s view, the United States has a responsibility to apologize both to the Iranian government and to the Iranian citizens it has accused; in its letter to the U.S. government, Iran reportedly calls on the United States to pay compensation for physical and psychological damages caused to these people.     

The Iranian letter reportedly links the Obama Administration’s allegations of official Iranian complicity in the Saudi assassination plot to the George W. Bush Administration’s case for invading Iraq, which was also based on “dishonest” information.  It stresses that the results of American “scenario-making” in Iraq are that, after killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and imposing thousands of billions of dollars of expenditures on the American people, the United States is now being forced to withdraw completely from Iraq, in helpless defeat.    

This part of the Iranian message underscores that Tehran has ways to “push back” against what is sees as U.S. aggressiveness:  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declined to let U.S. troops stay in Iraq—even though the Obama Administration wanted to retain perhaps as many as 20,000 troops there on an open-ended basis—not least because of the influence of the Sadrists and other political forces closely linked to Iran in his governing coalition.  Moreover, this part of the message reflects an assessment that regional trends are, on balance, running very much in Iran’s favor and against the United States.  And, as a rhetorical trope, linking the Obama Administration’s accusations against Iran to the Bush Administration’s accusations against Saddam Husayn is likely to play very well across the Middle East—even in the Arabian peninsula, where America’s eviction from Iraq has reinforced official concerns about Iran’s rising regional influence and steadily improving strategic position. 

The Iranian response to the Obama Administration’s allegations also highlights a remarkable degree of continuity in the Islamic Republic’s national security strategy.  In 1999, the Clinton Administration sent a message to then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.  Though ostensibly packaged and later spun publicly by the Clinton Administration as a diplomatic overture, the message concentrated on U.S. accusations of Iranian complicity in the 1996 bombing of a U.S. military facility in Saudi Arabia—an attack which the Secretary of Defense at the time, William Perry says he believes was perpetrated by Al-Qa’ida, not Iran.  Tehran’s response, now declassified, strongly denied the charges while reiterating Iran’s willingness to engage—if the United States dropped its preconditions and threatening behavior.   

Just as in 1999, the Islamic Republic is prepared to deal diplomatically with the United States, on the nuclear issue and other matters.  But it will not deal with an America that imposes preconditions and makes threats.  Iran would stop enriching uranium at the near-20 percent level required to fabricate fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR)—provided that it can acquire new fuel for the TRR on the same basis as other states.  Tehran would reach a broader agreement with the United States and others about its nuclear activities—but the United States will have to accept the principle and reality of internationally-monitored uranium enrichment (at the 3-4 percent level required for normal reactor fuel) in Iran.  Tehran is prepared to improve relations with Washington—but Washington will have to accept the Islamic Republic as an enduring political entity with legitimate national interests. 

These are things which no U.S. administration—not even the Obama Administration—has been willing to do.  Until this changes, Iran will keep doing what it is doing, and no amount of American “pressure” will fundamentally alter its course.  And, in the process, the Islamic Republic will continue making strategic gains across the region.  Just look at what happened in Iraq.     

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett 

Share
 

395 Responses to “IRAN RESPONDS TO U.S. CHARGES”

  1. Jack Delaney says:

    Dirty Little Secrets – the hidden, awkward origins of World War 2 – the unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events

    Just consider the following:

    · Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying “Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war”. (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).

    · Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says “Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.” (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)

    · Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, “the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).

    · Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).

    Etc etc etc etc – more details at http://www.rense.com/general92/dirty.htm

  2. Jack Delaney says:

    It’s now official – there’s been no actual shortage of Holocaust Survivors :

    Quote from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso in the year 2000:
    ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million.’ (page 83)

    I’ve checked out the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

    Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; Churchill’s Second World War totals 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.

    In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.

  3. Kathleen says:

    This State Dept Press briefing where AP reporter Matt Lee really challenges Victoria Nuland is a mist read and watch
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/11/176589.htm
    “MS. NULAND: They’re well aware of their own legislative prerogatives in these cases.

    QUESTION: Right. They are. And isn’t it the case that you’re not making a big deal about this now because you’re worried that the – as the appropriations bills go before it, that they will punish you instead of actually helping you?

    MS. NULAND: I would reject the connection that you are drawing there. We are having conversations with the Congress about how we go forward on this whole set of issues, and particularly how we go forward to support an environment for getting these parties back to the table.

    QUESTION: Have you asked Israeli officials to call members of Congress to tell them that you think it would be a good idea to keep funding for the Palestinians going and you think it would be a good idea for them to pass – to take action so that you don’t – you aren’t required to cut funding from UN organizations?

    MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speak to our private diplomatic conversations with the Israelis. The Israelis know our view very well – that we are concerned about what could happen to the Palestinian people if U.S. funding is cut off. They’ll make their own decisions what to do there.

    QUESTION: It is a fact, isn’t it, that the United States votes very often – it is very often the – Israel’s lone supporter or one of very few supporters in international fora, such as these UN organizations. Has the Administration made it clear to the Israelis that if the U.S. is forced to withdraw, pull out funding, or – and step back from these organizations, that they will actually be losing an ally in organizations that they think, for whatever reason, are relevant?

    MS. NULAND: Without differentiation, we have made clear to all of the partners that we work with in these international organizations about what the consequences are of the legislation on the books.

    QUESTION: Right. No, no. But I’m talking about in terms of changing the legislation.

    MS. NULAND: I lost the thread of the question.

    QUESTION: In terms of lobbying people on the Hill to change this so that you’re not locked in to doing something that you believe is antithetical to U.S. interests –

    MS. NULAND: I’m not going to –

    QUESTION: — because of the actions of third parties.

    MS. NULAND: I’m – the Israelis are well aware of the legislation on U.S. books.

    QUESTION: No, no. Okay, fine. But are you telling the Israelis that it will actually hurt them and their arguments in these international fora if you’re forced out of them?

    MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into the private back and forth that we have with the Government of Israel.

    QUESTION: Does the Administration find it unpalatable that it has to go to another government, to other government officials, to lobby members of its own legislature?

    MS. NULAND: I reject the premise of your statement.”

  4. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    Regarding politcal reasons for Sunni conversion to Shia Islam, in 19th C in Ottoman provinces that became Iraq, go to:

    “How did the Shia become the majority in Iraq” by Paul Sullivan:

    http://hnnus/articles/1455.html

  5. James Canning says:

    The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, met with William Hague in London this past Thursday. Discussion apparently included Israel’s illegal colonies in the West Bank.

  6. James Canning says:

    Rozz,

    What is especially interesting about the conpspiracy to set up an illegal war, and to reward and protect the conspirators, is that Saddam Hussein was in fact rewarding the families of suicide bombers attacking targets in Tel Aviv. Which was damaging property values. This was a core reason for the conspiracy to set up the illegal war.
    But it gets next to no attention in American newspapers. I wonder why?

  7. James Canning says:

    Rozz – - The Niger forgeries were first planted in Italy. Probably by agents of Italian intelligence. CIA station in Rome immediately identified the documents as forgeries. Several years later, George Tenet, director of the CIA, played the willing stooge of the neocon warmongers conspiring to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq. So Bush himself could be duped.

  8. James Canning says:

    Thieves broke in to the National Commercial Bank in Benghazi, while the national transition council was still based in that city. Almost 8,000 gold, silver and bronze ancient coins were taken, plus numerous articles of ancient jewelry, small statues, etc. A huge blow to the cultural history of Libya, if the items are dispersed in world markets.

  9. Rozz says:

    I try to remember all lies US, UK spread against Iraq pre-war.

    - The wmd-lies
    - The Al-Qaeda-saddam connection / The terrorist-saddam connection
    - The forged Niger documents
    - The Saddam-911 connection
    - The mobile nuclear station
    - The nuclear pipelines

    what more lies did US and allies spread about Iraq?
    Could be great to be prepared when the propaganda against Iran will re-ignite this week with the IAEA-report.

  10. James Canning says:

    Richard Heydarian, regarding the so-called “plot”, writes: “Washington should accomodate Iran’s increasing interest in restarting nuclear negotiations and improving ties with its neighbors and great powers.”

    http://www.trouth-out.org/iran-plot-pretext-war/1320602149

    Obama should heed Heydarian’s advice. But fat chance.

  11. nahid says:

    The pictures never pubilshed in usa , the usa curlty.

    http://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=13900815000840

  12. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    A number of British leaders favored a united Arab kingdom, of what became Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Palestine. And possibly the Hejaz too. French insisted on taking control of Syria (and Lebanon). French would not accept a monarchy, or Faisal as king.

  13. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    Of course I am well aware Iraq was created from Ottoman provinces taken from “Turkey” by Britain. The conversion of Sunni to Shia Islam in the 19th C was during the later Ottoman period. In what became Iraq, after the First World War. And in those Ottoman provinces, the Sunni tended to cooperate with the Turks, and the Shia tended to remain aloof.

  14. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    I readily agree that al-Qaeda activities in Iraq have been helpful to Israel.

    There seem to have been few Sunni leaders in Iraq who thought the Sunni power structure could be restored, after Jerry Bremer destroyed it in wake of overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They do insist on getting at least some of the economic benefits of Iraqi oil and gas.

  15. James Canning says:

    Sakineh,

    Thanks for the link (to foolish and dishonest comments by Condoleezza Rice). Iran’s gov’t “has no legitimacy”, says Rice. I would call her an idiot but in fact that would be too kind.

    Are 100,000 or more Iraqis dead due to utter incompetence of Condoleezza Rice? Of this fact there seems little doubt. She was eager stooge of warmongering neocons who appear to have duped the moron in the White House. With Rice’s key assistance.

  16. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Sadly, if an American congressman or senator makes comments that Aipac objects to, his or her chances for re-election go down. On the other hand, acting the role of stooge of Aipac brings sustained benefits. When I say “Aipac” I am also referring to numerous other Jewish organisations that tend to toe the Aipac line.

  17. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    Yes, bravo Ron Paul. The only candidate for Republican nomination for president who makes sensible comments regarding Iran and the Middle East.

  18. Irshad says:

    Rehmat,

    If Persian is not the official language of Iran, what is?

    @fyi – thank you for explaining the role of Azeris in Iran.

    Karl – it seems to be true, its been confirmed by head of Iran Air.

  19. hans says:

    Qatar Airways, which has been tapped to take over an unspecified number of domestic flights within Iran

    Any truth in this?

  20. WTF says:

    Congressman Ron Paul, who this morning was announced the winner of the Illinois Republican Straw Poll with over 50% of the total votes, pointing out to Faux News host Chris Wallace that friendship would work better than threats of war to dissuade Iran from building nuclear weapons. -What a naive pussy! To think that those EyeRainYans understand anything other than the threat of force.

    Paul warns against overreaction to report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions

    http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/11/paul-warns-against-overreaction-report-iran-nuclear-ambitions/hmOSbzQl8aVu0uv8OHIE6O/index.html

    Paul said he believes people are too eager to use violence against Iran. Paul opposes a bill passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, which would strengthen sanctions against Iran. “When you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war,” Paul said.

  21. Karl says:

    The enormous contempt and sheer hatred for Iran, the lies, warmongering, scaremongering is beyond reason. Everyday more hatred from US, Israel. You could tell the warmongering aipac have anted up the bribery.

    Just read that the warcriminal rice urge more warfare against Iran. What kind of sick people are these? Are you mentally sick? Is it the aipac-money? Please make me understand.

  22. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    James, this one’s for you.

    “Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the U.S. should consider even tougher penalties against Iran’s government and “be doing everything we can to bring it down.”"

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501704_162-57319324/rice-irans-government-has-no-legitimacy-left/

  23. BiBiJon says:

    According to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/world/middleeast/leaving-iraq-us-fears-new-surge-of-qaeda-terror.html?hp

    “As the United States prepares to withdraw its troops from Iraq by year’s end, senior American and Iraqi officials are expressing growing concern that Al Qaeda’s offshoot here, which just a few years ago waged a debilitating insurgency that plunged the country into a civil war, is poised for a deadly resurgence.”

    Note to Schmitt & Schmidt
    =======================

    Your colleague, Richard Oppel reported back in 2007 that “Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.”
    ,http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/world/middleeast/22fighters.html?ex=1353474000&en=0392b2b051e3b7ee&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

    Saudi Arabia since at least the 80s has put significant effort in creating a cadre of fanatical blood-thirsty Wahabi zombies to be put at the service of US’ geo-strategic whims. Fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, destabilizing Pakistan, being a pain in the butt to Iran, and later attempting to scuttle a Shiite majority takeover of Power in Iraq were some of their briefs. It didn’t take long before some bright spark realized the easily manipulated morons, al-Qeda, could be coaxed into activities that gave Muslims a bad name, and thereby also act in service of Israeli goals.

    Anyways, if al-Qaeda has now out-lived their usefulness, just tell KSA ‘thanks for all the fish’, you can stop now.

  24. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Kooshy:

    Thanks for the link to the Alister Crooke piece. It was informative. In it he states in the third paragraph, “Iran has said that it will respond to any external intervention in Syria.”

    I don’t know what that means, if anything. What does “Iran” mean? Salehi? And “will respond” is similarly vague to the point of meaninglessness. Does anyone have more information on whether an Iranian official said anything in this regard, and what that was, specifically?

  25. kooshy says:

    Very important informative new article on the Syrian situation by Alastair

    Syria and Iran: The Great Game

    Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part

    By Alastair Crooke

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29624.htm

  26. Rehmat says:

    James Canning – Nope. I’m sorry you’re confusing British with Ottoman in Iraq. Iraqi Shias fought against British colonialists for another decade while the Sunnis sided with the British thugs.

    Under Ottoman, present-day Iraq was not a country. Iraq, like Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait was created by the British colonialists out of the ashes of Al-Sham (Syria).

  27. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Reza says, “I really wouldn’t be so bothered, but this man invites people to “question authority” and claims to champion free speech and democratic values. However, he has found that he has no intellectual defense against the hard truth he fears – he has to suppress it.”

    You mean to say that he’s a Weasel? LOL

  28. James Canning says:

    MichaelWeiss of the neocon-oriented Henry Jackson Society claims Khamenei wants a nuclear weapon as a “toy”. “Is Israel really planning to strike Iran” Nov. 4th:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/michaelweiss/

  29. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    And yes, Persian language and culture were part and parcel of Mughal court culture, etc. Just as old French was language of the English court after the Norman conquest in 1066. (Persian was important language at the Ottoman court too.)

  30. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    In what is now Iraq, the Sunnis tended to work with the Turks while the Shia community tended not to do so. After the First World War, the Sunni were more prepared to work with the British administration of the mandate for Iraq. So, yes, in a way the British “exploited” the Sunni-Shia division in the country.

  31. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    The Ottoman Empire detached much of what is now Iraq from the Persian Empire (as that state tended to be shown on some maps). Centuries ago, of course. And there was a good deal of converstion from Sunni to Shia in what is now Iraq, during the 19th C.

    The “Young Turks” thought the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire were more important that the “Arab” provinces. But in the first part of the 20th C, the European provinces were lost, so emphasis shifted toward retaining the Arab provinces. Enver Pasha thought Germany could help Turkey keep the Arab provinces. Nationalist stirrings were already evident, prior to First World War.

  32. Reza Esfandiari says:

    @Unknown unknowns:

    Thanks for your support. I think Scott grew tired of me making a complete fool out of him on his own blog. However, I do know that some of his readers (maybe also EA’s sponsors) were urging him to ban me. It wasn’t just his own will – he was pressured.

    I really wouldn’t be so bothered, but this man invites people to “question authority” and claims to champion free speech and democratic values. However, he has found that he has no intellectual defense against the hard truth he fears – he has to suppress it.

    But I have to say, I do think RFI is a perfect model of free and unmoderated discussion that is also informative. We should keep it this way for everybody.

  33. Rehmat says:

    James Canning – In early history of Ottoman empire, there was Arab or Turk nationalism. Turks who created Turkey, their ancestors used to be soldiers under Arab Abbasid dynasty. Arab nationalism was created by Christians with the help of secularist Muslims and western agents. The ultimate aim of Arab nationalism was to break-up Islamic brotherhood (Ummah) – which succeeded as result of WW I and creation of Zionist entity after WW II.

    One of the reason Ottoman empire never tried to occupy Iran was – because the Iran’s Safvid dynasty was in fact Turkish Shia Sufis. Before Safvid dynasty, Persia used to be a Sunni-majority nation.

    Shia-Sunni divide has been used by the former western colonial powers. Currently, this divide is being revived against Iran by US-Israel-Saudi Arabia.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/us-israel-saudi-war-against-democracy-in-muslim-world/

  34. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Reza:

    Thank you for reminding the forum of Scotty Boy’s nature. At the time this was reported, we agreed that he should be banned until he lifts the ban on you and issues an apology. Meanwhile, we are just using him as a football; kicking him around for shits and giggles, as it were.

    And yes, BiBiJon: It is amazing how Scotty Boy just appeared out of nowhere. I mean the guy has just been lurking here all this time. Amazing. And very sick. As a matter of fact, I have warned him on more than one occasion that I feel I cannot in good conscience continue to work with him, as he is obstinate, recalcitrant and refractory, and I frankly cannot see any *possibility* of progress; that it is therefore unethical for me to continue with his “treatment”. I take full responsibility for summoning the appearance of Scotty Boy. But as his doctor, I recommend Abuse Therapy as the treatment with the highest efficacy in getting Scotty Boy to shift his fixation and to effect a full catharsis. Please, therefore, *on medical grounds* feel free to continue to abuse Scotty Boy, and even to ratchet up that abuse. As his supervising doctor and clinician, I thank you on his behalf in anticipation.

  35. Rehmat says:

    kooshy – Persian (Farsi) is not the national language of Islamic Republic, it’s also the mother language of more than 35% of Afghan population. Furthermore, Persian was the official language of the Mughal Empire in Hindustan. Pakistan’s spiritual founder, Allama Dr. Muhammad Iqbal began his peotry in Persian. Ayatullah Khamenei has translated some of Iqbal’s Urdu poetry in Persian language.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/allama-iqbal-and-the-vision-of-pakistan/

  36. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Kooshy:

    Yes, I am aware of and have actually been successful in prying out of his fingers the Motorola “brick” phone that he uses. But in my many sessions with him as his psychologist – without breaching any client confidentiality privileges here – I had a breakthrough with him a few weeks back. It seems that the root of his fixation on the word “shoot” (why he simply is incapable of seeing a secondary or metaphorical usage of the term) comes from the fact that his handlers had told him a couple of years back to “shoot” Neda Aqasoltan, and that those very same handlers *actually* shot her while he was “shooting” the footage for them. This is the root of the problem, in my judgement, and I have been guiding my work with Scotty Boy in a direction which would be conducive to dislodge this cathexis.

    The Boy is traumatized!

  37. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Scott Lucas (disgraceful hypocrite) says:

    “As I indicated in the post, I am quite heartened that Iranian authorities have recognised the virtues of an open media and dissent in the US. I look forward to that recognition closer to home….”

    And I look forward to you unclenching your fist “closer to home” by lifting the unwarranted ban you imposed on me regarding my participation on EA. Do you think it is right to censor all those who happen to disagree with you? Anyway, your hypocrisy and self-conceit has been exposed to all here at RFI. You are nothing short of the worst form of “intellectual” scoundrel. Liz was right about you all along.

  38. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Mughal culture was largely Persian. With adaptations for local conditions.

  39. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Turkey would most likely have been unable to keep the Arab provinces even if the Ottoman Empire had stayed out of the First World War. “Arab” indentity was more important that fact the Arab provinces were Sunni (as was Anatolia, primarily at least).

    Shia Islam wasone means of trying to keep “Persian Empire” from being conquered by Ottoman Empire.

    Afghanistan has very little history as an independent state within current borders. And topography not helpful. Topography has in fact helped Iran to keep itself intact and avoid becoming permanent part of another empire.

  40. James Canning says:

    kooshy,

    Very interesting re: your grandfather. And of course bravo! (Persian language)

  41. kooshy says:

    FYI

    As an indication on how important the Persian language is for majority of Iranians, I can tell you of a personal experience, that is my own grandfather back in 1950’s dedicated his entire family wealth for the sole purpose of Persian language as the fabric of unity between the Iranian ethnicities (since as you know the shih alone can’t be covering the entire Iranian ethnicities) , it was formed as nonprofit foundation which after the revolution is still functioning even in a more and larger format which now also includes the Dehkhoda foundation of Persian language dictionary, so far the Afshar foundation has been able to published over 200 volumes on Iranian studies.

    :::http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6538563423043847964#

    : http://www.m-afshar.net/

  42. Liz says:

    I feel sorry for Scott Lucas. He craves attention.

    Human rights in the US:

    http://news.yahoo.com/friend-2nd-vet-hurt-protest-walking-home-181613870.html;_ylt=AhpUgIKTxpVhBswdsnLTW7Ss0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNpa29lNGh2BG1pdAMEcGtnA2FlOTAzNWM2LTMyZjQtMzZkZS1iYWJhLWI3MjE2OTQ0MzgyYwRwb3MDNARzZWMDbG5fTGF0ZXN0TmV3c19nYWwEdmVyAzgwNzA2NGUwLTA3ZGEtMTFlMS1hNWNkLTBmNzQxMDAwMGIyMg–;_ylv=3

    Scott Lucas thinks that since he receives funding from centers of power in
    the west, in Iran they should allow western funded forces to have full
    freedom too.

    While the Iranian media is quite lively as it is, orientalists like Scott
    Lucas can’t tell, because they don’t even speak Persian! Nevertheless,
    they have the audacity to consider themselves experts!

    lol

  43. kooshy says:

    Fyi

    “Persian language had nothing to do with it.”

    Although I generally agree that Islam and particularly the Shih Islam save the grater Iran (unlike Egypt or Anatolia ) what one may call the Noorozistan territory, but one shouldn’t discount the effect of Persian language and pre Islamic history and culture of Iran as an in disputable essence of overall Iran cultural fabric specially when people of greater Iran regardless of their ethnicity breath verses from Ferdosi, Saadi, Hafez and Molana, god bless them all

  44. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 5, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    You are mistaken; Persian language had nothing to do with it.

    It was Shia Islam that saved “Iran” or the idea of Iran.

    Just look at Afghanistan where common language is Persian.

    That country cannot be saved – like Somalia.

  45. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 5, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Safavids, Afshars, Qajars spoke Turkish among themselves.

    Reza Shah was fluent in Persian and Turkish.

    Mohammad Reza Shah often spoke in French in his court.

    Mughals of India used Persian.

  46. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the administrators were Germans even though Germans were minority within the Empire. Germans tended to be honest and virtually always were efficient.

    British administrators of Indian Empire were efficient and honest in a way that would not have been possible with “native” administrators.

    Persian language saved “Persia”. Of that there seems little doubt.

    Seljuk Turks, and Ottomans, were but a minority genetic contribution to population of Anatolia. This is reason salvaging of “Turkey” in wake of catastrophe of First World War was very substanial achievement.

  47. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    EU is as opposed to Iranian power and as committed to its destruction as US is.

    There were 80 European companies that aided the late Mr. Hussein’s Chemical Weapons program.

    Iranian people (and leaders) know that.

    Mrs. Thatcher, in fact, was instrumental in derailing Iran’s complaint to UNSC on the topic of the usage of Chemical Weapons by Iraq against Iran.

    These are facts that are not forgotten; the Iran-Iraq War was like WWI in Europe, a seminal war that changed the orientation of Iranian people and state permanently. It has created a chasm between Sunni Arabs states and Iran that will persist into the future.

    It made Arabs enemies of Iran until the last vestiges of the governments and rulinmg classes that supported Iraq in that war are removed from power.

    It amply demonstrated that EU was an indirect enemy of Iran and could be so again (just like US).

    The “Looking East” policy of Mr. Rafsanjani was formulated in response to that (partially).

    Nothing has happened in the last 11 years to alter my estimation of the EU-Iran relations.

    That does not mean that Iran cannot have correct relations wih SU states, it only means that these relations will have to be completely transactional ones with one’s potential enemies.

    It is hard to imagine that the same dynamics could obtain with the Far Eastern states of China, Korea (North & South), Japan, Indonesia, Thailand and others.

  48. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    In the same way, a number of great leaders of the Russian Empire were Germans. For that matter, the Russian Imperial family was German. But spoke English among themselves.

  49. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I think in terms of these people being culturally Persian. Ethnic origin largely unimportant in that context.

  50. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Re: Condoleezza Rice and her continuing effort to whitewash the conspiracy to set up an illegal invasion of Iraq, to benefit Israel, I should mention that apparently she is paid handsomely for her continuing effort to whitewash that conspiracy.

  51. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 5, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    They used to talk of “1000″ Families in Iran who controlled Iran.

    They had varied ethno-linguistic origins but their common speech was Persian.

    And just how do you distinguish among Azeis who became Persianized, Persians who became Turkified, the Persians and the Azeris?

    It is not possible.

    Since Persian was the state language since before the time of Seljuks.

    Furthermore, most cabinets in Iran after the Constitutional Revolution were dominated by the Azeri Turks and not by Persians.

    Persians are not the equivalent of the English of UK or the Germans of Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    There is no good historical analogue of the Iranian state (since 1500) either in the West or in the East in my opinion.

  52. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I should add that several of the liar warmongering neocon Jews in the Office of Special Plans expected to grow immensely rich as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq and subsequent destruction of the Sunni power structure.

  53. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I mentioned previously that nearly the entire hereditary membership of the House of Lords, in Britain, opposed the invasion of Iraq. Do you think they thought the war would be a game? Liar warmongering Jews in the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon indeed saw the war as a game. So did Donald Rumsfeld. The liar warmongering neocon Jews in the Office of Special Plans literally agreed that deceiving the American people was morally correct because it would help to “protect” Israel.

  54. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Surely you would not say that the British Empire was ruled by Germans in the 100 years before the First World War. Even if the royal family was largely German.

  55. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I continue to think you make a bad mistake by arguing there are no differences of opinion within the EU, or within Nato, or between the US and a number of EU and/or Nato countries. And within the political class of those countries.

    And for some reason you try to downplay the power of certain Jewish plutocrats who pull the strings of their puppets in the US Congress.

  56. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    When I say the Persians were the rulers, I did not mean the dynasty was necessarily Persian. I have a fairly good understanding of the sweep of Persian history over the past 3000 years.

    Yes, the Persians were the administrators. And the English, Scots and Irish were the administrators of the Indian Empire.

    The dynasty that ruled the Ottoman Empire was largely Balkan Christian genetically. Ergo, Slavic, or Greek. Some “Latin”.

  57. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 5, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Yes Mr. Canning and that is why US, EU, Israel – regardless of their relative power and political programs, will continue to fail in the Middle East – as they already have.

    For they have nothing to offer than more war and more confrontation to the people of Middle East.

    US and EU states have an average Human Development Index of less than 20 in the UN Human Development Index report (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf); the Muslim States have an average exceeding 100.

    For US & EU state these wars and the dead and maimed are just games played in someone else’s yard.

    After the death and destruction, they pack up and go to their homes.

    Where the war could potentially follow them, they never indulge in these activities.

  58. James Canning says:

    Committee of Iranian parliament will be releasing numerous documents showing US-backed terror campaigns inside Iran and other countries.

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/208428.html

    Writing in the Financial Times today, in his review of Condoleezza Rice’s memoir about her years as the incompetent National Security Adviser, Dimitri Sevastopulo noted: “Oddly, Rice does not seem to have given much thought to the more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians Iraqi Body Count estimates have died since the 2003 invasion.” 784 pages, but no room for regret at helping liar warmongering neocons to dupe the American public and the president himself?

  59. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    No true.

    Persians were administrators to the ruling Turkic dynasties; since the time of the Seljuks.

    In fact, the Pahlavis were the first ethnically Persian ruling dynasty in 900 years.

    Foreigners (and many Iranians) do not understand the sociology of Iran; it is the Mountain Fortress of Shia Muslims; run by the Shia for the Shia.

    That is why Azeri Turks are adamant in their support for the Iranian state.

  60. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    For most of history, Persians have been the ruling class rather than the ruled. Hardly bush Negroes.

  61. James Canning says:

    Former Mossad director, Ephraim Halevy: Iran is “far from posing an existential threat to Israel.”

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2008544.html

    Stooges of the Israel lobby in US Congress want Israel to be able to continue its programme of ethic cleaning in the West Bank, without hindrance. Ergo, they lie through their teeth in effort to deceive the ignorant American public.

  62. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    Obama grovels at the feet of leaders of Aipac, and even at that, many Jewish leaders in the US accuse him of being “anti-Israel”. Many Jewish leaders want a total whore in the White House.

  63. kooshy says:

    UU

    Her is a picture reference for a similar shoe phone as the one Scott is currently issued with, incidentally the one in this photo was just used for a different show that became a flop. Can you imagine to pull the shoe out and hold it up in the air to shoot a footage, what should the person on the opposite side of the shoe think, it’s obvious now days the person you holding the shoe against most probably is going to take it in a wrong way, save the man endure him get the man an Iphone.

    http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/aa-Iran-Maxwell-Smart-parody-of-alleged-Iran-plot-against-US.jpg

  64. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    The Israel lobby does not like Iran’s foreign policy. Therefore, the numerous stooges (and whores) of that lobby, in the US Congress, will object to Iran’s foreign policy even where that policy actually is in best interests of American people.

  65. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Wars are insanely expensive for the US. One million dollars per year, per soldiet, for Afghanistan. Utter lunacy.

  66. Karl says:

    Scott Lucas:

    You are highly naive, probably an orientalist. Because according to you, liberal is the main object. Thats how colonial regimes argued too. That, we must “teach those wild barbaric negroes to behave”.

    If you want Iran to be more open, you should immediately quit to warmonger against Iran. Iran will never change and never put down its guard unless you guys stop threat it and warmonger.

  67. Karl says:

    Scott Lucas:

    Aslong as there are warmongers as yourself Iran will never “open up”. So while you criticize Iran for not being liberal you are the reason.

  68. Scott Lucas says:

    Karl,

    “And exactly why wouldnt Iran be selective in what protests they should support?”

    As I indicated in the post, I am quite heartened that Iranian authorities have recognised the virtues of an open media and dissent in the US. I look forward to that recognition closer to home….

    S.

  69. fyi says:

    All:

    Dr. Cordesman on US Military Budget

    http://csis.org/files/publication/111103_Defense_Resources_Threats_update.pdf

    Slides 11 nad 65 are quite instructive as to the size of US military budget vs. Iran’s (73 to 1).

    US (and Israel and EU) have had a singular achievement over the last 11 years in the Middle East: they have made war cheap and peace expensive.

  70. kooshy says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    November 4, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    “at that time, Scott contacted me directly, asking me if I would be willing to teach him how to use his camera’s video recorder function”

    UU, someone out of charity needs to get our professor a new “Auto Focus Smart” phone, unfortunately due to the current western economic conditions and the budget cutbacks at the “agency” our professor is still operating the standard Maxwell Smart issue “shoe” phone, and believe it or not since the president Bush’s incident in Iraq with the famous shoe “attacker” reporter, now days taking video with the “shoe phone” is totally out of question, especially in a crowded large demonstration of (tens of thousands).

    The problem with “shoe phone” is that once he pulls out the shoe phone to start video recording the huge gatherings in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran , if the phone (out of his foot and in a kind of swinging mode on the air) gets detected by the same crowd (which in reality he is actually trying to promote their protest by You Tubing their gathering’s video) the crowd may get the wrong idea that he is trying to throw the shoe at them and an as the result suddenly he may encounter “tens of thousands” of shoes is coming his way.

  71. Rd. says:

    fyi says:
    “A document of historical interest:”

    This point is rather interesting??

    “Iran’s oil fields and refineries need modernizing (“Iran Country Analysis Brief” 2006). Iran requires foreign investment to make these improvements, unless it can somehow put them off until it has enough money to make them itself (“Iran Country Analysis Brief” 2006).”

  72. Rd. says:

    fyi says:
    “A document of historical interest:”

    Thanks. Seems, they have exhausted their efforts, for the most part..
    However, this one stands in its thru definition of delusional western policy makers.

    “Iran’s current form of government is not favorable to the United States”

    Translation: Iranian aspiration for independence is not favorable to US!!!

    What the delusional westerners can not simply grasp is, Iranians will not surrender their independence and become servants to US or any foreign entity.

  73. kooshy says:

    Iran’s FM(in response to Mehr question) said, any person with a minimum analyzing knowledge knows that the west’s stamped in three direction against Iran is to pressure Iran to fall in their political direction (to become politically aligned with west), we have announced nothing (of kind) will happen if it was like that (capitulating under pressure) we would have aligned with them decades ago not after 30 years and there would not have been any need for this (hostile) 30 years. We are adamant to keep our principals and ready to pay any price for keeping our principals.

    رئیس دستگاه سیاست خارجی ایران افزود: هر انسانی با حداقل تحلیل به این می رسد که هجمه غرب علیه ایران از سه جبهه برای فشار به ایران است تا در مدار سیاسی آنها قرار بگیرند. ما اعلام کرده ایم که اتفاقی نمی افتد و اگر اینگونه بود ما دهها سال قبل در مدار آنها قرار می گرفتیم
    نه بعد از 30 سال و نیاز به این 30 سال نبود چرا که ما به اصول خود پایبندیم و آماده ایم هر هزینه ای را در جهت پایبندی در اصول خود بپردازیم.

    http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1452840

  74. Karl says:

    Scott Lucas:

    And exactly why wouldnt Iran be selective in what protests they should support?

    Iran have made it clear long time ago.

    “Our stance regarding these public movements is crystal clear. Anywhere there is a popular Islamic and anti-US movement, we support it,” the Leader said on Saturday”
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183122.html

    Now, why would Iran support pro-US movements in the uprisnings since it leads to more threats against Iran? You make no sense, as usual.

    Also you are factual wrong, Iran had no problems with lets say 2009 protests, they became against it later since there were violent groups and vandalizers that were just out to destroy and discredit the iranian gov. and use the classic “its a fraud”-rhetoric. Iranian gov. cant accept such thugs running freely on street especially since its funded and infiltrated by foreign elements. Therefore they have to be more strict regarding protests in the future since it could destablize the whole state.

  75. Rehmat says:

    The Jewish daily FORWARD has added Barack Obama as the 51st. to its annual list of Jews who have shaped the Jewish story in politics, science, culture, the media, religion, propaganda and sports.

    This was no surprise to me as I remember former Rep. Abner Mikvaner saying: I think when it is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.

    In September 2011 – John Heilemann writing in the New York Magazine called Barack Obama “The First Jewish President“.

    John Heilemann wrote how Obama and Netanyahu stood “arm-in-arm” during Mahmoud Abbas’ bid for an independent Palestinian state at the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2011. He also praised Obama for backing Israel’s right to kill nine Turk aid workers on board Gaza Flotilla in international waters.

    Anyone who has followed Obama’s political career – will tell you that Obama is a product of Jewish elites, from AIPAC to the Wall Street. To prove his Jewish credentials, some of Obama’s recent actions include his criticism of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, playing midwife to Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador in Washington and freezing $60 million aid to UNESCO for admitting Palestine as a member of the organization.

    Interestingly, a recent Gallup poll found that Obama’s ratings among the Jewish voters fell by 28 points (down to 55%) – however, Obama has been able to receive more Jewish $$$$ for his re-election than his Republican opponents put together.

    http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/nym-obama-the-first-jewish-president/

  76. BiBiJon says:

    RFI’s magical powers
    ==================

    As UU has proven, in this forum mentioning a name reliably can summon the abjectly discredited, and long departed to make an appearance.

    Just to test if this summoning power is available to me as well, let me try:

    Nokar of Nokars, King of Kings, the light of Arians, are you out there?

  77. Scott Lucas says:

    UU,

    Not your best clown effort — you want to take some remedial lessons from these folks….

    http://www.eaworldview.com/home/2011/11/5/iran-website-special-the-basij-militias-wall-street-fall.html

    Best,

    S.

  78. BiBiJon says:

    As the din of Iran-bashing, fear-mongering, chest-thumping, and war fantasy/delusions reach a pre-fizzle crescendo, life goes on …..

    “Iran’s 1st Zoroastrian professional center of repairing written works opened on Friday with the attendance of a group of Zoroastrian officials, supervisor of Majlis Library’s mending section as well as a group of the enthusiastic individuals.”

    http://www.ibna.ir/vdcdjf0fxyt0xz6.em2y.html

  79. fyi says:

    All:

    A document of historical interest:

    http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=483536

  80. fyi says:

    WTF says: November 4, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Mr. Clinton was also facing a much weakened Mr. Khatami.

    Also, in Iran, there were many factions opposed to reapproachment with USA and they did their best to sabotage the few timid steps that Mr. Khatami had taken.

    The fractious and contemptible political leaders of US have their excellent counter-parts in Iran; in both places cunningly hard men are willing to harm their country to advance their political goals.

    US & Iran have a lot in common (more on this later).

  81. Kathleen says:

    Jon Stewart harder on Chris Matthews than he was on Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice

    Stewart “I’m trashing your philosophy of life”

    Go listen to Stewarts interview with Condi Rice..Stewart is harder on Matthews
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-2-2007/chris-matthews

  82. Kathleen says:

    worthwhile read over at Emptywheel’s (one of the sharpest bloggers around)

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/03/predictions-of-israeli-attack-on-iran-hit-traditional-media-how-we-got-there/#comment-326350
    Predictions of Israeli Attack on Iran Hit Traditional Media–How We Got There
    Posted on November 3, 2011 by Jim White
    “n late November of 2007, the world–and especially the progressive blogosphere–was shocked when the George W. Bush administration released a National Intelligence Estimate that came to the firm conclusion that Iran had suspended work on its nuclear weapon program back in 2003. This was the same Bush intelligence community that had produced the fraudulent NIE in 2002 that came to the false conclusion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and intended to restart development of nuclear weapons. The progressive blogosphere had made a regular habit of predicting new dates for when Israel, or even the US, would attack Iran under the guise of stopping its development of nuclear weapons. The rate of new predictions for attacks slowed considerably in the face of the 2007 NIE.

    In September of 2009, speculation on plans to attack Iran got a new impetus, as the US announced the discovery of a previously secret uranium enrichment facility being built by Iran deep inside a mountain near Qum. Rhetoric from the US heated up considerably in response to this discovery”

  83. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Rd says “Besides, the western weasels can’t hold their own pants up and they want to go to war?? with their pants down?”

    That is basically how Ahmadinejad responded to a presstitute interlocutor recently when he was asked if he was concerned that Israel would attack Iran. He said Israel can’t even control Gaza, and you are suggesting that it will want to take on Iran?

  84. Kathleen says:

    Jon Stewart’s interview with Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice. He allows her to spin away. Nos substantive challenges out of Stewart. Just “um hum, right, yes, right” I have heard Jon Stewart be harder on Chris Matthews. Then Stewart opens up the door to Iran with no substantive facts. Weak really weak
    Video 1 of 3
    Condoleezza Rice Extended Interview

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews

    i have heard and seen Stewart do these wienie interviews with Rice in the past, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol. Really makes me wonder about what is up with Stewart. Harder on Chris matthews when he was on his program

  85. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Bunk

    According to the Jewish Hasbara source Wikipedia, about 1.5 million Israeli citizens are “Arab” (“about 20%”). Are there sufficient beds in Israeli concentration camps to house this many in the event of a regional war of attrition, or will bunk beds need to be introduced?

  86. Kathleen says:

    In this horrific interview with Condi “mushroom cloud”Rice Jon Stewart allows her to roll all over him. “right, um hum, yes, yeah, right” How many times can he keep agreeing with her? She says that inspectors never went back into Iraq after 1998. She lied again. Stewart let her get away with this.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
    “As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime – to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – or face “serious consequences.” Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims. (Note 2)”

    Condi Rice “I would not call this preemptive” Stewart allows her to get away with this hogwash.

    —————————————-

    He does not ask her about taking out inspectors, Niger Documents, El baradei coming out and saying that the Niger Documents were false.

    Then Stewart give her every opportunity to “harp” on Iran because Stewart opens the door wide. She spins that there would be a arms race between Iraq and Iran.

    Hope the Leveretts dissect this interview with Rice. Stewart was not prepared, did not really challenge her in a substantive way at all. Stewart “right, umhum, yea, right, sure, right, yes” Stewart rolled over and gave a war criminal another opportunity to spin the lies

  87. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Kooshy says, “Come to think of it I miss Scott’s informed agent’s account of tens of thousands demonstrating in Tehran and many cities in Iran, which was more fun reading.”

    Kooshy: If you remember, a couple of months back, when Scott’s “well-placed sources” in Iran failed to provide footage of the “tens of thousands” of demonstrators which had allegedly magically appeared on the anniversary of the 2009 fitna… at that time, Scott contacted me directly, asking me if I would be willing to teach him how to use his camera’s video recorder function. Fool that I am, I readily consented, not realizing that this would be a months-long project. The project is ongoing… We meet on a daily basis, and so far have gotten to the point where he has learned to put his phone in camera mode. The problem is, once that happens, he reverts into some sort of primal instinct, takes on an agressive stance, pretends his camera is a machine gun, and starts “shooting” at people. He just cannot grasp the concept of metaphor, and that “and now, just point and shoot” does not *literally* mean shoot people.

    Fortunately, Allah has endowed me with a massive amount of *sabr*, and I am able to bear with him on a daily basis with his “lessons”, as these are keeping him sufficiently busy to where he does not seem to have time for any “reporting” activity.

  88. Rehmat says:

    The ‘Coalition of Evils’ against Islamic Republic

    The paranoid Zionist world remains glued to its misguided notion that a vicious propaganda war, based on lies, will force Tehran to stop its nuclear program and its support for anti-Israel forces in the region.

    The Zionist regime has been threatening to bomb Iran for years but it rather let US and NATO to do its dirty work. French Crypto-Jewish President has warned Tehran of the coming war. Then world was told the war criminal Benji Netanyahu is seeking his cabinet’s approval to bomb Iran. Early this week British press reported the Israel-Firster David Cameron is planning an ‘imminent military strikes’ on Islamic Republic. In the mean time, Ben-Obama’s point man on Iran, Crypto-Jew John Bolton has been whining that Obama is no friend of Israel.

    Israel has also issued a warning to its puppet western governments that “the window of opportunity for striking the Iranian nuclear sites this year will close in a matter of weeks, with the coming of winter“.

    A few days ago, Iranian were threatened by the news that Israel has tested a ballistic missile which can reach Iran. Funny though, in June this year, British media had claimed that Tehran tested a ballistic missile which can reach every major Israeli city and beyond. Let us not forget the 23,000+ Hizbullah rockets aimed at Israeli cities. Israeli Brigadier General Yaron Levi, the Navy’s intelligence chief speaking at Tel Aviv University in July 2011 said that Hezbollah has Iranian-made surface-to-sea missiles, and may also obtain from Russian-made rockets that Syria has. These missiles, he said Hizbullah has a range of Iranian and Russian made missiles that “covers all of Israel’s ports, our economic waters and a large part of the shipping lines to Israel.”

    Furthermore, Iran’s two other regional allies, Syria and Hamas, too, have a few of their rockets aimed at the Zionist entity. Surrounded by these ‘dooms-rockets’, the Zionist war criminals are in no position to blackmail Tehran.

    All this Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) is meant to force so far reluctant Barack Obama to issue marching orders for a new war without having really intended to do so. British daily Guardian reported on November 2, 2011 that “war with Iran is the last thing Barack Obama needs with the American economy in dire trouble and a tough White House election next year. But while the Obama administration is desperate to avoid a new war – the drumbeat from Israel has been growing louder“.

    120 nations of Non-Aliged Movemenr (NAM) support Iran’s civilian nuclear program. The result of a 2010 poll taken among several Arab countries by Zogby International showed that 77% of participants agreed that “Iran has a right to its nuclear program“.

    Iran’s civilian nuclear power-generating program is safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran is also a member of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel, N. Korea, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, are not members of NPT and thus considered rouge states.

    Islamic Republic has always open and compliant about it’s program. IAEA has sometime questioned Tehran’s intent but has never accused Tehran of running an active nuclear military program. However, under Yukiya Amano, IAEA reports on Iran have become more and more pro-American agenda. On October 18, 2011 – the TIME mgazine reported that Obama administration is clearly pushing the IAEA to more clearly align itself unambiguously with views of anti-Iran countries by accusing Tehran of using its civilian nuclear activities as cover for a secret weapon program – in IAEA new report due soon. It’s the repitition of Washington’s bogus claim on Iraqi WMDs. US-Israel believe insertion of such allegations in the coming IAEA report will bring both Russia and China aboard UNSC’s fifth ‘crippling sanction’ against Iran.

    Watch below a video showing USraeli bogus propaganda against Iran’s nuclear program.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/the-coalition-of-evils-against-islamic-republic/

  89. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Kaveh has this take on the situation…

    “There is a consensus in Tehran that Israel’s real intention of escalating the war rhetoric against Iran is to convince the US government to adopt tougher sanctions, such as on Iran’s central bank. Such a move would be sure to anger the US’s key trade partner, China, which receives some 13% of its energy imports from Iran. ”
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK05Ak01.html

  90. Karl says:

    According to haaretz:

    “High ranking American officer: We are concerned Israel will not warn before attack (Ch. 10)”

    the obvious question is then, why does america do something? where is the preemptive strike on israel? where is nato invading the israeli threat? where is the UN, EU sanctions?
    and so forth…
    the fact that these question are beyond american likud-infested gov. comprehension is troublesome and pathetic, since US have become a puppet to israeli interests and they cant to nothing about it (if they would). Like a brainwashed kid that doesnt know whats good/right.

  91. WTF says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 4, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    I said what I said. I’m not narrowing it down any further because it’s impossible to predict without knowing the internal discussions of the US and Israel military planners and politicians, as well as the circumstances more than a six months out.

    Nice answer, but you missed my condescension.

    Your assumption is that if the US waits forever that Iran will be infinitely powerful is just ridiculous.
    I really wonder why I bother arguing with you idiots. You can’t even reason logically with any sense of comprehension of reality.
    Who gives a shit what the situation was in the 1980′s! I’m talking about the circumstances as they are NOW!

    First off, take your psych meds and calm the hell down. You’re getting all worked up on an internet forum, yet have the audacity to call other people idiots. Second, that wasn’t my assumption. I was questioning your logic. If the US has been dead set on toppling the IRI, then what the hell are they waiting for? Of course Iran isn’t going to get infinitely powerful dipshit, but they are more powerful than they were 20 years ago. The sanction regime has failed, what is holding them back?

    No, you don’t have an education in logical thinking. You’re just typing to hear yourself talk.

    If you’re not just a troll, then you’re an imbecile.

    This is just more hand-waving on your part. China and Russia WILL NOT – repeat WILL NOT – risk a conventional, let alone nuclear, exchange with the US over Iran.
    Get a clue.
    What a waste of my time

    Well shit Hack, don’t waste your breathe typing responses to me. Your talent is much too valuable to be wasting time on the idiots on here. Shit, you’re the “Rain Man” of armchair generals.

  92. Liz2 says:

    RSH

    “Liz2: “Was the part about americas ignorance of democracy to hard to accept?”

    Are you a complete idiot? When have I EVER suggested that in anything I’ve posted here?

    The bottom line is that the US wanted to put Chalabi as head of Iraq. That lasted five minutes. It was a ridiculous notion.

    Putting MEK in charge of Iran is an even more ridiculous notion. It’s completely impossible. The fact that you can’t comprehend that is proof that you’re not worth talking to.

    Just another moron here.

    Great. Good riddance boy.

  93. Adios, morons. Thank you for reminding me not to waste my time here.

  94. Liz2: “Was the part about americas ignorance of democracy to hard to accept?”

    Are you a complete idiot? When have I EVER suggested that in anything I’ve posted here?

    The bottom line is that the US wanted to put Chalabi as head of Iraq. That lasted five minutes. It was a ridiculous notion.

    Putting MEK in charge of Iran is an even more ridiculous notion. It’s completely impossible. The fact that you can’t comprehend that is proof that you’re not worth talking to.

    Just another moron here.

  95. WTF: I was basing that on the fact that you seemed ticked off by people being dismissive of the reports of imminent attack.”

    No, I’m ticked off at the blissfully ignorant clowns here who think an Iran war is impossible. Read the comments. You can’t find heavier cognitive dissonance anywhere.

    “are you thinking 3-5 years (since that’s when everybody “knows” Iran will have the bomb)? Also, is your timeframe (<10 years) absolute, or is it relative to the current date like all of the other “estimates” of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons or Israel/US attacking."

    I said what I said. I'm not narrowing it down any further because it's impossible to predict without knowing the internal discussions of the US and Israel military planners and politicians, as well as the circumstances more than a six months out.

    "I don’t think the US war planners are close to thinking that they “have nothing to lose” by attacking Iran."

    It's not the Pentagon that matters. Also, "nothing to lose" is more relevant to Israel. Israel has been trying to get the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel concludes the US is too preoccupied with economic issues or other foreign policy matters to attack Iran according to THEIR preferred time table, they may well decide to go ahead and accept the blame for starting a new war, as long as they get what they want, which is a destroyed Iran.

    "And you speak of pre-laid plans to attack Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon – The US/Israel has had plans to attack Iran for decades"

    I'm not talking about general contingency plans. There's a difference between contingency plans and immediate operational war plans. The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan by the US were planned in advance with the full intention of conducting them. The same for Israel and Lebanon. All the US and Israel needed was an EXCUSE. 9/11 served that purpose for the US, and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers served that purpose for Israel. It has even been suggested that Israel ALLOWED those soldiers are of visual range of their command post despite knowing in advance that Hizballah had a kidnap operation planned.

    "why wouldn’t they have done it while Iran was weaker (why attack now when Iran’s ability to respond is much greater than say in the late 80s?)"

    Sigh…get serious. Why don't you go back to the 1950's? Oh, wait, that WAS when the CIA engineered the Mossadegh overthrow.

    Your assumption is that if the US waits forever that Iran will be infinitely powerful is just ridiculous.

    I really wonder why I bother arguing with you idiots. You can't even reason logically with any sense of comprehension of reality.

    Who gives a shit what the situation was in the 1980's! I'm talking about the circumstances as they are NOW!

    "As for the increased polarization and rhetoric, the US and the USSR engaged in a long cold war that didn’t result in all-out war, so while that certainly does heighten the chance of war, it by no means makes it inevitable."

    What part of NUCLEAR WAR don't you understand? How the hell can you generalize from the Cold War between two massive nuclear powers to a regional war between a superpower and a relatively weak state?

    Does IRAQ not ring a bell? Does Afghanistan not ring a bell? How about Libya?

    Jesus Christ, where do you people get your education in logical thinking – from Homer Simpson?

    No, you don't have an education in logical thinking. You're just typing to hear yourself talk.

    "I never said that regional war is unlikely, I was simply pointing out that your comparison of Libya and Afghanistan to Iran is apples and oranges."

    No it is not – when discussed in terms of relative military power.

    "Iran’s capability is in asymmetric warfare. That is what concerns US war planners, not Iran’s aged fighter planes."

    AGAIN – the people who RUN THIS COUNTRY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT IRAN'S CAPABILITIES! ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS HOW MUCH MONEY THEY CAN MAKE FROM THE WAR!

    "To say that a conflict that begins with Israel, US (and likely European countries), Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Palestinians – and that will almost certainly spill over into countries with US military presence in the region – does not have the potential of spiraling from there is short-sighted IMO."

    And all of that spillover is IRRELEVANT to the main conflict. The countries I listed will NOT be involved because there is no reason for them to be involved.

    "Again you assume as fact."

    This is just more hand-waving on your part. China and Russia WILL NOT – repeat WILL NOT – risk a conventional, let alone nuclear, exchange with the US over Iran.

    Get a clue.

    What a waste of my time.

  96. BiBiJon says:

    Clint says:
    November 4, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Fortunately for Iran, the ludicrous story about the “plot” broke a short time ago. Both the implausibility of the charges, and the unseemly rush to punish Iran on the basis of an unproven far-fetched allegation leave the Amano’s report nothing more than preaching to the choir.

    Outside the choir, no one expects anything objective or even truthful to be coming out of Amano.

  97. WTF says:

    James Canning says:
    November 4, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    Clinton claimed his offer to meet with Khatami had been rebuffed. (“Bill Clinton: US should meet with Iran”).

    I don’t blame Khamenei for being apprehensive about Mr. Clinton given past precedent. As I stated, if Clinton truly wanted a fresh start, he could have started by revoking the executive orders that he signed during his first term. Also, as FYI previously pointed out, there wasn’t much that Clinton could really bring to the table at that point. He couldn’t unilaterally bring an end to the US sanctions.

    And on my other point, when I speak of the “Establishment”, I mean both political parties and the MSM (along with the others behind the curtains pulling the strings). Look at how the jaws dropped when candidate Obama was foolish enough to propose talking to Iran without preconditions.

  98. Liz2 says:

    Liz2: “the only thing left for america is to “install” MEK as the puppet leaders of Iran in case of war.”

    Yeah and seventy million Iranians will accept that.

    Right.

    You’re delusional. You make claims about stuff you know zero about. A waste of my time replying.
    ————————————

    Was the part about americas ignorance of democracy to hard to accept?

  99. Liz2: “the only thing left for america is to “install” MEK as the puppet leaders of Iran in case of war.”

    Yeah and seventy million Iranians will accept that.

    Right.

    You’re delusional. You make claims about stuff you know zero about. A waste of my time replying.

  100. Karl says:

    The fact that IAEA leaks information just proves how non-objective they are.

    New UN report to claim Iran is developing nuclear warheads

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-un-report-to-claim-iran-is-developing-nuclear-warheads-1.393823

  101. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    Bill Clinton was well aware the Israel lobby had helped to put himself in the White House, because the I lobby was determined to punish H G W Bush for trying to get Israel out of the occupied territories. G WH W Bush, and Jim Baker, were willing to take on the Israel lobby. And Bush paid the price.

  102. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    I think Georgia had been blocking Russian admission to the WTO.

  103. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    In an AP story carried in the Washington Post Sept. 21, 2006, Clinton claimed his offer to meet with Khatami had been rebuffed. (“Bill Clinton: US should meet with Iran”). Clinton advised Bush “not to be afraid to talk to anyone. They should not be reluctant and shouldn’t have too many conditions.”

  104. Karl says:

    Russia being accepted as a WTO member.
    http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/europe/2011-11/04/content_14037017.htm

    America has blocked the russian entry, now they are accepted. Without being to conspiracy-minded the WTO membership might have been part of a deal with US regarding Iran. Like Russia get into WTO and Russia accepting more sanctions on Iran etc.

  105. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    And speaking of “establishment” types, in the UK virtually every hereditary member of the House of Lords opposed the invasion of Iraq.

  106. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    Fanatical supporters of Israel, in the US, have had Iran “in the crosshairs” but is this true of “the establishment”? When I travel about the US I virtually never hear Iran even mentioned. Except, of course, on TV news. I think the truth of the matter is that certain plutocratic Jews use their wealth and power to block better relations between the US and Iran, in the manner that certain very rich Cuban “exiles” block better relations between the US and Cuba, and in the manner that certain very rich Chinese exiles blocked better relations between the US and China for decades.

  107. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    William Hague met with the Iranian foreign minister in New York recently. Hague also met with the Cuban foreign minister. I of course would welcome a Hague visit to Tehran. Meeting somewhere in-between would probably be easiest way forward.

  108. WTF says:

    fyi says:
    November 4, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    To what I was saying to James, I am cynical and don’t give much credit to Billy for the latter half of his Presidency. Both Clinton’s overtures as well as Obama’s campaign offer of talks without preconditions, while abnormal for US Presidents (so they get attention) don’t mean shit to me unless they are backed up with concrete actions. If Billy really wanted to make good with Iran, he could have started building good will by rescinding the executive orders that HE signed. Also, my comment was in the context of USG continuous hostile stance towards the IRI, which Clinton’s mild overtures to Khatami only underline in my mind, due to the fact that even they were unprecedented and got the establishment up in arms. Clinton was not the most virulently anti-Iran President, but that fact is tangential to my point, which was that the US has had the IRI in its crosshairs since its inception.

  109. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Did Obama actually threaten to use nukes against Iran? Or was this just posturing to please warmongering elements of the Israel lobby? Zero chance US would use nukes, at least on first-strike basis.

  110. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Assuming that Iran in fact does not want to build nukes on the sly, I agree with you Israel poses the world’s greatest security threat. Even greater than North Korea.

  111. Karl says:

    More warmongering by Israel. Note the campaign by Israel, US, UK started this week against Iran, the bribed amano IAEA puppet is pulling out another vague report on Iran the coming week.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/peres-i-believe-israel-world-approaching-military-option-on-iran-nuclear-threat-1.393801

    Also note that peres is saying:

    “In the time that remains, we must urge the other nations of the world to act, and tell them that it is time to >>>>> stand behind the promise that was made to us <<<<>>>> stand behind the promise that was made to us <<<<<,"

    Sorry what promise have secretly been made to Israel? This is beyond lunacy. Once again we see that the zionist regime is the biggest threat facing this world. Wars after war, apetite for destruction and death 24/7.

  112. Clint says:

    BibiJon:

    According to that Googlenews article, Iran had some computer models (I think these were neutron transport codes which are useful in reactor physics as well) and that they did some conventional explosives work.

    This is truly pathetic.

    The IAEA is clear even more biased than we thought:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/1202/WikiLeaks-cable-portrays-IAEA-chief-as-in-US-court-on-Iran-nuclear-program

  113. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:

    The US won because: “(they) Got rid of the non existent WMD”

    This is probably the funniest (unintentional?) line I’ve seen on this blog and in a discussion about the ME. As almost from a Monty Python sketch.

    How do you get rid of non-existing WMDs? Well, by making sure there are “existing WMDs” (thus they become “non-non-existing WMDs”).

  114. Clint says:

    BiBiJon:

    Mark my words — the details will have to do with nuclear _research_ Iran may have done prior to 2004, or have to do with missiles, which are non of the IAEA’s business.

    Note paragraph 52 of the Feb 2006 IAEA report on Iran:

    “[A]bsent some nexus to nuclear material the Agency’s legal authority to pursue the verification of possible nuclear weapons related activity is limited.”

    In short, there is nothing that authorizes the IAEA to investigate Iran’s missiles program unless there is evidence of nuclear material involved — which the IAEA has said there isn’t.

    Iran’s whole case has been grossly mishandled.

    Article 22 of the specific Iranian safeguards agreement from 1974(see below for URL) explicitly establishes the proper procedure for handling any disagreements between the BoG and Iranian govt.

    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf

    Article 22

    “Any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of this Agreement, except a dispute with regard to a finding by the Board under Article 19 or an action taken by the Board pursuant to such a finding, which is not settled by negotiation or another procedure agreed to by the Government of Iran and the Agency shall, at the request of either, be submitted to an arbitral tribunal composed as follows:

    the Government of Iran and the Agency shall each designate one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators so designated shall elect a third, who shall be the Chairman. If, within thirty days of the request for arbitration, either the Government of Iran or the Agency has not designated an arbitrator, either the Government of Iran or the Agency may request the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint an arbitrator. The same procedure shall apply if, within thirty days of the designation or appointment of the second arbitrator, the third arbitrator has not been elected. A majority of the members of the arbitral tribunal shall constitute a quorum, and all decisions shall require the concurrence of two arbitrators. The arbitral procedure shall be fixed by the tribunal. The decisions of the tribunal shall be binding on the Government of Iran and the Agency.”

    According to Article 19 of Iran’s safeguards agreement, the IAEA may refer Iran to the UN Security Council ONLY if the IAEA is “not able to verify that there has been no diversion of nuclear material required to be safeguarded under this Agreement, to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” AND Art. 2 which states that the purpose of the safeguards agreement is for the “EXCLUSIVE purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” This is standard language in the all basic safeguards. Note further that even then, the IAEA’s model safeguards agreement (INFCIRC-153) imposes various limits on inspections, and requires that IAEA inspections avoid hampering or causing “undue interference” with civilian nuclear programs, whilst also requiring that the IAEA collects the “minimum amount of information and data consistent with carrying out its responsibilities” and “reduce to a minimum the possible inconvenience and disturbance to the State.”

  115. BiBiJon says:

    AP is reporting that upcoming IAEA ‘assessment’ report on Iran will have a 12 page annex detailing salacious alleged activities by Iran gleaned from various countries’ intelligence agencies.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hgsB3u3UDljsPSgHdYsboI82_wvg?docId=3d805b073de94519bc7a4bcd134013fb

    Rather interesting that IAEA leaks out the info (via via) to the press, but no advance warning to Iran so she can explain herself.

    A few more days, and the report will be public. Cannot wait to read (livid) David Sanger (anger) on the subject :)

  116. Karl says:

    US, Russia to modernize nukes: report
    presstv.com/detail/207927.html

    I get tired when I see such headlines… Here we have america talking about Iran 24/7 while themselves not only have nukes and are the only ones that have used them, twice, but now we also see they also are upgrading them.

    Remember last year – obama threatened to use nukes against Iran, they threatened to wipe Iran off the map.

    “Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms”
    nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?pagewanted=all

    Just imagine if Iran threatened america with nuclear attack so explicitly.

  117. fyi says:

    WTF says: November 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    The first term of Mr. Clinton was spent on trying to cause a default of the Iranian Government on her foreign loans and obligations.

    Only when that failed and after Khobar bombing he changed direction (in his second term).

    By that time, it was too late.

    And it was not clear that he could put anything on the table that was worth anything to Iran.

  118. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 4, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    If Mr. Hauge is indeed desirous of avoiding another war, he could fly to Tehran.

    Or call Mr. Salehi.

  119. Rd. says:

    U.S. backs away from sanctions on Iran central bank

    “a proposed move against Iran’s central bank could disrupt international oil markets and further damage the reeling American and world economies.”

    a simple sanction on ICB would wreck US and world economy???
    what would happen if a bullet was fired across Persian Gulf?
    It does not matter how big your gun is, if you can’t afford the consequences.

    http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/11/03/2256406/us-backs-away-from-sanctions-on.html?story_link=email_msg

  120. WTF says:

    James Canning says:
    November 4, 2011 at 2:56 pm
    WTF,
    Bill Clinton in fact wanted to improve US relations with Iran… But Clinton was obviously unwilling to take on Israel lobby.

    The same could be said for the empty suit that currently resides in the White House. Who cares what Billy wanted?! Whether he was unable to grow a pair and stand up to the Lobby, or whether he was simply being disingenuous doesn’t really matter.

    But to the point, when I refer to “the US” itching for war with Iran, I am not referring to an individual but rather to the entire establishment. Anyone who comes out supporting rapprochement with Iran is either sidelined or marginalized.

  121. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    Have you read Robert Parry’s report on Clinton’s secret effort to improve US-Iran relations?

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story/12.html

  122. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    Bill Clinton in fact wanted to improve US relations with Iran, and the deal between Conoco and Iran was seen as best way forward. But Clinton was obviously unwilling to take on Israel lobby. Fanatical Republicans were trying to remove Clinton from office, you may recall.

  123. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    Thanks for link to Lavrov’s comments. And very interesting, the opening of a Russian Orthodox Church in Sharjah (UAE).

  124. WTF says:

    James Canning says:
    November 4, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Is that the reason Bill Clinton tried to allow an improvement in US relations with Iran? Aipac and other extremist element of the ISRAEL LOBBY blocked it. The “US” is not a synonym for warmongering Jews wanting to “protect” Israel by injuring Iran. The “US” is not a synonym for idiot Republicans (and Democrats) who kowtow to Aipac.

    Successive US governments (since Carter) have antagonized the IRI, Bill Clinton is certainly no exception. You are correct that a US president that seeks a rapprochement with the IRI will need to buck the Lobby, but surely that was not Billy. I seem to remember an ex prez that uttered some nonsense like “If Iraq came across the Jordan River … I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die.” I can’t remember who that was…

  125. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    Sergei Lavrov sees that the UNSC resolutions on Libya were exploited, in an arguably dishonest fashion, to bring about regime change by western military intervention. He does not want a repeat in Syria. Sensibly, of course.

    Lavrov also sees that warmongering neocons in the US, and other foolish politicians in America, are trying to ‘box Obama in” by getting another UNSC resolution on sanctions, that again will “not be complied with”.

    Warmongering neocons and other fanatical “supporters” of Israel in the US, and the UK for that matter, want to prevent better relations between US and Iran.

  126. James Canning says:

    kooshy,

    And Iran in fact offered to help the US to assess any “threat” from Iraq, in hopes of avoiding the chaos of civil war. Moron in the White House seems not even to have grasped the situation. And grossly incompetent National Security Advisor (Condi Rice) also failed to grasp utter lunacy of invading Iraq.

    Saddam was huritng property values in Tel Aviv. This is a core reason for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  127. Rd. says:

    The manner in which FM Sergey Lavrov spoke out on Syria – that Russia will not “allow allow anything like this to happen in the future”

    Thus, Russia has begun blocking the US moves to create new pretexts to act against Iran.

  128. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Yes, Bush was warned by Admiral Fallon that attacking Iran would be insane, and that it might bring on world war. So neocon warmongers forced his resignation.

    William Hague continues to work toward avoiding another war in the Gulf. He talks to the Turkish foreign minister almost daily, and sometimes several times a day.

  129. kooshy says:

    The truth of the matter is, once US attacked Afghanistan, Iranian strategic planners were more than willing to cooperate even collaborate with the US to strategically contain the extreme suni and unfriendly Taliban influence with a more moderate Muslim Afghan regime. Which it did happen as it was planned.

    But when the US/ Europe made the strategic mistake of attacking Iraq, strategically speaking it was all different for Iran, the Iranian and the shih communities in the middle east saw an opening for strategic gains that was previously impossible for them in the Baathist Iraqi system. Tactical mistake of expanding the theater of the military operations by US on two totally different geographic and demographic theaters made an opening for Iran to became politically obligated to protect the Shih community in Iraq, which indeed with US’s tactical mistake it was relatively an easy task for Iran to do (with help of Russia and China) by way of prolonging (slow bleed) the US’s and other western allies engagement in that country, by any count, this is a huge setback for US’s strategic position that region.

  130. Karl says:

    James:

    “Saddam posed no threat to the US or the UK in 2002. Agreed?”
    Saddam posed no direct threat to the landmass called America, however he posed a “threat” to the region and american interst (oil and Israel).

    “Shia were about 60% of population of Iraq in 2002. Agreed?”

    Was one major purpose of the war to put Shia government in power in Iraq, to enrich some of the neocons who conspired to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq?”
    No I have already stated the goals/purposes with the war.

  131. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Saddam posed no threat to the US or the UK in 2002. Agreed?

    Shia were about 60% of population of Iraq in 2002. Agreed?

    Was one major purpose of the war to put Shia government in power in Iraq, to enrich some of the neocons who conspired to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq?

  132. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 4, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    To me, it was a restatement – in a garbled manner – what US planners must have explained to him. To wit, that war with Iran will inevitably require the introduction of US, UK< Australia etc. troop, followed by a number of states re-supplying Iran; chief among them Russia through the Caspian Sea. Intercepting Russian resupply assets would mean WWIII.

    As I said before, in 2007, Axis Powers, China, Russia, India had a chance to choose a different path with Iran. They did not.

    Now we have an indefinite stand-off from Hindukush, to the Persian Gulf, across the Levant, all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. More than 200 million people are now in various levels of confrontation with Axis Powers. And I am not including Pakistan.

  133. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    One might note that since Saddam destroyed his WMD in the 1990s, and must of that destruction took place soon after the Gulf War, it is indeed remarkable that Karl things that it was necessary to invade Iraq to establish what had happened during the 1990s. In fact, the CIA knew the WMD had been destroyed, years before the idiotic and illegal invasion of Iraq was launched by the moron in the White House.

  134. Karl says:

    James:

    “Are you actually arguing that the US “controls” Middle East oil, due to overthrow of Saddam Hussein? Are you aware the US bought more oil from Iraq than any other country, while Saddam was in power (after Gulf War)?”
    -If you compare US influence on Iraq during Saddam era compared to know, you see that US have much more influence today than lets say 2002.

  135. Karl says:

    Dan cooper:

    “US has lost nearly 5000 soldiers, spent over a 1000 billion dollars, killed and maimed over a million innocent Iraqi’s, divided the country into 3 sections, Inflicted untold pain and misery upon its people.

    Do you still believe US is winning in Iraq? if you do, you must be living in another planet.

    US did not win in Iraq, but helped Iran to be the ultimate winner.”

    You need to check the goals and then compare that to the outcome.

    1. Toppled Saddam – check
    2. Got rid of the non existent WMD – check
    3. Created a state based on democracy – check
    4. Established american hegemony in the mideast and gained control over oil – check

    If US wasnt finished in Iraq they wouldnt have leaved the place.

  136. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Are you actually arguing that the US “controls” Middle East oil, due to overthrow of Saddam Hussein? Are you aware the US bought more oil from Iraq than any other country, while Saddam was in power (after Gulf War)?

  137. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Saddam Hussein was overthrow in a matter of several weeks. No need for US to spend more than $1 trillion subsequently.

  138. WTF says:

    Karl says:

    “What did the US “win” in Iraq?”
    1. Toppled Saddam
    2. Got rid of the non existent WMD
    3. Created a state based on democracy
    4. Established american hegemony in the mideast and gained control over oil

    …..

    Thats highly immature and just proves my point, atleast to the extent you have no knowledge to counter it with arguments.

    People in glass houses my friend. I really got a kick out of reason #2 BTW. You have swayed me. The US definitely won in Iraq.

  139. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    US military told Bush in 2007 that 2007 NIE on Iran posed significant issue, to say the least.

    Have you forgotten how angry G W Bush and Condoleezza Rice were, with France, Germany and Russia, because those countries were blocking a further UNSC resolution on Iraq? Unless weapons inspectors in Iraq got more time? Neocon warmongers conspiring to set up the illegal war were worried about losing their “plausible deniability”.

  140. James Canning says:

    Dan Cooper,

    Did you notice that the warmongering neocon, Charles Krauthammer, today in the Washington Post is attacking Obama for “losing” Iraq?

  141. Dan Cooper says:

    US has lost nearly 5000 soldiers, spent over a 1000 billion dollars, killed and maimed over a million innocent Iraqi’s, divided the country into 3 sections, Inflicted untold pain and misery upon its people.

    Do you still believe US is winning in Iraq? if you do, you must be living in another planet.

    US did not win in Iraq, but helped Iran to be the ultimate winner.

  142. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    On Oct. 18, 2007, G W Bush said he wanted to talk to Vladimir Putin to find out what he had learned about Iran’s nuclear porgramme during his recent visit to Iran. Bush said: “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

    Did Bush actually believe it was possible to prevent a country from possessing the “knowledge” needed to build nukes?

    Or was this just a demonstration of a very weak thinker, who conflated “knowledge” with current ability to build nukes quickly?

  143. Karl says:

    James:

    “You claim there is “nothing” that stops the US from attacking Iran. Yes, there is. 2011 NIE on Iran in effect makes such an attack illegal. Unless Iran attacks first.”
    - Please, United States is probably the most law-breaching state, Iraq war even Afghanistan war could be considered illegal. People in power will always find ways to justify their actions.

    “What did the US “win” in Iraq?”
    1. Toppled Saddam
    2. Got rid of the non existent WMD
    3. Created a state based on democracy
    4. Established american hegemony in the mideast and gained control over oil

    That were their goals and they got in general terms.

  144. James Canning says:

    Condoleezza Rice says G W Bush intended to seek extension of foolish presence of US troops in Iraq. Easy to believe. She also chastises Obama for seeking a partial freeze of growth of illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank. And she applauds withdrawal of US from Unesco. Stooge of the warmongering neocons? Or a neocon herself?

  145. Karl says:

    WTF

    “I did not reply to your question, because what you described as a “clear cut question” was ridiculously vague. Given the fact that you believe that the US won the war in Iraq (and that the only mitigating factors were the war’s legality) I will pass on going further down this road with you. ”
    - Thats highly immature and just proves my point, atleast to the extent you have no knowledge to counter it with arguments.

    “I’m not sure what part of “I’m not speculating” you don’t understand. You were stating that China and Russia were indifferent to the idea of the IRI being toppled, I took exception to that and supported the general idea of Russia and China indirectly supporting the IRI. That’s it! I never stopped short, however I am going to stop this line of conversation short as it is pointless. Like I said before, let’s agree to disagree.”
    - Yes you stop short you once again since refuse (probably due lack of knowledge) to tell us HOW Russia and China would support Iran.

  146. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    You claim there is “nothing” that stops the US from attacking Iran. Yes, there is. 2011 NIE on Iran in effect makes such an attack illegal. Unless Iran attacks first.

    Why do you think the so-called “plot” was hyped so greatly by the Obama administration?

  147. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    You claim that “the US has been itching to attack Iran for decades”. Is that the reason Bill Clinton tried to allow an improvement in US relations with Iran? Aipac and other extremist element of the ISRAEL LOBBY blocked it. The “US” is not a synonym for warmongering Jews wanting to “protect” Israel by injuring Iran. The “US” is not a synonym for idiot Republicans (and Democrats) who kowtow to Aipac.

  148. WTF says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    -Please reply to my question instead of coming with a counter-question. My question must be very simple for you to reply to since it will expose Iran’s (according to you) very strength to win over military and politically superpowers.
    But I can reply to your question. Yes I think US won in Iraq (regardless of the lies, illegality of the war and so on).

    I did not reply to your question, because what you described as a “clear cut question” was ridiculously vague. Given the fact that you believe that the US won the war in Iraq (and that the only mitigating factors were the war’s legality) I will pass on going further down this road with you.


    Once again you stopping short, what “indirect” support are you talking about? Taking in regard also, What, What would Russia and China gain by doing such acts?

    I’m not sure what part of “I’m not speculating” you don’t understand. You were stating that China and Russia were indifferent to the idea of the IRI being toppled, I took exception to that and supported the general idea of Russia and China indirectly supporting the IRI. That’s it! I never stopped short, however I am going to stop this line of conversation short as it is pointless. Like I said before, let’s agree to disagree.

  149. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    You appear to argue that the US might wish to interfere with Chinese imports of oil from Saudi Arabia. In fact, the US exhorts the Chinese to import as much Saudi oil as possible.

  150. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    What did the US “win” in Iraq? Near-annihilation of the ancient Christain community of that country? Destruction of the national library, and large-scale looting and destruction of the cultural heritage of the country? Several trillions dollars added to the US national debt?

  151. Karl says:

    WTF:

    “It is disappointing that you view that as a clear cut question. In order to better understand you, let me first ask you a question: Do you believe that the US “won” in Iraq?”
    -Please reply to my question instead of coming with a counter-question. My question must be very simple for you to reply to since it will expose Iran’s (according to you) very strength to win over military and politically superpowers.

    But I can reply to your question. Yes I think US won in Iraq (regardless of the lies, illegality of the war and so on).

    “I am not stopping short. I was not arguing that Russia or China would supply any specific weapon system (or anything specific for that matter), because I wasn’t speculating. ”
    Ok so what are they going to “resupply” Iran with then as you(?) implied earlier? What is China and Russia going to do that will be of substance?

    ” I don’t claim to know what will happen, but frankly neither do you. However, if I were a betting man, my money would be on China and Russia providing indirect support to IRI in the event of a drawn out war, rather than sitting back and watching their vital interests in the ME jeopardized.”
    Once again you stopping short, what “indirect” support are you talking about? Taking in regard also, What, What would Russia and China gain by doing such acts?

  152. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    The German General Staff in the summer of 1914 encouraged the Austo-Hungarian Empire to try to exploit the assassination of Francis-Ferdinand, in order to crush Serbia. Their thinking was the “protection” of the empire required the suppression of Serbian assisstance to nationalist agitators and terrorists within the Empire.

    G W Bush was warned by US military leaders that a war with Iran could bring catastrophe to the entire planet.

    German miscalculation in the summer of 1914 brought catastrophe to much of Europe and of course destroyed the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

  153. James Canning says:

    Russia had $4 billion in arms deals with the Gaddafi government that likely will not be honoured by new Libyan gov’t. Russia had hopes for tens of billions in arms deals with the Gaddafi gov’t, but so far has had no dealings with the interim government of Libya.

  154. James Canning says:

    Interesting comment by Norman Finkelstein recently. that polls show American Jewish support for Israel right or wrong is weakening, in part due to extensive intermarriage. Cohen claims the rate is now about 60%. (“Greater Israel – - or Peace”, American Conservative magazine, November 2011.)

  155. WTF says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    A clear cut question: Do you belive Iran have chance to win against US, Israel, NATO, Saudi et.c?

    It is disappointing that you view that as a clear cut question. In order to better understand you, let me first ask you a question: Do you believe that the US “won” in Iraq?

    -Please dont stop short. Please tell us what Russia and China would do, please tell us what weapon they would ship to Iran and please tell us what they would gain to do so.

    I am not stopping short. I was not arguing that Russia or China would supply any specific weapon system (or anything specific for that matter), because I wasn’t speculating. You were absolutely saying that China and Russia could care less what happens with Iran, and you brushed off FYI’s assertion that Russia and China would indirectly involve themselves. I don’t claim to know what will happen, but frankly neither do you. However, if I were a betting man, my money would be on China and Russia providing indirect support to IRI in the event of a drawn out war, rather than sitting back and watching their vital interests in the ME jeopardized.

    As for specifics, I only go with things that have already happened.

    http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1952606.html

  156. kooshy says:

    Karl
    “A clear cut question: Do you belive Iran have chance to win against US, Israel, NATO, Saudi et.c?’

    Karl, before someone respond to your question above, you might want to ask yourself why US lost in Iraq and why is US losing in Afghanistan, further do you think this two clearly admitted loses, has any effect on US strategic decision makers decisions to further get the US involved in the same region, with a much larger and powerful country with a more difficult and strategically important geography, that unlike Iraq is out of rich and un containable at least on the northern borders. Once you are able in a reasonable and calm way think these questions through, only then you may decide to change your views on what is militarily and strategically possible for US to do with Iran. Nerveless being on this forum is the right place to grasp these points with regard to Iran.

  157. James Canning says:

    Iranian,

    I doubt the government of Iran would enjoy bring death and destruction to Jerusalem. Or to Tel Aviv for that matter.

  158. James Canning says:

    WTF,

    What would be the benefit to the US if there was a change of government in Iran? Any new government probably would insist on keeping domestic nuclear power programme. (Not that I expect any change of government.)

  159. James Canning says:

    kooshy,

    China has criticised the US from time to time for squandering so much money on its military. Russia regrets the failure of the Nato operation in Afghanistan, in the sense Russia (and China) want at least minimum stability in Afghanistan. Both countries have problems with Islamic insurgents.

  160. James Canning says:

    In a report in the Financial Times today, regarding new IAEA re[port on Iran’s nuclear programme, James Blitz said that the 20% U being produced by Iran is “close to weapons-grade”. Not correct, but this reporting illustrates the danger to Iran the production of 20% U poses.

  161. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    I now regret having started this little thread. You are, of course, completely correct. You have covered your bases, or at least the ones that really matter: political and military power. I just have to stop inhaling whatever second-hand smoke wafts through the next door. I see it now, and I’m grateful to your shining the light here: When the hammer hits the nail, then the nail goes down. Absolutely riveting.

    ——

    “In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Dani said the F-117 was detected and shot down during a moonless night — just three days into the war — by a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm

  162. Karl says:

    “You mean political and military might. Two things that didn’t lead Israel to victory in 2006. That still doesn’t directly address the points raised.”
    ..and I am not talking about Israel and I am not talking about the israeli goals on Lebanon 2006. Certainly I am not talking about assymetric warfare. Unless you have a military to speak of and if you dont have any political power you have no chance.
    A clear cut question: Do you belive Iran have chance to win against US, Israel, NATO, Saudi et.c?

    “You seem to think that Russia and China view their vital interests as untouched by the ME power structure being completely changed in the US’s favor. If your position is that Russia and China have no rationale for even getting indirectly involved in the war that you foresee, then we just have to agree to disagree.”
    -Please dont stop short. Please tell us what Russia and China would do, please tell us what weapon they would ship to Iran and please tell us what they would gain to do so.

  163. kooshy says:

    One basic fact, which often most western strategic analyst doesn’t like to elaborate is, that during this past decade the US/ European involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan made possible for China to become the 2nd largest world economy, and Russia was able to overcome a disastrous change of economic and political system that started in early 90’s.

    If for one reason or another the two cooperating permanent members of UNSC (Russia and China) can prolong the western involvement for their untenable hegemonic goals in a semi benign and contain way, this alone will expand the room for their further economic expansion in the traditionally western occupied economic and political grounds.

    For that reason majority of small arms and ammunitions used by Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies are Chines or Russian made. Now one needs to explain (that wouldn’t come from USG) who and why is supplying arms to these groups, making them capable to continue fighting the superpowers for over ten years.

  164. WTF says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 12:15 pm
    I have told him that he lacks understanding for whats important in warfare.

    You mean political and military might. Two things that didn’t lead Israel to victory in 2006. That still doesn’t directly address the points raised.

    “For starters, do you not believe that China and Russia will resupply Iran as this confrontation drags on?

    No why would they? Resupply of what btw? There is arms embargo on Iran now, why would China and Russia suddenly break it for NO reason during war?

    You like fyi stop short of what China / Russia would do, keep evolve your thoughts and realize Russia and China have no interest to support Iran.

    You seem to think that Russia and China view their vital interests as untouched by the ME power structure being completely changed in the US’s favor. If your position is that Russia and China have no rationale for even getting indirectly involved in the war that you foresee, then we just have to agree to disagree.

  165. Karl says:

    WTF

    I hate to jump into this, but Karl, it is you who seems to be assuming things without much digging. You are assuming that Russia and China’s reaction to a potential major game changer in the ME like the toppling of the IRI would be identical to their reaction to Gaddafi getting overthrown. To call that oversimplification is an understatement. Russia and China have already taken a (slightly) tougher stance regarding Syria. While China and Russia are not likely to openly side with Iran and take up arms, their vital interests are much more at stake with Iran than with Libya.

    You like fyi stop short of what China / Russia would do, keep evolve your thoughts and realize Russia and China have no interest to support Iran.

  166. Karl says:

    WTF

    “-Common man, war against Iran is not bringing WW3. Do you really think that? Seriously?

    If you understand what FYI is saying and disagree, then why not counter his (valid) points rather than simply say “c’mon”?”

    I have told him that he lacks understanding for whats important in warfare.

    “For starters, do you not believe that China and Russia will resupply Iran as this confrontation drags on?

    No why would they? Resupply of what btw? There is arms embargo on Iran now, why would China and Russia suddenly break it for NO reason during war?

  167. Iranian says:

    Many Iranians are looking forward to the opportunity to
    put Israel in it’s place. Iranians know that if Israel starts anything
    Iran can both hit Israel very hard AND be the victim. The Middle East will
    be up in arms. Now is the worst time for Israel. they can’t attack. This
    is propaganda.

  168. WTF says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 10:58 am

    fyi

    “Chinese and Russians will not sit idle and have the Axis Powers achieve the power of life and death over their economies.

    Of that I am certain.”

    - Once again you asume alot of things without really digging into it, Russia nor China have any political power to protest the US. None, watch how Russia and China acted on Libya. Remember that because thats how China and Russia will act regarding Iran. Some condemnations here and there, nothing more.

    I hate to jump into this, but Karl, it is you who seems to be assuming things without much digging. You are assuming that Russia and China’s reaction to a potential major game changer in the ME like the toppling of the IRI would be identical to their reaction to Gaddafi getting overthrown. To call that oversimplification is an understatement. Russia and China have already taken a (slightly) tougher stance regarding Syria. While China and Russia are not likely to openly side with Iran and take up arms, their vital interests are much more at stake with Iran than with Libya.

  169. Kathleen says:

    The latest twitter from the two new Gaza flotilla ships that were surrounded by the Israeli navy and have now been boarded by Israeli soldiers

    From Pal Waves
    http://twitter.com/#!/palwaves

    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    Demonstration in 30 minutes at Al-Manara in #Ramallah in support with the #FreedomWaves ships
    2 minutes ago
    Joseph Dana
    ibnezra Joseph Dana
    by PALWaves
    The Israeli army will take #FreedomWaves activists directly to jail inside Israel, likely to be charged with ‘illegal entry to Israel’
    10 minutes ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    #FreedomWaves activists will arrive in Ashdod 7 pm and go to Israeli prison “Givon”, denied visit by consulate until tomorrow morning
    13 minutes ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    #FreedomWaves dept. foreign affairs- the Irish have been “removed” from the Saoirse and taken onto an Israeli ship. All are in good health
    15 minutes ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    UPDATED: Urgent: Freedom Waves BOARDED by Israeli Navy electronicintifada.net/blog/jalal-abu… via @intifada
    40 minutes ago
    Jinjirrie
    Jinjirrie Jinjirrie
    by PALWaves
    The thing about waves is they keep on coming, to wash away the rubbish of Israel’s disgusting apartheid. #freedomwaves
    55 minutes ago
    Free Palestine
    KhuloodBadawi Free Palestine
    by PALWaves
    EMERGENCY VIGIL today in NYC to support #FreedomWaves flotilla to #Gaza. 5 pm in front of Israeli consulate at 2nd Ave btwn 42nd & 43rd st.
    53 minutes ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    Picture of Pirates boarding the Irish Ship Saoirse (Freedom) pic.twitter.com/hHFrx18P
    51 minutes ago
    November 4, 2011 – 11:38 am

    edit
    reply
    Flag as offensive

    Grady Lee Howard wrote:

    kathleen makes me laugh: She wonders if there is pressure exerted on DRShow not to “say the wrong ting” or “get agitator guests.” There’s not only pressure against kathleen; there’s suction for the company line!

    (Diane has shown great courage in booking Greg Palast for week after next.
    Fascist posters are probably too lazy to research his journalism. Their brains might puke out the Koch-flu if they ever did.)
    November 4, 2011 – 11:39 am

    reply
    Flag as offensive

    kathleen wrote:

    Two days ago two ships one from Canada, one from Ireland left Turkey for the Gaza it had been kept very hush hush. One hour ago “pal Waves” of the freedom Gaza flotilla sent this tweet one hour ago ”
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    Urgent PRESS RELEASE: Freedom Waves to Gaza – ‘Boarding of Freedom Waves by Israeli military imminent electronicintifada.net/blog/jalal-abu… via @intifada”

    Will your guest please address this new flotilla. Just because it is not being talked about in the MSM does not mean it is not happenning
    November 4, 2011 – 11:46 am

    edit
    reply
    Flag as offensive

    kathleen wrote:

    Your silly. Of course there is pressure. Greg Palast will not be talking about Iran.

    You can bet your ass there is pressure on this show as well as others. I know this as a fact. Still challenging
    November 4, 2011 – 11:47 am

    edit
    reply
    Flag as offensive

    new
    kathleen wrote:

    Grady of course I know there is pressure..why do you think I continue to challenge.
    November 4, 2011 – 11:50 am

    edit
    reply
    Flag as offensive

    Home
    Shows
    About
    Diane

    Find Shows
    << >>
    S M T W T F S

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    Jinjirrie Jinjirrie
    by PALWaves
    The thing about waves is they keep on coming, to wash away the rubbish of Israel’s disgusting apartheid. #freedomwaves
    1 hour ago
    Free Palestine
    KhuloodBadawi Free Palestine
    by PALWaves
    EMERGENCY VIGIL today in NYC to support #FreedomWaves flotilla to #Gaza. 5 pm in front of Israeli consulate at 2nd Ave btwn 42nd & 43rd st.
    1 hour ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    Picture of Pirates boarding the Irish Ship Saoirse (Freedom) pic.twitter.com/hHFrx18P
    1 hour ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    Via @Georgehale First pics from #freedomwaves boarding happening now (via email from @idfspokesperson) twitpic.com/7arqjx
    1 hour ago
    Canada Boat to Gaza
    CanadaBoatGaza Canada Boat to Gaza
    by PALWaves
    Correction: #FreedomWaves will continue and get stronger with global solidarity movements. #Palestine #BDS #OWS
    1 hour ago
    Canada Boat to Gaza
    CanadaBoatGaza Canada Boat to Gaza
    by PALWaves
    The Tahrir and Saoirse are being forcibly taken into Israeli custody. #FreedomWaves will continue
    1 hour ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    Pirates confirm they have captured #FreedomWaves idfspokesperson.com/2011/11/04/isr…
    1 hour ago
    Freedom Waves Gaza
    PALWaves Freedom Waves Gaza
    #FreedomWaves ships have been overtaken by occupying pirates, and are being forcibly dragged to Ashdod
    1 hour ago
    Canada Boat to Gaza
    CanadaBoatGaza Canada Boat to Gaza
    by PALWaves
    IOF is saying “Activists to be handed over police, examined and interrogated then deported for challenging #Gaza blockade.” #freedomwaves
    1 hour ago
    Palestine YouthVoice
    palyouthvoice Palestine YouthVoice
    by PALWaves
    #IOF hijacked both boats of #FreedomWaves boats are being dragged to Isdud port, Asdod was ethnic cleansed on 28/10/48 palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Isdud/ind…
    1 hour ago

  170. WTF says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 11:11 am

    -Common man, war against Iran is not bringing WW3. Do you really think that? Seriously?

    If you understand what FYI is saying and disagree, then why not counter his (valid) points rather than simply say “c’mon”?

    For starters, do you not believe that China and Russia will resupply Iran as this confrontation drags on?

  171. Karl says:

    fyi

    “I respectfully decline to further discuss this with you.”
    -Thats because you fail to grap whats important in warfare. It seems that you actually think Iran is a superpower military/politically and could fight any nation, amongst them US and NATO.


    George Bush understood how WWIII could start from a US war against Iran when he mentioned Iran and WWIII in one sentence.

    -Common man, war against Iran is not bringing WW3. Do you really think that? Seriously?

  172. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 4, 2011 at 10:58 am

    I respectfully decline to further discuss this with you.

    I do not think that you are grasping the essential elements of my argument; analogy with WII, UK, and the role of US in preventing collapse of UK before either USSR or USA joined the war on UK’s side.

    George Bush understood how WWIII could start from a US war against Iran when he mentioned Iran and WWIII in one sentence.

    Things had been explained to him.

  173. Karl says:

    fyi

    “Chinese and Russians will not sit idle and have the Axis Powers achieve the power of life and death over their economies.

    Of that I am certain.”

    - Once again you asume alot of things without really digging into it, Russia nor China have any political power to protest the US. None, watch how Russia and China acted on Libya. Remember that because thats how China and Russia will act regarding Iran. Some condemnations here and there, nothing more.


    At that point, the Axis Powers have the chioce of escalating to World War III by attacking Russian and Chinese resupply assets or standing down.”
    -Attacking Russia and China? World war III? WHAT are you talking about?

  174. WTF says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 4, 2011 at 2:52 am
    WTF: I’m not saying the Iran war is “imminent”, as in this year or even next year. I predict no specific time table.
    What I do say is that it’s getting closer and will not be ten or twenty years from now.

    I was basing that on the fact that you seemed ticked off by people being dismissive of the reports of imminent attack. Since you don’t think attack is imminent, but also not 10-20 years away, are you thinking 3-5 years (since that’s when everybody “knows” Iran will have the bomb)? Also, is your timeframe (<10 years) absolute, or is it relative to the current date like all of the other “estimates” of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons or Israel/US attacking.

    It’s not an “either/or” situation that the current round of threats necessarily means imminent war or that it’s all pointless. The real situation is that each round of tension heightening produces a self-fulfilling prophecy and further produces a justification for a war down the road. This is precisely how virtually all wars start – a continuing polarization with more and more rhetoric and charge-countercharge until someone decides they have nothing to lose by launching an attack.
    In the case of the US and Israel in recent history, that means very little motivation is needed to do so and invariably there were plans long in advance to do just that. This was true in Afghanistan (Bush had plans drawn up prior to 9/11), it was true in Iraq (Bush fully intended a war even while denying it), and it was true for Israel in Lebanon in 2006 (plans for that war were drawn up a year in advance of the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers.)

    I agree with all of this, except I come to a different conclusion. I don’t think the US war planners are close to thinking that they “have nothing to lose” by attacking Iran. And you speak of pre-laid plans to attack Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon – The US/Israel has had plans to attack Iran for decades, why wouldn’t they have done it while Iran was weaker (why attack now when Iran’s ability to respond is much greater than say in the late 80s?) As for the increased polarization and rhetoric, the US and the USSR engaged in a long cold war that didn’t result in all-out war, so while that certainly does heighten the chance of war, it by no means makes it inevitable.

    As for the “Empire imploding”, that’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s amusing – if ridiculous – that some people think the US is suddenly going to collapse while at the same time assuming it’s impossible to have a war with Iran. Regardless of the state of the economy – world or US – US military power and the military-industrial complex aren’t going out of business any time soon. Maybe in another ten or twenty years. The Iran war will come sooner than that and may even be justified for economic reasons as Raimondo points out in his current Antiwar.com piece cited below.

    I agree that the US isn’t likely to collapse short of a couple decades. However, a major conflict that destabilizes markets could definitely accelerate that time-table. And I am not naïve, I realize that this is already virtually a war of attrition (which the US is not winning), and thus at some point a full-fledged war is deemed a better option, even if it is very costly.

    The notion that a “regional war” is unlikely is based on nothing. As I’ve said, Iran per se is no match for the US military machine, any more than Iraq or Afghanstan or Libya. While Iran is certainly bigger as a country, there’s no way Iran can match conventional US military power. Iran’s only capability is in asymmetric war.

    I never said that regional war is unlikely, I was simply pointing out that your comparison of Libya and Afghanistan to Iran is apples and oranges. The US has been itching to attack Iran for decades and still crickets. And, of course, Iran’s capability is in asymmetric warfare. That is what concerns US war planners, not Iran’s aged fighter planes.

    As for the rest of the war scenario, Israel can and will attack Syria and Lebanon AND Gaza at the same time. Israel most definitely has that capability – especially if it can convince the US/EU to attack Syria at the same time.
    People talk about “regional war” as if it would involve every country in the region. Frankly, it won’t. Saudi Arabia will be mostly uninvolved. Jordan is likely to be uninvolved. Egypt will be uninvolved. The Gulf States will only be attacked to the degree that they support US bases on their soil, and are otherwise irrelevant militarily. Iraq will be involved to the degree that the Iraqi Shia support Iran. Turkey will not be involved except to the degree that they may allow US airbases to conduct attacks against Iran.
    So there is no “regional war” on the scale of WWII involved here. It will be Iran vs the US/Israel, and Syria/Lebanon/Gaza against the US/Israel. Everyone else is a side issue.

    Frankly, you don’t know what this conflict could evolve into. While you acknowledge that this isn’t going to be a quick couple month flare up, you assume that it is going to stay contained to the parties that it begins with. I respectfully disagree. To say that a conflict that begins with Israel, US (and likely European countries), Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Palestinians – and that will almost certainly spill over into countries with US military presence in the region – does not have the potential of spiraling from there is short-sighted IMO.

    And talk about “WWIII” is even more ridiculous. There will be no involvement by China, Russia, or Pakistan or India and those are the only people who could end up starting something approaching “WWIII”.
    People who talk about “conflagration” weren’t around for WWII and don’t understand the scale of a “world war”. Get a grip.

    Again you assume as fact. Obviously these other parties wouldn’t jump in immediately, but say this war kicks off in summer of 2012, what will this conflict look like in summer of 2015. The US could easily get bogged down with this conflict (on a scale that would make Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison) and others could certainly start coming out of the woodworks.

    And I personally don’t see WWIII looking like WWII, or else it will devolve into nuclear war quickly. IMO, WWIII will be asymmetric in nature and will center around the ME. The conflict that you describe (all-out regional war in the ME) sounds like a good start to WWIII to me.

    And in all of this I must say, I for one would not be surprised if I wake up to Obama talking about how he had no choice but to launch attacks on Iran to protect…yadda yadda. BUT, I still don’t EXPECT it any time soon.

  175. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 4, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Chinese and Russians will not sit idle and have the Axis Powers achieve the power of life and death over their economies.

    Of that I am certain.

    Just like the late Mr. Roosevelt and the Lend-Lease program, Chinese and Russian leaders will re-supply Iran to prevent her defeat.

    Of this I am also certain.

    At that point, the Axis Powers have the chioce of escalating to World War III by attacking Russian and Chinese resupply assets or standing down.

    Their call.

  176. Karl says:

    “That is not true.

    Defeat of Iran means that 60% of energy resources of the planet are under political and military control of Axis Powers.”

    - Of course its true, just check chinese oil imports from the gulfstates (Iran excluded).

    “Furthermore, given the relative sizes of the Axis Powers navy and China’s navy, Chinese cannot guarantee and protect energy imports from Nigeria, Venezuela, Angola, and others.”
    - Once again what matters is the military strength and political power, just like Iran lacks this, so do China and Russia. Do you really think China and Russia would go to war for Iran you better wake up.

  177. fyi says:

    Karl says:November 4, 2011 at 10:00 am

    You wrote:

    How would the Chinese feel about a complete US lock on oil/gas of the region?”
    – They wouldnt care a bit since they are dependent on oil, which plenty of other nations could give them. Saudi Arabia have for example upped its export to China last 5 years.

    That is not true.

    Defeat of Iran means that 60% of energy resources of the planet are under political and military control of Axis Powers.

    Furthermore, given the relative sizes of the Axis Powers navy and China’s navy, Chinese cannot guarantee and protect energy imports from Nigeria, Venezuela, Angola, and others.

    That will not happen.

  178. Karl says:

    “Then let me encourage you not to look at the situation in terms of Iran’s military vs that of a superpower’s.”

    -Like saying, “please dont pay attention to which man is stronger in a heavy-weight contest”.
    You need to realize that military power is the most significant point in warfare. But not only that, the political power is also important and US/Israel/Saudi/Nato have that too.

    “b) How would Pakistan feel about getting surrounded? ”

    - Please man, do you really think Pakistan concern is of any value for Israel/America? And they wouldnt be surrounded either. Check your map.

    “How would Russia feel about the prospects of having Iran fall to Western powers?”

    How would the Chinese feel about a complete US lock on oil/gas of the region?”
    - They wouldnt care a bit since they are dependent on oil, which plenty of other nations could give them. Saudi Arabia have for example upped its export to China last 5 years.


    In Iraq, the US military expended 35,000 troops to death and debilitating injury at a cost estimated at over a $Trillion. Iraq is about a quarter the size and population of Iran. I remain doubtful anybody in their right mind would start a war with Iran.

    -Well logic isnt what drives US and israeli warmongers.

  179. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Then let me encourage you not to look at the situation in terms of Iran’s military vs that of a superpower’s.

    The outcome that defies prediction are not limited to the following:

    a) In the short term how many “INS Hanit” will have a gaping hole in them?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit#Attack_on_July_14.2C_2006

    b) How would Pakistan feel about getting surrounded?

    c) How would Russia feel about the prospects of having Iran fall to Western powers?

    d) How would the Chinese feel about a complete US lock on oil/gas of the region?

    None of the above actors are potted plants. They can and will act to protect their interests in a myriad ways.

    which brings me to:

    e) In the long run, what assurance is there that vis-a-vis Russia/China, a vanquished Iran is better for the US than an independent Iran, even if it remains irksome?

    In Iraq, the US military expended 35,000 troops to death and debilitating injury at a cost estimated at over a $Trillion. Iraq is about a quarter the size and population of Iran. I remain doubtful anybody in their right mind would start a war with Iran.

  180. Rd. says:

    kooshy says:

    “Only when we get the fall issue of US / Israel attack on Iran articles from David Danger,”

    Next to David, there is Victor Kotsev, he too has his latest of “hold me back” as usuall.. Except, this time is for sure.. for those who are allergic to such noise, take the time and search Victor’s articles and see for the last decade how many times he has screamed wolf!!!!!

    Besides, the western weasels can’t hold their own pants up and they want to go to war?? with their pants down? They have become comical. All they can do is to wage their information war, sanctions, terrorism, etc.. these would only further the resolve of Iranians. and those who promote such actions are simply delusional.

  181. Karl says:

    Bibijohn= No my wallet is fine.

  182. Iranian@Iran says:

    The Iranians know how bad things are for the
    US and the EU so they are not concerned. They know that if Israel hits
    they can hit back ten fold and the US can only watch. Israel is just being
    used as an attack dog so that the US could try to force more pressure on
    Iran. However, Iran knows that the US/EU is weak.

  183. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 8:59 am

    So, would you like to bet?

  184. Karl says:

    “Avoiding a profusely bleeding nose with no counterbalancing benefit, committing an unproved act of aggression, inability to predict the outcome, etc., etc. are all things that have restrained “US, Israel,NATO, Saudi” thus far.”

    “Unproved act of aggression”. Seriously we are talking about the most powerful nation, they do what ever they want. “what we say goes”.

    There is no “inability to predict the outcome”, it would have been if Iran had any military army and arsenal to speak of, which they dont.

  185. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 8:04 am

    “Its time to wake up and face reality, unless you want to wake up and the smokes are already over Teheran.”

    Karl, RSH, et al, it no use arguing, and therefore I concede the point: anything is possible, and everything will happen will eventually happen in a boundless time frame.

    “There is nothing stopping the real axis of evil (US, Israel,NATO, Saudi) to launch an attack.”

    Avoiding a profusely bleeding nose with no counterbalancing benefit, committing an unproved act of aggression, inability to predict the outcome, etc., etc. are all things that have restrained “US, Israel,NATO, Saudi” thus far.

  186. Empty says:

    TDITW,

    Re; posting web addresses, I think it’s a good suggestion for those who actually maintain a website on this topic. Regularly updating and maintaining a website is a very time- and energy-intense task though. I fully appreciate those who do.

  187. Empty says:

    One day in a garden, a snake and a bee got into a heated argument. The bee boasted, “my poison is far deadlier than yours but because I have a tiny body, people do not fear my sting. Since they don’t allow themselves to be overcome by fear, my poison has little effect on them.” The snake, having seen too many evidence of his own poison’s power, mockingly disagreed.

    The bee, to prove its point, suggested they do a little experiment and the snake, quite confident in its own poisonous power, happily agreed. The next day, as the gardener reached into the “کلون” hole [“kolon” is a large iron lock affixed old wooden gates/doors], the snake, tucked away in a corner, bit the gardener’s hand. Immediately thereafter, the tiny bee flew out of the whole. Thinking that he had been stung by a bee, he sucked where it was burning on his hand, spitted out, ignoring the pain, went on with his daily work.

    A a few days later, as the gardener was walking around in his garden, this time the bee stung his leg. When he looked down searching for the cause pain and burning, he suddenly noticed a snake that moved away. Fear-stricken and in complete panic , the gardener cried out: به دادم برسید! مار منو گزید! [“Help! I have been bitten by a snake] and collapsed.

  188. Karl says:

    “Reality is that for three decades the only moron they could find with all their political prowess was Sodom Husein of Iraq to attack Iran. Since that time, no neighboring country would be willing to carry water for the axis powers.

    A direct attack, if at all doable, would have been done a dozen times already.

    Conclusion: I for one am happy to stay blissfully naive, and I would be willing to take bets on any time frame of your choosing that nobody is going to attack Iran.

    Just because something have been done already doesnt mean it will never happend, with that logic there will never be a war between Russia and America or China, because after all “A direct attack, if at all doable, would have been done a dozen times already.”

    Its time to wake up and face reality, unless you want to wake up and the smokes are already over Teheran.

    There is nothing stopping the real axis of evil (US, Israel,NATO, Saudi) to launch an attack.

  189. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    November 4, 2011 at 6:38 am

    Reality is that for three decades the only moron they could find with all their political prowess was Sodom Husein of Iraq to attack Iran. Since that time, no neighboring country would be willing to carry water for the axis powers.

    A direct attack, if at all doable, would have been done a dozen times already.

    Conclusion: I for one am happy to stay blissfully naive, and I would be willing to take bets on any time frame of your choosing that nobody is going to attack Iran.

  190. Karl says:

    bibjohn> Please stop being so naive. US, Israel, NATO etc have all the political power to strike Iran any day.

  191. hans says:

    The foreign minister of Iran is in Libya having talks with the renegades leaders. The FM has praised the CNT leaders and pledged cooperation. Iran and its regional allies Hezbollah and Hamas have confirmed their commitment to cynical, hypocritical regional realpolitik. By validating the war crimes of NATO and its allies in Libya, they have weakened denunciations of Israel’s aggression and war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon. After rushing to recognize the Libyan renegades, Iran, a close ally of the Syrian government, has kept quiet about the renegade Libyan CNT’s recognition of Syria’s opposition CNT.

    Am I surprised at this hydra politics, no if you have bigots you will always support bigots.

  192. BiBiJon says:

    Heck of a job, Amano
    ===================

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a daily news briefing:

    “The International Atomic Energy Agency should adopt an impartial and objective stance and seek positive cooperation with Iran to clarify certain questions,” Hong said. “Iran should also show flexibility and sincerity and have earnest cooperation with the IAEA.”

    Translation for Amamno’s benefit.

    China is saying publicly that under your stewardship IAEA has not been impartial and objective. You (Amano) have failed to seek positive cooperation with Iran to clarify certain questions.

    Even Wolfowitz did more for World Bank’s credibility than Amano has done for IAEA.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/us-china-iran-nuclear-idUSTRE7A31M520111104

  193. BiBiJon says:

    This too shall fizzle
    ===================

    Israel, UK and others may talk up war, but hey, what else are they supposed to do to appear marginally relevant (domestically, and on the international stage.)

    This is all empty rhetoric. No one will dare attack Iran. The financial logic of war only applies to soft targets. The strategic rational for war requires an outcome that has you in a stronger position, and your opponent weakened, if not defeated. That too does not obtain without wishful thinking a la “$60 billion cakewalk; mission accomplished” that no right-minded General is going to fall for again.

    While one might feel the pain of the Western axis for losing the region, and while their Iran-bashing is understandable as a way of avoiding the mirror to see the culprit who alone caused their perceived catastrophe, it is a given they will get over it, and move on. There is no alternative.

  194. Liz2 says:

    “My guess is ninety percent of the Iranian population hates MEK. They fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. You’re delusional if you think MEK has any possible chance of running Iran. It’s a cult, nothing more, regardless of US support.”
    Once again you must realize that US doesnt care about how many like/dislike MEK, the object is that they love them, are well connected to them, have funded them and the only thing left for america is to “install” MEK as the puppet leaders of Iran in case of war.

  195. Kooshy: Let’s analyze Dreyfuss:

    “Whereas Israel’s attack would be limited in scope and duration”

    Of course. Israel’s only interest is in getting the US involved.

    “an American attack on Iran would probably last four to six weeks, and it would target Iran’s air defense, air and naval units, military and intelligence command-and-control centers, bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and important transportation and communication systems, along with weeks of pounding many of the more than fifty sites inside Iran involved in that country’s nuclear program.”

    He assumes, by saying four to six weeks, that Iran’s retaliation would be insignificant. In conventional terms, it might be. In unconventional terms, Iran could keep striking the US in some form for the next ten years. So the war will definitely NOT be over in “four to six weeks”.

    Libya was supposed to be over in that time frame and dragged on for six months.

    “But an Israeli attack would lead to a regional conflagration, in which Iran would use its proxies and allies and, most likely, terrorist units against US and Israeli targets across the region and even worldwide. Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, would strike Israel, leading to what would end up being an Israeli war against both Syria and Lebanon. Iran’s allies in Iraq and Afghanistan could launch attacks against US and NATO forces there, and there’s a strong likelihood that Iran would try to attack the oil facilities of the Arab countries across the Persian Gulf. The ripples would spread from there, including soaring oil prices (in the range of $150 to $200 per barrel). For all these reasons, without definitive proof that Iran has actually acquired a bomb and that Iran is planning to use it, an attack by either the United States or Israel makes no strategic sense, especially since many analysts believe that even a sustained attack might not succeed in doing anything more than delaying Iran’s program while convincing Tehran to accelerate it and to move its facilities underground into hardened sites, as it appears to be doing in its new facility outside Qom.”

    All of which is true. All of which is irrelevant given the goals of both Israel and the US.

    “President Obama, while pushing to isolate Iran and impose even tougher sanctions, isn’t likely to attack Iran.”

    Based on what?

    “(That’s not true for some of his Republican rivals in 2012.)”

    That’s true.

    “In addition, since 2007, under both President Bush and President Obama, the Pentagon has delivered strong warnings to Israel not attack Iran under any circumstances, because the consequences would be so severe. No doubt, those warnings stand. Which is why, for my part at least, I don’t believe Israel would risk an attack on Iran by itself.”

    First of all, Israel doesn’t take orders from the Pentagon – or the White House, as has been clearly demonstrated throughout its history.

    Second, it’s politically impossible for the US to stand back and let Israel start a war with Iran on its own. If Israel attacks, the US will back it up, regardless of whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in the White House or the composition of Congress.

    Third, the Pentagon will do as they’re told by the political leadership. A war with Iran isn’t the same thing as “staying the course” in Afghanistan. The Air Force would love a war with Iran, it will be a chance to once demonstrate “air power” and get career advancement. The same is generally true of most of the generals running the services. THEY aren’t going to have down in the muck and fight Shia guerrillas in Iraq and Iran. And any officer, like Admiral Fallon, who resists a war with Iran will find himself where Fallon is – gone.

    Fourth, the Pentagon has never, to my knowledge, told Israel not to attack Iran “under any circumstances”. It has at best requested Israel to hold off pending more sanctions and other efforts.

    The issue has always been that Israel, up to now at least, has apparently been adamant that the US must start the war, and the US, up to now at least, has apparently been adamant that Israel must start the war. This was the case when Dick Cheney bribed Israel with $30 billion of new weapons and didn’t get the Israeli attack he wanted.

    It is not clear if Netanyahu is prepared to ignore the PR benefit of having the US initiate the attack and instead go ahead and initiate the war himself. What IS clear is that Israel will not rest until Iran IS attacked. This inevitably means that sooner or later Israel will have to attack if the US does not.

    If is utterly IRRELEVANT whether Israel can prosecute such a war itself. The US will jump in the minute Iran starts firing missiles at Israel. All Israel needs to do is start the war. Its capability to damage Iran is limited and irrelevant.

    As I’ve said, logically and strategically the smart approach for Israel is to convince the US/EU to attack Syria under the same bogus “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine employed in Libya, and then use the cover of that conflict to attack Hizballah and weaken it. Then and only then would it be reasonable for Israel to attack Iran, confident that neither Syria nor Hizballah would be a significant factor.

    Whether Israel can achieve a sufficient weakening of Hizballah or Syria to make that a viable plan is ALSO irrelevant. If necessary, Israel can take on both Lebanon and Syria at once, as well as Iran (since Iran really can’t do any significant damage to Syria once the US has taken out most of Iran’s missile launchers.) But it obviously would be to Israel’s advantage to TRY to achieve those two goals before attacking Iran.

    I think therefore it’s reasonable to predict that Syria will be attacked within the next year or so, along with Lebanon. After that we can expect the Iran war at some point reasonably soon.

    What would alter that timetable would be a situation where Assad in Syria is able to defuse the current crisis and remove any “justification” for a US/EU attack on Syria. But that would still enable Israel to start another war with Hizballah, and the only way to weaken Hizballah is to attack the Bekaa Valley which will entail entering Syrian territory, thus starting a war with Syria. So the same result would be attained, albeit with greater difficulty for Israel since it would not have the direct support of the US/EU versus Syria.

    The bottom line: For Israel to achieve its goals in the Middle East, Gaza must be tamed, Hizballah must be destroyed, Syria must be weakened or broken up, and Iran must be destroyed.

    Until those goals are achieved – or something happens to Israel to render it harmless – further wars between the US/Israel and those nations listed are NECESSARY and INEVITABLE. Only the timing is uncertain.

  196. WTF: I’m not saying the Iran war is “imminent”, as in this year or even next year. I predict no specific time table.

    What I do say is that it’s getting closer and will not be ten or twenty years from now.

    It’s not an “either/or” situation that the current round of threats necessarily means imminent war or that it’s all pointless. The real situation is that each round of tension heightening produces a self-fulfilling prophecy and further produces a justification for a war down the road. This is precisely how virtually all wars start – a continuing polarization with more and more rhetoric and charge-countercharge until someone decides they have nothing to lose by launching an attack.

    In the case of the US and Israel in recent history, that means very little motivation is needed to do so and invariably there were plans long in advance to do just that. This was true in Afghanistan (Bush had plans drawn up prior to 9/11), it was true in Iraq (Bush fully intended a war even while denying it), and it was true for Israel in Lebanon in 2006 (plans for that war were drawn up a year in advance of the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers.)

    As for the “Empire imploding”, that’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s amusing – if ridiculous – that some people think the US is suddenly going to collapse while at the same time assuming it’s impossible to have a war with Iran. Regardless of the state of the economy – world or US – US military power and the military-industrial complex aren’t going out of business any time soon. Maybe in another ten or twenty years. The Iran war will come sooner than that and may even be justified for economic reasons as Raimondo points out in his current Antiwar.com piece cited below.

    The notion that a “regional war” is unlikely is based on nothing. As I’ve said, Iran per se is no match for the US military machine, any more than Iraq or Afghanstan or Libya. While Iran is certainly bigger as a country, there’s no way Iran can match conventional US military power. Iran’s only capability is in asymmetric war.

    As for the rest of the war scenario, Israel can and will attack Syria and Lebanon AND Gaza at the same time. Israel most definitely has that capability – especially if it can convince the US/EU to attack Syria at the same time.

    People talk about “regional war” as if it would involve every country in the region. Frankly, it won’t. Saudi Arabia will be mostly uninvolved. Jordan is likely to be uninvolved. Egypt will be uninvolved. The Gulf States will only be attacked to the degree that they support US bases on their soil, and are otherwise irrelevant militarily. Iraq will be involved to the degree that the Iraqi Shia support Iran. Turkey will not be involved except to the degree that they may allow US airbases to conduct attacks against Iran.

    So there is no “regional war” on the scale of WWII involved here. It will be Iran vs the US/Israel, and Syria/Lebanon/Gaza against the US/Israel. Everyone else is a side issue.

    And talk about “WWIII” is even more ridiculous. There will be no involvement by China, Russia, or Pakistan or India and those are the only people who could end up starting something approaching “WWIII”.

    People who talk about “conflagration” weren’t around for WWII and don’t understand the scale of a “world war”. Get a grip.

  197. kooshy says:

    Only when we get the fall issue of US / Israel attack on Iran articles from David Danger, and my favorite brunet Barbie (Slavin) then we have overcome the usual fall cycle of attack on Iran US/western propaganda news, after ten years even the scenarios sounds reparative, I wish this paid writers could have come up with more scary creative newer scenarios. We should demand newer fresh scare Iran writers. Come to think of it I miss Scott’s informed agent’s account of tens of thousands demonstrating in Tehran and many cities in Iran, which was more fun reading.

    Will Israel Bomb Iran?

    Robert Dreyfusson November 3, 2011 – 7:27am ET

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/164363/will-israel-bomb-iran

  198. WTF says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 4, 2011 at 12:30 am

    All these sanctions excuses ignore the bottom line, as I’ve said over and over and over and over again here: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE SANCTIONS PROVE WORTHLESS?

    The sanctions have already proven worthless. I agree that the sanctions at this point are a lead up to war, rather than a misguided way to avoid it. I disagree with the timing of this war. I don’t see the US war planners being ready to kick off a regional war that (even in their myopia) they see could kick off WWIII. They will keep trying to chip away at Iran’s base of power, but I don’t see a direct attack coming soon.

    As I’ve also said here over and over and over and over to the deaf morons, someone has to blink or there has to be a war.

    Wrong. The Empire could implode, which isn’t a long shot at this point.

  199. WTF says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 3, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    Then we have the idiots who say this is all for domestic political consumption in the US and Israel. This, despite the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Yemen and Somalia are ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Libya ACTUALLY HAPPENED. The invasion of Lebanon in 2006 ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
    What part of ACTUALLY HAPPENED don’t you morons get?

    Of course those happened, but are you seriously comparing any of the above to the type of regional war that you are proposing? Correct me if I am mistaken, but your theory goes something like this: US/NATO will initiate attack on Syria – In a coordinated attack Israel will attack Syria, Lebanon and Gaza – with IRI’s proxies fully “distracted”, US/NATO will attack Iran. While that plan sounds plausible (IMO), that is a full on regional war – quite a big leap from blasting the Taliban or Gadaffi. I don’t think most of the people on here are disillusioned about US/NATO/Israel’s appetite for war, but WANTING to attack Iran and actually doing it are two very different things (as the last couple decades of sabre rattling has proven).

    Anyone who says there will be no war with Iran (or Pakistan, or Syria, or Lebanon, or a dozen other places) is a complete idiot with zero comprehension ability of how the the world actually works and of history (especially RECENT history) and common sense.

    Since anyone who writes this most recent rhetoric off as CONTINUED sabre rattling is a “complete idiot”, then why don’t you qualify that assertion with a timeframe for this attack. If you mean that at some point in the unidentifiable future the US will attack Iran, then yes I agree that that is likely; BUT you are taking it a step further and seem to say that the current reports of an impending attack are more than just bluster. In fact you site recent military adventures as evidence that these reports are worth the paper that they’re printed on, and furthermore you are saying that anyone who views this as yet ANOTHER round of empty threats is lacking common sense. If that is the case, then please do your best Jeffrey Goldberg impersonation and provide a timeframe for this attack. The reports that you seem to be endorsing, are mostly predicting war by year’s end – Do you agree with that timeline? If not please clarify what timeline you are proposing.

  200. kooshy says:

    RSH
    “In short, we are headed for disaster. As Bette Davis once put it: fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”

    My friend, I wouldn’t lose much sleep over that either, in this last decade or so the US has piled up so much shit up her butt (political obesity) which has made her physically scary to look, at the same time everyone knows that, physically , this much shit that she is holding, is difficult for her to unload. You are right a real disaster is coming our way here in this country, but that’s when this political obese explodes and her internal content hits the global fan.

    Cheers

  201. WRF: A minute late, and a dollar short. As I said, all that means is that Obama has to find some other way to gin up the hysteria. There’s almost no question he will go to the UN for more sanctions, but again – what is there left to sanction?

    And of course, there is ZERO evidence that Iran will ever bow to the US. So for how many more years can the US keep piling on sanctions before they have to drop one or get off the pot?

    All these sanctions excuses ignore the bottom line, as I’ve said over and over and over and over again here: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE SANCTIONS PROVE WORTHLESS?

    As I’ve also said here over and over and over and over to the deaf morons, someone has to blink or there has to be a war. And Iran will not blink.

    And Israel will make sure the US does not blink.

    Nothing but cowards here.

  202. WTF says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 4, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Touche! ;)

  203. WTF says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 3, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    The notion that all this is just for another round of sanctions – for what? They already have decided to sanction the Iranian central bank! What’s left to sanction?

    Not so fast my friend.

    U.S. backs away from sanctions on Iran central bank

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-iran-20111104,0,6106373.story

  204. Apparently the move to sanction Iran’s central bank has fallen through:

    U.S. backs away from sanctions on Iran central bank
    http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/11/03/2256406/us-backs-away-from-sanctions-on.html?story_link=email_msg

    On the other hand, this means Obama has to come up with something else to continue the ratcheting up of hysteria based on next week’s biased and clearly deliberately deceptive IAEA report.

  205. Justin Raimondo gets it right (as usual):

    Israel’s Big Bluff
    How we’ll go to war with Iran
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/03/israels-big-bluff/

    Quotes:

    Therefore, this alleged “debate” taking place within the Israeli leadership, complete with a phony “investigation” by Netanyahu into who leaked the nonexistent Israeli attack “plan,” is a non-event. The whole thing, in short, is a bluff.

    But who is being bluffed here? Not the Iranians, who are surely aware of Israel’s incapacity. The volume of the war hysteria is being turned up with one purpose in mind: the Israelis want the US to do their dirty work for them. This is a threat aimed not only – or even primarily – at Iran, but at us.

    Israeli efforts to drag us into a war with Iran have so far been limited to provoking Tehran’s proxies in the region – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Syrian Ba’athists – into a direct confrontation with the US. The Netanyahu regime has abandoned this policy of indirection and gradualism, however, and instead opted for a direct assault on the problem: by constantly threatening to strike themselves, the Israelis are counting on their domestic lobby to push the Americans into acting preemptively.

    This plan appears to be working. Although the last US intelligence assessment [.pdf] of Iran’s nuclear capabilities asserted with near certainty that Tehran had abandoned its weapons program in 2003, the War Party isn’t too concerned about making its case airtight: the Israel lobby has both parties, and Congress, in its hip pocket, and with Hillary leading the charge the “existential threat” to Israel’s very existence will be met with US force. It’s only a matter of timing.

    The War Party, however, has another problem, and that is the objective factors which militate against another war at this time, number one being the imminent collapse of the world economic system, and specifically the instability of the banks. As the dominoes of the Euro-zone fall one upon the other, and the US banking system itself comes under threat, the question of how to finance this war, even while its economic consequences – starting with $200 a barrel oil prices – are visited upon our heads.

    This problem can be solved, however, if the political consequences of this “perfect storm” of war and economic implosion line up with the stars. With America at war, the economic privations we will have endured anyway will be masked by the general numbness induced by the atmosphere of crisis. Your home has been foreclosed? You’ve lost your job, or you can’t get to your job because it costs $100 in gas to travel one way? Blame it on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the “nuclear madman” of the Middle East.

    The very real financial crisis of the West will be resolved by the introduction of yet another crisis, in this case a completely manufactured and ginned up one. Imbued with new authority, the Obama administration will take full advantage of the wartime atmosphere to impose “emergency” economic measures, commandeering the economy in the name of “national security” and getting the Republicans to go along with it on “patriotic” grounds. We’ll be subjected to endless demands for bipartisan “unity” in the face of a foreign “threat,” with both “left” and “right” factions of the War Party inundating the air waves and the blogosphere with war propaganda.

    The Israel lobby is hell-bent on war, and is likely to get it: but they have to be careful. To launch such a project in the midst of a presidential election season is a risky business. They must do everything in their power to prevent the election from becoming a referendum on the war question, and the simplest way to do that is to make sure both major candidates are securely in the War Party’s camp. That’s the only way they can win: by rigging the outcome.

    What’s needed is a mass mobilization against this administration’s war plans, but frankly I see little hope of such a movement arising. The left in this country is so tied to the Obama administration that such a development is highly unlikely to get off the ground, and the right – except for the Ron Paul brigades – is certain to line up in favor of military action in defense of Israel, which they love more than their own country.

    In short, we are headed for disaster. As Bette Davis once put it: fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!

    End Quote

  206. kooshy says:

    Since the forum here in last few days is going nuts over this fall season’s western round of “please hold me back don’t let me bomb them Iranians”, certainly so far as long as I can remember Iranians are not getting scare, I think the American and European regimes in power by now need to come up with new tactics scaring Iranians hasn’t worked so far and it don’t seem to be working this time with or without The Amano so called report.

    I can’t count in last thirty some years how many time I have read and heard that US, Israel are about to attack Iran to stone age I like many Iranians used to get scared, it isn’t working anymore, if there was a chance for an attack it would have and should came within a year from the invasion of Iraq, it’s too late now. Sanctions would continue to the next administration but will not change Iran’s direction.

    “Hold Me Back!”

    Why Israel Will Not Attack Iran

    By URI AVNERY

    “Furthermore, Israel cannot fight a war without unlimited American support, because our planes and our bombs come from the US. During a war, we need supplies, spare parts, many sorts of equipment. During the Yom Kippur war, Henry Kissinger had an “air train” supplying us around the clock. And that war would probably look like a picnic compared to a war with Iran.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/03/why-israel-will-not-attack-iran/

  207. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says: November 3, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    Mr. Silverstein is wrong.

    There will be no war now or ever.

    That game also is over.

    The reality is that the nuclear-ready Iran has now become essential to the security and well-being of people of Iran, to Iraqi Kurds, to Iraqi Shia, to Shia of Lebanon, to Syria,to Tadjik and Hazara of Afghanistan and – as of late – to Sunni Tadjiks of the Tadjik Republic.

    And I am not even counting Armenia, Shia of Bahrain, Shia of Pakistan, and the Shia of Suaid Arabia

    Iranian are now the de facto guarantors of the lives & namus of tens of millions of people in the Middle East.

    This is no longer about Iran, war against Iran means war against all these populations that I have enumerated.

    War with Iran, to these people means the destruction of their security; of what they have gained and what they may yet loose in such a war.

    No all American leaders are fools.

  208. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:

    Empty

    “Just saw your post after I had explored and posted the site….
    Great site!”

    Well, I couldn’t say given that the page is in Persian. That page really should be in English.

    Btw do you have a site? Your comments are very insightful. I like that you talk about how Iranians view or handle an issue (like the Iranian commander). Would be nice to read some more (and have a easy way to link to your comments).

    I also think more people on this site should use the “Website” field when commenting if they have a their own blog or something.

    (eg Cyrus site (Iran affairs) is one of the most informative pages on Iran and Western propaganda I’ve seen)

  209. jay says:

    Mr. Silverstein’s analysis is one-dimensional, naive, or maybe intentionally naive!

    Here are some thoughts to keep in mind.

    The US has sanctioned Iran far longer than the four rounds of sanctions passed through the UN. US unilateral sanctions were ineffective. If unilateral sanctions were to be effective, the US would not have worked so hard and with such intensity to get Iran’s dossier to the UNSC. It is naive thinking to suggest that the US does not need the UNSC authority. It is simply this force of authority that has brought a large number of countries into compliance when OFAC shows up on their doorstep. This is the stick the various US treasury authorities travel with. People who have insight into the nature of international transactions understand that unilateral sanctions on Iran’s central bank is impractical, unworkable, unenforceable, and if repeated with a serious voice – probably laughable.

    For effective sanctions – ones that can be enforced vigorously by OFAC – the US has always gone to the UNSC. That is why the US did so recently for Syria (unsuccessfully), the same for NK, Iraq, … Even when this is done, it is not always effective.

    The calculus of war with Iran has been worked out on numerous occasions. There is no win scenario on the short time horizon (1-2 years). And, under the current conditions, long time horizons are not workable for the US and allies. Russia and China will not benefit. There is no gain to be had. It is hard cold self-interest facts on the ground that dictate the actions of US/EU/Russia/China/.

    As an added anecdotal point of reference, note that the oil market and the gold market are betting against an attack.

    Do not buy this for a second. It is much of the same as the “used-car-salesman-007 arranging a kill with drug dealers in Mexico”. Keeping pushing back on the ridiculous idea to discredit it! Remind yourself (from the handbook of propaganda) – to be effective you have to participate in game of “echo”. Change the voice – echo back: tell them you don’t buy it anymore. The US and allies are likely to push for very harsh sanctions bordering on a blockade — that is why the voices are so loud. Don’t be fooled!

  210. Empty says:

    TDITW,

    Just saw your post after I had explored and posted the site….
    Great site!

  211. Empty says:

    Persian Gulf,

    Perhaps this is what you were looking for. It is Iran’s own site that has a lot of information. It’s in Farsi that needs translating:
    http://www.irannuclear.net/ It’s quite comprehensive. It gives the history of Iran’s nuclear program before and after the revolution, relationship with IAEA, rationale for atomic energy use, need for diversification, growth projection, legal issues, political issues, etc. It also has some very good references as well as some clear photographs very good for powerpoint presentations.

    In addition, Iran’s dept. of renewable energy sources (سانا) is a site that contains a lot of information about some finished and some ongoing projects regarding renewable energy sources (history, goals, vision, mission, etc.) It can be accessed at: ;http://www.suna.org.ir/home-fa.html (it also has an English version). The completed projects could be accessed here: ;http://www.suna.ir/project-doneproject-fa.html and the ongoing projects could be accessed here: ;http://www.suna.ir/project-doingproject-fa.html

    Hopefully, these, too, will have some useful info.

  212. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:

    Persian Gulf

    (www.) irannuclear (.net)

    From our beloved Cyrus at Iran Affairs http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2010/01/iran-launches-website-on-nuclear-matters-.html

    As he notes the site may have a different (wrong?) audience in mind…

    *My previous comment was for some strange reason not posted so I’m trying again

  213. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:

    Persian Gulf

    ,http://www.irannuclear.net/

    From our beloved Cyrus at Iran Affairs http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2010/01/iran-launches-website-on-nuclear-matters-.html

    As he notes the site may have a different (wrong?) audience in mind…

  214. Persian Gulf says:

    Fara & Empty:

    thanks for the information passed on. they were very useful.
    I actually remember seen a weblog run by an originally Latino guy which was using a very effective language in explaining Iran’s rights in that front (can’t find that link at the moment). I think, talking on Iran’s need for nuclear energy (true or otherwise) on factual basis would be very effective in PR specially for the vast majority of apolitical youth in the west (and to some extent upper middle class youth Iranians). it’s surprising that Iran’s government has not made such a website (or at least I am not aware of). not everybody is interested in decoding the very intricate political game in the nuclear program.

  215. Silverstein has it right. The notion that all this is just for another round of sanctions – for what? They already have decided to sanction the Iranian central bank! What’s left to sanction? – is idiotic.

    (As a sidenote, the Congress decided to sanction the head of the Haqqani network in AfPak. I’m real sure he cares…NOT)

    While the next step might well be more UN sanctions – especially since the latest IAEA report is definitely going to be nothing but a rehash of the “laptop of death” spun in apocalyptic “Iran definitely has a parallel nuclear weapons program” BS terms – clearly the purpose is to ratchet up the JUSTIFICATION for war.

    Why continually ratchet up the JUSTIFICATION for war if you’re NEVER going to PROSECUTE such a war?

    Then we have the idiots who say this is all for domestic political consumption in the US and Israel. This, despite the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Yemen and Somalia are ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Libya ACTUALLY HAPPENED. The invasion of Lebanon in 2006 ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

    What part of ACTUALLY HAPPENED don’t you morons get?

    Oh, the US and Israel will go only so far and no further? Why? Oh, because it will “too much blowback”! What, Iraq and Afghanistan and everything else wasn’t “too much”? Where do you see ANY evidence of a foreign policy change in the US and Israel?

    Anyone who says there will be no war with Iran (or Pakistan, or Syria, or Lebanon, or a dozen other places) is a complete idiot with zero comprehension ability of how the the world actually works and of history (especially RECENT history) and common sense.

    The level of “head in the sand” exceeds what existed before the Iraq war. Because deep down all of you clowns know perfectly well that there is jack shit any one can do to stop it, you just dismiss it with bullshit speculation that relies totally on the rulers of the US and Israel being something more than corrupt scum – which is an idiotic notion on the face of it. The fact that the US and Israel can start any war they want at whatever cost to their citizens without paying ANY price for it whatsoever SCARES you, so you can’t face it.

    Pathetic.

  216. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Richard Silverstein has “a” take on the situation…

    This means that one of two things can happen: either Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are bluffing and don’t really intend to go to war. If that’s true, I’m afraid they are fools and will find this strategy an abject failure. Or the doomsayers are right and the Dynamic Duo do intend to strike Iran. I’d say I’m a doomsayer who wants to be proven wrong, but is increasingly doubtful I will be.

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/03112011-who%E2%80%99s-right-about-iran-attack-doomsayers-or-naysayers-oped/

  217. Reza Esfandiari says:

    James,

    Con Coughlin is the mouthpiece for the security services. He is a propagandist and not a journalist.

  218. Liz2: “there is also the heavy funded and backed MEK that could gain power.”

    My guess is ninety percent of the Iranian population hates MEK. They fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. You’re delusional if you think MEK has any possible chance of running Iran. It’s a cult, nothing more, regardless of US support.

  219. James Canning says:

    Con Coughlin in the Daily Telegraph Nov. 3rd claims that Obama’s efforts to engage with Iran have failed and Iran is close to possession of nuclear weapons. No mention of Iran’s recent offer to cease production of 20% U. (telegraph.co.uk)

  220. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I do not question Iran’s friendliness toward Armenia. And Iran’s efforts to resolve the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia is commendable.

    Wasn’t being a bit “anti-Islam” an element of the various Communist governments of former Republics in the USSR?

  221. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    I think one should try to distinguish between what fanatical “supporters” of Israel right or wrong, among American leaders, want, and those who simply wish to avoid allowing idiot Republican warmongers exploit fears in the Jewish community for electoral advantage.

    Without an Iranian nuclear weapons programme as a pretext for war, there simply is no basis for an American attack. This doesnnt mean that many stooges of Israel, or stooges of plutocratic Jews in the US, would not like to see the gov’t of Iran overthrow because it doesn’t make kind noises to Israel day in and day out.

  222. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Israel can continue to “exist” without needing much help from the US. But this would mean making peace with its neighbors, and ending the occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights.

    Israel’s insane “Greater Israel” programme is of no benefit whatever to the US.

  223. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    When Nixon went to China, he was looking for backup in his effort to pull out of Vietnam and not have things appear that the US had been defeated and was abandoning an “ally”.

  224. pirouz_2 says:

    Cyrus says:
    November 2, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Cyrus;
    I’d like to first apologize to you for not having read what you had already explained on your own blog and having made you to repeat it here again.
    Secondly I’d like to thank you for taking your time and re-writing what you had already explained else where.

    My personal opinion on the matter is the following:

    There are two types of possible rapproachments between Iran and US a) a la Mao’s China b) a la Sedat’s Egypt (or S. Arabia).

    Two questions immidiately pop up:

    1) Would USA -independently of the Israeli interests- prefer a rapproachment with Iran a la china or a la Egypt? One must remeber that Irans relationship with Israel up until 1979 were very good.

    Implicit in this question would be the question of whether Iran as an extremely wealthy country in energy (in a region full of countries with a lot of energy resources) is anything similar to China? What was it that US wanted from China and what is it that it wants from Iran? Are they similar in nature?

    2) Assuming that US would agree to a rapproachment with Iran in a style similar to the rapproachment that it had with China, would we Iranians want such a rapproachment?

    I will first take up the second question:

    From the perspective of the Iranian government, the answer is YES. I have no doubt that Iranian government would be very happy to enter a relationship with USA similar to the relationship that China has with USA.

    But I personally (for reasons too long and way too tangential to the subject at hand to be discussed here) do NOT want Iran to become another China. I wouldn’t want for my people to become the global WORK HORSE of the global capital, so that we would produce at a wage 4% of US workers to provide cheap goods for the Western consumers and hefty profits for the Western (and Iranian) fat cats.

    As for the second question:

    I do believe that US has a very important interest -independent of the Israeli interests- to have a relationship with Iran similar to what it has with S. Arabia rather than what it has with China. And we must not forget that it is not just Iran. Accept a relationship with Iran similar to that you have with China and tomorrow all the oil rich countries in this region will start struggling for the same!

    In other words, in my very humble opinion, US hegemony in this region is not for the sake of the continued existence of Israel; it is the other way around, US support for Israel’s existence is to maintain its hegemony in this region.

  225. Empty says:

    Quote from Ali Akram Aliev (may he rest in peace), the leader of Islamic movement in Azerbaijan Republic [Yaz Publication, 2010]

    “We did not have any celebrations for 8 years. We did not celebrate because of the martyrs. When Iran would sound the red emergency alarms, we would open our Qurans and hold them over our head and would pray to God to protect the Iranians from Saddam’s bombs. Since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution, if the Iranians have laughed, we, too, have laughed with them and if the Iranians have cried, we, too, have cried with them.”

  226. Karl says:

    liz>

    Stop fooling yourself, no one will back Iran in the mideast, they are themselves aggressors against Iran. (Syria excluded).

  227. Empty says:

    [Not sure if this posted....Your comment is awaiting moderation....November 3, 2011 at 3:55 pm...if yes, sorry for its redundancy.]

    Persian Gulf,

    I am not too sure if you already got what you needed about Iran’s nuclear energy needs. In any case, depending on your audience, you might find this information useful. Feel free to use or disregard them.

    Most countries that have created medium- to long-term development plans (especially with respect to their energy needs) have recognized their needs to:

    1) Diversify their sources of energy (this includes nuclear power)
    2) Reduce their dependence on fossil fuel (both as a producer and as a consumer)
    3) Explore, invest, and develop options to meet future energy need (reducing consumption, increasing efficient production)
    4) Remain technologically and economically viable and competitive in the global market

    Here is an example of China’s development plan that also addressed the need to consider the above categories (although these are my categorization, you could find that overall it serves as a reasonable framework to find the information you might need). It decidedly includes justifications for nuclear power: ;http://www.ncar.org/conferences/60/presentations/Ma.pdf

    You could see EU Commission on energy, as another example here: ;http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/commission/2011/Presentation_speeches/2ndDay/02_Fabrizio_Barbaso.pdf

    India’s example here: ;http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/sam98.pdf

    This report is a bit slanted against Iran but gives you good information and stat about Iran’s needs and also the region’s:
    ;http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/Irans_Nuclear_Challenge-appendix-jaffe-1%20secured.pdf
    The interesting part is that this whole report makes the case about why almost all countries in the Middle East should welcome the US and company to build nuclear power plants for them (including SA that has 3X more proven oil reserve than Iran) but Iran should be prevented.

    That Iran needs to diversify her energy production is also highlighted by many officials but this is a more recent example:
    ;http://www.petroiran.com/Lists/News/DispFormMain.aspx?id=51

    The reasons that every other entity gives with respect their rationale for nuclear energy is also true for Iran. While, based on my own in-depth explorations, I do not consider nuclear power generation to be a sustainable and wise approach, I believe your views (based on what I have observed) in this respect could be fully substantiated and justified using the 1 through 4 frameworks for Iran as well as other countries. Iran (like all other nations) is concerned about future energy needs. Therefore, it needs (like all other nations) to diversify her sources of energy, allow for growth, and become self sufficient and remain as such (for her own and her allies’ sake). There is not a single reliable and trustworthy country in the world on which Iran could depend. A key question to raise (in the minds of your audience) is why every country should have the right to include in its energy policy a nuclear power option and Iran should be excepted/prevented/excluded.

    A handful of corporations have pushed a handful of governments to push the nuclear power generation as the most viable option of energy production in the future. I do not believe this was accidental (but that’s another subject altogether). Related to your concern, I believe, a significant reason beneath all the apparent reasons often given by the US and its allies about Iran’s rights is to have fewer competitors with the knowledge and skills in this area (something that is decidedly considered a commodity and could be exploited for revenue generation). I believe, this is also one of several reasons that a former NAM member such as India would agree to sanctions against Iran. I think, therefore, Iran’s case is sort of serving as a “nuclear buffer state” between the “haves” and “have-nots” of the nuclear club. The “haves” would provide their “know-how” services to the “have-nots” at a very high price with absolutely no possibility of additional players developing their own capacity and that might one day become a potential competitive threat.

    In any case, hope these are useful to you.

  228. Liz says:

    Missiles will be raining down all over Israel if
    it makes the slightest move against Iran and Iranian leaders will become
    heroes throughout the region.

    The whole Middle East will side with Iran and the
    Zionist regime will learn the meaning of real isolation. Hence, Israel
    will probably not attack

    btw, nice article!

  229. Clint says:

    Karl is right.

    See:

    rom Asia Times;

    “Earlier this year, the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear program that could settle this question.

    This document represents the consensus view of 16 US intelligence agencies.

    Although the content of the new NIE is classified, Clapper confirmed in senate questioning that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program”

    citation:

    http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2011/03%20March/11-11%20-%203-10-11.pdf

  230. Karl says:

    James:

    “Do you have any specific comment as to the reason or reasons the Obama administration has not reponded to Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U?”

    Because the fuzz about Iran has nothing to do with nuclear issues. It has simply to do with the fact that US try to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Look, the WMD is only used as a mere pretext to crush the iranian state and politics.
    US/israel dont want any solution, thats why they keep rejecting Iran’s offer, they want to use issues like WMD, Human rights etc to wreck Iran.

  231. Clint says:

    Eric,
    you are right — here is the view of an MIT professor:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/03/letters-to-the-editor/3727/

    Will Iran Be Next?

    …..the Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June of 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit. Many physicists and nuclear engineers have agreed. Much evidence suggests that the bombing did not delay the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program but started it. For example, the principal Iraqi scientist, Jafar Dhia Jafar, was asked by Saddam Hussein to work on the bomb only in July of 1981.

    Second, Fallows fails to recognize that Iran is now in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, after having failed to provide details of the uranium-enrichment program when it should have. The protocol Iran has declined to sign is an additional protocol that is not a part of the treaty itself. More important, the principal proponent of the treaty, the United States, has been in violation of the treaty almost continuously since its inception. The United States is continuing to develop new types of nuclear weapons and failing to disarm to the extent most scientists believe is desirable. The United States has refused to sign the test-ban treaty. The United States is also violating Title VI by failing to help non-weapons states use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as electricity production.

    James Fallows and the U.S. State Department may not understand these matters, but any non-nuclear state that feels threatened by a neighbor or by the United States certainly does. Rhetoric about failing to follow the NPT is rightly perceived as insulting. If we wish to dissuade Iran from making nuclear weapons, then we must somehow find a peaceful way to persuade the Iranians that not making such weapons is in their interest and not merely in ours. We must recognize their sovereign rights and their legitimate pride. The threat of bombing is not enough, and is probably counterproductive.

    Richard Wilson
    Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics
    Harvard University
    Cambridge, Mass.

  232. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    In what way has the Iranian Government opposed the secular state in Azerbaijan?

    [Really ant-Islam state - not secular]

    And why should Iran take any stance against Armenia; Armenia has never been an enemey – in recorded history – she has done nothing to harm Iran (it has always been the other way around)?

  233. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I would note also that Britain tried to protect Qajar Persia, in part in order to keep Russia out of the Gulf.

  234. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Azerbaijan has on the whole avoided interfering in domestic politics of Iran. The gov’t does see Iran as interfering in Azerbaijan, by opposing the official secular state that obtains. And Iran has given support to Armenia that Azerbaijan resents.
    I tend to think it was unfortunate that the Russian Empire took control of what is now Azerbaijan.

  235. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    The people of Cuba and North Korea are very poor. Iran has millions of very poor people but is a relatively rich country. Foolish economic policies in Cuba and North Korean have caused a good part of the poverty that obtains in both countries.

    US policy toward Cuba receives no support from other Nato countries. Nor any support from EU countries that are non-Nato.

  236. fyi says:

    Irshad says:

    Modern Iran was created out of the Safavi mystical order (other such orders such as Sanusi created Modern Libya).

    Safavids were Shia Turks which conqered the Iranian plateau and imposed their state and their religion over most of the populace.

    Next, they revived the idea of Iran-Shahr of the Sassanid period by hiring wandering story tellers to recite the Shahnameh – the Kingly Book of archaic Iranian Kings and Heroes.

    The Afghan revolt led to the collapse of the Safavid state and multiple civil wars among the various Azeri Turkic tribes over kingship.

    Eventually, the Turkic Qajars won that war – after almost a hundred years – and restored the Safavid state under a new dynastic rule (18 century) that has kept the various inhabitants of Iran together.

    By that time, Shia Religion (and thus Qum) and the idea of Iran had become the glue that bounded

    For if you look at the culture of Azeri’s, it is closer to the Sunni Turks of Central Asia!

    The Azeri Turks have been the dominant ethnic presence in all of Iranian cabinets since the Constitutional Revolution of 1905. [Sometimes so much so that the Persian-speaking recorder could not keep up with the flow of Turkish in the cabinet meetings.]

    In fact, the success of the Constitutional Revolution owed much to Azeri Turks, their intellectual and military contributions were decisive.

    Iranians will not take over the so-called Azeri Republic (really the ancient Iranian provinces of Aran and Nakhcevan) because she does not have the will or the power to do so.

    And why take over a people who have chosen a misguided path based on a fictional history and a fantasy understanding of themselves and their own culture and history?

    Why the Azeri Republic against Iran?

    Again: because their political and intellectual leaders have selected on another fantasy project – like the Jews in Palestine. To wit, they are suppressing all non-Turks in Azerbaijan including Taleshis (the Cornwall of Iran).

    For if they admit the historical truth (as I understand it), like East Germany, they would vote to dissolve that state and re-join their real country. Now, as is, they have to re-double their efforts in creating an alternative and largely set of lies to create legitimate foundations for their state.

    [This dynamics also obtained in Afghanistan, especially under Daoud Khan after the 1973 coup. They called their airline “Aryana” etc.]; always claiming that Iranians had pirated the appellation “Iran” from them.

    And they will fail; outside of Baku people want Shia Islam, they want the late Mr. Khomeini and not this Azeri ghetto (like the Jewish ghetto that Israel is).

    Personally I am saddened to watch these marginal people try to create a state and by various artifices try to tie themselves to Ancient Iran and the idea of Iran-Shahr – to fill the void inside them. When I hear that the Azeri News Agency calling itself “Turan”, trying to establish a connection – through the Persian Shahnameh – to the archaic land of Turan, I am saddened. When I see the Pashtuns, I know that they are descendants of the same people who fought alongside of Rustam against the damned Turanians.

    These are the wages of imperial disintegration: First the Sassanian, tehn the Seljuks, then the Safavids. When empires collapse, they leave these dredges behind , causing innumerable such problems in their wake.

  237. James Canning says:

    Maidhc O’Cathail,

    The Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans was run by four neocon warmongering Jews who openly advocated deceiving the American public, to “benefit” Israel. They were a conduit into the White House for bogus intelligence, fabricated for purpose of setting up illegal invasion of Iraq. And the warmongering neocon Jews were protected, and rewarded. And they continue to receive protection and rewards for their monstrous crime.

    Most Americans have never heard of the Office of Special Plans. What a surprise.

  238. James Canning says:

    jay,

    Do you have a specific opinion as to the reason or reasons the Obama administration has not responded to the recent Iranian offer to cease production of 20% U? I assume the reason is that, for domestic political purposes, Obama wants more sanctions against Iran. And he will have a harder time getting those additional sanctions if he responds to the Iranian offer.

  239. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    Are you in effect arguing that the government of Iran secretly is planning to build nukes, and that the continuing effort on the world stage, by Iran, to attempt to have Israel compelled to sign the NPY and get rid of its nukes, is a charade?

  240. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    They have no other policy.

    They cannot change since change is now illegal in US with respect to the Iran policy.

    They have got Iran somewhere around where Cuba and North Korea are except that Iran is neither Cuba nor North Korea [There is no state between Hind-Kush to Mediterranean Sea except the Islamic Republic of Iran.]

    So, there are 80 million Iranians together will their alliance partners in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, and Afghanistan whic cannot be isolated or sanctioned by the Axis Powers effectively.

    I do not wish to minimize the pain that Iranian are enduring; running their ships empty to show the flag, etc.

    But those pains will not break Iran.

    As Mr. Steve has observed below: Nuclear-capable Iran is essential for the safety of the Iranian people as well Iran’s allies.

    The Axis Powers have succeeded in making this calculus transparent to the Iranian people.

  241. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Do you have any specific comment as to the reason or reasons the Obama administration has not reponded to Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U?

  242. Irshad says:

    @fyi:

    “What people do not seem to realize that without Azerbaijan and without agreement from Qum, regime change is not a possibility in Iran.”

    Can you explain why the agreement of Azerbaijan will be needed? Whats so important of the Azeri Turks in the continuation of the Islamic Republic? And if they are soo important, why does Iran simply not take Azerbaijan over?

    As a side question – why is the Azeri state, anti-Iran and dancing to the tune of Isreal and USofA?

  243. Irshad says:

    Hans,

    Why would Iran support Gaddafi, when its Libyans who were taking sides for and agsinat him? It was an internal matter, but one side in the end got support of NATO. Supporting Gaddafy would have been a major mistake for Iran. Why bet your money on a dead horse?

    Its akin to Iran supporting Saddam during the 1991 Gulf War – even though the whole world knew that Iraq was going to be pulverized.

    So its not bigots – its strategists at work looking at how things really are rather then looking at the prices of silver to determine their next move!

  244. Karl says:

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-sarkozy-agree-international-pressure-on-iran-must-continue-1.393541

    [I]
    A report due next week from the IAEA nuclear watchdog will be an important opportunity for the world to assess whether Iran is meeting international obligations in its nuclear program, the White House said on Thursday. [/I]

    [I]
    “What we’re focused on is a diplomatic strategy which… increases the pressure on the Iranians, through financial pressure, through economic sanctions, through diplomatic isolation,” said White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, in response to a question about military options toward Iran.”
    [/I]

    The warmongering obama and sarkozy cant stop their escapades for violence, destruction and racism towards Iran.
    Note that they warn of the coming IAEA report by the US/israeli stooge amano will be criticial, just proves who objective IAEA is, its friggin runned by US/israeli interests!

    Also note the last sentence, they refuse diplomacy as a way to solve the question. For crying out loud, Iran has been sanctioned for some 30 years, why would they bow down to zionists interests represented by the stooges of sarkozy and obama?!
    Dont they have any shame, knowledge or remorse for the constant warthreats stemming from themselves?! ITs interesting to see that former colonial regimes as france and america still are the most violent and warmongering ones on this planet.
    What have happend to this world? Seriously violence violence violence is what we hear from the so called ‘enlightened’ europe/america and western democracies.

    Every global organization have totally lost credibility.
    IAEA, UN, EU, NATO. Disgrace.

  245. fyi says:

    Fara says: November 3, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    For southern Persian Gulf sates, under normal situation, Iran could supply them with run-off water.

    But not under the imposed US security agenda.

  246. fyi says:

    hans says: November 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    The late Mr. Qaddafi’s rule had been a one-man rule that did not have any of the positive achievements of such dictators as Reza Khan, Stalin, Hilter, Mussolini, or Franco.

    Let him go, he had no miliatry, he wasted his country’s resources – using it as his personal purse – etc.

    So he was not against Shia – that much is true.

  247. Fara says:

    Persian Gulf says on November 2, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    This article (Feb 2011) from the Center for Strategic and International Studies might also help;

    [In (P)GCC countries] “Burning crude oil directly for desalination and power generation is a tempting alternative, but ultimately a difficult one even for high-volume oil producers. Diverting oil for domestic use threatens governments’ export revenues, and increasing production to make up for the loss also requires significant and steady investment. Other alternatives like nuclear and solar power are efficient but expensive, and no GCC country yet has the proper infrastructure to exploit them effectively.”

    The article says that, with regard to the current trend, the world’s largest oil producing/exporting country, i.e. Saudi Arabia, must import oil to meet its internal demands in 2050 and beyond (see Fig 5 in the article).

    The article can be obtain in google. Search for “Scarcity and Strategy in the GCC”, by Michael Dziuban, Feb 2011.

  248. hans says:

    Irshad says:
    November 3, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    Are Muslims that shallow to ignore this slight and instead turn on each other to gain power and become another Western banana republic?

    The answer is yes in Libya, in fact the Iranian leadership called these thugs and barbarians revolutionaries. Go figure. When you have bigots you will support bigots!

  249. fyi says:

    Irshad says: November 3, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    There is also this:

    Green Movement was a predominantly Persian one.

    Azeri Turks were not participants in it.

    What people do not seem to realize that without Azerbaijan and without agreement from Qum, regime change is not a possibility in Iran.

  250. Liz2 says:

    Paul:

    The green movement recognize the islamic republic /”are a part of it”, why would they fight their own government?
    MEK will however make use of the american bombs.

  251. Irshad says:

    Eric,

    I recommend you start reading the Saddam Papers:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/world/middleeast/archive-offers-rare-glimpse-inside-mind-of-saddam-hussein.html?_r=2

    In it you come across Saddam demanding to know why Osirak was not built under mountains to protect it against attack. This iss omething the Iranians have learnt to do.

  252. Irshad says:

    Paul,

    Have you not been reading what people have been writing here?

    How can anyone (apart from the MEK)jump for power when Iran has just been attacked by Jewish and Christian powers?

    Are Muslims that shallow to ignore this slight and instead turn on each other to gain power and become another Western banana republic?

  253. paul says:

    Eric, that was a brilliant piece of pro-war apologetics. Yes, if Saddam ever even considered for a moment the possibility of some day maybe thinking about developing nukes … !!!!!!!!

    Wow. Truly, that is some admirable sophism.

  254. paul says:

    What Libya has demonstrated is that US air power can be sufficient to boost a tiny, but utterly ruthless, minority into power.

    The situation in Iran is that a very large minority, which happens to have a strong grip on the country’s financial establishment, may be able to seize power under US air support. I expect that this is the basic US/Israeli war plan.

    The sequence of events may be something like this: Israel attacks Iran. Iran hits back, either on Israel alone, or – more likely – against both Israeli and US targets (rightly recognizing that Israel is a US proxy, or the US is an Israeli proxy, depending on how one looks at it). The US jumps in with both feet, pounding Iran and destroying much of its military establishment. The Green Movement then rises up and attempts to seize power, under heavy US air cover.

  255. Clint,

    On the other hand…

    This quote from the Belfer Center report you cited does cause me some concern:

    “Recent evidence confirms that the Osirak reactor was intended not to produce plutonium for a weapons program, but rather to develop know-how that would be necessary if Iraq acquired an unsafeguarded reactor better suited for large-scale production of plutonium.”

    My understanding always has been that the Osirak reactor was intended and suitable only for peaceful purposes — period. But this sentence suggests that the reactor, while “peaceful” for the time being, had been built so that Iraq could learn more about something not quite so “peaceful” that Iraq did not yet have but presumably envisioned having some day: an unsafeguarded reactor (aka “secret”) designed to produce plutonium. I’ll confess to limited technical knowledge as I make the point in this sentence, but my understanding is that this ultimate objective — production of plutonium — indeed does suggest that Iraq envisioned a nuclear weapons program somewhere down the road.

    If that’s the case, I’m not sure it’s correct after all for us to say the Osirak reactor was being operated for “peaceful” purposes. Whether or not that should change the writer’s conclusions in the Belfer Center report (about the wisdom and effectiveness of bombing suspected nuclear-weapons facilities) is a separate question on which other considerations also bear, but the “peacefulness” (or not) of the Osirak reactor nonetheless is one of the factors that must be taken into account in that analysis — unless one concludes (which I would not) that it is never, under any circumstances, appropriate to attack another country’s nuclear facility (for a hypothetical “extreme case” example: a nuclear-bomb making facility in Adolf Hitler’s Germany, scheduled to begin production in, say, January of 1945).

    Can you or others shed more light on the Osirak reactor’s purpose? I find the quoted sentence quite interesting, and would like to learn more about Osirak now that I’ve read it.

  256. Rehmat says:

    Clint – Why did not United States attacked Israel’s military nuclear program which STARTED in mid-1950s?

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/us-award-for-stealing-bomb-grade-uranium-for-israel/

  257. Clint says:

    What Eric said, and see:

    http://enews.belfercenter.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=lj1i,t0ni,7oo,bq29,cn4s,cqwk,e2i9&MLM_MID=1353870&MLM_UNIQUEID=91334a0431

    By Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer

    Recent evidence confirms that the Osirak reactor was intended not to produce plutonium for a weapons program, but rather to develop know-how that would be necessary if Iraq acquired an unsafeguarded reactor better suited for large-scale production of plutonium.

    Israel’s attack triggered a far more focused and determined Iraqi effort to acquire nuclear weapons.

  258. Clint writes:

    “Israel’s attack on Osirak in Iraq STARTED the Iraqi nuclear weapons program in early 1980s.”

    A good point, well worth emphasizing.

    The US was later told just that by defecting Iraqi nuclear scientists but the US government chose, for obvious reasons, not to draw attention to those reports. Those Iraqi scientists insisted that Iraq’s nuclear program had been entirely peaceful until Osirak was bombed. At that point, Iraq reasoned, in essence: “If we openly build nuclear facilities, as we’re entitled to do under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and our Safeguards Agreement, and we comply with all of our Treaty and Agreement obligations and there is no evidence that we have not, and yet Israel feels free to destroy our nuclear facilities and the rest of the world does nothing about it, why should we continue along the same path? It makes more sense to move our nuclear program underground (literally and figuratively) and to add a new component to our heretofore strictly peaceful nuclear program: a bomb-development effort, which, when complete, will give us some assurance that nobody will bomb our nuclear facilities a second time.

    Pretty sound reasoning, under the circumstances. However reasonable it might seem, though, it did not sit well with the US government, who probably predicted just such a change of course and determined to intervene (and obviously did intervene) before Iraq had got so far with its nuclear weapons development that the US no longer could safely attack it.

    It appears the US government believes (or at least claims to believe when it is convenient to do so, which apparently means nearly always) that Iran is essentially at that same “almost too late” stage in its real or imagined development of nuclear weapons. Whether it will do what it did in Iraq remains to be seen, of course.

  259. Clint says:

    Israel’s attack on Osirak in Iraq STARTED the Iraqi nuclear weapons program in early 1980s

  260. Liz2 says:

    “Welcome, but with a statement like this, “…there is also the heavy funded and backed MEK that could gain power,” it is evident that at least in this important respect you have absolutely no idea what is the reality on the ground in Iran. Your statement did bring a smile to my face though, for which unintended consequence I’m sure, I thank you :o)”

    Welcome?
    Look MEK is not popular in Iran amongst a majority, but a minority support it and thats whats significant taking in regard that US have more or less already given the presdential title to mayram rajavi. You seems to think that US care about democracy. They dont.

  261. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Smith:

    Excellent post! Thanks.

  262. Unknown Unknowns says:

    I missed the first half of the sentence, which of course is even funnier: “With contenders as a huge youth majority that is critical of the Islamic Republic, …”

    Now that I am thinking about it, does the sentence even hold grammatical water? I guess it’s missing a ‘such’ before the as. Never mind.

  263. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Liz2:

    Welcome, but with a statement like this, “…there is also the heavy funded and backed MEK that could gain power,” it is evident that at least in this important respect you have absolutely no idea what is the reality on the ground in Iran. Your statement did bring a smile to my face though, for which unintended consequence I’m sure, I thank you :o)

  264. Persian Gulf says:

    Smith says:
    November 3, 2011 at 5:17 am

    Thanks for your time in getting back to me. In fact, all that I read over the past few years were about the political and geopolitical implications of a nuclear Iran. yesterday, a friend asked me for documents regarding the rationale of nuclear energy in Iran’s case. it’s going to be a presentation in undergrad level in a distinguished institution, something I think very important to make minds. I also think some people have gone too far here bashing one another and making useless points often for fake IDs.

  265. Liz2 says:

    once again we see that israel dictates US policy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-pressure-must-maintained-iran-102535167.html

    israel is like a dog in hands of a owner, the dog have rabies and is aggressive, however the owner america cant get rid of the dog, put it to sleep, because at the same do the owner get alot of cash for keeping it. The aggressive dog make a fool of the owner, do stuff that it doesnt condone and have to come up with pathetic claims why to keep the dog and keep defending it.

    obama..what a man, he is even more pathetic and weaker and more warmongering than bush ever were all because of the money from aipac. disgusting.

  266. An Iranian View says:

    The article below is from the most widely read Iranian website ‘Tabnak’. It says that there is no realistic chance of an Israeli attack because of the multiple crises in the west, Israel’s unprecedented isolation, and its clear vulnerabiliy to an inevitable Iranian military response. The website states that all this talk of war is a western media campaign basically being carried out in order to pressure countries like Russia and China to agree with new sanctions.

    The IAEA report will be written in accordance to American demands and the Israelis will be used as “out of control attack dogs” (my words). The US will then use this combination to try to frighten China, Russia, and others that if they don’t agree to sanctions, something bad will happen.

    http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/201691/آیا-رژیم-صهیونیستی-خود-را-آماده-حمله-به-ایران-می‌کند؟

    This is the last part of the article:

    حال این پرسس مطرح است که چرا هم‌اکنون این مباحث به صورت عمومی و رسانه‌ای منتشر می‌شود؟

    در مباحثات اخیر، انگلستان، ایتالیا، آلمان و هلند نقش اساسی بر عهده گرفته‌اند و به سرعت در حال فضاسازی رسانه ای درباره احتمال جنگ رژیم صهیوینست علیه ایران هستند.

    با نگاهی به محیط بین‌المللی، تردیدی نمی‌ماند که این محیط، آماده جنگ جدیدی در منطقه در آستانه زمستان نیست. دولت ایتالیا در حال ورشکستگی است و این سقوط ایتالیا، دامن انگلستان را هم خواهد گرفت.
    اوباما خود را درگیر انتخابات ریاست‌جمهوری سال آینده می‌بیند و رژیم صهیونیستی هم زیر شدیدترین فشار‌های جهانی از زمان راه‌اندازی این رژیم است و این رژیم، خود به میزان کافی از آسیب پذیری‌اش و قوت ایران آگاه است و بی‌گمان، همچون دفعات پیش، چنین خیالی را هیچ گاه عملیاتی نخواهد کرد.

    اما با این فرض و با این محیط بین‌المللی، این تهدیدات به چه معناست؟ گویا، هرچند فضای بین‌المللی برای جنگ آماده نیست، ترس از جنگ در آستانه انتشار گزارش فصلی مدیر کل آژانس بین‌المللی انرژی اتمی ـ که از ماه‌ها پیش مشخص شده ـ به صورت فرمایشی و دستوری ارایه خواهد شد و فضا را برای تحریم و قطعنامه‌های بیشتر آماده می‌کند.

    بنا بر ضرب‌المثل جامع بین‌الملل معروف، «از ترس مرگ به تب راضی خواهد شد»؛ اکنون سناریو این گونه است که تحریم‌ها علیه ایران شدیدتر شده و احیانا دوباره پرونده ایران در شورای امنیت ملل متحد بررسی شود.

    گفتنی است، در روز‌های آینده، توان دیپلماسی ایران به محک آزمایش می‌رود. ایران اکنون باید خود را آماده یکی از سنگین‌ترین نبرد‌های دیپلماتیک بکند که البته در این راه، شنیدن سخنان دوگانه از سوی مسئولین کشور، درباره همه رخدادهای مرتبط با سیاست خارجی کشور، سمی مهلک در راه رسیدن به موفقیت است.

  267. Smith says:

    Persian Gulf,

    About Iran’s need for nuclear energy:

    1- Nuclear technology is not only for energy production purposes. All modern medical techniques rely on nuclear technology as well. From Tc-99 tests to Positron Emission Tomography you must have reactors to produce reagents for these vital procedures. Another issue to consider is the fact that importing these products are either very expensive or not possible at all since many have a short half life and the reactor has to be within short driving distance of the hospital. Add to these the agricultural and industrial sectors which depend heavily on nuclear technology for food and machine production.

    2- Iran in 2011 has an installed electricity generation capacity of 62,000 MW with an estimated population of 78 million. It is generally accepted that an industrial nation must have atleast 1 KW of generation capacity for every resident in that country. This is minimum and almost all industrialized nations have many times more generation capacity than this minimum. Iran therefore is in need of increasing its generation capacity if it ever wants to join industrial nations.

    3- Iran has a maximum hydroelectric generation potential of 40,000 MW if every possible dam is built in Iran. Something like half of that capacity is already in use and Iran is fast building more dams. There are other projects too such as gas fired plants and coal power plants in addition to expensive fuel oil ones. Also Iran has been trying to build solar and wind power plants in addition to geothermal stations. But US has imposed sanctions on Iran for the purpose of renewable energy production and has gone as far as arm twisting nations like Iceland, New Zealand and Denmark who were cooperating with Iran on wind, solar and geothermal power plants so much so that a failed campaign was initiated in US by some American ladies to counter US sanctions and invest in Iran’s renewable energy resources in defiance of American sanctions. But Iran has been trying to develop these technologies locally and there has been some successes.

    4- Now coming to nuclear issue. Considering the fact that Iran needs to increase its generation capacity, it would be prudent for Iranian planners to choose the most cost effective options for producing electricity so that energy remains cheap and the economy competitive on world stage. Depending solely on hydro electricity in a country where droughts are regular and gas which will run out some day is a folly. As it appears nuclear energy is the cheapest and most dependable form of electricity generation considering Iran’s position. Infact Iran is late by few decades in this sector. Pakistan and India both had nuclear plants up and running by late 1960′s even though both were poorer than Iran at the time. The rest of the modern world had nuclear plants by late 1950′s and continued to build more into the 1980′s when power generation capacity of modern nations exceeded their demands. Iran has no choice but to go nuclear and to counter sanctions develop its own nuclear power plant building industry based on its indigenous designs: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/

    5- As for nuclear weapons, I guess by now almost every Iranian knows that without nuclear bombs, Iran will never be safe from invasion and it will have to continue paying premium to world power with nuclear weapons in order to keep a minimum level of sovereignty be those powers American, European, Chinese or Russian. Only a strong nuclear armed Iran can stop pleasing these powers in order to just survive. Without nukes Iran will be stuck as it is now having to explain everything it does to nuclear armed nations on weekly basis and guarantee those nations that Iran is not in competition with them for the world’s resources and economic profit. This is the sad reality.

  268. Liz2 says:

    bagoom:

    I think you overestimate a bit, in every nation there is people that dislike the ruling gov., these people is living in Iran too, so there is a chance Iran will be another puppet state. With contenders as a huge youth majority that is critical of the Islamic Republic, there is also the heavy funded and backed MEK that could gain power.

  269. Smith says:

    A good article about US losing the war in Afghanistan and how Iran is gaining there. Astonishing to hear that Afghan Army has a desertion rate of over 25% per year. This is the army for which billions of dollars are being spent to train and equip. Even third rate department stores in Mexico do not have such desertion rates: http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article86396

  270. stienbock says:

    Heres a couple of links from Armscontrolwonk on the Syrian “covert enrichment facility” cunningly disguised as a textile plant with the centrifuges no doubt disguised as thread spinning machines,this is the nuclear equivalent of the SA ambassador assassination plot.In the end bullshit like this will be the death knell of the IAEA
    lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4612/hasaka-spinning-factory-revisited
    lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4579/hasaka-spinning-factory

  271. Thank you for the sober analysis as ever.

    What I can’t understand is why Iranian spokesmen don’t specify who is behind much, if not all, of the anti-Iranian propaganda. They are right to compare this latest concocted plot to the pre-Iraq War “intelligence.” But aren’t they aware that much of that fixed intelligence was funneled from Ariel Sharon’s office to the White House via Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon? Similarly, who but the Israelis benefit from a plot that implicates Tehran in an outrageous terror attack on a Saudi envoy in D.C. — the question of a “requisite provocation” having been discussed at length in the 2009 Saban Center paper, “Which Path to Persia?” The “proposed” attack on the Israeli embassies thrown in for good measure only heightens the suspicion that this B-movie script was composed in Tel Aviv.

  272. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sakineh Bagoom & Jay:

    Nicely said. Irrespective of what might or might not happen,

    There is a Light that Never goes Out.

    And that Light, right now, is the Islamic Republic, warts and all.

  273. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    ”Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act, with her recent observations on Voice of America’s Farsi-language service that “we’re not quite sure who makes decisions anymore inside of Iran”. (Although she does seem quite sure that the Islamic Republic is becoming “a military dictatorship”.)”

    Good to see that the irony is not lost on the Leveretts! (well done!) More and more Western officials speak out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to Iran.

    Irshad says: November 2, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Irshad,

    Since 2006, every year, there has been an uptick on talk of “the war with Iran” when it’s politically expedient. I wouldn’t put much credence into it.
    The US + EU and whomever follows their lead are currently in a de-facto state of war (call it, war light) against Iran. It’s just not a hot war, where missiles and bullets fly. These powers have in effect tried to put their boot on Iran’s neck, pressing hard, trying to squeeze the life-blood out of her veins (i.e. banking, shipping, sanctions, assassinations, sabotage, computer virus, etc. etc. etc.) wishing for Iran to capitulate. It’s not in the offing!
    Iran will never again be a vassal state, satrap, colony, or for that matter a kingdom. The taste of independence has been enjoyed and will not be given up easily.
    The West really does not understand what it means to be Shia’ with it’s central tenet of martyrdom. All one really has to say is: Ya Husain(sa), Ya Abolfazl(sa). Add that to Persian-ness and the nationalism that goes along with it and you have a very potent force. Here is Khamenei on Abolfazl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0aZDvudP0
    I agree with fyi, that Iranians have said that no attack on their soil will go unpunished. There is no surgical attack on a nuclear plant here, or an enrichment facility there. If this starts, it will have to be an all out scenario.
    Many pontificate that the war will go this or that way, where in reality they don’t really know. This reminds me of an interview with an Iranian general in 2005, where he said US has not surrounded us. Their bases are within our missile reach. We have 11,000 missiles and every last one of them will fall.
    Any attack on Iran will truly have a global dimension though, as the price oil will affect all commerce. The price of anything that requires transportation would rise as a result. There will be famine, poverty, food riots, mass … (I’d rather not even go there)
    In the end, when all is said and done, Iran will still be sitting where she always has. Its infrastructure will undoubtedly be ruined and many of its citizens killed. But this will not without consequence for the world. The whole world will suffer.
    As for the US, it will never again be able to return to the ME. She will be routed. All it takes is one fatwa.
    And as for the Zionist entity, she may have enjoyed many victories in her wars with her neighbors (OK, one draw in 2006 against Hezbollah) throughout her 60+ years of existence, but all it takes is one defeat and she is done.

  274. Kathleen says:

    oops that Russian link was from 2008…sorry

  275. jay says:

    USSR collapsed with a single shot fired
    should read
    USSR collapsed without a single shot fired

  276. jay says:

    The crescendo of attack on Iran is simply to build pressure on countries that currently do not support another round of sanctions.

    The previous round of sanctions have followed similar trends but have not had to be so “loud” because the resistance to another round of sanctions has not been as “high”.

    The essential strategy for sanctions is the same – support sanctions or else we have no choice but to attack.

    The pressure may or may not work one more time to bring about more sanctions, but the calculus of war shows a net loss for the promoters of war.

    Iran has previously hinted at its response – using a multiple front strategy maximally front loaded response to create maximum long term damage to the interests of the western alliance. Iran will absorb the attack – assumption: there is no appetite for ground invasion.

    1) hit heavily at Israel with missiles from Iran, Lebanon, Gaza. Ground infiltration in softened areas – minimize incentive for the war promoters
    2) close Hurmuz to selected traffic to inflict maximum economic damage to EU+US
    3) attack ships of unfriendly states using cruise missiles – psychological/political pressure
    4) soften US barracks in Afghanistan using short range rockets. Encourage attacks by local insurgents. Maximize cost, increase chaos and military cost
    5) coordinate with friendly Iraqis for special ops against US barracks in Iraq. Maximize cost, increase chaos and military cost
    6) …

    Iran is clearly no match for the firepower it is facing on an absolute scale. However, wars are not won by firepower alone (USSR collapsed with a single shot fired). The world economy, particularly the EU and US economy are tethering on collapse. Any attack will not only hasten the collapse here and in the EU, it will also cause great damage to financial interests of the supporters of the state of Israel.

    If we can figure this out, the planners at Pentagon and IDF can figure it out – it is not a win scenario.

    Russians and Chinese know this as well. The question is: how much can their collective arms be twisted using this public pressure strategy to support another round of sanctions.

  277. Kathleen says:

    Sure appears that Israel is winning the Race for Iran

  278. Kathleen says:

    Freedom Waves to Gaza’ flotilla leaves Turkey headed to Gaza; Organizers: ‘It is time to lift the siege of Gaza which deprives 1.6 million civilians of their rights to travel, work, study, develop their economy and be free.’

    by Ben Lorber on November 2, 2011
    http://mondoweiss.net/

  279. Reza Esfandiari says:

    More news on the forthcoming Amano report and possible “pre-emptive” strikes.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8866022/Iran-the-damning-nuclear-evidence.html

  280. Fiorangela says:

    at 6:33 pm James Canning wrote:

    “I think Netanyahu is trying to distract attention from his ethnic cleansing programme in the occupied West Bank. And he wants more foolish sanctions against Iran. So Israel can continue with its ethnic cleasing programme unmolested.”

    Jeff Halper, who is on the ground in Israel, trying to bring the world’s attention to Israel’s practice of home demolitions, agrees: Israel may attack Iran so that we won’t hear the word Palestinian for another 5 years

  281. James Canning says:

    Adrian Croft had a brief piece on William Hague Oct. 18th (Reuters), in which Hague said he thought the Iranian nuclear issue “will become more urgent next year” because Iran is producing 20% U. But Croft seems not to have asked why Britain has not responded to the Iranian offer to cease production of 20% U.

  282. James Canning says:

    Interested,

    I think Netanyahu is trying to distract attention from his ethnic cleansing programme in the occupied West Bank. And he wants more foolish sanctions against Iran. So Israel can continue with its ethnic cleasing programme unmolested.

  283. James Canning says:

    k_w,

    Thanks. And how typical for the Wall Street Journal to facilitate propaganda piece by a person who should be a convicted war criminal, according to many knowledgeable lawyers.

    Most American have never heard of the Office of Special Plans, nor are they aware this office was controlled entirely by Jewish neocon warmongers who advocatd deceving the American public to achieve “higher aims”. Namely, to enable continuing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.

  284. James Canning says:

    Those following Israel’s ethnic cleansing programme in the West Bank should read Jillian Kestler-D’Amours’ “Israel finds new ‘home’ for Bedouins: a garbage dump

    http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-finds-new-home-bedouins-garbage-dump/10530

    Israel plans to displace 27,000 Bedouin in West Bank. As part of illegal Jewish colonisation scheme supported by hundreds of foolish American congressmen and senators.

  285. Interested says:

    There is no doubt that if attacked, Iran will hit back very very hard. At a time when the US and EU economies are literally falling apart, this would bring about economic collapse along with social and political instability throughout Europe and North America.

  286. k_w says:

    James,

    indeed he is. Powell called his bunch of liars “Douglas Feith’s Gestapo office”, and I think it was Wilkerson who called him carrying a Likud membership card.

  287. James Canning says:

    I should have added that Douglas J. Feith is one of the warmongering Jewish neocons who used the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq using knowingly false intelligence. And Feith has been advising Rick Perry, the idiot Republican warmongering candidate for the nomination for president.

  288. James Canning says:

    Writing in the Wall Street Journal today (“Israel Should Be a US Campaign Issue”), Douglas J. Feith reminded the readers of that newspaper that Chuck Percy lost his senate seat for Illinois in 1984 thanks to opposition from Israel lobby (which frantically opposed American engagement with the PLO). Percy was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Feith also recalled how the Jews punished George H W Bush in 1992 for his efforts to stop constuction of the illegal Jewish colonies in occupied Palestine.

  289. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    India joined China in voting for Palestine’s admission to Unesco. Over strenuous objections from US and Israel.

    And I of course agree that foolish American opposition to Iranian gas line to Pakistan badly injures the economy of that country.

  290. Persian Gulf says:

    can someone here please provide me with the link(s) for technical reports regarding Iran’s need for nuclear energy? (I am not looking for the rationale to make the bomb. that’s too obvious to make an argument for :))

  291. Wilbur says:

    To All,

    An interesting article from Mehdi Khalaji http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/the-domestic-logic-of-iran’s-foreign-plots/. While the article is an opinion piece authored by an opponent of the regime it does offer a plausible rationale behind the assassination plot. Let me know your thoughts.

    Thx
    Bill

  292. fyi says:

    Irshad says: November 2, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Pakistan has not bucked out of the gas deal; if anything, the energy shortages in that country makes her energy needs even more acute.

    150 million people are not going to live with rolling black-outs because some people in US wish to harm Iran.

    The rail-road from Bamiyan to Chabahar will never be built; India does not have the power or the inclination to do so. Her arm-chair strategists still are in dream-world and thus are harmonizing their foreign policy with that of US; against Iran and China [a fool's errand, in my opinion.]

    There will be nothing surgical about US strikes on Iran.

    Iranian leaders on numerous occasions have stated that they will respond with all their might.

    General Zini (USMC Ret.) has stated that US war with Iran will inevitably lead to the introduction of US ground troops into the Iranian territory.

    Expect a long war – perhaps 4 years – that will consume Mr. Obama’s presidency as the Iraq War consumed Mr. Bush’s.

    US has to start that war and it will be so understood by other states; Iranian leaders have publicly stated that they are prudent and do not and will not act rashly.

  293. Liz2 says:

    Irshdad: james are a brit himself.

  294. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Irshad asks:

    “What would Iran do if there was a limited strike on Iran? How would Iran react or would it choose not to and hold the moral ground?”

    No. Not retaliating would be seen as a sign of weakness and not patience. Iranians commanders have repeatedly claimed they will respond forcefully so to not do so would mean to lose face. Also, the public would demand action. Iran has the military potential to hit U.S bases in the Gulf and also Israel. However, the Iranians may likely be selective in their response rather than go for all out hostilities and a regional war. If planners think Iran will just huff and puff they are mistaken.

  295. Irshad says:

    @fyi

    Britain, Isreal and US ready to attack Iran. Amano is getting ready to give them the a pretext in a weeks time.

    So India decided to build a 560miles railroad from Bamiyan, in Afghanistant to Chabar port in Iran.

    http://www.uskowioniran.com/2011/11/india-to-build-iran-afghan-rail-link.html

    Is this the Iranian reaction to Pakistan bucking out of the gas pipeline deal?

  296. fyi says:

    Irshad says: November 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    14 Months until the conclusion of the US Presidential elections.

    Nothing will happen during that time, specially considering the low intensity depression that is slowly spreading among the Axis states.

    In regards to Syria; I have stated my opinion.

    Future would tell; but as far as I can tell, the Syrian state security apparatus are mopping up the remnants of the (armed) opposition.

    Turkey will not enter Syria – Syria could retaliate by supporting Kurds.

    Mr. Assad has the correct assessment; unravelling of the Ba’ath state would have very very serious ramifications for Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

    Now pay attention to this: Saudis leaders were behind the Syrian uprising as well as the war against Shia in Iraq.

    They will face the consequences.

  297. Irshad says:

    What would Iran do if there was a limited strike on Iran? How would Iran react or would it choose not to and hold the moral ground?

    (This is for the Iranians on this site).

  298. Irshad says:

    “Britain would offer assistance to the US to the US in event of idiotic and illegal attack on Iran, but the UK does not want another war in the Gulf.”

    James are you for REAL? I respect that fact that you need to defend the UK Govt, especially a Conservative UK govt – but what you said above is illogical!!!

    How can the UK give support to the US to bomb Iran – but then say at the same time it does not want another Gulf war?? If we are to believe – as you keep insisting – that UK does not want another war in the ME, then the UK can just say (as jack Straw did) that atacking Iran will be madness, and if either the US or its master, Isreal want to do it – they can but the UK will stay out of it as it is against it full stop.

    What does Britain think it will achieve by helping the US atack Iran? Seriously folks lets stop and think for a second? For a start, it will send the price of oil and gas shooting through the roof – and we have winter coming up. Imagine all those poor old British men and women in their homes, and do not have the money to pay their gas bill so suffer winter poverty! As well as others.

    Sometimes James, read what you write before posting it. Or go tell Vague Hague to stop hiding in the cupboard and come out and say what you keep saying!

  299. James Canning says:

    Candid,

    Many stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress want to derail the Palestinian bid for full membership in the UN, and to block admission to the General Assembly. They see Iran as interfering with the Greater Israel programme of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And many of these stooges have friends in Whitehall.

  300. James Canning says:

    Liz2,

    Britain would offer assistance to the US to the US in event of idiotic and illegal attack on Iran, but the UK does not want another war in the Gulf.

  301. Candide says:

    And now the Guardian, not content with stabbing Julian Assange in the back, jumps on the warmongers’ bandwagon:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

  302. Liz2 says:

    the warmongering brits are on again on war against Iran.

    Report: U.K. preparing for military strike on Iran nuclear facilities

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-k-preparing-for-military-strike-on-iran-nuclear-facilities-1.393361

  303. James Canning says:

    I recommend Philip Giraldi’s comments (“Washington Prepares to Leave the World”):

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/

    Quote:”There is a disturbing willingness on the part of Washington to abandon any pretense of an independent foreign policy where Israel is concerned.”

  304. James Canning says:

    Cyrus,

    Yes, Nixon did have to get past (or elude) the China lobby, to make his deal with China. Plutocratic Chinese exiles manipulated the American news media to benefit their programme of pretending to want to attempt to recapture the mainland, long past the time when any such scheme was remotely possible.

  305. James Canning says:

    Irshad,

    Yes, the USSR had a gerontocracy that made reforms more difficult. But in the Soviet Union, the average man or woman was living in conditions are near-poverty, while a gargantuan military establishment gobbled up a huge portion of the economy. Saudi Arabia is rich, though there are millions of younger Saudis who cannot find jobs or are unwilling to take the jobs that are available in the country.

  306. James Canning says:

    Reza,

    I very much doubt we will see Armageddon in 2012, though there is no doubt a number of Israeli warmongers would like to see an attack on Iran. They need more time to grow the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank, thinking this is “creating facts on the ground”.

  307. Irshad says:

    @fyi -

    what makes you so sure that “there will be no war in the next 14 months”?

    why 14 months? why not 24months?

    Also, “The struggle for Syria is over” – what makes you so sure of this? From what it seems like, they are still trying to ego massage the Turks, backed up by Gulf Arab oil money, to at the very least establish a “safe zone” in Syria?

    The battle for Syria is ongoing – its outcome is still up in the air. I am suprised the Assad regime has not had his supporters out on the streets every week to show what support he has in the country.

    The hinge factor here is going to be the Saudis and the political instablity in that countrys ruling elite regarding octagerians in power, much like the USSR after Brezhnev.

  308. James Canning says:

    Clint,

    And how many idiot warmongering US politicians in effect encourage an insane Israeli attack on Iran? Even though it would be illegal. These same idiot warmongering American politicians encourage the delusional Greater Israel scheme.

  309. James Canning says:

    Clint,

    Yes, ElBaradei opposed the efforts of warmongering idiots to slander Iran by claiming Iran in fact was building nukes or getting ready to build them. And, of course, neocons hated him for that reason.

    Richard Siverstein is reviled by some foolish Jews, and they in fact call him a neo-Nazi! His site is highly important in my view.

  310. Clint says:

    Are attacks on nations’ nuclear facilities legal?

    Let’s see what the UN Security Council says:

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un487.htm

    1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

    2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

    3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

    4. Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

    5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

    6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel;

    7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution.

  311. James Canning says:

    Ibn Saud told Britain it was “madness” to allow Jewish immigration into Palestine and their effort to create a “Jewish” state.

    http://www.mideastweb.org/saud-dickson.html

  312. Clint says:

    ………….and also:

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

    CITATION:

    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Hersh-6-6-11.pdf

  313. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    The US military opposed any attack on Iran in 2006. And the 2007 NIE on Iran made such an attack illegal. This is the primary reason the warmongering stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress have tried to hype the so-called “plot” to kill Saudi ambassador. They need a pretext with which to dupe the ignorant and rather stupid American public.

  314. fyi says:

    Fara says: November 2, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    This is almost certainly a crude forgery.

  315. James Canning says:

    Cyrus,

    Bravo. Yes, it is the pernicious influence of Israel, that explains the apparent stupidity of American officials in their inability to engage with Iran. Plutocratic Jews reward idiots in the US Congress who try to block any improvement in US relations with Iran, so Israel can continue its insane “Greater Israel” programme.

  316. fyi says:

    Clint says: November 2, 2011 at 1:07 pm and Irshad says: November 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Rubbish.

    Another crude propaganda campaign coming out of US, Israel, UK; reaching a climax just before or after the IAEA report on November 8.

    If these were meant to frighten Iranian leaders and people into some sort of capitulation, they are mistaken.

    If anything, this constant drum-beat of war against Iran – emanating from Jews and Christians in the West – only serves to make Iranians more angry.

    There is snow-ball’s chance in Hello of US initiating a war against Iran during the next 14 months.

    The nuclear file is over.

    The struggle for the orientation of Iraq is over.

    The struggle for Syria is over.

    The struggle for Lebanon is over.

    The Axis Powers would have gone to war, if they could, back in 2006.

    And if they were really after settlement with Iran, they would have taken a separate path in 2007 – after the release of US Intelligence Report on Iran.

    They chose, instead a war of attrition.

    Which will get them a nuclear Iran; what they ostensibly wanted to avoid.

  317. James Canning says:

    Clint,

    Bravo. Any US attack on Iran would be illegal, unless it were in retaliation for some Iranian attack. NIE on Iran is of huge importance.

    Warmongering idiot Republicans, like Michael McCaul of Texas, are trying to frighten the American people, and to deceive them, by claiming Iran is trying to subvert the national security of the US. So-called “plot”, as part of continuing Iranian scheme that also featured 1983 attack on US Marine barracks in Lebanon.

  318. Clint says:

    from Asia Times;

    “Earlier this year, the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear program that could settle this question.

    This document represents the consensus view of 16 US intelligence agencies.

    Although the content of the new NIE is classified, Clapper confirmed in senate questioning that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program”

    citation:

    http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2011/03%20March/11-11%20-%203-10-11.pdf

  319. James Canning says:

    Clint,

    Did you follow the Adam Werrity story very closely? Werrity was funded by plutocratic Jews seeking to “protect” Israel, and he was helping American neocons with their effort to influence British foreign and defence policies. Of course, the Werrity connection led to the resignation of Liam Fox.

    Werrity did arrange for a lobbyist for the Iranian gov’t to meet with Fox at least one occasion, at Portcullis House.

  320. Fara says:

    To those who still beleive in the Al-Saud’s sincerity with regard to Palestinians.

    Saudi monarchy founder assured UK on Palestine

    “An ancient document has revealed how Sultan Abdul Aziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia assured Britain of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian lands, a news report says.

    “I am the Sultan Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud al-Faisal and I conceded and acknowledged a thousand times to Sir Percy Cox, delegate of Great Britain, that I have no objection to giving Palestine to the poor Jews or even to non-Jews, and I will never ever violate their [the UK] orders,” read the note signed by King Abdul Aziz.”

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/208014.html

  321. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Thanks, Clint.

    That appears to be a serious article from the Guardian you cited. Of course, “Whitehall officials” could be just about anyone, but I suspect it means senior civil servants who run the show behind the scenes. Get ready for Armageddon in 2012!

    Reza

  322. James Canning says:

    Clint & Irshad,

    I think Nick Hopkins should have mentioned Iran’s recent offer to cease production of 20% U, in his report in the Guardian that you both linked.

  323. Clint says:

    Irshad,

    the latest IAEA report ONLY contains re-hashed accusations from 2003/4 era.

    And there has never been any diversion of nuclear material in Iran.

    See the asia times article by Dr. Yousaf Butt — a US based nuclear physicist — below.

    :http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html

    Also see the wikileaks quoted there:

    Recent State Department cables provided by WikiLeaks back this up – for instance State Department officials confirmed that some rehashed IAEA reports of suspicious Iranian activities in 2004 were “consistent with the 2003 weaponization halt assessment, since some activities were wrapping up in 2004″.

    see:

    http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=09UNVIEVIENNA192

  324. Irshad says:

    Anyone know anything about this Suadi diplomat killed in Karachi?

    Or is this just more spin on the part of UK/US to corner the Saudis?

  325. Irshad says:

    Looks like RSH long held prediction/desire may about to come true!

    UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

    British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran’s capability

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

    I would like to hear peoples views on this latest report (alongside reports that Nethanyahu is pushing for a strike too).

    Also, wheres our old friend Arnold Evans?

  326. Clint says:

    UK, the new neocons of Europe also plan an Iran attack….seems like the fashion these days to plan an Iran attack:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

  327. Clint says:

    Folks,

    please — there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program at the moment — re-posting from a couple of weeks ago — our DNI and the ex-head of the IAEA said so:

    http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH16Ak03.html

  328. Cyrus says:

    Pirouz2- I have explained why I think the US is not willing/able to actually reach out to Iran and resolve this conflict peacefully (and is certainly not about to let the nuclear issue be resolved with the regime there still in power either, no matter what compromises Iran allows and how many extra-legal IAEA inspections it permits.)

    http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2011/10/walt-on-pollack-takeyh-regarding-iran-policy-slowly-coming-around.html

    Several Iran experts have pointed out this refusal by the US to actually engage Iran, not just the Leveretts but also Steven Walt. However they don’t take the next step and ask WHY that is the case. The answer, as mentioned by Trita Parsi in his book, is indeed Israel and the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby, which sees any US-Iran engagement as a potential threat to ISrael’s strategic value to the US and Israel’s own regional ambitions (aside from the fact that Iran creates a convenient bogeyman and fund-raising tool for the pro-Israeli lobby in the US as Walt/Mearsheimer pointed out in their book.)

    The “threat” that Iran poses to Israel is not in nukes – it is in that the US may engage Iran, in which case who needs Israel anymore? The perfect example of this “threat” is the US history of engaging China. Remember, when Nixon “went to China” he had to overcome the (once influential) pro-Taiwanese lobby to marginalize Taiwan. If a US president decided to similarly engage Iran, then Israel potentially faces the same fate as Taiwan. However the pro-Israeli lobby is far more powerful than the pro-Taiwanese lobby ever was, and they’re quite busy placing as many obstacles to such an engagement as possible (latest example is the proposed law pending in Congress that would flatly prohibit any US government employee from communicating with anyone in Iran at all.)

    So once we take the next step and conceed that the US DOES NOT WANT to engage Iran but instead wants regime change, several corollaries fall into place, namely that no amount of Iranian compromises will change this calculas. And standoff is not about nuclear weapons and never was. If nuclear issues were the problem, that could have been resolved already (especially since Iran has made repeated and wide-raning compromise offers that were either ignored or actively torpedoed by the US which insists on playing “rope-a-dope” on that issue with Iran.)

    The issue is really about preventing/preempting any sort of engagement with Iran whilst pressuring for regime change there. And that’s why engagement is simply off the table. The pro-Israel lobby has been busy pushing for policies that only back the US into a corner and make it more difficult to engage Iran. Everyone says that the sanctions have been ineffective in making Iran “change its behavior” but they don’t realize that the true target of the sanctions is not Iran but is the US itself – with each round of sanctions, it become politically more difficult for any US president to do an about-face and engage Iran, which suits Israel just fine.

  329. “In his speech, Mr. Abdel-Jalil declared that a Qaddafi-era law that placed restrictions on multiple marriages, which is a tenet of Islamic law, or Shariah, would be done away with.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/africa/libyan-leaders-remark-favoring-polygamy-stirs-anger.html?ref=todayspaper

    HILLARY CLINTON: I’m a bit puzzled, Mr. Jalil. When you were asking for US help back in March, somehow we were given to understand that Qaddafi had suppressed women and that the Libyan rebels would usher in a new era of women’s rights. I don’t recall you mentioning that you planned to reinstate polygamy, much less that Qaddafi had done away with it.

    JALIL: I assure you I mentioned this, Madame Secretary — very clearly. When I think back to that meeting, though, I do recall that a window was open right next to the couch on which we were sitting, and that a loud bus happened to pass by just as I was explaining this to you.

  330. Smith says:

    This cooked up plot is just part of the ambitions of world powers to crack down on Iran and steal from its population just like they have done for the past 500 of colonialism. Though this letter by Iran is important but it is trivial at any rate just like the plot itself is. The best response Iran can give to these childish accusations in long run is to keep progressing in science and technology. Since it is only through superior science and technology which US can pressurize Iran whether be it of military nature or civilian. Only an Iran at the fore front of science can avert an American attack. A weak Iran with weak science base will inevitably be attacked by US or its proxies. One fall out from strong science and technology in Iran will be its economic benefits for ordinary Iranians. Right now Iran’s traditional economy dependent on oil, gas and traditional products has reached its saturation point or is near it. Only switching to a technology and innovation based economy will make Iran strong enough to weather the ambitions of great powers surrounding it be it, US, EU, India, China or Russia.

  331. Empty says:

    RE: Once again, a war against Iran would probably be the most prepared war ever – they wont start a war if they think Iran could ship out weapons that could threat american/israeli interest, Iran have no power sending out weapons in such a case and will only risk losing them.

    This statement is not based on valid reliable evidence. There is overwhelming amount of evidence, however, that suggests 1)the said entities go to war without much preparation; and 2)they start wars regardless of whether or not they think the other side can/cannot hit their interests.

    Again, just as another reminder: the US and its allies ARE in a war with Iran. Every single policy measure, ongoing surveillance, special operations killing IRG members, assassinations, navy blockades, etc. are all considered acts of war based on the United Nation’s definition of war. The argument, I think, should be about the degree of escalation.

    RE:Of course they will. Look, you seems to overestimate alot of things. Whats important for China? Iran or the rest of the world? What does China need from Iran? Nothing. It already get more and more oil from the GCC and Saudiarabia. It seems that you didnt know that and get upset. Go figure why Saudi Arabia want to get closer to China.

    It is not about “needs” it is about wants and greed. China is nicely and calmly cooking “US frog” and this frog cannot jump out any more. An all-out war with Iran would be a nuisance at this time. Rumors have it, some have actually begun to order Chinese food both “dine-in” and “carry-out/delivery” style.

  332. Liz2 says:

    richard steven hack:

    “That is a bizarre conclusion.”

    It shows that surveillance are working which is the object, it would have been one thing if US/israel were cluesless how Hamas gets it weapons.

    “So you’re conflating the thousands of miles of border with Iran with the vastly shorter border of Gaza and Egypt. And you don’t see anything wrong with that… And yet you think I should take your arguments seriously.”

    Once again, a war against Iran would probably be the most prepared war ever – they wont start a war if they think Iran could ship out weapons that could threat american/israeli interest, Iran have no power sending out weapons in such a case and will only risk losing them.

    “As for Turkey, fine, whatever… Assume Turkey will renege on its pledge not to allow the US to use its airbases for the war on Iran. Works for me.”

    Ingsignificant since the primary object is politically, not necessary military.

    “I see we have another Eric Brill here. Ask Eric what I mean by that…He knows.”

    Tell me instead – directly instead of playing games.

    “So now you think China will support a war with Iran. You’re delusional.”

    Of course they will. Look, you seems to overestimate alot of things. Whats important for China? Iran or the rest of the world? What does China need from Iran? Nothing. It already get more and more oil from the GCC and Saudiarabia. It seems that you didnt know that and get upset. Go figure why Saudi Arabia want to get closer to China.

    “The hell I do.”
    No problem, like I thought you had no proof for your claims.

    “But fine, you want to assume everything you say is correct, go right ahead. I’m not going to bother to disabuse you any more. Stay ignorant. You’ll fit right in here.

    I’m done discussing anything with you.”

    Seems like you get upset when asked for proof. Thats rather childish.

  333. US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4141689,00.html

    Yeah, right…”uncoordinated”…meaning Netanyahu won’t even bother to call Obama to tell him…

  334. New Book Disputes Obama Administration’s Account of Bin Laden Raid
    http://www.myfoxla.com/dpps/news/book-disputes-bin-laden-raid-dpgonc-20111021-to_15590563

    “Pfarrer also writes that it was within 90 seconds of the beginning of the raid that bin Laden was killed, not after an extended firefight.”

    Wonder why, eh? Couldn’t be they never wanted to take him alive, could it?

    Nyah…That’s just me being paranoid again.

  335. ‘Hackers’ cut Palestinian phone and internet systems
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15542820

    Gee. just when Israel has a new green light for a Gaza invasion…but only when a “massive rocket attack from Gaza has occurred.”

    Right.

    Any one else see a “three-fer” coming up: an attack on Gaza, an attack on Lebanon, an attack on Syria? No, of course not. Just exactly what I predicted many moons ago…But that’s just me…

  336. Escalation: Israel Green-Lights Invasion of the Gaza Strip
    http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/01/escalation-israel-greenlights-invasion-of-the-gaza-strip/

    If they can’t get to Iran, get to Syria and Lebanon. If they can’t get to Syria and Lebanon, go in to Gaza and kill a few more Palestinians.

  337. So of course, the IAEA cooperates in making the previous note irrelevant…

    Secret nuclear plant found in Syria – IAEA
    http://rt.com/news/syrian-secret-nuclear-plant-343/

    Except right now it’s a…cotton spinning plant.

    Don’t ask me, I don’t make this crap up…

  338. This is good if true. The problem is the US and the EU probably would go it alone if they couldn’t get a Security Council Resolution.

    Russia will not allow Libya-style military intervention in Syria
    http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=48833

    Notice that China also vetoed a resolution to impose sanctions on Syria.

    I think Russia and China know what is at stake if Syria is attacked – a war with Iran after another brutal attack on Lebanon.

  339. Pirouz_2: “I asked if US was trying to maintain hegemony in the ME inorder to maintain the existence of Israel”

    You actually asked two questions: that one and whether it was the other way around. I was pointing out that it isn’t an either/or situation. The real fact is that both the US and Israel are using each other to seize power.

    Also, you have to think about levels. Some people in the government and in the military-industrial complex, and the oil companies and banks, are Jewish and feel a strong identity to Israel. Some others, like Dick Cheney and the rest of the military-industrial complex and the like, don’t. Which is why I pointed out the WASPS/Catholics vs Jews point. One could probably find other distinguishing features that would divide Israel and the US if either of them thought they could go it alone.

    The reality is that the US – for now – has the power that Israel needs to leech off of in order to build up its own power and eventually be able to use the wars between its enemies in the Muslim world and the US to bleed the US to the point where even the US cannot prevent Israel from dominating the Middle East.

    Note the discussions below from others about the gas and other riches that Israel seeks to tap at the expense of the Arab world. And never forget that if the Middle East becomes a chaos of broken, ethnically and religiously divided states, that Israel may someday have the power to take over the entire Middle East and control the oil even against an economically and militarily weakened United States.

    Never forget Israel is one of the largest nuclear powers in the world, next only to the US, Russia, China (maybe), and perhaps one or two others. Israel is also the only country to explicitly threaten to use those nukes, even against US interests.

    “I really don’t think that “Israel” is (or ever will be) in a position to hegemonize even its own neighbours let alone the world.”

    Neither do I, despite what I said above.

    Doesn’t mean they won’t TRY.

    “The best that Israelies can hope for, is to be a useful tool in maintaining the Western hegemony (once this was the British then it became US) over this region to hope that that hegemony will benefit them for being an invaluable tool to that hegemony.”

    For now, certainly. But again, I’m considering what these Zionist nutcases want long term.

    “Brzezinski…argued that “the current US policies in the middle east does not help US hegemony in this region, but it weakens it. These policies may very well end up forcing US out of this region and without the US presence in this region, how long do you think the Israelies will be able to maintain their existence?””

    Actually, as long as they have those nukes, quite a while. And if the US were in any real sense “forced out” of the region, who do you think would immediately make efforts to see to it that they took over the hegemony the US lost? Israel, of course.

    And it is to this end that they seek to drag the US into one war after another with the Muslim world, with the intent of weakening not one, but BOTH, of those parties, while they slip between the cracks, protected by the US might from any serious damage while also using US might to break up and destroy any coherent Arab opposition to Israel’s ability to act unilaterally throughout the region, buttressed by their nuclear arsenal.

    And remember, broken up Arab states will never have the funds or expertise to make any countervailing nuclear arsenal. This is why Israel wants Iran destroyed, in addition to Iran’s geopolitical influence: to insure that Iran does not have and can never have even “nuclear breakout” capability – which by definition any nation which masters the full nuclear fuel cycle has. This is why Israel – and by extension, the US – will never rest until Iran does NOT have a functioning nuclear energy program that includes the fuel cycle.

    “So any US policies that weaken the US position of hegemony in ME will harm the Israeli position and security and interest as well.”

    Again, as I indicate above, not necessarily. He thinks in terms of somehow if the US is forced out that the Arab states would band together and create a powerful conventional military and perhaps nukes to counterbalance Israel.

    This is precisely what Israel is working toward insuring will never happen. And that can only be achieved by breaking up and impoverishing ALL the significant states in the Middle East – “from the Nile to the Euphrates” and beyond to Iran and Pakistan and perhaps even Turkey.

    Doesn’t matter if they will succeed. This is the game plan.

    “I really don’t think that it is about religion (be it Islam, chirstianity or judaism) or race (be it jews or arabs or anglo-saxons). In my opinion (and I suspect you disagree) it is about the requirements of capitalism and the class interests.”

    Again, it’s not an either-or issue. Issues of ethnicity, nationality, religion, culture, class – all these are merely markers for determining who is “US” vs who is “THEM”. If they have to reduce it to who wears what kind of Nike shoes, the monkeys will. It’s all about brown monkey vs pink monkey. It’s inherent in human primate nature.

    “I am really not sure what you are talking about in this part. What “outside parties”??”

    Radical Transhumanists. Or anyone else who comes up with some philosophy that doesn’t play the standard primate dominance games but instead aims to opt out of the games and of humanity itself.

  340. pirouz_2 says:

    Richard;

    You said: “Wrong question.”
    I really dont why you say it is the “wrong question”, becaue you yourself pretty much gave your own answer to that question, which means that that question was not so wrong. I asked if US was trying to maintain hegemony in the ME inorder to maintain the existence of Israel, and your answer was that no it was the other way around, that US tries to maintain the existence of Israel in order to maintain its own hegemony in this region. And with that part of your answer I 100% AGREE.

    “Therefore the US supports Israel in order to assist in attaining hegemony over the world.”

    Agreed almost 100%. Actualy in my opinion, US assists Israel in order to maintain its hegemony in the middle east, and it is most sensitive about its hegemony in the middle east because a hegemony in the middle east is indispensible to hegemonizing the whole globe (67% of the owrld oil reserves are in ME).

    “Israel supports the US in order to put itself in a position where it can undermine not only its enemies but the US as well in order to achieve hegemony over the world.”

    My position on the matter is somewhat different. I really don’t think that “Israel” is (or ever will be) in a position to hegemonize even its own neighbours let alone the world. The best that Israelies can hope for, is to be a useful tool in maintaining the Western hegemony (once this was the British then it became US) over this region to hope that that hegemony will benefit them for being an invaluable tool to that hegemony.
    A lot of people argue that the current US policies in the middle east do not help US in maintaining its hegemony but rather they help Israel. The best person who explained this issue in my opinion was Brzezinski who once argued that “the current US policies in the middle east does not help US hegemony in this region, but it weakens it. These policies may very well end up forcing US out of this region and without the US presence in this region, how long do you think the Israelies will be able to maintain their existence?” (I have rephrased his actual words, I dont remember his exact verbatim, but any one can find it by finding an interview that he and Kissinger had in 2008). So any US policies that weaken the US position of hegemony in ME will harm the Israeli position and security and interest as well.

    “Face it, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and Catholics who run the US don’t give a damn about Jews, and the Jews don’t give a damn about WASPS and the Pope. (Of course, some of the people running the US ARE Jews, but the principle remains the same.)”

    I really don’t think that it is about religion (be it Islam, chirstianity or judaism) or race (be it jews or arabs or anglo-saxons). In my opinion (and I suspect you disagree) it is about the requirements of capitalism and the class interests.

    “What if someone was so far OUTSIDE the geopolitical and social and religious games that they can use the resources of those engaged in those games for their own radical ends which have nothing to do with seizing power or money? What if these outside parties were so uninterested in gaining hegemony over the world that – almost by accident – they effectively achieved it de facto instead of de jure – by the very virtue of being outside the games? What if, in the end, these unknown parties didn’t “rule the world” like the rest of the game players – but just ruined it for the rest of the players? And the game players couldn’t do anything about it because they couldn’t even comprehend these third parties?”

    I am really not sure what you are talking about in this part. What “outside parties”??

  341. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 1, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Yes, Hubris it is “Hubris goeth before Fall”

    Just like GM.

  342. You may think this is irrelevant, but once again here is how the US – and the world – really works:

    The Men Behind The War On Women
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/the-men-behind-the-war-on_n_1069406.html

    Quote:

    In addition to having the support of the pro-life Democrats in the House, the bishops claimed to have the support of Catholic congregations around the country. They instructed all Catholic priests to talk about the Stupak Amendment during Mass, issued church bulletins and strongly urged Catholics and the clergy to oppose the entire health care bill if the abortion provision didn’t pass.

    “The bishops came out of nowhere,” said another staffer who worked on health care reform for a member of the pro-choice caucus. “They made their appearance during the health care debate, and all of a sudden were this hugely important group, like the NRA.”

    The Conference of Catholic Bishops is not technically a lobbying organization — churches are tax-exempt, and they don’t have to disclose publicly how much money they put toward lobbying. According to the IRS, a 501(c)(3) organization like the Conference can speak out on moral issues as much as it wants, but “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.”

    The Catholic clergy’s secret weapon is a man named Richard Doerflinger, who dropped out of a doctoral program in theology 31 years ago to work on abortion policy for the USCCB as Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. As the point person on pro-life issues for the bishops, Doerflinger says he has been helping lawmakers write anti-abortion bills behind the scenes for decades, including the Stupak Amendment. In 2008 he was recognized by the Gerald Health Foundation as one of the “greatest heroes of the pro-life movement.”

    And the bishops were not only influential in swaying votes during health care reform debate; Doerflinger said they actually helped Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) write the controversial anti-abortion amendment, which the House approved by a vote of 290 to 194.

    “Those bishops were literally sitting in Bart Stupak’s office and, from what we could tell, instructing him all about the laws he should be supporting, and the text of the laws, and the strategy of getting them through,” said Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women. “It was absolutely appalling.”

    The National Organization for Women has called for the bishops conference to lose its tax-exempt status over its lobbying activities.

    End Quote

    Sure – like I can see that latter bit happening… NOW has got a surprise coming – another lesson in how the world really works.

  343. Clint: “Bibi musters support for Iran attack — Haaretz:”

    Quote from that article:

    “Senior ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, due to be released on November 8, will have a decisive effect on the decisions Israel makes.”

    This is a complete joke. The ONLY evidence for Iran having any “nuclear weapons program” comes precisely from a laptop that the ISRAELIS THEMSELVES FORGED!

    Now the IAEA report – which has no new evidence according to reports, but is merely once again pushing the “laptop of death” – will be used as justification for Netanyahu to attack Iran!

    It would be laughable – and it IS laughable – except for the fact that it will cause (more) trillions of dollars of loss to the US taxpater, more millions of dead and displaced US and Iranian and other civilians, and the final erosion of what little civil rights anyone in the world has left.

    It will be EXACTLY the same situation as the forged Niger documents which Israel also forged which were discredited and then ended up in Colin Powell’s UN address justifying an attack on Iraq.

    You can’t make this stuff up, folks! Israel makes up lies about Iran, those lies are accepted by the only agency able to see through those lies, and then that agency uses those lies to convince the rest of Israel to attack Iran!

    It’s hilarious!

  344. pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 1, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    James;
    what was the point of that comment? I know your position on the issue and you know mine. Do you see me asking that question to Arnold or Eric? I dont ask that question to them, and nor do I tell Eric or Arnold my answer to that question because I KNOW their position on the issue and THEY KNOW my position on that issue. Any further repitition of my position on the issue to either one of them (or to you) would be like trying to force them to accept my point of view.
    I asked that question to CYRUS, because I wanted to know his opinion on the issue.

  345. Pirouz_2:

    “do you think that USA is pursuing hegemony just for the sake of maintaining Israel’s existence, or do you see the maintaining the existence of Israel as a means to maintain the US hegemony in this region?”

    Wrong question.

    There are two parties involved and everyone acts out of self-interest.

    Therefore the US supports Israel in order to assist in attaining hegemony over the world.

    Israel supports the US in order to put itself in a position where it can undermine not only its enemies but the US as well in order to achieve hegemony over the world.

    In other words, everyone is out for themselves and all alliances are temporary right up to the moment when they stab each other in the back.

    Face it, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and Catholics who run the US don’t give a damn about Jews, and the Jews don’t give a damn about WASPS and the Pope. (Of course, some of the people running the US ARE Jews, but the principle remains the same.)

    The US doesn’t trust Israel and Israel doesn’t trust the US. (The lames in Congress don’t count, they’re just patsies who do what they’re told by the people who get them elected – just as Obama only does what he’s told by the Crown and Pritzker families in Chicago.)

    The problem for such parties is: what if someone was out to stab EVERYONE – every human being – in the back?

    What if someone was so far OUTSIDE the geopolitical and social and religious games that they can use the resources of those engaged in those games for their own radical ends which have nothing to do with seizing power or money? What if these outside parties were so uninterested in gaining hegemony over the world that – almost by accident – they effectively achieved it de facto instead of de jure – by the very virtue of being outside the games? What if, in the end, these unknown parties didn’t “rule the world” like the rest of the game players – but just ruined it for the rest of the players? And the game players couldn’t do anything about it because they couldn’t even comprehend these third parties?

    That’s the correct approach to all this.

  346. Cyrus: “Please now take the next step and tell us WHY.”

    They don’t dare. They would be accused of being anti-Semitic and that would be the kiss of death for their tenure and other sources of income.

    On an even deeper level, they would have to admit to admit to themselves that the US is corrupt beyond all account – and that is a position few US citizens can take because it causes cognitive dissonance. No one – or at least no one who is not prepared to take total responsibility for his own survival – is willing to believe that their lives are in the hands of the totally corrupt and totally ruthless. It’s too “scary.” So they have to continue to believe that they have some means of “making a difference” – despite all evidence to the contrary throughout human history.

    The real problem will come when a force opposed to the current rulers which is far more powerful and far more ruthless than the current rulers pays the bill the cowards in the US aren’t willing to pay.

    Because when that bill is paid, everyone not totally responsible for their own survival will go down together along with the corrupt rulers they allowed to manipulate them all their lives.

    I assure you: no mercy will be shown – because the minds behind the bill payers will not be human and have no conception of human emotions like “mercy”.

    In the meantime, for the next few decades, those in the know will concentrate on looting the rulers of every dime and every secret they possess and turning it all into the power to pay those bills humans dare not pay. That and that alone is what can be meant by “making a difference,”

    And this is possible because, as the meme I used to espouse over at computer security guru Bruce Schneier’s blog states (before I got banned for a “bad attitude”): “There is no security. Suck it up.” This applies to the rulers as much – or even more so – than it does to the ruled.

    That is the “Great Secret.” It’s like the Slashdot meme:

    1) Break someone’s security.

    2) ????

    3) PROFIT!!

    In this case “????” translates into: convert corrupt resources into power enabling technology.

    It’s an alchemical tradition: converting base lead into gold. And the alchemists were right: because in THIS process, the end result really is is immortality.

    And as some ancient Gnostics believed, “There is an Immortal Man before God.” Most historians think this referred to the notion of such a man coming before God in time. What it really means is such a man confronting God in God’s (man’s) future through the rise of wisdom (in reality, technology) in man.

    Transhuman Man will outwit God (normal man) – and in that moment, human history will end. And bloody good riddance.

    In the meantime: you have no security. Suck it up. The Iran war will start when your rulers are good and ready and there’s nothing you can do about it but sit back and enjoy the show as your end of the economy (unless you work for a defense or security contractor) evaporates and your taxes rise and your Social Security disappears – and maybe some Arab terrorist blows up your office building, or a car near you, or some suicide bomber stands next to you on your evening commute.

    Have a nice day.

  347. kooshy says:

    James

    This British regime has no shame, obviously not any better than the sister regime in Washington

    “LONDON (AP) — Governments must not clamp down on Internet and mobile phone networks at times of social unrest, the British government said Tuesday — weeks after suggesting police should do just that during riots.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNzfkVpxnLmBcgyvG4z0Zi3q0Dzg?docId=4a79d044eaff469fa55143adb3f1cf19

  348. Mr. Canning: I will amend my unwillingness to further discuss with you to remind you vis-a-vis this: “the ineresting question is why the money sent from Iran to the “plotter” apparently was intended to come to the notice of the FBI” – that it is quite possible for Mossad or the CIA or even any number of third parties to hijack any Iranian accounts and set up a fake transfer of funds.

    Any hacker worth his salt can do this to your bank account or any corporation’s bank account provided he can use “social engineering” or “phishing” or other computer security bypass techniques to drop a trojan on the relevant computer and capture the account owner’s login ID and password to the bank.

    Happens every day.

  349. Rehmat says:

    Well – the Israel Lobby feel that before Occupy Wall Street movement find out who is the major beneficiary of the crooks in the Wall Strret is – it’s better to open a new war front to divert peoples’ attention from the 1% vultures sucking blood out of 99% Americans.

    The Zionist mafia is scared to death on the thought that the popular Occupied Wall Street (OWS) movement could turn into an anti-Zionism Tsunami. They fear that when more and more people will learn the unspoken truth; the Wall Street is controlled by Jews and Zionists (Allen Sanford, Robert Rubin, Jamie Dimon, Llyod Blankfien, Stephen Friedman, Madoff, etc. to name a few) – they may turn against Wall Street’s main beneficiary, the Zionist state of Israel….

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/ows-is-turning-into-anti-zionism-tsunami/

  350. Kathleen says:

    Follow those checks

  351. Clint says:

    James,
    Babara slavin essentially implicated the Saudis.

    No real Intel agency sends $50,000 via wire since it is known that anything over 10,000 is flagged by US.

    And it is not at all clear the money was wired from Iran.

    Read the deposition — it is online.

    The used car dealer was duped into doing more than the drug deal he got involved with.

    Entrapment.

  352. James Canning says:

    Harriet Sherwood has good report on Israel’s foolish response to Unesco’s admission of Palestine.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/israel-settlement-growth-unesco-vote-palestinians

    And how many stooges of Netanyahu in the US Congress will condemn the growing of the illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank? Answer: none.

  353. James Canning says:

    Writing in The New York Times today (“Israel and the Apartheid Slander”), Richard J. Goldstone claims that “many of Israel’s neighbors refuse to accept its existence”. Goldstone fails to mention that all Arab countries agree to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

  354. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Propagandists for close relations between Israel and the US try to justify the huge expense this brings to the American taxpayer by claiming Israel helps the US to control the Middle East. Or some such. Which is rubbish.

  355. pirouz_2 says:

    Cyrus says:
    November 1, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Cyrus;
    What’s your answer to the question of “why”? I suspect that you will say “Israel”? If that is the case, do you see “Israel” as an end in itself, or do you see it as a means to some other end? Or in other words, do you think that USA is pursuing hegemony just for the sake of maintaining Israel’s existence, or do you see the maintaining the existence of Israel as a means to maintain the US hegemony in this region?

  356. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning at 1:46 pm:

    So, China is building a pipeline near the Red Sea.

    Germany is building railroads in Saudi Arabia.

    the bin Laden family is chief developer of a bridge between Djibouti and Yemen, and new cities at either end of that major project that will join Africa & Arabia.

    US is building drones to kill people.

    Hubris

  357. fyi says:

    hans says: November 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    In regards to gas supplies to Europe; Russia has the predominant position followed by Algeria and others.

    There is no gas market in Europe worth Iran’s trouble of trying to get into.

    In fact, there is no need for Iran to compete with either Algeria or Russia – there are no margings in it.

    Iranian gas will eventually supply China and India but not Europe; that game is not worth playing.

    In regards to the situation in Libya; Iranians could not prevent NATO from bombing Libya. And they had no strategic reasons to support the Qaddafi Rulership. So they made the best of the situation.

    Iranian leaders do not wish to tie Iran to any other great power; that would be a fundamental negation of the “Neither East nor West” of the Iranian Revolution. Nor commensurate with psyche of the isnular people of Iran.

    Thus strategic alliances with Russia, EU, US, China, India or any other global power or aspirant is not in the realm of possibility.

    Iranians will almost certainly build on their successes in Iraq and in Lebanon.

    And Syria -with or without the Alawite rule – will remain a strategic Iranian allie.

    That leaves Pakistan and Afghanistan.

  358. Cyrus says:

    “These are things which no U.S. administration—not even the Obama Administration—has been willing to do”

    Yes, we know this. It is pretty clear now for several years.

    Please now take the next step and tell us WHY.

  359. Fiorangela says:

    Voice of Tehran, thank you for the link; additional information is welcome.

    Ron Paul has been studying the matter of the Ponzi scheme nature of central banking for many years. I’m currently reading his book, “End the Fed.” Paul urges his readers to study Hayak, Murray Rothbard, and others. A great deal of information is offered on the von Mises Institute website.

    After borrowing Niall Ferguson’s volumes on the Rothschilds from the library about a dozen times, I finally bought copies for myself. Unknown Unknowns urged me to “keep eyes peeled” and read stuff like that carefully, so that’s what I’m trying to do (but then, UU has younger eyeballs than mine–his will grow back if he peels them).

    The question is, though, is it enough merely to try to learn enough to understand what is going on, or does that just create a kind of autistic situation, in which it’s difficult to adequately communicate the knowledge gained, not least in order to protect one’s own loved ones from the inevitable havoc to come.

    A few months ago someone on this forum (I think) linked to a video by a man named XXX Silver, who explained how some few giant finance men were manipulating world financial and commodities markets to satisfy their own greed. I watched the video, but now I can’t find it again. Anyone have any idea what I’m talking about?

  360. hans says:

    fyi says:
    November 1, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    fyi, it is not irrelevant. Iran has to make a decision of which side it will support. Turkey and Lebanon (HezB has already said it will fight Israel for this commodity) or back Russia. Iran has already made a bad choice with regards to Libya. It’s determination to get to the bottom of Sadr is what made Iran join with NATO in backing the rats called TNC. I think Iran will open a hornets nest when the investigation starts. They are parties in both Iran and Lebanon who might not want this investigation to happen. watch and see there will be no investigation. just saying CIA and all that!

  361. James Canning says:

    How many hundreds of billions of dollars were squandered by the US on the Iraq War quagmire, because General Petraeus (and Robert Gates) talked G W Bush into ignoring the sound advice of the Iraq Study Group? (To get out of Iraq asap after making deals with Syria and Iran.) Jack Keane was a principal adviser to Petraeus.

  362. James Canning says:

    Retired US army general Jack Keane is of course a well-known neocon warmonger who actually believes the US “won” the Iraq War! And that Obama is making an absolutely disastrous mistake in withdrawing US troops when in effect that is being demanded by the government of Iraq! Keane claims Iran will “strangle” Iraq!

  363. James Canning says:

    We all should remember how the grossly incompetent National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, rushed around the country shouting that a “mushroom cloud” would be how the US learned Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme. Much better to invade on basis of knowingly false intelligence.

  364. James Canning says:

    I hope someone has the patience to listen to the retired idiot US general, Jack Keane, as he testified before McCaul. Does he mention Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U? When he claims Iran is unwilling to negotiate? Or is he just an unashamed whore?

  365. James Canning says:

    The idiot Republican warmonger from Texas, or one of the idiot Republican warmongers from that state, Michael McCaul said recently: “Our message for Iran should be simple – - continue threatening the national security of the US and have no doubt there will be a puntive response”. McCaul was of course referring to the so-called “plot”. And the idiot Republican warmonger linked the so-called plot to the 1983 bombing of the US Marines’ barracks in Beirut!

    McCaul listened to testimony from a well-known idiot warmonger, retired US general Jack Keane. Who complained the sanctions against Iran have not been strong enough!

  366. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    Thanks for the link. Levitt was of course one of the prominent warmongers of the Israel lobby the idiot Republican warmonger, mcCaul, called to Capitol Hill last week to testify. He joined two other prominent warmongers.

    WINEP has lobbied for the partition of Syria and Iran, and of course Iraq. All to facilitate the insane Greater Israel scheme.

  367. James Canning says:

    Lysander,

    You think the US will try to increase sectarian divisions in Iraq, after years of warfare in that country that arose from those sectarian divisions?

  368. Rd. says:

    Dr. Matthew Levitt reveals that he had received a

    Contract from U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Army Directed Studies Office for $77,883 to conduct a day long conference on Iran in January, 2010.

    Not only can Israel get the Pentagon to swallow its anti-Iranian propaganda — it gets them to pay through the nose for it too.

    Keep at DOD, till you go broke…. and these guys are going to wage another war???

    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/u-s-defense-dept-paid-israel-lobby%e2%80%99s-think-tank-director-77883-for-one-day-conference-on-iran/

  369. Voice of Tehran says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 1, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    You wrote:
    “…So I wondered if the entire western central banking system would finally come crashing down, …”

    There are many aspects to this issue and I wonder if I will ever understand the Ponzi scheme ruling our world since ursury ( money printing , lending ” WUCHERZINS ” etc.) became a fixed and official practice of financial elites generations ago , coupled with sinister financial derivates/products which were invented some 3 decades ago by the same circle in addition to privately owned central banking systems ( Fed , BoE etc.).
    May be the postion of a person like G.Soros could explain more where we are heading to , noting that this man is just a symbol of a much bigger scenario.
    I found this article by coincidence , there are many other expert views with much more depth , however I don’t want to take your time :

    http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/7323-george-soros-funded-by-the-house-of-rothschild

  370. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    The US ranks between 20th and 31st globally, among countries, for quality of raods, bridges, airports, harbors, etc etc etc. Meanwhile, idiot politicians have squandered trillions of dollars on foolish military adventures in the greater Middle East. Not to mention more trillions of dollars on useless or unncessary weapons, unnecessary foreign troop deployments, etc.

  371. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    One reason China is growing rich fairly quickly is it has avoided squandering colossal sums on its military. Meanwhile, Obama pours $2 billion per week down the rathole in Afghanistan.

    Did you notice China will be building a $1.4 billion oil refinery in Saudi Arabia? On Red Sea coast. The American outfit (ConocoPhillips) withdrew.

  372. Fiorangela says:

    hans,

    true, Israel already claims to have substantial gas resources in the Mediterranean. A Texas (aka Rick Perry land) company, Noble, is developing some of the fields. Bibi anticipates that Israel will become extremely wealthy from this resource.

    If, as you say, Greece is allied with Israel in gas development in the Mediterranean; and
    IF, as I reported, Israel has $70 billion in reserves in its treasury, and
    IF, as Tom Ashcroft and associated experts noted in discussions this morning, the EU needs $100 billion to cover Greek debts, money which “only China is wealthy enough to provide,” — but which may not be precisely true, according to Clyde Prestowitz, also a guest expert on Ashcroft’s program–

    Then it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Israel will partner with some few others to lend Greece the money to bail out Greece, in exchange for capitulation of Greek interests in Mediterranean energy resources. Israel stands to become an overwhelming financial powerhouse in the region and the world.

    The US is incapable of lending the money, because Israel’s demands for US war making in the Middle East, for the benefit of Israel, have weakened US moral and financial status; and the activities of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Blankfein, Sandy Weil, and their associates & flunkies, have destroyed the US financial system, for the benefit of the few; and US Treasury Dept has been used by the likes of Stuart Levey for a shake-down entity rather than to properly husband the Treasure of the American people, so — US is broke. Not only can US NOT step in to bail out Greece, US is in debt to China, that lender of first resort who CAN bail out Greece, if it chooses to do so.

    For its part, Israel is sitting pretty, its treasury plump and lendable at whatever interest rate the market will bear, thanks to the downright uncanny foresight of Stan Fischer. WhatEVER made him think it would be a good idea to save money for a rainy day? (Anybody ever think about how dual citizenship grants the ability to move money from struggling US banks where savings earn .05%, to an Israeli bank where funds can be borrowed from US Fed at just about 0% and deposited to earn 3%? Can you or I get that deal?)

    Dennis Ross (aka Rainmaker), Obama’s right hand on Middle East policy, foresaw this eventuality when he became the founding chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI) and, among the first orders of business of JPPPI, called for a study of Israel-China relations, in view of the eventual demise of the US as the world’s economic superpower. Another act of amazing foresight.

    A caller to Ashcroft’s program this morning complained bitterly that “China has had this long range plan all along, to save its money and accumulate huge reserves.” Well, yea, that’s what smart managers of a nation’s economy do; China has a 20 year plan; it’s what the Israeli treasurer did; Israel has a 20 year plan. It’s what the US treasurer should have been doing–does the US Treasurer have a 20 year plan, or has the US Treasury dept. been too busy chasing “terrorists” and shaking down anyone who did business with Iran?

    The financial situation the US is in has very close parallels to the situation that confronted Germany in the early 20th century–as Ashcroft observed, “the last time such a major shift of power took place”: then, from Great Britain to US; now, from US to China — as Great Britain was facing the collapse of its empire. It did not end well for millions of German, French, Italian, British, Japanese and American people. Millions of Arabs came out of the era of two wars with their nationalist hopes dashed, a situation that persists until this day. The inconvenient eruption of an “Arab Spring” has forced the US State Department to simultaneously improvise and accelerate its Shock Doctrine-Disaster Capitalism scheme to KEEP the Arab/Islamic Middle East under US hegemony, in a situation reminiscent of Churchill’s efforts to embroil US in Britain’s war to save the British empire, a scheme with which Franklin Roosevelt was only too willing to cooperate. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Israel came out of the debacle with a ‘state’ and with an inflow of an almost perpetual stream of “reparations” and “foreign aid” revenue, and human capital from some of the world’s finest universities, in addition to replacing its hold on the German economy with vastly broader influence over the much larger economic and political systems of the United States.

  373. James Canning says:

    Kathleen,

    Many “talking heads” on TV, and radio commentators, in the US, are essentially stooges of plutocratic Jews who want to enable Israel to continue its insane Greater Israel scheme, and they see Iran as posing a problem. These talking heads see their own careers as profiting from their particpation in the scheme to deceive the ignorant and rather stupid American public.

  374. James Canning says:

    It continues to fascinate me that there has been no response from the Obama administration, to Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U. Didn’t we hear a lot of noise from various warmongering American politicians, that Iran’s production of 20% U was a way-station on the road to weapons-grade U production?

  375. Kathleen says:

    “Furthermore, if one actually speaks with Iranian officials (something that the United States government, as a matter of policy, bars itself from doing)—or even Iranian analysts supportive of the Islamic Republic (which the mainstream media are reluctant to do)—what comes across is a strong sense that the Obama Administration’s recent accusations against the Islamic Republic are a manifestation of American desperation.”

    For several days these accusations against Iran were on every MSM outlet on the front of local papers (the Dayton Daily News/Ohio) had a front page claiming “Iran officials involved with attack” Neil Conan of Talk of the nation claimed that the Obama administration had the goods on Iranian officials when I called in and objected to the claims being put forth as verifiable evidence. Asked him to have the Leveretts on his program to discuss Iran based on facts. Has he or NPR’s Talk of the Nation called you folks yet?

    Has Chris Matthews had you on his program yet? Rachel Maddow? What do they have against scholars who can discuss Iran based on solid information and experience?

    How many more Americans did they get on the “let’s go get Iran” stage by inflaming the situation?

  376. James Canning says:

    Clint,

    Clearly a drugs “sting” was the basis for the scheme; the ineresting question, at least to me, is why the money sent from Iran to the “plotter” apparently was intended to come to the notice of the FBI.

  377. James Canning says:

    Lysander,

    Iraqi oil contracts have been given based on the best deal that a particular company offered, not on the politics of the country where that company was based. This is unlikely to change.

  378. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    The overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq was a catastrophe for the people of that country, as it cleared the way for a monster like Saddam Hussein.

    One might argue the overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy also was a disaster for Iran.

  379. James Canning says:

    The two wire transfers of a total of nearly 100,000, from a bank account in Iran, obviously would have been expected to come immediately to the notice of the FBI etc. because they were of sums larger than $10,000. Is this correct?

  380. fyi says:

    hans says: November 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    The disposition of gas in Eastern Mediterranean Sea is irrelevant to Iran.

    Iranians are not going to care about European gas markets – too many suppliers there, not worth the competition for Iran.

  381. hans says:

    This is a diversionary tactic, the next big challenge for Iran is the offshore gas that is available around Cyprus, Israel and Lebanon. How will Iran play this, knowing that Israel will go to war over it.

    Russia has sided with Cyprus, Greece and Israel. This is a strategic play for GAZPROM. Turkey has threatened retaliation if exploration or drilling takes place. Where will Iran’s interest lie? Shortly results of some exploration tests will be made available, the marine demarcation lines are not well defined as Israel has no official border?

    Anyone care to elaborate, this is will play out starting on the 11 Nov or close to either side.

  382. Fiorangela says:

    slightly off topic: this morning Tom Ashbrook discussed the European debt crisis and, especially, the fact that China was the party of FIRST resort who was asked to write the big check. Ashbrook’s question was, does this signal a major power shift from transatlantic to Asia, rather, China?

    The Greek prime minister has called for a referendum to allow the people of Greece to vote on their willingness to undergo austerity measures in exchange for bail out capital from other EU states. This naked resort to raw, brutal democracy has thrown the West into a tizzy.

    The fact that China, rather than US/New York banks, was the lender of first resort, signals an even greater downward spiral, exemplified in the plunging stock markets.

    Ashbrook asked his guest experts what they thought China would demand of the West, in return for a bailout. One expert said China would demand acceptance as a market economy, and for the west to get off its back regarding human rights violations.

    Another expert said, “Hold your horses; other states have money socked away; they can help out.” (Which caused me to recall that Stan Fischer, Israel’s US-trained finance minister, has stashed some $70 billion in Israel’s reserves, for a rainy — or lendy –day. hmmm, wonder where tiny Israel got that kind of money while simultaneously amassing the most powerful military in the region, providing health care and housing and education subsidies to Jewish Israelis?)

    So I wondered if the entire western central banking system would finally come crashing down, and also if China’s ascent would signal a shift in US foreign policy toward Iran, and US obeisance to Israel.

    China did vote FOR inclusion of Palestine in UNESCO. Will an ascending China signal more equitable rights for Arabs/Muslims in the Middle East?

  383. fyi says:

    Lysander says: November 1, 2011 at 11:19 am

    You are right.

    In 1950s, every state around Iran – minus Afghanistan – was ahead of Iran in almost any category that you care to imagine.

    Iraq was certainly ahead; and she had the potential to be the bread-basket of the Middle East – they could harvest twice a year.

    And then they had the oil money to invest in infrastructure.

    But no, they got hijacked by the Ba’ath and went the neo-NAZI way.

  384. Lysander says:

    The new independence of Iraq potentially adds an entirely new dimension to regional balance of power politics. Assuming Iraq manages to stabilize and rebuild over the next decade (hardly a given) it can emerge as the Anti-Saudi Arabia. Meaning it will have comparable oil wealth and the means to spend it as it sees fit. Meaning it can buy the loyalty of regional journalists and counter the influence of Saudi (and now Qatari) media. It can influence politicians in the Arab world the way KSA does now and encourage them to take a more sympathetic line towards the resistance. Countries that want to have oil contracts in Iraq, may find that they are given out based on their relationship with Iran. Overtly hostile countries cold be left out in the cold.

    And Iraq has the advantage of water and arable land in addition to oil. This can all be a game changer. At the same time, KSA’s growing population and increasing use of its own oil will hamper it. Also, KSA production is probably at it’s peak. Iraq’s has enormous room to grow.

    For Iran, it seems they will be able to circumvent most sanctions through Iraq. And they will have a new market.

    Of course, none of that may happen. Iraq has serious sectarian divisions and plenty of countries that would love to exacerbate them. Covertly (and overtly) it is almost certain the KSA/USA will do everything they can to stir up Sunni-Shia divisions.

    But there is no guarantee they will succeed, and Iran and Iraq can become a very powerful regional force if unified.

  385. Clint says:

    This “plot” was CLEARLY a case of entrapment (also known as sting).

    There is a long pattern of the USG doing this.

    e.g.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/nyregion/defendant-in-bronx-synagogue-bombing-plot-is-sentenced.html

    quote from New York Times article above:

    “United States District Judge Colleen McMahon said Wednesday in Manhattan that she was not proud of the government’s role in nurturing the plot and criticized its handling of the case.

    “The government made them terrorists,” she said.”

    =============================================

    The very same thing happened here.

    The USG needs to calm down and check their moronic, flawed and anti-American “law”-enforcement policies.

  386. fyi says:

    In regards to Khobar: Mr. Richard Clarck has publicly stated that US retaliated for that bombing by “doing something very bad” to Iranians.