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

The Race for Iran


Flynt appeared on Al Jazeera Friday, see video above, to discuss press reports, see here, that the Obama Administration has at least temporarily backed off its plans to impose sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran (CBI).  As Flynt points out, the idea of sanctioning the CBI is nothing new.  Neoconservatives and their fellow travelers in the Obama Administration have wanted to it for some time—above all, because it is a “back door” way of imposing an international embargo on Iranian oil exports. 

But there have always been powerful arguments against sanctioning the CBI (which may have something to do with neither the Bush Administration of the Obama Administration actually moving ahead with the idea).  The notion of sanctioning the CBI would be truly bad policy.  So why, over the past few weeks, did the Obama Administration start what looked like it might be a serious effort (at least by the Obama Administration’s standards) to drum up international support for doing it?  As Flynt notes, the answer—which often seems to be a major part of the explanation for bad foreign policy decisions by Obama—is domestic politics. 

The Obama Administration is under mounting pressure from pro-Israel constituencies and the Congress to sanction the CBI.  This pressure helps to explain not only the Administration’s decision to start an international drive for tougher sanctions against Iran (including, potentially, sanctions on the CBI), but also the otherwise bizarre timing of its high-profile accusations—advanced by no less than the Attorney General and President Obama himself—of Iranian government complicity in an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, see here.     

In essence, the Team Obama hoped that its sensational charges against Tehran would persuade otherwise resistant third countries to reconsider imposing sanctions on the CBI—thereby allowing it to look “tough” and hold Congress’s latest proposals for truly idiotic Iran sanctions laws at bay.  (Both houses of Congress are considering bills that, if enacted, would not only push the executive branch toward sanctioning the CBI but would also prohibit any U.S. diplomat from talking to an Iranian official unless Congress were notified at least 15 days in advance, and the President claimed that contact was necessary to avoid severe harm to U.S. national security.)  But the master plan did not work.  As senior U.S. officials have traveled to Europe and Asia during the past couple of weeks to shop around the idea of sanctioning the CBI, the response has not been encouraging, to say the least.   

Frankly, no one other than Gulf Arab elites and a few pliable Europeans (mostly British, as far as we can tell) believes the Obama Administration’s story about Iranian government sponsorship of a plot to kill Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.  Furthermore, whatever the merits of the Administration’s claims, buying Iranian crude and avoiding a major, price-raising disruption of international oil markets is simply more important for many substantial international players than accommodating the latest in Washington’s never-ending stream of petty gripes against the Islamic Republic. 

And, so, once again, the Obama Administration must try to make the best of a bad situation of its own devising.  Thus, Administration officials, speaking on background, tell reporters that they have decided to back off sanctioning the CBI because they do not want oil prices to go higher.  But the claim is dishonest on its face.  If that were the Administration’s priority, why shop around the idea of sanctioning the CBI in the first place?  What is disheartening is that the Administration was prepared to go through with this; it just could not find enough willing partners to do so. 

Moreover, the issue of sanctioning the CBI is not going away.  Motivated by pro-Israel constituencies and election-year politics, Congress will continue pressing for sanctions legislation that, if enacted, would be profoundly damaging to American interests.  If the Administration really wants to head this off, at some point, President Obama will have to find his own political backbone.  Given his Administration’s record on Iran policy, we are not optimistic about this prospect.       

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett



  1. James Canning says:


    Wasn’t one reason for the great rise in wealth and power in Europe, centuries ago, the direct result of dumping the Catholic Church’s prohibition on interest, into the rubbish bin?

  2. James Canning says:


    Yes, the Weekly Standard is a primary propaganda organ of warmongering Jews, and other fanatical “supporters” of Israel right or wrong. Neocon central. A facilitator of illegal wars, foolish American policy in the Middle East, etc.

  3. James Canning says:


    The control of the US Congress by powerful special interests, including of course Aipac et al., should be contrasted with what obtains in the British parliament. The issue is not “capitalism”; instead, a large part of the problem simply stems from the fact the gross corruption in the US Congress generally is not exposed in US newspapers. While in the UK, corruption is sure to be splashed across front pages of the newspapers, day in and day out.

    Powerful law firms in the US have fostered a great deal of the corruption.

  4. James Canning says:


    For insight into the reasons Israel in fact is sensitive to international public opinion, I suggest you read “Greater Israel – – or Peace” in the November 2011 American Conservative magazine.

    Israel killed between 15,000 and 20,000 Lebanese in 1982. 1,200 Lebanese in 2006. 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza 2008-09.

    Some Israelis have hoped for mass expulsions of the Palestinians from the West Bank, exploiting the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and other events. Norman Finkelstein says (in the article): “If you read the Israeli newspapers, they’re always talking about the transfer. They can’t do it because public opinion puts real constrainst on them.”

  5. James Canning says:


    Re: your claim it was irrelevant if the IAEA had approved Iran’s application to buy the needed fuel for the TRR. Iran says it only commenced enriching to 20% because the application had not been approved. I think you are mistaken to believe Iran would have commenced the enriching to 20% etc if the needed fuel had in fact been delivered.

  6. Anon says:

    Also see the view of the US Director of National Intelligence from 2011:


    “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”. [8]

    This jibes with the Intelligence community’s 2007 NIE, the unclassified version of which publicly stated that Iran wrapped up its nuclear weapons program in 2003. 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”. [9]

    To be clear, what the NIE and the State Department cables refer to as Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” (or “weaponization”) pre-2003 was some possible – but disputed – evidence of research by Iranian scientists having to do building and potentially delivering a bomb, not a full-blown actual bomb factory.

    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.” [10]

    Indeed, every year, the IAEA has confirmed that Iran has complied with its nuclear materials’ accountancy. There has never been any diversion of nuclear material into any alleged weapons program.

  7. Anon says:

    Allah be praised! — someone in the West has a rational opinion of the IAEA report:


  8. Anon says:

    I agree with masoud — I see Arnold Evans posted there — good work.

    Here is what I would like someone (someone with a Western sounding handle so it is not censored) to post. In the nicest possible terms please point out the Pierre Goldschmidt says:


    “…the Department of Safeguards doesn’t have the legal authority it needs to fulfill its mandate and to provide the assurances the international community is expecting from its verification activities. ”

    Well, that’s really too bad but this was done by design.

    Many of us have been trying to point this out to the “international community”

    Can someone post that on armscontrolwonk.com ? My IP has been blocked!

    Wanker that Jeffrey Lewis. He’s also overweight and pimply.

  9. Jon says:

    Why does people think israel care about whats right/or not, israel havent paid attention to international laws or UN resolutions so why would they start now? 487 is useless to stop israel.

  10. masoud says:


    If I had to guess, I would say the question of how to secure funding for his department likely has a big impact on Lewis, or at least on where he draw his red lines. That said, I have seen him in the past try to be ‘fair’, in his own way. The critical comment I posted on his site on the first ‘Hasaka’ post for example, was almost immediately censored, but eventually he went back and published it(I don’t know when exactly, but if I had to guess i’d say it was when he realized the who the thing was BS). I think he’s pretty much like most Americans: he doesn’t like to think of himself as benignly tolerant, and if you point out that he isn’t, he loses his temper. I was somewhat befuddled as to why he started publishing my comments in the first place. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that he would like his comments section to look like it has ‘all sides’ represented. Anyway I do agree with Anon that more people should try to comment, but I say doing so under one name is enough and that you can do so without the random IP proxy. And yeah, Mark Hibbs does seem like a standout guy in general. Why can’t more Americans act like him?

  11. fyi says:

    Empty says: November 8, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    “Clean Islamic Finance” like the Qarz al Hasna that is being used for laundering of drug money in Khorasan?

    What price mindless adherence to 800-year long clap-trap?

    May be Iranians should next start living in tents as well?

  12. Clint says:

    Obama replied: You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!


    Why? Why does deal with Bibi “every day” ?????? Puppetmaster?

  13. Clint says:

    the importance of UNSCR487 is that it still stands.

    yes, US would veto it today but that is not relevant.

    What is relevant is that it passed and says:

    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;

    *****====>>> 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.

  14. Humanist says:


    Thanks a lot for leading me to an amazing UNSC document.

    Then in 1981 things were not the same as these days. Reagan didn’t veto the resolution. Don’t you think these days passing any resolution against Israel is very unlikely?

    I think other RFI participants too might like to read the resolution in detail:

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 487
    JUNE 19, 1981

    The Security Council,

    Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280,
    Having noted the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509),

    Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings,

    Taking note of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Agency’s Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981,

    Further taking note of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the “military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency” (S/14532),

    Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

    Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty,
    Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

    Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”,

    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.

  15. Clint says:

    Humanist, Eric: please google UN security council resolution 487.

    Israel has no such right.

  16. Clint says:

    One politician calling another a liar is kind of funny anyway.

    But what is important is that Obama has “to deal with him [Bibi] every day”

    why every day???

  17. Humanist says:


    The story of Congress is truly mind boggling How AIPAC managed to achieve such a complex objective?

    On the surface the complete opposite seems very unlikely ie US controlling the Keenest. If so why? What has happened to good old USA? Has Capitalism corrupted the country to the bone? If not what else?

  18. Humanist says:


    Re: your 12:07pm note

    Facts are indeed stubborn things. If I put my novice philosophical hat I would say “A more stubborn fact is that ‘facts’ have a lifetime of their own” (some live for hours, others have survived for millennius) No scientist in old days imagined some well-established classical laws in physics or biology will someday become, at best, sets of meaningless assumptions

    You are a lawyer, professionals who‘must’ establish facts to win their case. It seems at times those ‘facts’ are fuzzy yet are deeply sensible.

    For instance I wonder what will be your verdict on the following fuzzy case:

    Has Israel the right to crash whoever stands on its way?

    We often hear Israelis claiming “we reserve the right to defend ourselves (in any way we see fit?)”. One can see the fallacy of that argument ie in any dispute, logically, that right should belong only to the victimized defender, not to the aggressive offender. As an example in any civilized society, in a court of law if a killer (victimized killer such as a badly abused wife) proves she was basically a nice lady but since she was repeatedly (in vicious ways) beaten, injured or molested by her husband she was ‘driven’ to become a killer.

    Is then her acquittal always a certainty?

    Or since the angel of justice is blind she must always go to jail?

  19. Dan Cooper says:

    Sarkozy Calls Netanyahu ‘Liar’

    Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents.

    Sarkozy declared: I cannot stand Benjamin Netanyahu, He is a liar.

    Obama replied: You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!


  20. Rehmat says:

    Lobby: ‘US lets Iran become a nuclear power’

    Well, that’s what Lee Smith, senior editor Weekly Standard wrote on October 19, 2011. The Weekly Standard was founded by radical Zionist Jew Willian Kristol in 1995. The magazine is funded by Israel lobby groups like American Enterprise Institute, Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Hudson Institute. The writers include Jewish Islamophobes like John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, David Brooks and John Yoo……


  21. Clint says:

    Anon: agree with you on Jeffery Lewis being a bit of a wanker. He’s tendentious but accuses others of the same. But his blog is well read unfortunately.

  22. Jon says:

    Moonofalambama site have a short analysis of the report, more to come tommoroww:


  23. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    I kid about a lot of things…this is definitely not one of them.

  24. James Canning says:


    Are you kidding?

  25. James Canning says:

    Simon Tisdall good comments at the Guardian (“Iran could be the unmaking of Obama’s presidency”)


    Quote: “Another aspiring commander-in-chief, Rick Santorum, describes Iran as the ‘enemy’. It is campaign-trail nonsense but it is dangerous nonsense. ..”

    Santorum, of course, is a warmongering idiot.

  26. Empty says:

    About the topic of this thread………

    If the US continues to build support for sanctions against Iran’s central bank, this would be an excellent opportunity and blessing for Iran to seriously do away with an usury-based, corrupt, and dysfunctional banking system and replace it with a clean and Islamic system of finance. That’s when the real fun could begin.

  27. James Canning says:


    Yes, there were foreign economic zones in China, before and after the 1911 revolution. A friend of mine was a member of the international police force in Shanghai back in the 1930s. Great stories.

    And we should remember Hong Kong did not revert to China until 1997.

    I don’t think there was any support outside China for a restoration of the imperial power structure.

  28. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    You’re correct in terms of military intervention being the context of your discussion. Since foreign interventions take many forms (insidiously even a more destructive form), I decided to seize the moment and point to a Chinese version (and in a much larger scale) of Casablanca-style foreign interventions in China rampant after 1911 revolution.

  29. Clint says:

    Russian Foreign Ministry public statement on IAEA report — google translation first, then original:

    Commentary and Information Department of the Foreign Ministry of Russia on the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program


    In Moscow, have a serious disappointment and bewilderment at the fact that the report of IAEA Director General on Iran, which in recent days has been said and written a lot is transformed into a new source of increasing tension around issues related to Iran’s nuclear program. Even before the official distribution to the Member States of the IAEA in Vienna, the report was the occasion for speculation, rumors, political gossip, which, of course, does no credit to those involved in unwinding the current information hype.

    We would like first of all, ask yourself how the Agency secretariat is able to provide adequate privacy in the work, without which the effectiveness of decision problems facing the IAEA is in question?

    As for the content of the report, the full text, we still have not received. The present circumstances have led us to comment on what was happening, but our assessment does not relate to the content of the document. It will take time to study it. The analysis should be conducted in a calm atmosphere, because it is important to understand whether there are some new and reliable, the facts supporting suspicion of the presence of the Iranian nuclear program, the military component, or talking about the conscious – and counterproductive – whipping up emotions.

    We have serious doubts about the justification of the steps related to the disclosure to the public content of the report – primarily because it is now began to appear certain chances for resumption of dialogue “six” of international mediators in Tehran. Today more than ever, it is important to weigh the interests of public steps to promote political and diplomatic settlement. This is the case when the angle of the head should certainly stand the principle of “first do no harm.” But apparently, there are those who are guided by another principle – “the worse the better.” We certainly can not support their destructive logic of the policy of deliberate disruption of political and diplomatic process.

    With regard to allegations of involvement in one of the Russian scientists to the possible military developments under the INP (development that is said to have carried out more than 10 years ago), we note two points.

    First. We – and that the Russian side confirms not the first time – has long passed to the IAEA all the necessary clarifications on the matter. Again have to turn to the subject of privacy. How can I count on a deep professional cooperation, if there is no assurance that the transmitted data over time would not be “put on public display?”

    Second. There is nothing new or sensational about these allegations do not. No new invoices, which would complement the well-known painting, or change it, we did not find these statements. The spiral threads of the alleged key role of a Russian scientist in the development of such evidence, to put it mildly, about the lack of competence of some of the comments. We suspect them of political dishonesty and in the pursuit of goals that have nothing to do with the task of removing the well-known concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

    Determined in response to the report will be including in the light of the forthcoming session of the IAEA Board of Governors. We speak out on this subject, after carefully study the document. Such reasonable steps may be taken not hastily, under the influence of short-term considerations. This is all the more unacceptable in an environment where information noise created deliberately, long before the serious professional discussion of all the experts, as is customary in civilized circles.



    Комментарий Департамента информации и печати МИД России относительно доклада МАГАТЭ по иранской ядерной программе


    В Москве испытывают серьезное разочарование и недоумение в связи с тем, что доклад Генерального директора МАГАТЭ по Ирану, о котором в последние дни сказано и написано немало, трансформируется в источник нового нарастания напряженности вокруг проблем, связанных с иранской ядерной программой. Еще до официального распространения среди государств-членов МАГАТЭ в Вене доклад стал поводом для домыслов, слухов, политических сплетен, что, конечно, не делает чести тем, кто занимается раскручиванием нынешней информационной шумихи.
    Мы хотели бы, прежде всего, задаться вопросом: насколько Секретариат Агентства способен обеспечивать надлежащую конфиденциальность в работе, без которой эффективность решения стоящих перед МАГАТЭ задач оказывается под вопросом?
    Что касается содержания доклада, то его полный текст мы до сих пор не получили. Нынешние обстоятельства побудили нас прокомментировать происходящее, но наши оценки ситуации не касаются содержания самого документа. Потребуется время для его изучения. Анализ должен проводиться в спокойной обстановке, поскольку важно разобраться, действительно ли появились некие новые, причем достоверные, факты, подкрепляющие подозрения в наличии в иранской ядерной программе военной составляющей, либо речь о сознательном – и контрпродуктивном – нагнетании эмоций.
    У нас большие сомнения в оправданности шагов, связанных с раскрытием для широкой общественности содержания доклада – прежде всего потому, что именно сейчас стали появляться определенные шансы на возобновление диалога «шестерки» международных посредников с Тегераном. Сегодня, как никогда, важно соизмерять публичные шаги с интересами продвижения к политико-дипломатическому урегулированию. Это именно тот случай, когда во главе угла безусловно должен стоять принцип «не навреди». Но, видимо, есть те, кто руководствуется другим принципом – «чем хуже, тем лучше». Мы, конечно, не можем поддержать их деструктивную логику, их линию на осознанный срыв политико-дипломатического процесса.
    Что касается утверждений о якобы причастности одного из российских ученых к возможным военным разработкам в рамках ИЯП (разработкам, которые, как говорят, осуществлялись более 10 лет назад), то отметим два момента.
    Первое. Мы – и это российская сторона подтверждает не первый раз – уже давно передали в МАГАТЭ все необходимые разъяснения по данному вопросу. Вновь приходится обращаться к теме конфиденциальности. Как можно рассчитывать на глубокое профессиональное сотрудничество, если нет уверенности в том, что передаваемые сведения со временем не будут «выставлены на всеобщее обозрение»?
    Второе. Ничего нового или сенсационного вокруг этих утверждений нет. Никакой новой фактуры, которая могла бы дополнить известную картину или изменить ее, мы в этих утверждениях не нашли. Нагнетание темы о якобы ключевой роли российского ученого в подобных разработках свидетельствует, скажем мягко, о недостаточной компетентности авторов некоторых комментариев. Мы подозреваем их в политической недобросовестности и в преследовании целей, не имеющих ничего общего с задачей снятия известных озабоченностей в отношении иранской ядерной программы.
    Определяться с реакцией на доклад будем в том числе с учетом хода предстоящей сессии Совета управляющих МАГАТЭ. Мы выскажемся на эту тему после того, как внимательно изучим содержание документа. Столь ответственные шаги не могут предприниматься поспешно, под влиянием конъюнктурных соображений. Это тем более недопустимо в условиях, когда информационный шум создан преднамеренно, задолго до серьезного профессионального обсуждения всех вопросов экспертами, как это принято в цивилизованном кругу.

    8 ноября 2011 года

  30. James Canning says:


    “In Iraq, intermarriage between Sunnis and Shia was common until recently.” (BBC 2006)


  31. James Canning says:

    Mohammad-Karim Abedi of the Iranian parliament said Israel is “too small” to attack Iran. Despite the threats. This seems virtually certain to be a correct assessment.


  32. James Canning says:


    Thanks for link to Gareth Porter story at AsiaTimes. Warmongering neocons have tried a number of times to discredit, undermine, etc., the 2007 NIE on Iran. Which blocked the neocon warmongers from arranging for insane (and illegal) US attack on Iran.

    Israeli agents work time and again to subvert the national security of the American people.

  33. James Canning says:


    I think North Korea has zero need to possess nukes. Zero. And possessing them has helped to keep the great majority of the people into grinding poverty.

    What good is MAD is chaos in a country enables terrorists to gain possession of some loose nukes?

    Ahmadinejad has made a very good case, a number of times, as to why Iran should not have nukes. And Israel should be compelled to get rid of its nukes.

  34. Candide says:

    Nuclear Wikileaks: Cables show cosy US relationship with IAEA chief.


  35. James Canning says:


    I agree that religious fantasy was the order of the day in Iran after the overthrow of the Shah. And clearly no programme of conquest of neighboring countries was envisioned. But some of those countries were deeply concerned about unrest stirred up by elements connected to the new gov’t in Iran.

  36. James Canning says:


    Was there a revolution in Egypt, when Nasser took power? Or just before? Or, another coup? Monarchy destroyed, British influence wrecked, and the country then slid toward dictatorhsip, atrophy of institutions, etc.

  37. James Canning says:


    Yes, the events in Iraq of 1958 can be accurately called a coup. But monarchy was destroyed, British influence wrecked, and the ocuntry was then able to slide into catastrophe.

  38. James Canning says:


    The issue was whether a foreign military intervention was undertaken to reverse the revolution in China (1911).

  39. Jon says:

    Asiatimes breaks down the “laptop”-argument and it ties to israel.


  40. Jon says:

    is the new report based on the so called “laptop” that US/IAEA found 2004?



    Because the documents reports the same stuff like the IAEA now have released.

  41. Empty says:

    James Canning says,

    No foreign intervention in China after 1911 revolution

    Were the British, French, Japanese, and Americans in China at that time all invited guests?

  42. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    There has never been a popular Revolution in any Muslim state or polity except in case of Iran.

    Once in 1905 and again in 1979.

    The recent upheaval in Egypt comes closest to the 1905 Revolution in Iran.

    All other change in regimes have been military ones.

    If you think there was a popular Revolution in Iraq in 1958 you are sadly mistaken.

    It was a coup.

    The Iranian Revolution of 1979 swept away the entire old regime, its social class etc. from dominant position in the state and replaced them with lower class pharisee Muslims who were more intent on pursuing a religious fantasy than war against Iraq or anyone else.

  43. Jon says:


    Dont you belive in MAD mutual assured destrution theory?

    Dont you belive in deterrence theory?

  44. James Canning says:


    Iraq’s attack on Iran was act of opportunism by a megalomaniac. It was not intended to bring about a restoration of the monarchy.

    No intervention in Iraq after 1958 revolution.

  45. James Canning says:


    Bay of Pigs was a piddly affair, due to JFK’s refusal to allow American intervention.
    Many fanatical American “anti-Communists” wanted that US military intervention.

  46. James Canning says:


    No foreign intervention in China after 1911 revolution.

  47. James Canning says:


    No foreign intervention in China after success of revolution in 1949.

    American colonies independent with 1783 treaty with Britain. Britain gave them huge territory north of Ohio River and East of the Mississippi, to avoid conflict in future.

    No foreign intervention in Turnisia after recent revolution.

  48. James Canning says:


    I will agree with you that the facts do not matter, for some of the oligarchic Jews, and other plutocrats in the US and elsewhere, who want Israel “protected” no matter how much damage this “protection” inflicts on the American people, and the people of the world.

    These people do not want to be exposed. How often does one find their names even mentioned, in New York Times, Washington Post, etc?

  49. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    The War of Independence (of US) was what then?

    There was intervention in France in 1789.

    In Russia in 1917-1919.

    In China – in 1905.

    In Cuba – Bay of Pigs.

    You are wrong about the impact of the late Mr. Khomeini’s words; the late Mr. Hussein’s declaration of war stated Iraq’s war aims.

    The late Mr. Khruschev had stated (to US) “We will bury you!”

    That was not followed by a US attack now, was it?

    You are not taking into account the Ba’ath’s anti-Iran posture over 2 decades prior to that war.

  50. Jon says:

    “You appear to be overlooking the huge fight regarding whether an additional UNSC resolution was necessary before a US invasion of Iraq. Huge fight. Why? Because international law did, and does, matter.”

    Yes I am overlooking such because its insignificant or do you think blair, bush etc would be sent to Hague, wake up!

  51. James Canning says:


    You appear to be overlooking the huge fight regarding whether an additional UNSC resolution was necessary before a US invasion of Iraq. Huge fight. Why? Because international law did, and does, matter.

  52. James Canning says:


    You overlook the significance of 2012 elections. Obama does not want to respond to Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U, due to domestic political concerns.

    This of course actually calls attention to the importance of the offer, and the importance of keeping that offer open and drawing attention to it.

    Remember that Saddam Hussein allowed personal pride and miscalculation bring catastrophe to himself, his family, and his country.

  53. Jon says:

    James, “You are not suggesting that Israel would attack Iran even if the international community believed Iran in fact was only pursuing a domestic nuclear power programme?

    I would think this highly unlikely.

    And exactly since when did US or Israel care about facts? You need to realize that world is runned by powerfull nations not law.

  54. James Canning says:


    You are not suggesting that Israel would attack Iran even if the international community believed Iran in fact was only pursuing a domestic nuclear power programme?

    I would think this highly unlikely.

  55. WTF says:

    James Canning says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    But the mere fact that Iran’s offer was ignored should underline for you that uranium enrichment is not the true issue.

  56. James Canning says:


    I think that there will no no attack on Iran if Iran ceases production of 20% U.

    Fanatical “supporters” of Israel will most certainly try to injure Iran in various ways, as long as they see Iran as interfering with Israel’s redrawing of the borders of the West Bank by growing illegal colonies of Jews.

  57. Jon says:

    Canning, “The key fact is that Obama does not want war with Iran. Full stop. Oligarchic Jews and other fanatical “supporters” of Israel are of course trying to box him in. In other words, certain oligarchic Jews, and others, are trying to force Obama into an insane war. To “benefit” Israel.”

    Like I said, “on behalf of Israel” or america will be part/drawn into the war if israel attack Iran.

  58. James Canning says:


    The key fact is that Obama does not want war with Iran. Full stop. Oligarchic Jews and other fanatical “supporters” of Israel are of course trying to box him in. In other words, certain oligarchic Jews, and others, are trying to force Obama into an insane war. To “benefit” Israel.

  59. WTF says:

    James Canning says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm


    By your own statement, the nuclear issue is not the driving force behind the threats. Do you think the threats would disappear if Iran ceased uranium enrichment…again?

  60. James Canning says:


    There was no foreign intervention in America after the 13 colonies achieved independence with their revolution.

    No freign intervention in France after 1830 revolution. Or after 1848 revolution.

    Khomeini badly blundered by not taking into account the risk of retaliation for all the noise that Iran made in wake of the revolution. Iran-Iraq war was very far from being an “inevitable” event.

    Sunni-Shia intermarriage rates were relatively high in Iraq even after the Gulf war. Did that war have any discernible effect on that rate?

  61. Jon says:

    canning> well on behalf of israel it will fight or be part if israel attack itself.

  62. Fiorangela says:

    Humanist, thanks for your link (at 11:30 am) to Scott Horton’s interview of M J Rosenberg.

    A key aspect that Rosenberg explained is how AIPAC is dictating legislation to the Congress that will have the effect of undercutting the ability of the Executive to conduct foreign policy.

    Yesterday, Nina Totenberg mentioned in a brief NPR report that the Supreme Court will hear a case that also challenges the right of the Executive of the US to conduct foreign policy. Court Weighs President’s Power to Recognize Nations. The case revolves around the desire of an American Jew who was born in Jerusalem to list “Israel” on his US passport.

    re the Scott Horton interview —

    MJ Connected the dots between Netanyahu/Israel, AIPAC, Israelist influence over US Congress, and anti-Iran warmongering.

    A few years ago Richard Silverstein hosted a conference on Iran; Keith Weissman was on the panel. Weissman said he worked for AIPAC and was among those AIPACers who, in 1995, WROTE the executive order imposing sanctions on Iran — that knocked CONOCO out of contention for a contract to develop Iranian fields. Weissman, who was subsequently accused of spying for Israel, also said that AIPAC was concerned that an executive order could be remanded by a later president, so AIPAC formulated the Libya-Iran Sanctions Act (D’Amato Amendment) that has been in force since 1996.

    Thus, Weissman made the connection between AIPAC and influence over US Congress in imposing sanctions on Iran. http://www.edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv

    In a later video appearance, in California in Oct 2010, :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ArabLo , Bard told his audience of children of Jewish holocaust survivors that

    “the position of the established Israeli lobby [in the US] is to support the elected government of Israel. . . AIPAC, whether you like it or not, goes by the policies of the government of Israel. [For example] If the government of Israel tomorrow says, We’re giving up the Golan Heights, AIPAC is going to come out with talking points for why Israel can give up the Golan Heights. I can tell you that since ’73 AIPAC has had talking points for why that is bad for Israel’s security. But if Israel decides that that is something that Israel can live with, the pro-Israel lobby is going to support it. Just as now the pro-Israel lobby supports the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state. Not everybody likes it . . .but as long as that’s the government’s policy, that’s what they’re [the I lobby] is going to support.”

    In other words, Israel’s Knesset, or more specifically, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, is running US foreign policy toward the Middle East, through the unregistered agency of Israel lobbyists.

  63. WTF says:

    fyi says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I asked if you believed a breakout capacity to be adequate, or if you felt that actively pursuing weapons (as in now) is necessary. Your response was “yes”, and I am unclear as to which you were responding. And my question was sincere, I am not trying to be condescending. You are one of only a few people I have seen discuss this topic (with which I am personally conflicted) bluntly.

  64. James Canning says:


    I think your assumption is dead wrong (that US wants war with Iran). Yes, a number of plutocratic Jews want Iran bashed good and hard, so other Jews can continue f*cking Christians and Muslims in the West Bank without serious concern.

  65. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Secularism will not work in Muslim polities where outside of Islam there is nothing: no culture, no civilization, no decency etc.

    And in Iraq, secularism of Ba’ath Party was a cover for a campaign of Sunni Arabs for political power at the expense of Shia Arabs and Kurds.

    Yes, in Baghdad there was a lot of inter-marriage among Shia and Sunni Arabs.

    But that world began fraying during the war against Iran, seriously damaged in 1991 during the Shia Uprising, and was destroyed by the United States after 2003.

    In Syria, I think the confessional system will be most valuable in creating political accomodation among Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Alawites, Druze, Christians, and Kurds. The specific mechanics of this could be worked out later: say a popular assembly and a senate (for confessions).

    In regards to Iran-Iraq War; every successsful revolution has been followed by foreign intervention.

    Iran’s was not an exception.

    The foolish and criminal Arab leaders of Iraq had been planning for war with Iran for years.

    Even at the time of the monarchy in Iran, Iraq had superior ground forces.

    The late Mr. Khomeini was correct in characterizing the Ba’ath leaders as enemies of Islam.

    But that was not the cause of war.

    The Sunni Arab leaders of Iraq made a decision to drag their country – where millions of people had relatives across the border in Iran – into a war with Iran.

    And Providence so willed it that those leaders be dead and that state be destroyed by another one of its staunchest suppoorters, the United States.

  66. James Canning says:

    “fly in the ointment” (not “sly”).

  67. James Canning says:


    How do I explain the many threats coming from Israel, and other countries? Israel wants to keep the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank. Some fanatical Jews want to keep the entire West Bank and the Golan Heights. They see Iran as a “sly in the ointment”, meaning an Iran willing to provide economic and other support to the Palestinians, interferes with the Greater Israel programme.

    Oligarchic Jews, and other delusional “supporters” of the insane Greater Israel scheme, have enormous ifluence in many countries.

  68. Jon says:

    J.canning: “Are you implicitly arguing that Iran was not acting in good faith when it offered to cease producing 20% U?

    Or, do you think that offer should not have been made?

    Offer is good however it doesnt matter what Iran put forth since US goal is to bring regime to Iran with war. Only way Iran could reduce such a threat is to possess atleast the know-how to build nukes fast.

  69. James Canning says:


    What better means to expose duplicity on the part of a number of western leaders, than the Iranian effort to cease production of 20% U? Do you see a better way to accomplish that?

  70. James Canning says:


    Do you think a Saudi Arabia armed with nukes would not be dangerous for Iran? Or do you expect the government to remain in power for decades to come, beyond any doubt?

  71. WTF says:

    James Canning says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:00 pm


    I am not suggesting that Iran will be attacked. I am trying to be as concise as possible in asking FYI’s opinion as to when Iran should actively pursue nuclear weapons. Should they only pursue nukes if attacked and not in anticipation/deterrence of.

    I must say James, that if you are implying that Iran’s decision to produce nukes is the SOLE factor that will provoke a US or Israeli attack, I flatly disagree. Given that I have heard you repeat multiple times that you believe that Iran does NOT currently have a weapons program, I am curious how you rationalize all the threats coming from the US/Israel/UK? I hear you say that Iran should cease production of 20% LEU if it wishes to avert war, but you have to know well that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is simply being used as a pretext for sanctions and war?

  72. James Canning says:


    Are you implicitly arguing that Iran was not acting in good faith when it offered to cease producing 20% U?

    Or, do you think that offer should not have been made?

  73. James Canning says:


    Your assumption is that Iran could proceed with enrichment to weapons-grade and avoid an attack.

    Your assumption also is that Iran could take the position that all its efforts to rid the Middle East of nukes were merely a ploy to provide cover for a nuclear weapons programme, without grave injury to itself.

    I think North Korea will get rid of its nukes. China and Russia want this to happen.

  74. James Canning says:


    Re: the Haaretz report you linked. I think the Russian foreign ministry is quite right to think that the release of the IAEA report is part of a strong effort by some people to block diplomatic resolution of the nuclear dispute.

    Let’s remember how Tom Friedman of The New York Times fulminated against Turkey and Brazil for trying to arrange the nuclear fuel exchange. What on earth was Friedman thinking? And, of course, Friedman made numerous attacks on Ahmadinejad as a “Holocaust denier” blah blah blah.

    I should mention here that I see Friedman as a propagandist for a number of plutocratic or oligarchic Jews who want Israel to keep most of the illegal colonies in the West Bank.

  75. fyi says:

    WTF says: November 8, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    I have already answered your question.

  76. Jon says:

    J.canning > “You apparently are oblivious to the danger that would result from a Saudi Arabia armed with nukes….”

    That didnt answer my statement. Read some about Mutual Assured Destruction and Deterrence and understand why nation get nukes.

  77. James Canning says:


    And I continue to think an American attack on Iran, if Iran continues to avoid building nukes, is unlikely. Even though I am keenly aware that a number of plutocratic Jews, and other crazed supporters of Israel right or wrong, would like to see Iran attacked so the insane Greater Israel scheme can continue without serious inteference.

  78. James Canning says:


    You apparently are oblivious to the danger that would result from a Saudi Arabia armed with nukes….
    North Korea does not need nukes to avoid attack. Yet nuclear weapons programme results in poverty for the great majority of the populaton of the country. You see that as a good thing for them?

  79. James Canning says:

    More scaremongering and deception in opinion pages of the Washington Post today. “The growing threat of Iran’s nuclear program”, by Stephen Rademaker and Blaise Miszfal. Quote: “More troubling still has been Iran’s foray into progressively higher levels of uranium enrichment.” No mention of Iran’s recent offer to cease production of 20% U. Nor of the failure of the Obama adminstration to respond to the offer.

  80. Jon says:

    Russia is reasonable, but the MSM is not:

    “the intentional — and counterproductive — whipping up of emotions”.

    No one attacks a nuclear equipped state.

  81. James Canning says:


    What makes you think Iran will be attacked, if it refrains from building nukes?

  82. WTF says:

    fyi says:
    November 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm


    You had to be there when millions fled Tehran to avoid possible WMD attack by the Ba’athist Iraq.

    Never Again.

    Yes, I have lots of family in Iran and I have heard many first-hand accounts of the terror and carnage of the war. But I am unclear as to your answer to my question. Should Iran wait to be attacked to produce nuclear weapons?

  83. James Canning says:


    And let’s remember that the idiot warmongering Republican, Rick Santorum, openly in effect has called for assassinating any Russian scientist helping Iran with its nuclear programme.

    Israel has not been so stupid as to assassinate any of the many Russian nuclear engineers working at Bushehr, as far as I am aware.

  84. James Canning says:


    Yes, facts are stubborn things, as John Adams noted in 1770. Among those facts is that only about one-third of the white population of the 13 colonies supported the revolt against British rule. Adams was not overly keen to call attention to that fact in later years.

  85. James Canning says:


    My understanding is that there was significant intermarriage in Iraq between Sunni and Shia, in the years leading up to the idiotic US/UK invasion.

    Will the Shia in Lebanon be willing to observe the current system, if Shia in that country become the majority?

    I think the secular approach of the Ba’athist government in Iraq was in itself not a problem.

    We should bear in mind that the tragedy of the Iran-Iraq war in part arose from fears in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries that Iran would stoke the fires of insurgency. In this regard, as I have commented previously, Khomeini blundered badly after the overthrow of the Shah.

  86. James Canning says:


    Russia and China both appear to indicate they will block any UNSC resolution on Iran that allowed military intervention. I think this will continue to obtain provided Iran continues to avoid building nuclear weapons.

    Iran’s effort to strengthen the NPT and achieve a Middle East free of nukes clearly is the best way forward.

    We might consider that stability in Syria is more difficult to achieve because the economy suffers as a result of Syria’s inability to obtain sufficient tankers willing to uplift Syrian oil for export. Iran’s security in part rests on a strong economy. Or at least a reasonably strong economy.

  87. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Neither – it was a case of Arabism run amok.

    At the end of Ottoman period, the Arabs were once again thrusted unto history.

    They began by hating Turks, Iranians, Kurds, and (European) Jews.

    Next came the Ba’ath ideology.

    The “Arab National Socialism” of Ba’ath was formulated by the late Michel Aflaq, an Arab Christian, to create a political program for getting Arabs out of their social, economic, political morass and squalor and bring them into the Modern World.

    Its appeal was based on the notions of Justice and Equality (before the Law) for all Arabs regardless of their sects: Sunni, Shia, Druze, Christain, etc. In that, it harkened to principles that were contianed in the Quran but had been abandoned by Muslims over the later centuries.

    In Syria, this ideaology provided political cover for the Alawites to maintain control.

    In Iraq, it was used to unify the country under Sunni Arabs, all the while suppressing Kurds and later the Shia.

    Empircially, the ideology failed to create a stable political order – in either state – for either representative government or the rule of law. IT created 2 hard dictatorships.

    For to govern Syria and Iraq without repression their governing structures must be modeled along the lines similar to the confessional system of Lebanon.

  88. James Canning says:

    Everyman Jack,

    Since Brawner was not even aware the IAEA monitors Iran’s nuclear fuel, what benefit can Brawner bring to the discussion?

  89. Jon says:

    haha have you read the report?

    As usual old stuff:

    “45. The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a
    structured programme. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a
    nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing

    “The Agency has information provided by a Member State that Iran may have planned and
    undertaken preparatory experimentation which would be useful were Iran to carry out a test of a nuclear
    explosive device”

    “y for conducting a nuclear test. The Agency has
    been informed by a different Member State that these arrangements directly reflect those which have been
    used in nuclear tests conducted by nuclear-weapon States.”

    Obviously this member state is the spying nuclear-armed israel. Note “may have planned”.

    “The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a
    clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and”

    Is this clandestine network also initiated by israel, to frame Iran? Just like america try to give Iran nukes some years back?

    CIA Doesn’t Want You To Know It Gave Iran Nuclear Blueprints


  90. James Canning says:


    We perhaps should remember that FYI thinks it a fine idea for Saudi Arabia to have nukes. And for Egypt to have them. And Turkey. And of course Iran.

  91. James Canning says:


    Is it not worth recalling that Iran did not respond with poison gas attacks against Iraqi troops? Even though Iran could have done so?

    How much of the agony suffered in that war was partly result of destruction of the Iranian air force by Iranian leaders?

  92. Everyman Jack says:

    Anon at 10:44 am:

    The arguments put forward by NDU are so childish that wise men like Bill Gertz are able to demolish them in just a few moments behind a C Span microphone. Gertz and his fellow travelers, ably aided and abetted by C Span moderators such as Greta Woedele Brawner, thereby provide to a swathe of the American public (which CAMERA * states numbers around 28 million) sound information that is NOT infected by the skepticism of NDU, upon which to base their understanding of how their government is protecting them — or failing to do so — and conducting US foreign policy. [Notice the title that C Span attached to the segment — “Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program.” No foolish skepticism here by golly.]:

    Gertz: The IAEA report that will come out on Wednesday Nov. 9 will say that Iran has the capability and intent to produce nuclear weapons, and will contain three key findings:
    -That the Iranians have conducted computer modeling;
    -That the Iranians have a large container to test missiles;
    -That the Iranians are working on shrinking a nuclear bomb to warhead size to attach to a missile.
    “This is a fairly alarming development. . . . They are also working on a trigger that can detonate a nuclear blast.”

    Brawner: “How does this differ from the last report? How did we get from there to here?”

    Gertz: (at about 7:51 am EST) “. . .The Iranians have insisted that their nuclear program was for purely civilian purposes; this shows that is a lie. It also says that the 2007 NIE was false, a strategic failure of the highest order that should be investigated by Congress.”

    Brawner: “How did the intelligence agencies get it so wrong but the IAEA got it right? When this report comes out, what are the implications?”

    Gertz: (7:54 am EST) “Israelis are posturing for a stronger international response.”

    Brawner: “What has been the response of the State Department . . .and also of Iran?”

    Gertz: “They do not want to preempt the announcement coming out of Vienna.
    “Iran has dismissed the report, and responded with some saber rattling.”

    Brawner: Yes, we read that earlier, that [an unofficial source from] Iran’s military said that if Iranian military forces are attacked and killed, as was threatened by American leaders, Iran will respond by killing the attackers.

    Gertz: “Iran also has terrorist capability in the US; they have Hezbollah, which can act in the US.”

    Brawner: “Does the IAEA have access to Iran?”

    Gertz: “Iranians have stonewalled; the Iranians say, “We have no nuclear weapons.”

    Caller, 8:11 am EST: “The US has the capability to detect radiation emitted into the atmosphere. . . .[Has the US detected that Iran IS testing nuclear weapons?]

    Gertz: “We do NOT have that capability. . . .The US has failed to swiftly and accurately confirm test launches in the past . . .” {see the contrary view of US Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Head of House subcommittee on Intelligence,

    Brawner: “What IS the evidence that [Iran’s nuclear work] is for military purposes? How was the information in the IAEA report obtained?”

    Gertz: “MY GUESS IS . . .through the usual means — electronic surveillance; plus, there have been a lot of defectors from Iran . . . a lot from open sources . ..”

    Brawner: “Will the report state where the information/evidence was obtained?”

    Gertz: “No.”

    Caller, 8:16 am EST: “My concern is that this has been going on for 4 or 5 years; imagine what Iran has been able to achieve. I’ve been reading a book by Mike Evans, written in 2007; [**] he mentions a lot of the things Gertz talks about — that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map; that they are religious zealots with no concern about western values . . .but seek only to destroy the United States . . .”

    Gertz: Steps are being taken to deter Iran. Iran needs a lot of centrifuges; its possible its supply chain has been sabotaged — faulty parts in equipment, or chips that allow us to track items; cyber warfare . . .

    Brawner: “You wrote last week about China selling missiles to Iran . . .”

    Gertz: “Yes; China is becoming the 9/11 force for rogue regimes. . . China was prepared to sell arms to Qaddafi to keep him in power.” [***]

    One other caller’s comment should be noted, if only to document the level of fundamental ignorance of many Americans, and the dangerous leaps of logic taken on the basis of that ignorance; and more critically, how that ignorance and those failures of critical thinking and rationality are not only mirrored in, but actually propagated and reinforced by “reporters” such as Bill Gertz and their CAMERA-shy enablers on C Span such as Greta Brawner.

    Here’s the comment of Tony, a Democrat from Bethlehem, PA:

    “Bill, about 15 years ago I was in a taxi in New York and the cab driver, I looked at him and I said, “Where you from?” And he said, “Iran.” And I just said, “What do you Arabs all have against America?” ****

    He pulled over and he looked at me and he said, “I’m not an Arab, I’m a Persian.”

    And I realized there’s more going on in this area than most people really understand.
    But my feeling is that I think that the Russians, who do have a lot of oil, really benefit from the instability in this area, due to the price of the oil going up. And I think that behind a lot of this aah problem there. And you know, Ahmadinejad, when he said he wants to wipe Israel off the map–the world can’t let this guy get the bomb.”


    * CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, is funded by Aubrey Chernick and other Jewish multimillionaires who also fund organizations like the Clarion Fund, responsible for producing the Islamophobic DVD “Obsession” in 2008, and for producing the 2010-2011 video, “Iranium,” which was featured yesterday in a panel discussion held at the 92nd Street Y in NYC and linked to Jewish community centers and synagogues in two dozen cities across the US. The panel included John Bolton, Richard Perle, and NYT journo Ethan Bronner. Chernick also funds fellow Islamophobes Robert Spencer’s jihadwatch and Pam Geller’s blogspot, two of the major sources cited frequently in the manifesto produced by Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.
    CAMERA’s website includes “C SPAN Watch,” which functions on the proposition that

    “[C Span’s Washington Journal program] has become a platform for anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic callers who are rarely, if ever, interrupted or challenged by the channel’s hosts. The themes of many such callers are the stereotypical charges of Jewish manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. economy, and Israeli oppression of Arabs. The callers frequently promote anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic Web sites by name, encouraging listeners to visit. Among these are American sites as well as the Iran’s PressTV site.” ;;http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1778

    ** Mike Evans’ 2007 book is “The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The final solution while the world sleeps.” Evans, the son of Jewish converts to Christianity is also an evangelical Christian who consults to the Israeli government and Benjamin Netanyahu. A part of the (amorphous) Israel lobby’s “David Project,” Evans has presented his prophetic message involving Gog and Magog and messianic apocalypticism to numerous convocations of US Congresspersons and their staff.

    As I recall the opening thesis of “The Final Move,” Evans reminds readers that Abraham abandoned Ishmael in favor of Isaac, and calls upon all Americans to do likewise — to shun Ishmael and his Arab/Islamic progeny. It’s the Christian thing to do.

    *** In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, see also, Thiery Meyssan: Israeli corporation CST supplies mercenaries to defend Qaddafi, ;;http://www.voltairenet.org/Mercenary-company-CST-Global-and

    **** On Oct. 31, 2011, Tom Shanker and Eric Schmitt were guests on C Span to discuss Al Qaeda. During that program, a man from Indiana explained to the C Span audience that jihad — Holy War — is retaliation against the Roman Catholic church’s Holy War/ Crusades against Islam.
    Neither of the two journalists/authors/experts on the Middle East and jihad mentioned Woodrow Wilson’s failure to follow through on his Fourteen Points promise of Self Determination to the states of the former Ottoman empire, and the subsequent century-long struggle of the Arab — AND Persian — in the region to establish their own sovereignty. :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/USActi

    Talk amongst yourselves.
    Then get out the pitchforks.

  93. James Canning says:


    You refer to “Ba’athist Iraq” but not to “Ba’athist Syria”. Was the core problem in Iraq the secular government, or instead simply that a murderous thug was in control of the country?

  94. James Canning says:

    Spiegel.de today has good story: “Former Mossad chief seeks to avert Israeli attack”. Quote: “Meir Dagan has repeatedly said that Israeli attack on Iran would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions.” Dagan’s warnings apparently have annoyed Netanyahu.

  95. fyi says:

    WTF says: November 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm


    You had to be there when millions fled Tehran to avoid possible WMD attack by the Ba’athist Iraq.

    Never Again.

  96. WTF says:

    fyi says:
    November 8, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Staying within NPT is useful for Iran since it also gives the Axis Powers, Russia, and China the political cover to climb down from their dead-end policies with regards to Iran in some future time.
    Iranian leaders, I shoud think, will leave NPT after an attack on the declared NPT nuclear sites.


    However, I am metaphysically certain that the Iranain leaders will endeavour to never again be subject to threat of WMD like the Iran-Iraq War or suffer WMD attacks as they did in the war against Iraq.

    In practical terms, how do the Iranian leaders do that? Are you saying that you see Iran merely maintaining a breakout capacity unless/until attacked? Do you (personally) believe that possessing the capability to produce a few bombs in 6-12 months is adequate, or that working towards the bomb (overtly or covertly) is necessary to counter the threat that she is facing?

  97. WTF says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    November 8, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Bottom line: If uncertainty as to its progress toward a bomb is deemed to be in Iran’s best interests in such a situation (purely hypothetical, I emphasize, since I don’t believe Iran is working on a bomb at all), its chances of creating that useful uncertainty will be greater if it pretends, as long as possible, to be complying with the NPT and its Safeguard Agreement obligations — not it it announces, unnecessarily early, that it will no longer be doing so.


    I certainly agree with most all of your points, particularly the belief that Iran does not currently have an active nuclear weapons program, though they struck me as not directly related to my line of questioning. Based on your response (and after rereading my post) I am afraid that I was misinterpreted, so I will clarify. It was not my intent to get into specific what/if scenarios, particularly ones where Iran immediately announces a weapons program. FYI has often suggested that possessing nuclear weapons would be a strategic benefit to Iran (a belief that I generally agree with, but with some reservations).

    When I said – “Do you see the “breakout capacity” as being sufficient deterrent, or do you see the production of nukes as the natural progression from there? When, in your estimation, would it be proper for Iran to (openly?) work towards the bomb (not merely a breakout capacity)?” – I was simply trying to dig deeper into whether he was actually suggesting that Iran produce, test and declare nuclear weapons capability, or merely maintain a breakout capacity to do so in the event it is attacked. I threw “(openly?)” in there, anticipating the thought that, if attacked, withdrawing from the NPT should be on the table (I should have omitted that part as it made my post convoluted and detracted from my point).

    The whole point of my comment (other than seeking elaboration from FYI) is summed up in the last paragraph. The strategic value of the bomb to Iran (as I see it) is as a deterrent, not as an offensive weapon. While I feel that a nuclear deterrent may very well be the only thing that will keep the US/Israel from attacking Iran, particularly with WMDs, my apprehension is regarding what happens on the road to the bomb? Whether the US or Israel are actually intent on attacking Iran, they have certainly primed their citizens for its eventual actualization. Listen to the war drums beat with NO evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. How much room is there for escalation in the face of actual evidence of an advanced nuclear weapons program which, as you alluded to, is likely to surface if the Iranians pursue one?

  98. fyi says:

    Irshad says: November 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Will not happen.

    Russia and China are not so inclined and Iran wants to be independent.

  99. Humanist says:
    November 8, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Thanks for your link to Nima Shirazi’s 1984-2010 list of “Iran is on the brink of a bomb” stories (link repeated here):


    Perhaps the most poignant commentary on Nima’s compendium is simply to highlight its ending. He published it on December 31, 2010, with these closing lines:

    “’Facts are stubborn things,’ John Adams said in 1770. ‘And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.’ Here’s hoping that, in 2011, the facts will begin to matter.”

    Nima, I hope you’ll improve your already excellent piece by adding another year’s worth of “Iran is on the brink of a bomb” stories, and by changing “2011” to “2012” in the preceding passage.

  100. Irshad says:

    fyi – Iran is better of not going for a nuke but going for some sort of nuclear umberalla from either Russia or China.

    It should concentrate its efforts on other means to bring the hegemon to its knees should it decide to attack for e.g. anti-satelite missles or cyber warefare.

  101. Irshad says:

    Karl, b and masoud,

    masoud – those are great points you have raised, our friend Jeff, is not going to be puttng that up as its all inconvenient facts and goes against the theories and speculations he and his ilks think up and write about on thier blogs. Do you think this is related to “funding”, that he and his ilks need? Considering serious funding will come from the US establishment or pro-isreali lobby groups, they dont want to go against their narrative?

    Anyway, what the “Danilenko Affair” has shown is this: If any foreign scientist, engineer or specialist decides to do work in Iran (or any other state outside of the US/EU/Isreal orbit), can have his or her name published in inernational reports and be smeared with the label as “helping rogue states” develop nuclear weapons. Which consutlant will want to work in Iran, knowing this can happen to them in the future?
    They will think twice before even thinking about it.

    Look at all the murdered Iranian scientists (which Jeff finds funny, in his latest post) – where do their name appears? On an UNSC resolution – which is now an open hit/murder list. I hope Prof. Danilenko hires a security team to protect him and also, get his side of events out to all media organisations and websites both in the East and the West before someone decides to carry out a “targeted” killing (if – God forbid, did this happen, I bet the MSM will be blaming it on iran).

  102. Paul writes:

    “Isn’t it interesting that nobody even bothers to bring up the argument that war is wrong?”

    I’ll say what everyone else is probably thinking: So what?

    Suppose one looks back through history, at all of the many thousands of wars that have occurred, points a blaming finger at each country or group that has started or caused each war, and angrily shout: “Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!”

    What, exactly, would that accomplish?

    In real life, nearly everyone claims to believe war is wrong. Rarely does a day go by that I don’t read of just such sentiment coming from the lips of some top US government official. Indeed, the likelihood of such a statement is at its very highest whenever a US president smilingly signs a multi-billion dollar defense appropriations bill, passed to finance the production of thousands of bombs or missiles, or millions of guns and bullets — every one of them to be produced for the simple reason that “war is wrong” and, therefore, we need as many weapons as we can possibly get so that everyone else is afraid to force us into such wrongful behavior.

    So, again: So what?

  103. Humanist says:


    Read this piece by Nima Shirazi. It is the list of allegations on ‘Iran is close to make the bomb’


    The list starts from 1984 up to 2011. It is an eye-opening chronicle that MSM never discusses and it can be (rarely) found in the academic publications. For instance it asserts “In January 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that ‘within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb.’”

  104. Humanist says:

    Amazing (historical) stuff on relations of AIPAC and US congress. It is an antiwar radio show, in it Scott Horton interviews an ex-AIPACer M.J.Rosenberg.


  105. Karl says:

    From a comment by Haaretz #87:

    “Here’s the web site: http://www.alit.kiev.ua/products.htm Note the photo of the “bus sized steel container”. It’s used to create nanodiamonds. Which, of course, is what Danilenko has been doing since the early 1960s…… He’s not a “nuclear scientist”, and his work is so innocent that he is often invited to the USA to lecture on it.”


    If its true, well then IAEA have something to explain. If world now accept that there wasnt any “nuclear container” Israel almost started a war. What the F is wrong with the puppet amano!?

  106. fyi says:

    WTF says: November 8, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Staying within NPT is useful for Iran since it also gives the Axis Powers, Russia, and China the political cover to climb down from their dead-end policies with regards to Iran in some future time.

    Iranian leaders, I shoud think, will leave NPT after an attack on the declared NPT nuclear sites.

    In fact, after attacks on Iranian scientist, they could have left NPT.

    US, EU, Russia, and China must calculate how much NPT is worth to them.

    For Iran, NPT, like the CWT, is not worth much.

    Iran will pay political costs – sanctions, isolation, opportunity lost in economic terms, politico-diplomatic pressures etc.

    But she is also a vast country with resourceful leaders and peoples and is surrounded by people whose security and way of life new depends on the continued strength of the Shia Fortress.

    So, Iran wil need to build her strength, build her relationships with people arpound her (including the poor Shia of Bahrain who thought their Arabness counted for much) and avoid a war.

    However, I am metaphysically certain that the Iranain leaders will endeavour to never again be subject to threat of WMD like the Iran-Iraq War or suffer WMD attacks as they did in the war against Iraq.

  107. paul says:

    Isn’t it interesting that nobody even bothers to bring up the argument that war is wrong? I guess we all implicitly recognize that we are living in Nazi Germany, but only whackos like are honest enough to say it. We all recognize that the US is a country that attacks other countries with impunity based on the desire to dominate and conquer, but we just are too ‘adult’ to say it. We are all ‘good germans’ now, aren’t we? Except for those dangerous whackos who still speak the truth.

    For us to attack Iran would be, along with everything else, A HEINOUS WAR CRIME, worthy of Hitler. But whatever. In Hell, everyone is a devil, right?

  108. Anon says:

    again, that NDU report is from when the IC thought Iran did have a nuclear weapons program

  109. Anon says:


    the NDU looked into this (when its was thought Iran had a nuke program):


    This 2005 NDU study concluded that Iran desires nuclear weapons mainly because it feels strategically isolated and that “possession of such weapons would give the regime legitimacy, respectability, and protection.”

    In other words, Iran desires nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence, just like every other nuclear-armed nation.

    The NDU study continued, “[W]e judge, and nearly all experts consulted agree, that Iran would not, as a matter of state policy, give up its control of such weapons to terrorist organizations and risk direct U.S. or Israeli retribution.” And it said the “United States has options short of war that it could employ to deter a nuclear-armed Iran and dissuade further proliferation.”

    the above is an excerpt from a commentry I found online on that NDU report

  110. WTF writes:

    “If Iran openly rejects the NPT and marches towards nuclear weapons without first being attacked,…”

    I hesitate to get involved in these “what if” arguments about Israel, Iran and the US attacking one another, but I do want to lob in a comment here, one I’ve made before.

    If Iran really intends to build a nuclear bomb (which I strongly doubt), why in the world would it ever “openly reject the NPT?” If it did so, it probably would be a matter of hours before the US (set aside Israel) fired up its bombers, and US public opinion would be running 10 to 1 in favor of attacking Iran — immediately if not sooner.

    Why would Iran not simply pretend it’s still complying with the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement for as long as possible, and never formally reject them? Even when (as inevitably would occur) suspicions, or even evidence, of bomb-making activity became impossible to deny, Iran might buy a few days or even weeks with righteous denials of wrongdoing. At worst, it would end up with more time than it would have if it dutifully announced to the world that it would no longer comply with its NPT and Safeguards Agreement obligations.

    I can at least acknowledge one counter-argument, though I find the argument so weak as to barely deserve mention: Formally acknowledging its rejection of the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement would permit Iran to argue that it was behaving correctly (since, after all, any signatory to the NPT is free at any time to withdraw, provided only that it does so openly).

    I doubt the US would be dissuaded for more than a matter of seconds by such an argument. What would dissuade it — if anything, in this hypothesis — would be the fear that Iran was farther along toward a bomb than the US had believed (as in “finished, ready to launch”). If that is the useful illusion (or even reality) that Iran would then be trying to present, I think its presentation would be far more persuasive if the US determined that the IAEA’s inspection system had been ineffective even while Iran had formally maintained its (apparent) compliance with the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement obligations. If, instead, Iran felt it necessary to withdraw formally from the NPT to put the finishing touches on a nuclear bomb, its withdrawal would implicitly suggest that the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement had posed at least some limits on its bomb-making efforts, leaving the US with some reason to believe that its assessments of Iran’s progress had been reasonably accurate.

    Bottom line: If uncertainty as to its progress toward a bomb is deemed to be in Iran’s best interests in such a situation (purely hypothetical, I emphasize, since I don’t believe Iran is working on a bomb at all), its chances of creating that useful uncertainty will be greater if it pretends, as long as possible, to be complying with the NPT and its Safeguard Agreement obligations — not it it announces, unnecessarily early, that it will no longer be doing so.

    Frankly, this seems so obvious and irrefutable that I wonder why anyone who gets into these “what if” military scenarios even hypothesizes that Iran might some day announce that it is withdrawing from the NPT. It probably would like to, and may regret ever signing up in the first place, but those sentiments are not enough to offset the compelling reasons to stay formally within the NPT/Safeguards Agreement regime, whether it wants to build a bomb or not.

  111. Rehmat says:

    Anon – IAEA latest report is not much different than STL report. Both are “Israeli Projects”.


  112. Rehmat says:

    US: ‘Bloody riots must continue in Syria’

    As a part of latest agreement between the Arab League and Syria, Damascus on Friday offered amnesty to those who surrender their weapons until November 12 as part of attempts to ease months of unrest. Shortly afterwards, US State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland advised Syrian gangs to reject the offer and not to hand over their weapons.

    Damascus have long claimed that Obama administration with the help of UK, France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia is funding the armed rebels who have been involved in killing hundreds of security forces and destablizing the country.

    Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on Wednesday accused Washington of direct involvement in the ”bloody events in Syria” and asked the international community to “condemn the involvement and to do what is necessary to end it.”

    The pro-Israel Zionist Jews have been the main force behind western propaganda against Bashar al-Assad’s regime for its close relation with Tehran, Hizbullah and Hamas. Both US and Israel believe that a regime change in Damascus is needed for the success of future US attack on Islamic Republic and Israeli attack on Lebanon.

    On July 4, a conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy. The other Zionist Jews who attended the meeting included Bernard Kouchner, former French foreign minister, Frederik Ansel, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, Alex Goldfarb, former Knesset member and adviser to Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and Andre Glucksmann, an Islamophobe French writer.

    Moscow has warned western warmongers to quit meddling in the Muslim East affairs and attack on Islamic Republic which will turn into a catastrophic event in the region.

    United Nations in its latest repoert has claimed that close to 3500 people have been killed in Syrian riots since anti-government protests began in March. However, UN’s claim is based on anti-Muslim western sources which fed misinformation to United Nations ahead of NATO invasion of Libya.


  113. In case it was not clear in my previous post, none of the commentary was my own. It was just a verbatim reproduction of Wright’s comment, with which I happen to agree entirely and believe was well put. That’s why I posted it.

  114. Here is a reader comment on Sunday’s NYT article (“America’s Deadly Dynamics with Iran”) that I think is worth reproducing here (Comment #60, by Nick Wright, of Nova Scotia):

    “”the Iranian threat seems more akin to 1949, when the Soviets tested their first nuclear device. That brought many confrontations that veered toward catastrophe, most notably the Cuban Missile Crisis. But ultimately the Soviets were contained.”

    That brought a chuckle: So the Soviets were the nuclear aggressors, were they? It’s a myth that surely died a well-deserved death decades ago. Beginning in the Truman administration, Americans were sold the idea (and the rest of the world duly informed) that the U.S. had a right to destroy the Soviet Union through first-strike saturation A-bombing to prevent the spread of “Communist Imperialism”. The Soviets had no intention of attacking the West and were instead forced to acquire nuclear weapons for their own defense. After all, the country was devastated and immensely weakened by WWII, only to find a nuclear-armed and hostile U.S.A. on its doorstep in Europe.

    The same twisted manipulation is being used against Iran today: First create a demon and then destroy him “before he destroys you.”

    It defies logic that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb in order to carry out a first strike against Tel Aviv. If it did, Iran would be blasted into a nuclear wasteland. If Iran actually is developing a nuclear bomb (and it is only conjecture that they are), it is most likely to counter the fact that an overtly belligerent Israel already has a number of them.”

  115. WTF says:

    fyi says:
    November 8, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Iran must have the capacity to quickly assemble deliverable nuclear weapons.

    Do you see the “breakout capacity” as being sufficient deterrent, or do you see the production of nukes as the natural progression from there? When, in your estimation, would it be proper for Iran to (openly?) work towards the bomb (not merely a breakout capacity)?

    If Iran openly rejects the NPT and marches towards nuclear weapons without first being attacked, it would certainly raise the prospects of attack. Without being an expert on the situation, I have often wondered about the cost/benefit of PRODUCING nukes for the IRI. Possessing nukes would give Iran a military (particularly deterrent) bump, but at what political cost?

    Some in the West erroneously claim that a nuclear armed Iran would go on a National Suicide Mission and immediately launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Other, more honest analysts, point out that it will tip the balance towards Iran and enable Iran to be more assertive in its role (resistance) in the ME. The main rationale that I see for Iran deeming nuclear weapons a necessity, is the truth in these latter analyses. While I find it highly improbable that Iran would ever launch a nuclear first-strike, it seems obvious (IMO, based on past threats and precedent) that if the US or Israel were in a position of collapse or complete military defeat they would surely resort to a nuclear first-strike. IMO, Iranian ability to respond in kind is the only way to hope to prevent US/Israel from considering the use of WMD.

  116. Anon says:

    I’d like to clarify something I said about Jeffrey Lewis: he is not an a-hole.

    He is a wanker.

    Please let him know the truth about the oh-so-dangerous Iran nuke weapons project at:


  117. A clarification, probably unnecessary but just in case…

    “as was Hillary in her own Al Jazeera interview that appears in a small window on the right side of the screen just as Flynt’s interview comes to an end.”

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Hillary’s interview was less important merely because it appears in a “small window” on the same screen as Flynt’s. That was merely an instruction how to find it. The window naturally expands to full size when you click on it.

  118. WTF says:

    Sarkozy overheard telling Obama that Netanyahu is a liar


    French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has labored to improve French relations with Israel, said he “can’t stand” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and called him a liar in a chat with President Barack Obama.

  119. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Iran must have the capacity to quickly assemble deliverable nuclear weapons.

    This is now of paramount strategic necessity for Iran and her allies.

    The nuclear file cannot be resolved in any way as long as US-EU Axis are determined to deny Iran strategic autonomy (US also doing it as the Champion of the Jewish Fanstasy Project in Palestine).

    This circle cannot be squared unless Iran surrenders or US-EU Axis give up.

    Thus we are where we are; a dangerous confrontation from Hindukush to Mediterranean Sea.

    And with no end.

    As for the Persian Gulf Arabs – they were enemiesof Iran during the time of Monarchy in Iran, they are the enemies of Iran afterwards. The best for Iran is their replacement with popular governments that concentrate on the real needs of their populations rather than picking fights with their betters for no discernible reason.

    Americans will leave someday; the Arabs will then face Iran alone.

  120. Anon says:

    Moron alert at WaPo: Growing threat from Iran —————->


    love the comments:

    “Of course, Tehran would have to enrich this material further to have the highly enriched uranium necessary for a bomb. ”

    Do you really know the difference between 4% and 94%?


    Hydrogen peroxide at 4% is a mild mouth wash. At 94% it is rocket fuel.

  121. Empty says:


    RE: I wonder (out loud)what led to this untimely fizzle.

    It is quite possible that this [http://www.oil-price.net/] has something to do with it.

  122. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:
    “The Anatomy of a big fizzle”
    You have nailed it BiBiJon… The lauder they squeal,…….
    Can israel be spinning its last spin?
    Israel has been steadily losing its strategic dominance in the Middle East ever since the Hezbollah defied it in the Lebanon War in 2006, but its global dominance as spin masters remained unchallenged. The high noon might have been the famous dare-devil attack by Israeli pilots on the secret Syrian nuclear installation in 2007.

  123. Anon says:

    nice work — I urge people to go to armscontrolwonk.com and keep posting: the site is taken seriously by many reporters even though it is censored — the only person at that blog who does not censor is Mark Hibbs. Am awaiting his post.

    Post under multiple names if needed or censored the first time.

    Use different IP addesses or :http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html

    “Do not create atmospherics with flatulence” (!) nice…

    Iran is stockpiling some 19.75% LEU — that is the sum total of its “weapons program”.

    Of course, this is completely legal under the NPT.

  124. BiBiJon says:

    The Anatomy of a big fizzle

    The November 9th bombshell (IAEA report) has fizzled before even the faint thud of dud.
    You know a premature fizzle has happened when (livid) David Sanger (anger), aka Danger, is hiding behind the Administration who is in turn hiding behind (heck of a job) Amano.


    I wonder (out loud)what led to this untimely fizzle.

    1) Over promise, under-perform: The thirst for reviving the nuclear scare led to pre-leaking leaks that allowed yarn spinning MSM to lose site of careful calibration, and sequencing necessary for a semi-decent war-mongering campaign.

    2) Amnesia is never total, avoid reminders: Lack of coordination evaporated a preliminary scare tactic (,http://rt.com/news/nuclear-plant-spinning-factory-703/) reminding folks of the non-existent Iraqi WMD saga, and pulled the Persian rug right from under Amano’s feet.

    3) Do not create atmospherics with flatulence: The right receptive atmosphere is crucial for successful injection of paranoia into the public mind. But, a rushed “concocted” Saudi assassination plot created a blowback effect of making everyone deaf to subsequent fear mongering.

    4) Don’t crash a borrowed car, and expect future loans: If you are going to use a no-fly-zone UNSC resolution to conquer Libya, then fool me once … fool me twice … fool me how many times?

  125. Jon says:

    Look when obama dodge question about US hypocrisy regarding israeli nukes.

    President Obama Dodges Question About Israel’s Nuke Program

  126. kooshy says:

    Has any of the Iranian commentators seen the original English version for this Wikileaks document, if you have can you please post a link,

    Apologizing to none Persian readers this is document by US embassy in Baghdad back in 1988 regarding a meeting with an Iranian Kurdish opposition leader, who was assassinated a few months later in Vienna

    گزارش خواندني مأمور سيا از ملاقات با قاسملو در بغداد(خبر ويژه)

    رئيس وقت گروه اطلاعاتي سفارت آمريكا در بغداد، گزارش جالبي از عملكرد عبدالرحمن قاسملو (رئيس گروهك حزب دموكرات كردستان) در ارتباط با آمريكايي ها، رژيم صدام و گروهك هاي ضدانقلاب تهيه كرده بود.
    براساس يكي از اسناد محرمانه سفارت آمريكا در بغداد كه در تاريخ 16فوريه 1988 (27 بهمن 1366) تهيه شده، قاسملو با رئيس گروه اطلاعاتي سفارت ملاقات كرده و اطلاعاتي را در اختيار وي گذاشته است. اين سند چند ماه پيش توسط ويكي ليكس منتشر شده و اكنون از سوي سايت اينترنتي وابسته به بني صدر مجدداً منتشر شده است. گزارش رئيس گروه جاسوسي «سيا» حاكي است: قاسملو 10 فوريه از كوهها پايين آمد و در بغداد با صدام ملاقات كرد اما برخلاف رجوي، از اينكه با صدام عكس داشته باشد، پرهيز مي كند… رئيس گروه [اطلاعاتي آمريكا در بغداد ] نزد سفير سوئد وساطت كرد تا قاسملو با وي ملاقات كند. قاسملو عميقا آزرده خاطر است از اينكه رئيس جمهور آمريكا [ريگان] با مشتي از بنيادگرايان عقب افتاده افغاني [طالبان بعدي] ملاقات كرده و اصرار به بزرگ كردن گروه هاي مخالف در نيكاراگوئه كه هيچ شانسي ندارد، دارد اما هيچ توجهي به گروههايي چون حزب دموكرات كه براي ارزش هاي جهاني حقوق بشري مي جنگند، نمي كند.
    مامور ارشد سازمان سيا مستقر در بغداد گزارش خود را اين گونه ادامه مي دهد: قاسملو [«] ادعا مي كرد[»] بين 10 تا 12هزار نيروي مسلح تحت فرماندهي دارد و خواستار پول يا اسلحه نيست بلكه در پي حمايت سياسي و معنوي است. وي از افشاي منابع مالي خود ابا داشت و مدعي بود كه هر خانواده كرد به آنها كمك هاي داوطلبانه مي كند اما در طول مذاكره معلوم شد كه حزب دموكرات كردستان بخشي از مخارج خود را از راه قاچاق به دست مي آورند.
    در گزارش سفارت آمريكا مربوط به بهمن ماه 1366 [ماههاي پاياني جنگ تحميلي] آمده است: قاسملو اظهار داشت كه اگر[ امام ]خميني از دنيا برود در ايران به ويژه تهران آشوب خواهد شد… او پذيرفت كه اخيرا به علت بمباران شديد مواضعش از سوي ايران مجبور به انتقال ستاد خود شده است… قاسملو مايل نبود درباره ملاقاتش با صدام صحبت كند. او گفت كه برخلاف رجوي رئيس سازمان مجاهدين خلق [منافقين]، مطلقا ميل نداشت با صدام در عكسي ديده شود و يا در مورد سفرش به بغداد اطلاع رساني شود. به نظر او اينكه معلوم شود با صدام ملاقات كرده، انعكاس خوبي در ايران ندارد. رئيس گروه [اطلاعاتي سازمان سيا در عراق] به او فشار آورد كه چه كسي در عراق مسئول مسائل مربوط به كردهاست و قاسملو گفت صدام مسئول است. اين به كنار، به گفته وي، در موضوعات روزانه 3 فرد مهم در عراق هستند، صدام و عدنان خيرالله وزير دفاع و علي حسن المجيد.
    سفارت آمريكا در گزارش خود به وزارت خارجه مي افزايد: قاسملو ملايمتش را از دست نداد كه بخواهد از عراق انتقاد كند اما در عين حال نتوانست جلوي خود را از نكته پراني هم بگيرد و گفت كه نسبت به رژيم عراق حالت تحقير دارد. او مي گويد از آمدن به عراق مگر اينكه مطلقا لازم باشد اجتناب مي كرده است. قاسملو مجبور به پذيرش اين نكته شد كه جامعه ايران جامعه اي پوياتر است. مي گفت «بله در اروميه، مردم هر زمان كه دلشان بخواهد مي توانند به آمريكا زنگ بزنند و مسافرت نيز آزاد است».
    رئيس گروه اطلاعاتي سازمان سيا در اين گزارش درباره ملاقات قاسملو با اپوزيسيون مي نويسد: قاسملو پذيرفت كه حزب دموكرات محتاج اتحاد با ديگر گروه هاي اپوزيسيون ايراني است زيرا بديهي است كه به تنهايي نمي تواند رژيم را واژگون كند. او پذيرفت كه رژيم اسلامي ايران، پايگاه حمايتي وسيعي در ميان مردم دارد و سرنگوني آن آسان نيست. رئيس گروه [اطلاعاتي سفارت] در مورد امكان يك اتحاد با رجوي- كه در حال حاضر گزارش شده بود در حال انجام عمليات نظامي در شمال بود- پرسيد. قاسملو، رجوي را «بي اعتبار و آماتوري كه حداكثر 1200 نفر نيرو دارد اما داراي دستگاه تبليغاتي خوبي است» توصيف كرد. به گفته قاسملو، سازمان مجاهدين هيچ توانايي واقعي براي عمليات در ايران ندارد. او مي گويد در واقع از ميان تمامي گروه هاي اپوزيسيون، فقط حزب من است كه توانايي قابل توجهي دارد.
    اين گزارش اطلاعاتي در معرفي قاسملو، مي نويسد: وي متولد 1930 و تحصيل كرده كالج آمريكايي در تهران است و بعدها در پاريس به دانشگاه رفت. او برنده يك بورس تحصيلي از دانشگاه پراگ شد.
    يادآور مي شود قاسملو 5 ماه پس از اين حضور رمزآلود در بغداد، به تاريخ 13ژوئيه 1989 در وين اتريش و در جريان يك تسويه حساب مربوط به گروهك هاي اپوزيسيون مقيم خارج به قدرت رسيد. با توجه به اظهارات قاسملو در ديدار مامور اطلاعاتي آمريكا، مي توان سازمان منافقين را در اين تسويه حساب دخيل دانست هرچند كه بنابر اظهارات پرادعاي وي در نفي ساير گروهك ها مي توان احتمال داد اغلب گروهك ها مايل به حذف وي بوده اند

  127. For those who haven’t watched the video of Flynt’s interview, he was quite impressive — as was Hillary in her own Al Jazeera interview that appears in a small window on the right side of the screen just as Flynt’s interview comes to an end.

  128. kooshy says:

    This Is How Israel Runs The British Press

    By Gilad Atzmon


    Shockingly enough, not a single British paper was brave enough to report the story or publish the leaked email. Surely they know who their masters are. The message is pretty clear. British press is not trustworthy. It is as Zionised as our political system.

  129. masoud says:

    While I’m at it, here’s two more that were/are still censored, the concern the ‘Hasaka Enrichment Site’ which turned out to be nothing more than some kind of a textile mill:


    masoud | November 5, 2011
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Let me get this straight:

    1. You get taken for a ride by some wild rumor you heard somewhere
    2. You perpetuate this lie about Syria developing centrifuge enrichment for illicit purposes on your blog.
    3. You never cite a scrap of evidence for why you hold this belief.
    4. You and you pals engage in this week long pseudo-voyeuristic ‘what if’ fest about how this enrichment cite could be configured how long it’s been at it etc..
    5. It is proven that this cotton spinning factory is indeed beyond any reasonable doubt, a cotton spinning factory.
    6. Your ‘close the file’ on all this with a concluding post about how we shouldn’t judge too harshly all the politicized clowns at the IAEA(or this very blog), but rather dish out pats on the back to everyone involved.

    Question: If it had been a Chinese(or heaven forbid Iranian or North Korean), rather than a German company contracted out to build this factory, and some deranged American or Israeli nutcase decided to dispatch a couple of F-16s to flatten it, what reason would you have to not uncritically apologize for that action, as you do with the Al-Kibar incident?


    masoud | October 24, 2011

    Hold on to your hats.

    This site has in fact only been registered since 2007-12-07(www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?q=hasakaspin.com&page=results). It goes without saying, this is a deeply troubling contrast to it’s claimed 2006 copyright.

    If you are inclined to be ‘Good Natured’, that may just be grounds enough to demand for a Chapter Seven resolution authorizing the IAEA to conduct intrusive inspections to determine just how long the Syrians have been spinning that cotton. Personally, I think NATO should take pains to point out that it will be keeping all options on the table, as this development has so thoroughly shaken the ‘International Community’s’ confidence. Also, I would like to point out that no clause of the NPT has ever explicitly guaranteed NNWS to spin cotton. Perhaps it would be prudent to call on Syria to observe a voluntary suspension of all cotton related activities while this is all sorted out. Actually, if you give it some thought, there’s no reason why the Syrian regime needs to produce it’s own cotton at all. It should just buy finished product from foreign suppliers like every other nation that does(well, except for those who actually do produce cotton, but common, it’s not like Syria can hope to be like them). It’s not like anyone’s making much profit off of textiles anyways. In any case, it looks like it’s going to be a dangerous next couple years for T-Shirt designers in Damascus. I say who gives a Damn, those Terrorists knew what was coming their way when they signed up for that line of work. We should all simply aim to be patriotically snide about any distasteful developments that occur, whenever we can’t dodge the subject, that is.

  130. masoud says:

    I think at this point I am more or less permanently on Jeffery Lewis’ black list over at armscontrolwonk. So here is the comment he will most likely censor:


    ‘Nuclear Ambiguity’? I mean, have words lost all meaning?

    I mean, there is no country in the world that has been as unambiguously expressive about it’s opposition to Nuclear Arms as Iran has, and no country in the world has staked as much of it’s popular legitimacy on the principle that WMDs are immoral and to be shunned as Iran has, and to my knowledge, Iran remains the only country in the world to have suffered WMD attacks and declined to respond in kind, even when it had the option of doing so. So there is nothing either ambiguous or uncredible about Iran’s stance on Nuclear Arms.

    Now, you and the Motorcycle Assassins may still be nervous about Iran’s nuclear program, but we should be precise about this: it’s not anyone’s ‘Nuclear Ambiguity’ that is causing this, it your squeamishness about uppity brown people being technically capable of doing things Uncle Sam would like to think makes him special.

  131. Anon says:

    you could tell condi to watch this KNIGHTED pro-zionist Jewish member of parliament:


  132. Rehmat says:

    Condi Rice: ‘I’ve a deep affinity with Israel’

    Condoleeza Rice told Christiane Amanpour that “it’s time to confront the Iranian regime, because it’s the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism”. One wonder how Israel had been established in 1948 without the Jewish terrorism? I would highly recommend her to study “Jewish Terrorism in Israel”, a book written by two Israeli historians, Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perlinger.


  133. Anon says:

    I encourage those of you familiar with technicalities of IAEA and Iran nuke program to comment at http://www.armscontrolwonk.com

    I was trying to hold the Objective fort there but the a-hole (Jeffery Lewis) who runs the website banned me!

  134. Anon says:

    The overweight douch*bag Jeffrey Lewis banned me from his tendentious pro-US/Israel/IAEA anti-Iran website (www.armscontrolwonk.com) because I underlined what one of the foremost authorities on the IAEA stated:

    The Hasaka incident elucidates an important issue: states may not allow IAEA inspectors into certain sites, not because they have anything to hide but because the IAEA has no legal basis for such prying.

    Just because you deny the police to enter your home does not mean you are hiding some child porn. You just don’t want the damn police there and they have no legal basis to enter your home.

    Our friend Pierre Goldschmidt agrees — See:


    “…the Department of Safeguards doesn’t have the legal authority it needs to fulfill its mandate and to provide the assurances the international community is expecting from its verification activities. ”

    Well, that’s really too bad but this was done by design.

    The third world diplomats who hashed out the NPT and CSAs made sure their national sovereignty would not be sacrificed to the IAEA/UNSC/NWSs.

    In the end, this seems to have been sensible from their perspective: the IAEA is not helping 3rd world nations with their nuclear programs, it is not preventing disasters in first world nations, and it is not pressuring the first world nations (NWSs) to disarm at an “early date”.

  135. James Canning says:

    Those who think lobbyists control the US Congress will not change their minds from reading “Jack Abramoff gives away the corrupt insider’s game in ‘our’ Congress on [CBS’s ] 60 Minutes”, at alternet.org today. For those who watched the programme, Lesley Stahl was appalled at how easy it was to manipulate the eager stooges found in the various Congressional offices, who themselves wanted to become lobbyists and get rich scr*wing the public.

  136. James Canning says:


    Key difference today is Iranian production of the 20% U. This is what has Gulf countries agitated.

  137. James Canning says:


    I surmise William Hague told Ehud Barak not to attack Iran, when they met the other day in London. Hague condemned the latest batch of 2000 illegal flats to be built in East Jerusalem. And Israel’s threat to cut off Palestinian tax revenues.

  138. Clint says:

    Hey, its 2008 all over again!

  139. James Canning says:


    Nato military intervention in Iran very unlikely without UNSC resolution. And that will be blocked by Russia and China, as things stand today.

    Let’s remember Russia and China both do not want Iran to build nukes.

  140. James Canning says:


    I thought Jackson-Vanik was bad legislation when it was enacted. To have it remaining on the books is preposterous (and of course an insult of sorts to Russia).

    I think Iran does well to cause European countries to see the degree of control of the US Congress enjoyed by Aipac and other extremist Jewish groups.

  141. James Canning says:


    I think Iran did itself well to offer to cease production of 20% U. The very fact Obama has not responded to that offer underscores its merits.

    I also think the production of 20% U is very dangerous for Iran, if it continues long enough so that large quantities are on hand that in theory could be further enriched to weapons-grade quickly.

    On the other hand, why not try to smooth the ruffled feelings of some of the Gulf countries that do in fact worry about the Iranian production of 20% U?

  142. James Canning says:

    Those unfamiliar with L. Gordon Crovits of the Wall Street Journal need go no further than his September 27, 2010 piece entitled: “Iran’s Ahmadinejad, information pariah — When a dictator’s lies are so easily unmasked, can his threats be ignored”. Second sentence invokes names of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Forerunners of Ahmadinejad, in the crazed “thinking” of Crovitz.

  143. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 7, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    I think Mr. Khamenei’s objections – to the way the deal had been structured – had carried the most weight.

    But I personally do not care about 3% or 5% or 20%.

    Incremental deals will not work with Iran.

    Just look at the Jackson-Vanik Legislation; still on the books after so many years.

    Iran should continue going her way, ignoring the noises of all these World Powers.

    They need iran more than Iran needs them – in my estimation.

  144. James Canning says:


    Yes, I very much doubt Israeli military leaders want to engage in a war with Iran. Especially one fought by itself. No “victory” could be achieved by such an exercise.

    The Israeli smashing of Lebanon in 2006 showed clearly Israel can blow up thousands or tens of thousands of buildings, bridges, etc etc etc but there is a great reluctance to grind out a campaign on the ground with significant casualties. Which makes sense.

    I continue to believe any Israeli attack on Iran would be insane.

  145. James Canning says:


    Weren’t the “Greens” in Iran opposing the nuclear fuel exchange? Wasn’t this part of the problem?

    Did some of the neocon warmongers want to block the nuclear exchange, in hopes Iran would then produce 20% U? Or at least to delay the deal, in hopes Khamenei would cancel it before it was confirmed?

    You are aware, of course, of recent Iranian offer to cease production of 20% U.

  146. James Canning says:


    Haven’t Germany, Canada and Brazil agreed not to develop nukes?

  147. James Canning says:

    BTW, Crovitz’s piece in WSJ is entitled “Good riddance to a repeat UN offender”. He of course refers to Unesco.

  148. James Canning says:

    In the Wall Street Journal today, L. Gordon Crovitz attacked the IAEA. Not aggressive enough against Iran to suit the neocons. Crovitz argues: “History teaches that matters of life and death are too important to be delegated to the UN.” Much better to put such decisions in the hands of a cabal of neocon warmongers.

  149. James Canning says:


    Latest economic figures I have seen show South Korea’s economy is 39 times the size of that of North Korea. Clearly SK doing is doing a lot of things right.

  150. James Canning says:


    Yes, how very interesting. Obama admintration claims to be weighing whether to add 4,000 more US troops to those already in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti defence minister says no increase will be permitted, and those already there will not be allowed to use Kuwait to attack another country.

  151. Fara says:

    An update for Nima’s (Wide Asleep in America) record.

    Iran has acquired the knowledge and technology to create a nuclear bomb within months according to information leaked from a report by the United Nation’s atomic watchdog.


  152. fyi says:

    Rehmat says: November 7, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    In fact, South Korea had enriched to 70% without reporting it and they were caught.

    But she is a semi-sovereign state with little geopolitical autonomy.

  153. Rehmat says:

    Steinbock – Iran has much right to enrich uranium to nuke-grade, if it ever wants, as the US, France, Britain, Germany, Canada, Russia, China and Brazil have. All these countries are signatory to NPT. However, when it comes to the non-NPT signatories – only Pakistan and North Korea becomes threat to Zionist world and not the Israeli Jewish and India’s Hindu nukes.

    I say, the western countries are subservient to Jewish Lobby groups and morally 101% corrupted.


  154. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 7, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Basically, Mr. Khamenei raised certain issues that – from his point of view – were in need of clarification.

    When Iranians received no clarifications from US, France, and Russia then the deal – in that form – was abandoned.

    We are no longer in a place that incrementalism would work to resolve Axis Powers – Iran Stand-Off.

  155. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 7, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Basically, Mr. Khamenei raised certain issues that – from his point of view – were in need of clarification.

    When Iranians received no clarifications from US, France, and Russia then the deal – in that form – was abandoned.

    We are no longer in a place that incrementalism would work to resolve Axis Powers – Iran Stand-Off.

  156. Karl says:


    “That the more Israeli leaders whine about their ‘war plan’ against Iran the more they prove that they have no gutts to attack Iran.”

    You are talking about military escapdes it could manage by itself (or atleast thought so), regarding Iran – Israel want the world to do their wars, so they try to creat a even bigger rift between Iran and west. And the intention would be to get more and more people on board to attack Iran because they wont manage it alone.

  157. Rehmat says:

    James Canning – No world power needs to warn the Zionist entity against its plan to attack Iran because there is no plan. It you study Israel’s 63 year past history – you will find that whenever, it attacked its neighbors, it never announced its intention. That the more Israeli leaders whine about their ‘war plan’ against Iran the more they prove that they have no gutts to attack Iran.

    What Israeli leaders are doing is blackmailing the world community that better they die for Israel in Iran before Jewish army may attack Iran alone. However, Zionist leaders are well aware of the fact that if the 35,000-strong Jewish army with the US and French support could not defeat 1500 Hizbullah fighters with no tanks, helicopters and F16s to support them in 2006 – how the Jewish army is going to defeat Iran which has well-equipped with one of the best Army, Airforce and Navy??


  158. Steinbock says:

    James Canning

    Yes I agree the 3.5% enrichment has nothing to do with building nukes.
    In the end what supposedly worried the u.s[israel] was that the 1 ton of 3.5% leu could be turned into a couple,or even one,bombs worth of 90%+ heu tho as far as I know there was no evidence that the iranians had ever enriched beyond 3.5,ironically it was the u.s scuppering of the fuel swap deal that gave iran the legitimate reason to enrich to 20%,talk about shooting oneself in the foot

  159. Karl says:

    I found a interesing link, exposing that the same warmongering from israeli lobby in america against Iran goes back atleast 16 years!


    From 1995 we hear the usual crap:

    “””””If you think about the strategic threat to Israel long-term,” Grossman said, “it’s the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and…the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.”””””

    “””””Calling Iran a “sponsor of evil deeds,” Sen. Barbara Boxer said this week she is backing a bill to sanction foreign companies that invest in the Mideast nation.

  160. James Canning says:


    I think it should be noted that Condoleezza Rice has next to no understanding of history. Which is so often the case with American leaders these days.

    Rice also lacks an ability to think strategically. Otherwise she would have grasped years ago that the US needs to work with Iran in mutual interest.

    Let’s remember Rice’s greatest ambition in life was to become Commissioner of the (American) National Football League. That probalby speaks volumes.

  161. James Canning says:

    I recommend report by Alex Spillius in Daily Telegraph today: “Russia warns against Israeli air strike on Iran”.

    Quote: “Netanyahu…has often spoken of the ‘existential threa’ posed by Iran, whose president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s annihilation.”

    Apparently, “annihilation” is preferred more recently, to the former “wipe Israel off the map” because the falsity of that claim has been made too clear?

  162. BiBiJon says:

    Are you ready? Heeeeeeer comes the FIZZLE!

    A word of caution. After the universally anticipated big fizzle following the recent big push to demonize/sanction/bomb Iran, there will be a flurry of post-fizzle op-eds attributing the inaction to Israel’s maturity, US’ restraint, Russia + China’s foot dragging etc.

    It is in fact ONLY Iran’s capacity for self-defense which consigns all such Western orchestrated efforts to a deafening fizzle. Let no one take credit where it’s not due.

  163. James Canning says:

    James Zogby has more insight on effective control of US Congress by Aipac etc.


    Utter foolishness of US being unable to participate in Unesco. Thanks to Israel.

  164. James Canning says:


    Great question by Matt Lee of the AP! Of Nuland, who obviously does not want to admit the government of Israel controls the issue of whether the US can continue to work with Unesco.

  165. James Canning says:


    The so-called “nuclear exchange” might well have gone through, were it not for disagreement within Iran. There was considerable scope to call attention to the apparent wish on the part of some “western” countries, to have Iran’s 3.5% delivered to Turkey, as you say, with no guarantee it would result in delivery of the plates, or return of the 3.5% U.

    Do we agree the 3.5% U had little actual significance in terms of whether Iran was trying to get ready to build nukes on the sly?

  166. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 7, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Hans Blix ought to be ignored by Iranian planners and strategists.

    Nuclear weapons are a strategic necessity for Iran and the tens of millions of people whose station in life depends on the continued existence of the Shia Fortress of Iran – Iraqi Shia, Iraqi Kurds, Armenians, Leabnese, Syrians, Hazaras, etc.

    This is not about US vs Iran or Israel vs. Iran or Persian Guld Arabs aganist Iran.

    The strategic context has been enlarged to the point that Iranians cannot even afford to retreat; so many others depend on them.

  167. James Canning says:


    I think the fuel plates would have been delivered. The issue of whether the plates would not be delivered, in essentially a scam, so that some of Iran’s 3.5% would be retained in Turkey, was more a domestic political problem within Iran, Rather than what seemed a realistic worry. Especially given the fact Iran will have no use for the 3.5% U for years to come.

    I doubt Turkey would have wished to double-cross Iran and wreck a deal it worked hard to put together.

  168. James Canning says:


    I assume Hillary Clinton is pushing hard for more foolish sanctions against Iran, for domestic political reasons. In pursuing more foolish sanctions, she would have cause to try to suppress any comments on Iran’s recent offer to cease production of 20% U.

    James Blitz also wrote in the Financial Times today: “It is the near-unanimous view among officials and analysts that the US administration is staunchly opposed to military action [against Iran], for now.” This is a correct assessment.

  169. Steinbock says:

    James Canning

    It is irrelevant wether the iaea approved the application or not,what truly mattered was wether the west could be trusted to produce the goods and when one considers that the west had no interest in anything other than a take it or leave it deal without any kind of safegaurd or guarentee to ensure that iran would get the fuel plates,indeed I have no doubt that if iran had gone ahead with the swap it would have recieved nothing the west would have come up with some excuse or another to ensure non delivery that much was clear.The iaea can approve anything it likes,wether western or other fuel suppliers will supply the fuel is another question entirely

  170. James Canning says:

    Those curious about some of the current developments in the foreign policy “establishment” in Washington should read Lewis McCrary’s comments:


    Many if not most “true conservatives” oppose the current idiotic levels of US “defence” spending, endless war in the Middle East, etc.

  171. James Canning says:


    The “take’ on emerging developments regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, found in the FT, are always well worth reading carefully. In my view. I think more attention should be called to the fact so little attention is paid to Iran’s recent offer to cease production of 20% U.

    Has Sanger paid any attention to the Iranian offer, in his pieces in The New York Times?

  172. Clint says:

    QUESTION, people: What was more lame?

    1. the BOGUS Iran plot by the used car dealer

    2. or the BOGUS IAEA report?

  173. Clint says:

    OK, I think would be worth for a bunch of us to write letters to FT on theior false claim of HEU in Iran

  174. James Canning says:

    The FT today also reported: “Iran’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said western powers were ‘unfairly’ putting pressure on Iran. He insisted Iran was not going to bow and was ‘ready to pay the price for its principles'”. Again, no mention of Iran’s recent offer to cease production of 20% U.

  175. James Canning says:


    Do you really believe Obama “slaughtered 100,000 Libyans” in order to “grab oil”? Most of the giant oil companies proudcing Libyan oil under the Gaddafi government opposed a military intervention. And those contracts are not being disavowed by the interim government, so no “oil” is available to be “grabbed” by Obama.

    If you point is that the military intervention in Libya led to more civilian deaths than would have been the case without any intervention, you may have a strong case.

  176. James Canning says:


    Of course I am aware of the fact 20% U is considered LEU. This is the reason I called attention to James Blitz’s comment in the Financial Times today, that in effect claims the LEU of 20% was “close to weapons grade” when this is not correct. Blitz did not refer to “20% U”; instead, he used the phrase “concentrations that are close to weapons grade.”

  177. James Canning says:


    Condi (Mushroom Cloud) Rice knew her book would be promoted by US news media. She was an eager stooge of the neocon warmongers and was sure that rewards would be on offer down the line.

  178. Clint says:


    20% enriched U is considered LEU. Iran has only 19.75% enriched U.

  179. James Canning says:


    Hans Blix is quite right, that Iran does not need nukes for defence. When you refer to the “US”, I take it to mean you refer to the US Congress (which is controlled by Aipac and other extremist elements of the Israel lobby).

  180. James Canning says:


    The Iranian application to the IAEA to re-fuel the TRR, probably would have been approved. The dispute, as you may recall, was regarding the terms of the 3.5% U that was to be put on deposit in Turkey pending delivery of the fuel.

    A serious question is whether enemies of Iran wanted Iran to enrich to 20%. So this could be used as “evidence” of a programme to build nukes.

  181. James Canning says:

    In the Financial Times today (“UN to show Tehran’s intent to test nuclear arms”), James Blitz stated that Iran “would make no compromise” regarding its nuclear programme. No mention of recent Iranian offer to cease production of 20% U. Yet Blitz, in comment in the FT today (“Western world given reminder of the ticking bomb in Iran”), states: “One worry [for “western world”] is that Iran has recently started enriching uranium at concentrations that are very close to weapons grade.”

    Is 20% U “very close to weapons grade”?

  182. Clint says:

    sorry sorry — short on time so I copied your post. And of course it is obvious it is a post by you! Anyway see the link in your comments to the report.

  183. kooshy says:

    Eric A. Brill says:

    November 7, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Thank you Mr. Brill, knowing your past comments, I kind of knew why you insist to pick on the NYT writers, passing misinformation, and I must add I fully agree with your concept and method of fighting back when possible.

    Here is another one of Mr. Sanger’s in between the lines misinformation in the same article you commented on, which supposedly is being passed to the reader without he or she realizing what is being said here, I saw this last night which I thought it would be too repetitive to bring it out, which I wonder and like to know if you detected that or not.

    See how he inserts that Iran’s director of Atomic Energy Organization who just recently was target of association, travels around the world to assure others that Iran’s interest in “Nuclear Weapons “is peaceful.

    Can someone ask Mr. Sanger if he can prove that any Iranian official has ever said that Iran has an interest in “Nuclear Weapons” never less to run around and assure others that Iran’s interest in such weapons is just for peaceful purposes?

    “Perhaps to make a point, Mr. Abbasi, now recovered from his injuries, has been made the director of Iran’s atomic energy program. He travels the world offering assurances that Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons is peaceful.”

  184. b says:


    Why do you copy what I wrote in a comment at the ArmsContolWonk and post it here without marking it as a quote from me?

    That is not proper manner, even on the internets.

  185. Steinbock says:

    One thing mr Blix neglects to mention is the unreliability of the west when it comes to the supply of nuclear technology,the west would not even supply the small amount of fuel for a tiny medical reactor.The simple fact is that iran cannot trust the west to supply it with fuel for its reactor program,I would include the russians in this too,if Iran is to continue with its reactor building program it must have a guaranteed fuel supply and the infrastructure to produce it,this is not a question of economics but the simple strategic reality that Iran finds itself in that is why the comparisons with the korean or any other model is worthless,as I think mr Blix very well knows.Personally I feel a mixture of contempt and pity for the Hans Blixs of the world they are like pacifists trying to deal with vicious amoral thugs bent on mindless violence

  186. Clint says:

    The Washington Post today mentions one Vyacheslav Danilenko as a “former Soviet scientist” and as “nuclear scientist” working with Iran. (WaPO said he worked from mid 1990s for five years…so not a current issue).

    Vyacheslav Danilenko has worked on detonation nanodiamonds since 1962, he invented parts of the process, and is still affiliated with an Ukrainian company that makes nanodiamonds.

    Iran has done research on nanodiamonds and plans to build an industrial scale production facility for them.

    There are certain relations between nuclear weapons and detonation nanodiamonds. The second were found while researching the first. But there are also quite some differences.

    I find Danilenko working with Iran on his major expertise field much more plausible than him working with Iran on nuclear stuff.

    Can anyone here point me to something that supports the Danilenko is a “nuclear scientist” allegation?

    I have linked some factual support on the above in


  187. Karl says:

    Former IAEA chief – Hans Blix while being critical of Iran, atleast tell the obvious:

    “I think the talks that will resume should give Iran insurance that they will not be attacked from the outside under any circumstances,” said Mr Blix, who was head of the IAEA from 1981 to 1997, and also led the UN team monitoring Iraq’s weapons development programme. “They may be expecting a lot of economic squeezes, but not attacks. They do not need nuclear weapons to defend their territory.”

    “Former atomic chief Blix calls for a new approach to Iran”


    What Hans doesnt grip is that US have no interests in talks, just got he got fooled in the Iraqi-case.

  188. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    November 7, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Thanks a bunch for that link. A must read. As you say, the Bernard Lweisish ‘Turkey eclipses Iran’ has run its roots among American ‘orientalists’.

  189. Dolittle says:

    Apparently this new IAEA “evidence” about Iran’s supposed secret nuke program is based on…computer simulations.


  190. paul says:

    This article from the Leverettes offers a tremendous insight into the mentality and intentions of the US intelligentsia. Consider that the Leverettes are some of the strongest critics of Obama’s policies towards Iran, and yet EVEN THEY continue to find blatantly false ways of construing his belligerence towards Iran as peacemaking. The basic claim is that the only reason Obama hypes the ‘threat’ supposedly posed by Iran, and threatens war, is to hold back the people who are even more pro-war. Notice how perfect this sophistic argument really is. No matter how belligerent Obama becomes – and considering that he just slaughtered perhaps 100,000 Libyans in an oil grab, there is clearly no shred of human decency restraining him – Obama’s apologists WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE MORE BELLIGERENT, so they can always portray him as a peacemaker, no matter what.

    When even our Warmonger-in-Chief’s critics are depicting him as a befuddled good guy at worst, is it any wonder that the People can’t seem to wake up to how brutal and evil their government has become?

  191. fyi says:



    Americans have intelligent and knowledgable people but they are ignored.

    The article, unfortunately, ignore the Islamic Republic of Iran; the other “core states of Muslim civilization”.

    That is most unfortunate.

  192. Steinbock says:

    Its quite funny that the zionists in their desperation are tryiny to use the same boycott /divest tatics that have hit Israel so hard,the problem is that I doubt that there are many u.s. or western companies left doing business with Iran,as someone here said the west has sanctioned itself out of influence with iran

  193. Kooshy,

    “you say you have given up on Juan, but somehow you still expect different from the newspaper of record.”

    I gave up on nearly all NY Times writers (“all” might be more correct — I can’t think of an exception) long before I gave up on Juan Cole. My only reason for focusing on them is precisely BECAUSE the New York Times is the “newspaper of record.” I think it’s important that readers of the New York Times understand how its writers purport to be sticking to the facts on Iran but often spin those “facts” out of baseless speculation.

    It’s quite subtle in many articles, and if it passes by undetected, what is a “stretch” in one article becomes the firmly established base for the next article.

  194. fyi says:

    Clint says: November 7, 2011 at 8:36 am

    We are no longer in the realm of International Law and regulations.

    Only Iran’ own ability to cause harm to US and EU and their local allies is going to protect her.

    I also think Americans killed NPT; we are just going through the motions that it still a valid convention.

  195. Fiorangela says:

    Is sanctioning CBI a “step” on the way to war on behalf of Israel, ‘because an Iran with nuclear capability is a threat to the known and unknown universe,’ or is destroying CBI, and every other element of the Iranian financial system, likewise, to the competitive advantage of Israelis, the goal itself?

    When Iran Task Force (a group of Jewish persons, organized and financed by the Israeli government MFA, who are citizens of other countries) rolled out its campaign against Iran, in Nov 2007, under the image of a flame-colored mushroom cloud, its stated goals were:
    1. to educate [Americans] on the threat that a nuclear Iran poses to the world
    2. to coerce various State employees and Teachers pension funds to divest from corporations doing business with Iran. [Stuart Levey spearheaded this tactic from within the office of the United States Treasury Department.)

    The mushroom cloud, the entire campaign concerning Iran’s “nuclear threat,” are distractions from the massive theft that Israel and its partisans are perpetrating against the Iranian people, AS WELL AS the American people, and by means of American institutions, systems, and persons. Having stolen the land on which to build its entity, and having stolen the history and culture of many, many people, Israel is now stealing the resources to keep that entity afloat, and, by theft and other forms of malevolence, obtaining competitive advantage.

    When I was in high school, the football team served as a school energizer and unifier. Pep rallies fired up the student body to urge the team on to victory. But every pep rally included several versions of the declaration, “Winners never cheat and cheaters never win.”

  196. Clint says:

    Regarding the UN and US sanctions, why they will never work (and are not *meant* to work!) — by the same guy who wrote the Asia Times piece on Iran:


  197. Clint says:

    There is a report in WaPo on Iran’s alleged program: there was some Russian scientist who helped them in the mid-1990s for about five years.

    And there is a report from 2007 (alleged) showing interest in neutron initiators. It is unknown if this actually went anywhere.


    There is no evidence of any nuclear weapons fabrication, as both the ex-DG and our DNI have said in 2011. There has been no diversion of declared nuclear material.

    The case against Iran is largely political.

    Can someone say what Iran needs to do to have the sanctions lifted (besides ending enrichment — which will not happen)?

    Iran may just hang on to a large stockpile for 19.75% LEU.

    Also, bombing Iran is in contravention of UNSCR 487.

    And if Israel does this, then it should have Ch 7 sanctions applied. This would actually be a just case of Ch 7 sanction since a real breach of peace occurred.

  198. Castellio says:

    BiBiJon, I was at a meeting not that long ago where there was someone representing the Israeli government who insisted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do wth Israel and everything to do oil.

    Absolutely nothing, were I think the words used. Absolutely nothing!

    In fact, as we’ve consistently seen with Palestine, no Palestinian action has anything to do with Israeli actions either. Absolutely nothing!

    Israel can attack Iran one day and deny it the next. Any subsequent war between the US and Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

    You wait and see.

  199. Empty says:

    In the link that Kathleen posted earlier (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/), Boehner, in a rare display of honesty (momentary lapse perhaps) and in response to Amanpour’s statement about public’s dissatisfaction with a malfunctioning congress, says, “Listen, the founders gave us a committee of 535 people, frankly it was designed not to work.”

    I doubt he realizes what he is in effect saying.

  200. Castellio says:


    Is there anyone out there doing an analysis of The New York Times?

    I mean, it ranks up there with Pravda in the 1970’s as a source of blatant bias and official misinformation. Thinking about it, it might actually be worse than Pravda in the 1970’s.

    I’m curious how that is sustained at an organizational level. What are the levers and how are they controlled?

  201. BiBiJon says:

    Israel will not attack Iran. Period.

    Some may think that I am going out on a limb. Shouldn’t I add at least “probably” or “almost certainly”?

    No, I won’t. I shall repeat categorically: Israel Will NOT Attack Iran.


    Uttered by Uri Avnery, not I.

    While here though, let me express my profound gratitude to Christian armanpour, and Julian Borger for devastating, but subtle demolition of war-mongering against Iran.

    Julian’s use of mushroom cloud picture (or is it a picture of a bog brush?) would have reminded the amnesiac among us, that precisely when you see pictures like that you can be certain you are being manipulated. That mushroom cloud picture, ever since the lead up to the needless slaughter of Iraqis, is the most widely recognized emblem of propaganda BS. Thank you Julian for stamping your your fear/war-mongering routine with the bog brush insignia.

    Hat off to Armanpour for getting Condoleza Rice decalre Iran’s government as illegitimate. Such badges of honor are rarely bestowed on any government. Thank you Christian!

  202. John says:

    The israeli/american puppet amano visited Israel back in 2010. As usual amano put no pressure on Israel, instead he got told what to do about Iran, which just shows what a impartial organ IAEA is.


    Look what peres said:

    ““requires a person who is trusted by all sides, who can distinguish right from wrong and detect elements trying to deceive the international community.””

    Israel have conducted a secret nuclear weapons program for some 60 years, so why this doublestandard?! Does peres really think that the world outside of the israeli bubble, dont see the sheer hypocrisy?

    And “of course” to the zionist-mind Israel cannot be criticized according to peres and he use usual lies about Israel being attacked (not the other way around which is the truth):

    “‘Israel not like other countries’
    In a possible reference to the Arab League’s push for international control on Israel’s nuclear facilities Peres noted that “one must bear in mind that the State of Israel has been attacked seven times during the course of 62 years. In this respect, it is not like any other country. The world cannot ignore the ongoing threat Israel is under.””


  203. Fara says:

    ‘Kuwait not to host more US troops’

    Kuwait has denied that it plans to host more US troops after the United States withdraws its forces from neighboring Iraq by the year-end deadline.


  204. kooshy says:

    Eric, this is from our old friend the doyen of Iran propagandist, the one and only, heeeeeeerrrrrrrr comes David the NYT propaganda Signer, what do you expect, you say you have given up on Juan, but somehow you still expect different from the newspaper of the record.

  205. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/sunday-review/the-secret-war-with-iran.html

    As always, It’s interesting to see in this article (November 6) how subtly the NY Times transforms unsubstantiated allegations of Iranian government involvement in the “Saudi ambassador” plot into established facts.

    The print version of the article opened with this sub-head:

    “Was an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington payback for the Stuxnet virus?”

    The sentence’s main point is the Iranian government’s motivation, which is relevant only if it was actually involved. The US has offered no evidence that it was, of course, but most readers will quickly forget this as the writer leads them into speculations about why the Iranian government did such a horrible thing.

    In the next reference to the Saudi ambassador plot, “alleged” disappears entirely, in favor of “disclosed,” as in “the recently disclosed Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States.”

    “Disclosed?” That certainly sounds like something that actually happened.

    Later, we learn that the “plot” was not merely “disclosed” –– it was “revealed,” as in “the revelation of the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador.”

    “Revelation?” That sounds vaguely divine, and at the very least indisputably true.

    From “alleged” to “disclosed” to “revelation” –- quite a progression in such a few short paragraphs. The gentle reader may be forgiven for forgetting that all three words refer to the very same thing: nothing but unsubstantiated allegations for which the US government has long promised, but never actually delivered, what many of us are still eager to see: evidence.

  206. fyi says:

    Kathleen says: November 6, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Ms. Rice’s implicit understanding that the geo-political re-orientation of the Iranian state toward the Axis Powers will be of the greates possible value to them is sound.

    What is unsound is the belief that the such a re-orientation is within the power of the United States, EU, Russia, China or any other state or combination of states.

    But she has to express her wish – as I am free to express my wish to see the Great King.

    Iranians have paid a very heavy price to earn their strategic autonomy, they are not going to let go of it at any price – and there is nothing in it for them.

    Americans have not yet accepted – it seems – that in the coming years they will need Iran more than Iran needs them. [On nuclear disarmament, on Palestine, on Afghnistan, on Energy security Mr. Obama’s stated objectives required Iranian assistance – as Mr. Ahmadinejad had observed.]

    Ms. Rice speaks out of frustration.

  207. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:


    This confirms the reports that the Iranian Nefarious Weapons Program is mobile. And it actually could fit quite nicely in, oh say, a used car salesman’s car.

  208. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Enduring America One Weasel at a Time Reports:

    Our usual ‘well-placed’ source (this time, believe it or not, he is in the inner circle of the IAEA,) has leaked to us exclusively this photograph, which is Exhibit A of the forthcoming IAEA report on Iranian malfeasance.


    The evidence, which is incontrovertible, speaks for itself. So c’mon, boys! Let’s go kick some Eye-rainian butt. Eeeeeeeeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

  209. Rehmat says:

    “Barack Obama is owned by Wall Street. The fat cats as he calls them, they’re his friends. They’re all his pals. That’s where he gets his campaign donations. And he is very generous about giving these fatcats their cat nip – bigger returns for their investments in bailouts,” said Sarah Palin.


  210. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Metanoia explores the mechanics of Weaselschaft:


  211. Fiorangela says:


    “this week Israel released information about an IAF exercise in NATO’s bases in Italy. The statement was made to create the impression that any future Israeli aggression against Iran enjoys Western backing. NATO however was quick to disassociate itself from any such attack. NATO leader Fogh Rasmussen confirmed in a press conference that the alliance has no intention whatsoever of intervening in Iran.

    To date, we’ve not seen any British public official statement that would suggest that Britain is ready to back either the US or Israel in any possible strike on Iran.”

    A few days ago, newspapers reported that Angela Merkel was backing away from at least parts of earlier deals to supply Israel with nuclear subs.

    Erdogan is going his own way, no longer in full support of Israel.

    Brand Israel is wearing thin.

    Iran’s steadfastness is the tortoise.

  212. Kathleen says:

    This recent State Dept Press briefing where AP reporter Matt Lee really challenges Victoria Nuland is a great read and watch
    “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.”

  213. Kathleen says:

    “mushroom cloud” Rice at 37:00. Pushing for a confrontation with Iran

    Rice…Iran “trying to get a nuclear weapon”

  214. Kathleen says:

    “No higher honor” Christiane Amanpout promoting the war criminal Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice and her new book just as Jon Stewart did recently.

    Mushroom Cloud Rice promoting a confrontation with Iran on “This Week” at 37:00.
    link to abcnews.go.com

    Rice should be on trial at the Hague not on the Daily Show and This Week.

  215. Kathleen says:

    “In essence, the Team Obama hoped that its sensational charges against Tehran would persuade otherwise resistant third countries to reconsider imposing sanctions on the CBI—thereby allowing it to look “tough” and hold Congress’s latest proposals for truly idiotic Iran sanctions laws at bay.”

    How could Team Obama actually expect this? How could they? Hundreds of thousands dead, injured in Iraq (even though our MSM does not show the American people the stark horror of what we have done in Iraq). Triple American amputees at our Veteran Hospitals across the country (I have talked with more than a few of these Vets) 4500 American soldiers dead. They actually believed people would believe Attorney General Holder (Marc Rich, wiretapping, torture) or Secretary of State “voted for the Iraq war resolution) Clinton. Who believes these people?

    Flynt “concocted plot”

  216. James Canning says:

    We can assume many countries are well aware that Obama’s call for more foolish sanctions has far more to do with domestic US politics, than anything else.

  217. James Canning says:

    If Obama is indeed unable to obtain international support for morefoolish sanctions against Iran, it is a very good thing for the people of the US.

  218. fyi says:

    Mr. Obama, to satisfy the same Jewish constituency, announced and organized the Middle East Peace Conference last year; a damaging (to US) exercise in diplomatic futility.

    He is paying his debts; may be after he has paid his debts he will find his backbone.