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

The Race for Iran



Flynt recently made a short video for Penn State’s School of International Affairs, where he holds a faculty appointment, about a range of Iran-related issues, click  here or on the video pictured above.  He discusses the impact of sanctions and other sorts of coercive pressure on Iran, arguing that “we are not going to be able to sanction them, browbeat them, or even bomb them into surrender.  We need to be able to come to terms with them.”  Doing that starts with “accepting the Iranian revolution, and accepting the political order that came out of it, the Islamic Republic, as an enduring and legitimate political entity, with legitimate national interests.”  He explains why this is the only workable basis for “strategically grounded rapprochement” between Washington and Tehran, and elaborates on the nature of the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy. 

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett



  1. AllenBee says:

    for all of your palavering about rationalism you have not addressed the assertions and refuted them. You said, essentially, don’t bother me with facts that run counter to the voices in my head.

  2. Humanist says:

    AllenBee (Fiorangela?)

    Thanks for your elaborate explanations.

    Once again I respectfully disagree with most your assertions on Nazism and Germany’s actions during the Nazi rule.

    Our differences are similar to differences in the world-views of atheists and devout religious people. Thus it is impossible to address the entirety of conflicting arguments in just a single commentary.

    However I just want to mention a few points:

    1- I believe, in order to survive, we are born to stick to our beliefs. Beliefs, most of them, are formed under different circumstances of indoctrination or under conditions related to our pleasures or to our securities. I also believe that it is possible to escape from the influence of the ideas planted in our minds by developing a skeptical analytical mind. This is like emptying our minds from all dubious perceptions and then accept only the ones that could pass the hard tests of scientific evaluations (which are backed by facts or by measured data).

    2- For decades I was fascinated by the events of WWII. I have read tens (if not hundreds) of books or studies about it. I always try to study the subjects in question from different perspectives in order to form a reliable and provable opinion. For this reason I always welcome any new idea that can prove me wrong.

    3- When I was young I was exposed to Nazi ideology and German language. Hence, although I haven’t read the works of persons you have mentioned in your post, I think I have a good idea about what Nazism really is.

    Wish you all the best.

  3. AllenBee says:

    Many years ago I read a biography of Hitler titled “Psychopathic God.” The title was taken from a stanza in a poem by W H Auden, “September 1939.” The first line of the stanza is: “Accurate scholarship will unearth the whole offense . . .”

    I think that’s an extremely important concept to bear in mind when discussing matters of war and peace: How accurate is the scholarship?

    How accurate is your scholarship? Do you know anything more about the propaganda campaigns involving Germany in both the first and second world wars? Was Goebbels the only person, and Germany the only party, to engage in propaganda? Have you ever heard of Edward Bernays? How about the Creel commission? What do you know about the Warner Brothers?

    You wrote: By “Nazi style lie” I was referring to Goebellsian style lies. Goebells was a Nazi propaganda minister famous for saying “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”. That is exactly what top MSM does to prepare the sheeple for moronic criminal wars.”

    Are you aware that Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge — and Hearst — lied to involve US in was with Mexico, that ultimately resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Philippinos? Did you know that Churchill AND FDR lied to get Britain and US involved in war with Germany? Did you know that Herbert Hoover met with Hitler, and with Neville Chamberlain, and that Hoover AND Chamberlain came away from those meetings convinced that Hitler meant what he said when he said he wished no war with France or Great Britain; he did hope to regain territory that had been taken from Germany in Versailles treaty, because the majority of the population in that territory was German.

    “and……..are you suggesting Nazism in NOT an evil ideology?

    I’m not suggesting, I am outright declaring that stamping “evil” on Nazism conveys very little useful information. It’s simplistic and, dare I say, smacks more of propagandizing than of history-telling. Do you know what Nazism stood for? How did it emerge? Was it a reaction to something? Was it populist?

    You asked: “What do you mean by “Nazis were active primarily on their territory?” I mean exactly that –Germans fought in Europe. (In contrast, European Jews are stealing Palestinian land). The stated goals of the Nazi war actions were peacefully to annex Austria to Germany; to reclaim territory lost in Versailles treaty; and to extirpate Marxist Communism/bolshevism from Germany, ie. fight Communist Russia. Herbert Hoover thought that FDR should stay out of Germany’s way and let the Germans and Russians duke it out. Instead, after US destroyed Germany, the US engaged in a 35-year long Cold War with the Soviet Union.

    You wrote: “Are you saying Nazi Germany was not a racist hegemonic superpower? Once again with the labels — too simplistic. But I’ll play along — Was Germany ‘racist’? No, I don’t think so, but I’ve not read fully enough to know for sure. Hitler mentions ‘racism’ only once in “Mein Kampf;” his agenda had to do with preserving and revitalizing traditional German culture; at this point in my research, I’m inclined to think the charges that Nazism was “racist” are overblown. Again, remember, we have to deal in “Accurate scholarship,” not the “big lie” we have heard repeated all our lives.
    Was Nazism a “hegemonic superpower?” No. What kind of “hegemonic superpower” endures the death by starvation of over one million of its citizens? What kind of “hegemonic superpower” is so weak that it cannot protect as many as half a million of its citizens from being incinerated by Allied firebombing that destroyed several hundred German cities, towns and villages?

    and….I disagree that “Nazi government was [only?] defending its people against a boycott [etc]”. Humanist, the word [only] changes the meaning entirely, and it was your word, not mine. I tried to make my statement “accurate.” Germans WERE forced to endure a boycott of their goods including food, a boycott imposed at the instigation of the “international Jewish” community in March 1933 and sustained for over five years before the German people rose up in outrage. (see quote from R H S Stolfi, below).

    I fully respect all your views but I am fully convinced “..Nazi Germany was an abnormally criminal, aggressive and ruthless regime mainly responsible for the death of about tens of millions and for colossal sufferings and destructions.

    Thank you for your indication of respect. Once again, I try to deal in facts and evidence understood as fully as possible. My “views” matter for very little; the facts and evidence tell the story that we must take our history lessons from.

    Distressingly the same psychopathic hubris of self-grandeur (Deutschland ist Uber Alles) is still prevalent in a few more corners of the world.

    I partially agree — the world today is in the grip of “psychopathic hubris.” I suggest this is so because we have been too ready to say “Nazism was evil etc etc etc” and less willing to accurately examine the details to see who really did what to whom and why. My great fear is that because the US, Israel, and Great Britain were able to get away with massive crimes against the German people and other Europeans in the 1930s, they are deploying the same tactics against Iran today. When US invaded Iraq and when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, bombed Lebanon in 2006, slaughtered Palestinians in 2009, they were not behaving like “Nazis,” they were behaving like Israelis and Americans. They were even using some of the same weapons against Lebanese, Palestinians and Iraqis that Allies — those who in your view were the “good guys” in 1914-1945 — used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent German and Japanese civilians. US and Great Britain starved to death 500,000 Iraqis, just as US and Great Britain starved to death 800,000 German civilians in 1916-1918. Israel and US seek to starve Iranians into submission to their hegemony today. Just as Jews initiated a boycott on Germany’s economy in 1933, with the intent of strangling Germany’s financial capacity and economy, so Jewish and Americans seek to destroy Iran’s economy and financial capacity — zionist Stuart Levey came up with the idea of blackmailing international corporations to keep them from lending/transacting with Iran, and Levey’s partner and successor Daniel Cohen is behind the scheme to detach Iran from all access to international banking systems.

    If you don’t see the patterns of what was done to Germany being repeated against Iran, Humanist, it may be because you are blinded by a lifetime of being told that “Nazism is evil” and failing to pursue the details any farther than that.

    R H S Stolfi teaches at the U S Naval Postgraduate school in California. He wrote, “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.” Take a look at this paragraph:

    “How do we assign evil to a bona fide messiah who was dedicated to the defeat of perceived evil and the enthronement of perceived good?

    At first glance, the question seems to be answered by arguing that even if we acknowledge that Hitler were a messiah dedicated to a vision of German salvation, he affected evil in the destruction of the Russian prisoners and the European Jews. The question of intent must be evaluated, however, and Hitler cannot be considered to have believed that he had perpetrated evil in his messianic-viewed destruction of the enemies of the Germans. The enormity of the killing of 7.6 million unarmed human beings, even within the framework of a great war, nevertheless stands as a monument to evil even though intended as prudent and necessary action in the presence of an irreconcilable enemy; is it were, harsh necessity rather than conscious cruelty. Yet, the analysis cannot end here because it is necessary to consider that victors and repentant losers have dominated twentieth century history and have failed to assign evil in the cases of similar enormities. How, for example, can we accept the case for evil in Hitler from a conventional wisdom which, by conscious default, has categorically failed to assign evil to a British government that instituted a food blockade of Germany — extended after the close of World War I–that predominantly affected German children and the elderly and resulted in the deaths of 800,000 noncombatants? p. 41

  4. Humanist says:


    By “Nazi style lie” I was referring to Goebellsian style lies. Goebells was a Nazi propaganda minister famous for saying “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”. That is exactly what top MSM does to prepare the sheeple for moronic criminal wars.

    and……..are you suggesting Nazism in NOT an evil ideology? What do you mean by “Nazis were active primarily on their territory?” Are you saying Nazi Germany was not a racist hegemonic superpower?

    and….I disagree that “Nazi government was [only?] defending its people against a boycott [etc]”.

    I fully respect all your views but I am fully convinced “..Nazi Germany was an abnormally criminal, aggressive and ruthless regime mainly responsible for the death of about tens of millions and for colossal sufferings and destructions.

    Distressingly the same psychopathic hubris of self-grandeur (Deutschland ist Uber Alles) is still prevalent in a few more corners of the world.

  5. Karl says:


    “Did you expect Obama to say it is fine with him if Iran builds nukes?”

    I didnt even mentioned anything acceptance and nukes. But containing a nuclear Iran would be plausible for a man like Obama if Iran got nukes, however he have showed the world he is no better than Bush on the mideast.

  6. James Canning says:


    Obama’s chances of becoming US Senator from Illinois would have been ZERO if, eight years ago, he had said he would accept Iran’s building nukes. Obama would be “dead meat” in 2012 election if he changed this viewpoint.

  7. James Canning says:


    Did you expect Obama to say it is fine with him if Iran builds nukes?

  8. James Canning says:


    Geoff Dyer of the FT also wrote that story March 7th (front page), from Washington. The story had to reflect EU/US thinking.

    You have yourself said before that for Iran to stockpile 20% U just to give the false impression it is preparing to build nukes, makes little sense.

  9. Karl says:

    Obama in 2004: Military strikes might be needed to stop Iran’s nuclear program

    Obama hasnt changed in almost 8 years.

  10. James Canning says:


    The aide to Khamenei floated that balloon in the ABC News interview with Christiane Amanpour March 15th.

    Joshua Chaffin, in Brussels, with James Blitz, in London, and a number of other Financial Times reporters agreed the “critical test” is Iran’s willingness to stop enriching to 20%. Clearly Iran suffers no loss in offering to stop such enrichment provided the TRR is refueled, etc.

    American perfidy would be exposed if, after making that deal, the US demanded Iran accede to Israel’s terms (no enrichment).

  11. Karl says:

    Have this site become very slow? Loading the comments takes forever.

  12. BiBi Jon writes:

    “I cannot help but remember the numerous articles, and op-eds in ny times after 2007 release of NIE on Iran that sought to rubbish the idea of ‘no nuclear weapon program’. Frequently, it was Israeli intelligence begging to differ that was cited in these articles. Thanks for the link. I had to rob my eyes and read it twice.”

    I certainly do remember those articles. And I had to rub my eyes too. Nevertheless, it’s good to read that Mossad has reached this conclusion.

  13. James wrote to Sassan:

    “Obama wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute, but such solution obviously would not include an Iran building nukes. Or stockpiling 20 percent uranium to make it easier to build them.”


    If Obama does what probably will require little effort — portray Iran’s production of 20% uranium as an existential threat to life on Earth — what is in fact a tad less than such a threat might be parlayed into some actual US/Iran agreement. Iran could agree to stop making 20% uranium in exchange for a commitment from Western countries to supply its 20% uranium needs for the Tehran Research Reactor (and, soon, four or five more reactors, based on the report in the Arms Control Today article I cited earlier).

    Sounds promising — until, that is, one considers what almost inevitably would happen. If such a deal gets negotiated and Iran’s representative says “Great! Where do I sign?”, the US representative probably will say “Oh, there’s just one more thing. Just as Iran is promising not to produce 20% uranium, it also must agree to stop enriching uranium to 3-5%. I’m confident we can work out some arrangement to supply that too.”

    It’s not certain, of course, that the US would bring up this additional point — I’d put the odds at no higher than 99.9%.

    If I’m correct to predict that the US won’t do a “20% deal” without including an agreement from Iran to stop enriching to 3-5%, and I’m also correct to predict that Iran won’t agree to a deal that requires it to stop enriching to 3-5%, one can easily understand why I remain pessimistic that any meaningful deal will be struck.

    It’s nonetheless worth exploring whether this “20% uranium” bogeyman can be used to produce some agreement. But I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

  14. Karl says:


    As wikileaks showed, UK tried to find reasons to block Press Tv.
    One should remember that the allied showed contempt and even bombed Al Jazeera during the wars after 911.

  15. Fiorangela says:

    Humanist says: March 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Thank you for the narrative of how the West/US/Israel propagandize even their own homicidal acts, Humanist.

    Permit me to call your attention to one statement you made that, in my opinion, is counterproductive. You wrote:

    “Stooges of an evil entity are repeating the Nazi style lies over and over not aware of the fact that they are shooting on their own feet. . .”

    Increasingly, both supporters of zionism and its opponents are using Nazism as the touchstone for all that is evil. I think it’s a mistake, both in terms of historical accuracy, which can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, although an overall assessment would note that Nazis a) were active primarily on their own territory, in contrast to colonizing the lands of another; b) the time span of their activity was relatively brief — fewer than five years, compared to Israel’s 64-year long occupation of Palestine; and c) the Nazi government was defending its people against a boycott — ‘biting sanctions’ and blistering stream of zionist propaganda ‘hasbara’ that had little or no legitimacy. More importantly, the Nazi analogy gives political cover to people whose mindset is what Gilad Atzmon calles “Pre-traumatic Stress Syndrome.” This pernicious psychological process plays on hyperbolization of real fears that are long past, or imagined fears blown all out of proportion, to provide legitimization for acts that in a rational world are rightly judged criminal.

  16. James Canning says:


    Was PressTV blocked in the UK due to a regulatory issue rather than content?

  17. James Canning says:


    I thought it interesting that NYT story today claims the infighting about 2010 NIE on Iran is only now being revealed, when this fight has been ongoing since 2010.

  18. Karl says:

    William Hague’s got humour.

    Britain condemns Iran for blocking UK website

    I wonder for example what Hague thinks about the fact that PressTv was blocked from the UK.

  19. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:32 am

    cannot help but remember the numerous articles, and op-eds in ny times after 2007 release of NIE on Iran that sought to rubbish the idea of ‘no nuclear weapon program’.

    Frequently, it was Israeli intelligence begging to differ that was cited in these articles.

    Thanks for the link. I had to rob my eyes and read it twice.

  20. James Canning says:


    “Ali Akbar Salehi said today [Feb. 9, 2010] that Iran had a production capacity of ‘3 to 5 kg a month [of 20% U].'”


    Current production capacity apparently is 14 kg per month.

  21. Pirouz says:

    I was watching the PBS Newshour “Shields and Brooks” discussion on the internet, and David Brooks cited hiis well informed sources that if a war broke out with Iran, the price of gas in the US would jump to $8 a gallon at least in the short run.

    That confirms what I’ve been saying for some time now.

    Meanwhile, the price of gas has leveled off here in the SF Bay Area, at between $4.60 and $4.80 a gallon, based on rising tension directed toward Iran.

  22. James Canning says:

    “Senior MP urges world powers to recognize Iran’s nuclear capabilities”:


    March 18th, quote: “[W]estern states [have]refrained from supplying nuclear fuel to the research reactor in violation of their NPT undertakings.” All too true.

  23. Humanist says:

    The following is edited parts of my notes on the subject. Earlier I might have posted some of its segments on the Net)

    Sassan says Iranians are killing their own scientists? I am going to discuss this issue not to responding (for the first time) to the accuser’s allegation but because the topic deserves further exploration.


    One of the abhorrent features of Israeli Establishment is assassination of foreign activists, politicians, scientists or whoever Mossad or top Israeli officials identify as being the enemy of the Jewish State.

    In 2007 an Iranian scientist was killed under mysterious conditions. His name was Ardeshir Hosseinpour. He was considered (by Western / Israeli media) as a world authority in Electromagnetism Israeli media claimed the killing was the work of Mossad but, at the time, Iranians were quiet and didn’t confirm Mossad’s involvement.

    In the above case and in the case of assassination of an another Iranian scientist, Western media tried to blamed Iran for the killing its own scientists on the grounds they were supporting the reform movement. (In this case Hosseinpour was linked to Khatami and in AilMohammadi’s case he was claimed to be a Mousavi suporter).

    The account of the next assassination IE that of Masoud Ali Mohammadi can be considered as an important event in the complex history of Iran / Israel relations. The following is a brief description of why the narratives about this specific murder is very telling:

    1- Masoud was a bright theoretical physicist who was not involved in Iranian nuclear program. Probably his assassination was not only to eliminate an Iranian intelligent physicist but also to spread a climate of terror among other Iranian scientists.

    2- Western media and some prominent America politicians trumpeted this appalling murder as the work of Iranian government!

    3- Only twelve days after the assassination, the Western media published a condemnation of Iranian Rulers signed by 100 scientists and academicians working in the universities around the world.

    Read the following to see how efficiently anti-Iran propaganda system works to falsify the facts:


    Here is the text of that historical and revealing declaration:

    “We the undersigned, academics and administrators of universities around the world, condemn this assassination and call upon all human rights organizations around the world to condemn these acts of state violence and violations of human rights by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given that the Islamic Republic has been involved in state terrorism and has controlled the circumstances and evidence surrounding the death of Professor Ali-Mohammadi, we demand an immediate and independent inquiry into the assassination of Professor Ali-Mohammadi.”

    4- The contemptible academicians who signed the above trumpeted declaration never thought the assassin can be found and arrested by Iranians but that is what happened. Surprisingly agents of Iranian Ministry of Information achieved that feat.

    If you know Farsi you have to watch the following important and telling 26 minute video. In it the arrested Iranian assassin fluently confesses the remarkable details of how Israelis recruited him and how he was trained and how he carried out the ‘elimination’.


    The English versions (in 3 parts) are less interesting since in them some important details (such as the Red Window OS) are missing:


    5- The following events related to this assassination are also very telling since they are, in a smaller scale, indicative of the enormous influence of Israel in both the political system of US and its media.

    On the day of assassination, Congresswoman Jane Harman being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell of NBC accused Iran for the murder. She said:

    “I think the logic here is that the Iranian Government or some groups associated with them took this guy out. I mean it is a sign of desperation to start killing your own nuclear scientists”

    Note the phrases of ‘taking the guy out’ and ‘start killing’.

    As usual, the above NBC piece is not available on the Internet anymore. At the time one could find Harman’s quote on quite a few places but now they are deleted.

    To see the whole picture read this to connect the above mentioned dots:



    These are indeed amazing times in the history of US…..and history of the world.

    Stooges of an evil entity are repeating the Nazi style lies over and over not aware of the fact that they are shooting on their own feet…not knowing they are indeed the worst enemies of the entity they are so deceptively defending.

  24. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    James Canning says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    “Sassan” is the “Israel Lobby” representative on this blog. He wants war, the sooner the better. Of course, he wants the US to do the actual fighting while he and his beloved Israel scream USA USA from the sidelines while avoiding fighting in the war their bloodlust demands be waged by other people.

  25. James Canning says:


    Front Page story in the Financial Times March 7th: “Hopes for Iran talks push oil price down”.

    Quote: “The critical test will be whether Iran agrees to what diplomats call confidence building measures, SUCH AS A DECISION TO STOP ENRICHMENT OF HIGHER GRADES OF URANIUM and to shift stocks [stockpiled 20% U] out of the country.” [Emphasis supplied.]

  26. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The Zionist Stooge No. 2 says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    He is now so desperate he is just posting random stuff that doesn’t even support his particular point of view. And note the continuation of WALL OF TEXT SPAM. If this site does not have entire articles posted when a link would do “Sassss” apparently considers that this blog would be seriously deficient in annoying conversation disrupting content.

  27. James Canning says:


    Iran clearly floated a trial balloon this past week, with the suggestion Iran should buy TRR fuel from the West. ISRAEL LOBBY will try to keep this offer concealed from the ignorant American public.

  28. James Canning says:


    Propaganda from Clarion is wonderful for US politicians squandering gigantic sums of taxpayer money on unnecessary weapons. “Radical Islam” is convenient way to dupe ignorant and rather stupid American public.

  29. I saw this passage in someone’s post in this thread:

    “Both the Argentine Supreme Court and Israel are convinced that the Islamic Jihad belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organization and financed by Iran were responsible for the planning and execution of the [1994 attack on Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires].”

    I have no clue whether Iran was involved in this horrible bombing, and I certainly hope it was not. Iran has been blamed in various prosecutions, of course, but I’m not aware that the Argentine Supreme Court – or any court, for that matter – has ever found that Iran had anything to do with the bombing. A casual reader easily could misinterpret the quoted passage to mean just the contrary.

  30. James Canning says:


    Obama wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute, but such solution obviously would not include an Iran building nukes. Or stockpiling 20 percent uranium to make it easier to build them.

  31. Sassan says:

    Obama in 2004: Military strikes might be needed to stop Iran’s nuclear program

    As U.S. Senate candidate in 2004, Barack Obama said he would choose military intervention over allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, BuzzFeed website reports.
    By Haaretz

    In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Barack Obama, who was then running for the U.S. Senate, said that military strikes might be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the BuzzFeed website reported on Sunday.

    As U.S. president, a post to which he was elected in 2008, Obama has stated a preference for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. But in 2004, Obama said that he would choose military intervention over allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

    “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama said in 2004.

    “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” Obama said.

    “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

    Last Wednesday, Obama said the window for a diplomatic solution with Iran over its nuclear program was “shrinking,” and he encouraged Iran to seize the opportunity of talks with world powers to avert “even worse consequences.”

    Obama, speaking at a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, insisted there is still “time and space” for a diplomatic solution, in lieu of a military strike to set back Iran’s progress toward a possible bomb, but said “the window for diplomacy is shrinking.”


  32. Richard,

    I agree with nearly all of what you wrote, but have a bit different take on the mention of Mossad in this article.

    It doesn’t matter what one thinks of Mossad — indeed, the more poorly one thinks of Mossad the better, this time — a report (appearing in the New York Times, no less) that Mossad believes that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon is helpful.

  33. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    Zionist Propaganda dumper in chief says:
    March 18, 2012 at 10:41 am

    By the way, did I just mention that what you are attempting to do unsuccessfully is a typical propaganda ploy that online Zionists and similar species of internet posters use to divert attention away from the main argument. I have already debunked your claim so I am not going to waste any more time on it apart from rightly ridiculing it and pointing out your own hypocrisy when you raise it and attempt to us it to justify the murder of defenseless civilian scientists by Israel (Note, not leaders of an armed rebel faction).

    And when you look at those fueling sectarian strife, that would be your friends in Al Qaeda and truely extreme Salafist terrorists fanatics that are funded by Saudi Arabia. Yeah, you remember, the totalitarian dictatorship that you and your alternate identity believe is the most wonderful dictatorship in the world that should never be criticised.

  34. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: March 18, 2012 at 11:37 am

    You wrote:

    “There is potential here for a sinister boil of hate and war to be lanced with profound healing possibilities for the US body politic.”

    Not a chance.

    The United States has gone too far and too deep into a hole of her own making in support of her imperial projects and that of Israel to be able to recover through a single act.

    You have to have many many such potentials being realized before a discernible change takes place.

    The Americans have not yet absorbed the logic of their tragic encountr with Iran 1953-1980.

    They have not yet assimilated the lessons of their disastrous encounter with Islam.

    I would not stay tuned – for they are blind to such considerations at the moment.

  35. BiBiJon says:

    Obama to Cameron: We need to get Israel off our backs

    Cameron said go for it, and Obama gave him a 19 gun salute.

    The Treasury dept. has issued subpenas to uncover the source of funding for substantial speakers fees paid for Washington luminaries to shill for MEK.

    The same source of funding is likely the wellhead that gushes monies for full page ads and other expensive PR efforts to get MEK struck from the State department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

    It would be very surprising if the source of funds for MEK’s profligate PR campaign is not one and the same as the source of monies for the Clarion Fund, who according to their website: “is an independently-funded non-profit organization that produces and distributes documentaries on the threats of Radical Islam.

    In 2006, Clarion released the award-winning documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. In 2008, Clarion released the well-received documentary, The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America. Clarion’s newest film, Iranium, premiered February 8, 2011.”

    There is potential here for a sinister boil of hate and war to be lanced with profound healing possibilities for the US body politic.

    Stay tuned.

  36. Sassan says:

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper wishing Iranians a happy Nowruz :) … http://youtu.be/_XlGXSY81oQ

  37. Karl says:


    “You are seriously underinformed if you are not aware, even now, that Iran announced last June it intended to treble enrichment of 20% U. Remarkable.”

    Yes I am surely is, you know thats why I asked you to back your claims with sources so I could learn more and dont be “underinformed”, could you do that?

  38. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    So let’s expose the claim that Iran was somehow involved in the Argentina bombings for the biased BS it is. Note the following are from the BBC which is likely to depict Iran in as negative a light as possible.

    First the prosecutors tell us “Nisman and fellow prosecutor Marcelo Martinez Burgos said they suspected that Hezbollah undertook activities outside Lebanon only “under orders directly emanating from the regime in Tehran.” Do they provide any evidence of any kind for their “suspicion”? No they do not.

    Now what happened to the first judge that initiated this investigation and who is responsible for most of the original claims that Iran was somehow involved? “The investigation unit was created after Argentina’s federal courts in 2004 which halted a botched investigation into the case by then-judge Juan Jose Galeano. Galeano was removed from the case and later stripped of his judgeship.” Nope not just removed, but expelled from office for his misconduct. Yep, this “investigation” sounds better and better.

    Note that the reports do not give any actual evidence that supports the allegations, or indicate what the evidence that supports the issuance of these “Arrest warrants” is.

    We also see this fact in a later piece “No one has been convicted in either attack.” Yep, a case where no one has been convicted of any involvement in the bombing of any kind sure sounds like a solid foundation to base the issuance of future arrest warrants on.

    Here is the source: http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-64945.html
    And note once again this comes from the Western MSM.

  39. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    Zionist Stooge No 2 says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Yep, its good to see Stooge 2 (I am starting to think this is the same person) is still relaying the unverified claims of the Israeli government and the politically motivated prosecutor in Argentina. But nice to see you fail again. Note that generally, claims made by the Israeli government are not considered to be proof by any rational human being.

  40. Pirouz says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:23 am

    Well, they make a lot of claims, Eric. Where they have problems is in execution. Case in point: Bushehr.

    But this discussion of James’ reminds me more of Yogi Berra’s quote “”You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I’m not hungry enough to eat six.”

    More Berra to laugh at:


  41. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Eric: The New York Times article on the intelligence difficulties represents the basic problem the agencies have of distinguishing a “nuclear weapons research database” with a “nuclear weapons development and deployment program”.

    The two are utterly distinct: one leads to a database and a set of technology capabilities that could be used to make a nuclear weapon; the other leads to manufactured and deployed weapons.

    Occam’s Razor says the DIA was correct when they assessed the “program” as being a “paper studies” program, not a deployment program, intended solely to assess whether Iran would need a REAL development program if Iraq was proven to have one. Once Iraq was destroyed, it was obvious Iran wouldn’t need one, and that’s why it stopped in 2003. The timing fits, the logic fits, everything fits.

    And presumably some of those “paper studies” and perhaps some technology development and even component testing has probably continued after 2003 on the down low, since the Ayatollah has nixed the program in general. And this would confuse anyone looking at it from a distance as well.

    Apparently the morons at the US intelligence agencies – probably for reasons of inter-agency rivalry – didn’t agree with the DIA assessment because it didn’t make it into the 2007 or 2010 NIEs. It also wouldn’t have gone over well with George Bush back in 2007 – since it would have portrayed him as an idiot for attacking Iraq and thus eliminating the only real threat to Iran – which was already by that time known to be true given Iran’s influence on the new Iraqi government.

    Once that 2007 assessment was made, the 2010 one had to stick by it. Doing a 180 would have made the agencies look bad yet again.

    The other stupid part of the article is this business about Mossad agreeing with the US agencies. Since Mossad is pretty much certain to have MANUFACTURED almost ALL the evidence against Iran so far, it makes the US agencies look pretty stupid to be giving Mossad ANY credibility whatsoever.

    They talk about how the M.E.K is unreliable… How the hell reliable can MOSSAD be when the first and foremost Israeli project is to destroy Iran?

    The real problem with all this is that it only takes a shift in direction in the US agencies for Iran to suddenly be demonized again like Iraq. It has nothing to do with REAL intelligence. Just a shift in the personnel at the agencies could cause it.

    This is why they stuck Petraeus in the CIA to see what they could gin up with him in charge. He was happy to accuse Iran of killing US troops in Iraq and supplying arms to the insurgents. He was happy to put some back story to the bogus Saudi Ambassador assassination plot. He’ll do whatever Obama tells him to do, just like George Tenet did for Bush. If that means firing a bunch of analysts who don’t agree Iran is a threat, then that’s what he’ll do.

    It’s all window dressing, which one has to remember every single moment. Since the whole purpose of the nuclear “crisis” is to serve as “the excuse” for regime weakening and war profits, all of this stuff about how hard it is to “assess” the alleged nuclear program is just so much bushwa. It’s just excusing themselves for not being able to see the forest for the trees and for complicity when the war starts.

    Basically they’ve doing CYA now so they can say when the war starts that they never said Iran DID or DID NOT have a nuclear weapons program. That throws it off on the politicians – as it should, really – and leaves the agencies in the clear.

    Except for that pesky problem about how come they attributed any reality at all to the “laptop of death”…

  42. James,

    I noticed your recent response to Karl:

    “Google Iran uranium enrichment 20 and you will have numerous references at your disposal.”

    It reminded me of Casey Stengel, the legendary New York Yankees manager from several decades ago (actually, more than “several,” but who’s counting?). When he made some dubious assertion, as he often did, and was challenged by a reporter, Casey typically would say:

    “You can look it up!”

    Of course, in those days, that was hard to do, and Casey probably knew that few if any of those pesty reporters would actually “look it up.”

    But that was then and this is now. I performed your Google search, and one of the first entries that came up was an Arms Control Today article from May 2011.


    The article opened with this passage:

    “Iran will need to increase its production of 20 percent-enriched uranium, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Director Fereydoun Abbasi said April 11, a move that may further complicate international diplomatic efforts addressing Iran’s nuclear program.

    He told the Iranian Students News Agency that Iran will build four or five reactors for research and medical isotope production in the coming years and that the reactors will use 20 percent-enriched uranium fuel. “We will increase the volume of the 20 percent enrichment based on the country’s needs,” he said.”


    I’ll confess I hadn’t been aware that Iran will be needing 20% fuel not just for its existing Tehran Research Reactor but also for four or five new reactors. Now that I know that, I wonder whether Iran should be producing much more 20% fuel than it has been.

  43. Sassan says:

    Argentina/Israel honour victims of 1992 terrorist attack and accuse Iran

    Argentina and Israel gathered on Friday to honour the 29 victims of the 1992 terrorist car bombing at the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, the first of two deadly attacks against Jewish interests in Argentina. The second in July 1994 against the Jewish community organization AMIA claimed 85 lives.

    The ceremony held at a concrete open space where once stood the embassy building, was marked by the call for justice as the deadly attack remains unsolved and the perpetrators at large twenty years later.

    The attack occurred on 17 March but the ceremony was advanced a day because Saturday is Shabbat, the holy rest day for the Jewish religion. The bombing claimed the lives of 29 Israelis and Argentines wounding over 242, and is believed to have been planned and executed by Hezbollah with Iranian support.

    Argentine Vice President Amado Boudou, Justice Minister Julio Alak, cabinet chief Juan Manuel Abal Medina, Defence Minister Arturo Puricelli and representatives from the City of Buenos Aires attended the ceremony as President Cristina was in an official visit in Chile. Israel sent a delegation headed by Deputy Foreign Affairs minister Danny Ayalon and Minister without portfolio Yossi Peled and which included former diplomat Itzhak Shefi who was then ambassador in Argentina.

    Acting president Boudou said the bombing was ‘an attack against the 40 million Argentines’ and Justice minister Alak stated that the attacks to the Israel Embassy and the AMIA Jewish Community Centre “are a deep wound in the Republic” and highlighted that currently Argentina “is fully committed in the fight against international terrorism”.

    Both the Argentine Supreme Court and Israel are convinced that the Islamic Jihad belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organization and financed by Iran were responsible for the planning and execution of the attack.

    A week before at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs at a similar ceremony for the 17 March 20th anniversary of the terrorist attack in Buenos Aires, Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced the construction of a new embassy and accused Iran of supporting international terrorism.

    “Here and now I want to announce that next year the State of Israel with the help of God, will begin the construction of a building to house the new embassy in Buenos Aires. Not a temporal building of several floors, but the glory and an example to preserve the memory of the victims”, said Lieberman.

    He added that “this attack and the one on AMIA have been recorded in the history and national memory of the State of Israel and of the Argentina people” and then warned that the international community must not underestimate Iran’s participation in global terrorism or the repeated threats from the ayatollahs’ regime”.

    “The Islamic Republic and Hezbollah wish to attack has only increased with age. We need international cooperation to impede this” underlined Lieberman who added that the so called triple border of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay is a Hezbollah terrorist infrastructure “and a threat not only for Israel but for the free world”.

    The Israeli minister also praised the work displayed by Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman who since 2005 has been investigating the AMIA attack.

    “I want to thank Dr, Nisman who since his naming in the investigation has worked tirelessly to track the planners and perpetrators of the attacks and has released arrest orders against them. Now it is world wide known that Iran was behind the attacks, through its terrorist organization in Lebanon, Hezbollah” indicated the Israeli minister.


  44. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Eric: Nice recap on Canning’s methodology for evading discussion of his obsession.

    People keep engaging Sassan, Canning, and now this troll “anonymous” who doesn’t even have the smarts to use a decent handle, let alone his real name.

    He thinks he’s on Slashdot or something… At least on Slashdot, one posts as “Anonymous Coward” which is more accurate…

    This thread has been a disaster in terms of the signal to noise ratio…

  45. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The Alarmingly Creepy Zionist Stooge Supervisor:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    I must say that your continued emulation of me flatters me to no end. I shall endeavour to continue to debunk you Zionist stoogery so you can continue to throw insults and act like a 12 year old child. Now to your “argument.” You bring up old charges in Argentina for which no solid evidence has ever been produced and which have never been pursued by the Argentine government. Now even if we say for the sake of argument that they are true (which they are not) they have no bearing on these current charges and the evidence involved there. In that case, the governments involved have clearly indicated their is no proof or connection to the Iranian government.

    Dan Cooper has also done a good job of producing solid evidence of the Israeli terror plot to kill defenseless civilian scientists. Note that the Zionist stooge tag team currently at work are doing their best to ignore these charges. It really speaks to their credibility when they are forced to ignore actual terrorist attacks committed by Israel while attempting to villify Iran for a supposedly similar action.

  46. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Zionist douche bag Rajavi worshipper,
    Remember I have 4 permanent wives and an unlimited number of temporary wives, so unlike pathetic lonely losers like you, no need to rape anyone to get laid. Also murder and rape are much more prevalent in your “civilized” US of A than in Iran, think about that one a little.

    Also a nation in which the people themselves made a revolution, defended against foreign invaders and are currently creating a historic indigenous technological and educational revolution, doesn’t need the things you listed to maintain itself. I know it goes against the brainwashing you received by the Rajavis and their Israeli advisors, but this is reality and the world you live in is phantasy. Go crawl up Netanyahu’s anus, your natural habitat.

    Sorry gotta run, need to stone an adulteress, chop off the hands of a thief and rape a parasite who lives in Netanyahu’s anus.

  47. Dan Cooper says:

    How Mossad Justified Its Murder of an Innocent Iranian Electrical Engineer

    By Gareth Porter

    On July 23, 2011, a 35-year-old Iranian electrical engineering student named Darioush Rezaeinejad was gunned down as he and his wife, who was also wounded in the attack, waited for their child in front of a kindergarten in Tehran.


  48. Dan Cooper says:

    Sassan says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    The flowing two articles totally refute your sick claim that Iranian government is killing its own scientist.

    Take a note of the date “16 February 2009″ in which the article was published in the Telegraph.co.uK

    click on the link to read the article.


    Also take a note of the date “February 05, 2007″ when this article was published.

    In 2007, Mossad was behind the death of professor Ardeshire Hassanpour, a prize-winning and a top nuclear scientist at Iran’s Isfahan uranium plant.


    This article was published on by “theaustralian.com.au” on “February 05, 2007″ .

  49. Fiorangela says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 17, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you for the link to Sharmine Narwani’s hard-hitting report about being ignored by new owners of Huffington Post.

    Eventually, readers become inured to the treacheries of media and begin to understand journalism as it is not as we would wish it to be. (h/t Flynt Leverett).

  50. Fiorangela says:

    Rd. says: March 16, 2012 at 10:52 am

    fyi says:

    “this is the way Muslims are – they are very very sensitive about certain issues that has to do with a notion that you (and people in the Axis states) no longer understand, comprehend, or appreciate.”
    ***You might want to explain the ‘honor notion’ in western terms that they can relate too.,. As in, Eric, you no longer have a right to opine here or anywhere else, you are not free, you can not vote, or assemble or some such notions..***

    What is your point, Rd? I have a tourist’s and romanticized view of Iran. I find it difficult to understand the reality of political and social life in Iran because that nation is subject to so much demonization. I disregard most of what Western media and almost all experts and think tank payees say about Iran. From my perspective, Marandi and Larijani, and Salehi on nuclear matters, seem credible, but what do I know? I don’t think there exists any such thing as a green movement; I also don’t thinkAhmadinejad is a monster — for one thing he doesn’t have that much power; for another, it seems to me his conflicts with Khamenei have to do with Ahmadinejad’s wish to be more accommodating to the West.

    Is it possible to get an objective report of majority opinion in Iran? Is Iranian discontent with its government that much more than normal political discontent, elevated by intentional destabilization efforts by the West?

  51. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    Islamist terrorist stooge No 1,

    There is no evidence of Iranian support for attacks? How about the fact that their freaking defence minister and one of their former presidents are wanted on terrorist related charges for the Iranian attacks in Argentina? I guess it’s just a coincidence Iranians were arrested in Thailand in the act of carrying out attacks on Israelis. When all else fails just call it a “zionist plot” without ever producing a shred of evidence to back it up. How pathetic.

  52. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    By the way, I see you two are now operating in shifts. Good decision, spares duplication of insults and propaganda, but it won’t work.

  53. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    Zionist Stooge No 2 says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    And nothing (Other than Israeli propaganda) has linked the “Islamic Republic” in any way to any of the “terror” plots. Funny how you were just whining that India and Thailand were unwilling to make up lies to fit into your paranoid fantasies about Iran, and are now claiming that “India” has produced such evidence when non exists.

  54. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The Zionist Stooge No 2 says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Oh dear, so the person who runs around claiming that “Jews” are “superior” and “more intelligent” because they have supposedly won more Nobel prizes is NOT THE LEAST LITTLE BIT RACIST. Do you actually think before you make a post?

  55. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The Zionist Stooge No. 2 says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Funny how you have not responded to the multiple posts that included evidence and links that prove your allegations are a lie. I remember seeing over a dozen posts that debunked your assertions, and strangely enough you have not responded to a single one. And now here you are again to dump some more unproven assertions.

  56. Sassan says:

    fyi says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    “I actually happen to think that in certain aspects, such as IQ, Jews and Oriental people are – on the average – superior to the rest of mankind.

    I also think that in certain other qualities, such inherent grasp of tonality and harmonious body movements, Africans are superior to the rest of mankind.

    I also think that the race is a useful concept in understanding human action.”

    Actually, all of modern science contradicts your outlandish claims. CULTURE may be useful in explaining human action, not “race”. Scientifically speaking, there is only “one” race and that is the human race.

  57. Sassan says:

    James Canning: I am simply not convinced it was Israel that was behind the assassination of all the scientists as I think there is a real possibility that the regime has been behind at least some of the assassinations. Scroll down for the evidence I have posted.

    And I find it curious that not a SINGLE person has commented on the recent news in which India has linked the Islamic Republic with direct ties between the Thailand botched terror plot to the one in India (along with the arrest warrants they have issued). Very curious to see this as something completely ignored by those on here.

  58. James,

    Why don’t you take a crack at responding to my February 27 post to you on this subject, reproduced below, to which you’ve yet to give a meaningful response? Don’t just tell us it’s incorrect, or that the Wall Street Journal reports that “nuclear experts” say Iran is making too much 20% uranium, or that Ollie Heinonen is worried about all this. Give us some numbers, and some sources that we can actually check.

    MY FEB. 27 POST:

    This sentence appears in paragraph 26 of the Feb. 24, 2012 IAEA report:

    “In a letter dated 16 February 2012, the Agency requested Iran to provide details on how it intends to operate FFEP (whether to produce UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, to produce UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, or to produce a combination of both).”

    What this tells me is that Iran hasn’t yet decided how it’s going to allocate the Fordow centrifuges between 5% and 20% uranium. Probably by the time of the next IAEA report, we’ll know the answer to this question. We’ll also learn how much 20% uranium Iran has produced in the meantime at both Fordow and Natanz, and whether it’s followed through on its stated plan to wind down 20% uranium production at Natanz once 20% uranium production is up and running at Fordow.

    What we do know, per the IAEA, appears to be this:

    1. At Natanz, up to mid-February of this year, Iran had produced a total of 95.4 kg of 20% uranium.

    2. In addition, at Fordow, between December and mid-February of this year, Iran produced a total of 13.8 kg of 20% uranium.

    3. Adding these two totals, we come up with a grand total of 109.2 kg of 20% uranium.

    4. At Iran’s declared estimated usage rate (31.3 kg a year, taking into account its need to throw away 40 kg every three years), Iran has a 3.5 years’ supply of 20% uranium on hand to operate its Tehran Research Reactor.

    5. If Iran continues to make 20% uranium at BOTH Natanz and Fordow, which it has told the IAEA it does NOT intend to do (a statement on which the IAEA presumably will comment in its next report), at the same rate as Iran has been doing so since December 2011, Iran will be making just under 11 kg a month, or 120 kg a year, 4 times what it needs each year (31.3 kg).

    6. We don’t know, however: (A) whether Iran indeed will continue production at this rate, and we have at least its representation that it will stop making 20% uranium at Natanz once Fordow is fully operational for that purpose; or (B) if Iran does continue production at this rate, whether it will continue indefinitely or will instead slow down or stop once its stockpile reaches a certain size – nor what that stockpile size might need to be before Iran decides to stop.

    Items 5 and 6 are big unknowns at this point. All we DO know is that Iran, according to the IAEA, has a 3.5 years’ supply of 20% uranium on hand. That’s all we know. That doesn’t strike me as “excessive.” If it strikes James, Ollie Heinonen, or any of the other writers cited by James as excessive, I’d be curious to know whether:

    1. They think Iran’s supply is “excessive” because they don’t think Iran really needs a 3.5 year supply; or

    2. They agree that a 3.5 year supply is not excessive, but they believe Iran actually has substantially more than that — and if they believe that, WHY they believe that?



  59. Castellio says:

    Good article by Gallal Nassar, which raises good questions regarding US longterm intentions:


  60. James Canning says:

    Larijani offered “human inspection” of Iranian sites, to buy 20% U from the West (rather than enrich it in Iran), and he said it was “definitely not” Iran’s intent to destroy Israel by military means. March 15th, ABC News:


  61. James Canning says:


    You are seriously underinformed if you are not aware, even now, that Iran announced last June it intended to treble enrichment of 20% U. Remarkable.

  62. Fiorangela says:

    BiBiJon says: March 17, 2012 at 7:29 am

    Thank you BiBiJon, and Happy NoRooz.
    The hyacinths are perfuming the whole house.

    Next weekend a local library is hosting a celebration of NoRooz. I was able to obtain a wonderfully illustrated 3-volume set of Shahnameh that I will contribute to the celebration.

  63. James Canning says:


    If you think Iran did not announce last June it was trebling production of 20 percent uranium, you are poorly informed.

    If you think Iran has not succeeded in trebling production of 20% U, you are poorly informed.

    Your apparent ignorance should not be my problem.

  64. James Canning says:


    Lebanese and other Arabs who have settled in large numbers in the US are regarded as “white”. Persians and Turks are also regarded as “whites”. How does one play the “race card”?

  65. James Canning says:

    Joshua Chaffin, reporting for the Financial Times March 7th, from Brussels: “The critical test will be whether Iran agrees to what diplomats call confidence building meansures, such as a decision to stop enrichment of higher grades of uranium…”

    Clearly, Larijani is delivering on this issue.

  66. fyi says:

    Mr. Castellio:

    A racist is a person who believes in the superiority of the qualities that inhere in his own race compared to others.

    I actually happen to think that in certain aspects, such as IQ, Jews and Oriental people are – on the average – superior to the rest of mankind.

    I also think that in certain other qualities, such inherent grasp of tonality and harmonious body movements, Africans are superior to the rest of mankind.

    I also think that the race is a useful concept in understanding human action.

    For the European peoples, in the last 300 years, it seems to have been a major concept – the vestiges of which you have pointed out in the thought of the late Mr. Kennan.

    But this works both ways – once you treat – over a 300-year-period – other human beings on the basis of race, then those others will turn around and view you in the same light.

    Axis Powers are a collection of states of European races, in their post-Christian phase, mightily struggling to maintain their domination on the rest of a planet which is largely populated by non-European peoples.

    Their main thrust, at the moment, seems to be in establishing political control over the price and distribution of energy resources of this planet.

    I am surprised that the propagandist of their Axis Powers adversaries hve not yet played the race card.

    If I were them, I would have played that card – in Love and War all is Fair.

  67. fyi says:

    Arnold Evans says: March 17, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Yes, you are right.

    And then he keeps on repeatedly wondering why Mr. Ahmadinejad’s last September offer of ceasing 20% enrcihment was not accepted by the Axis Powers.

    He refurses to accept the logical conclusion one can deduce.

    It is frustrating.

  68. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The delusional Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Whatever makes you happy, since I have a feeling you are a disturbed individual that is unsatisfied with life. As I said before, if fantasies involving violent death satisfy you, I have no objection to that.

  69. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The ALARMINGLY CREEPY delusional Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Anything else? I haven’t had this much fun since I originally showed your close friend “Sassss” was a lying Zionist Stooge. And by the way, as you so correctly stated, I was merely complimenting him on his ability to lie as a skilled Zionist should.

  70. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    Tell me about it. People who believe the hidden Imam is just going to appear out of thin air do need to be put in a mental institution. Or maybe he is just a hell of a hide and seek champion which would explain why nobody can seem find him. Just kidding hahahahaha. Actually he died in a ditch a long time ago and is never coming back.

  71. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The ALARMINGLY CREEPY delusional Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    See, you are having those delusions again. Will this man’s resident mental institution please come and remove him from the house he is currently inhabiting and restore him to his usual place of residence?

  72. Arnold Evans says:

    [edit, sorry]

    When he’s asked for links to support *his claims, not only *does he not provide them, but he comes back with more outlandish claims.

  73. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    No thats my bad. I thought I heard the hidden Imam on my back porch, but it was just a cat.

  74. Arnold Evans says:

    Now he’s just trolling.

    Iran announced it had trebled production of 20% U. Iran is producing enough 20% U in one month, to fuel TRR for one year.

    When he’s asked for links to support your claims, not only do he not provide them, but he comes back with more outlandish claims.

    I like Richard’s suggestion of not directly engaging trolls. If there is something that must be said, direct it at someone else.

    I’m not going to ask James any more questions about 20% at this point. I think the fewer people who do, the better.

  75. Karl says:


    Look at my and Eric’s messages and respond to the questions. Nothing else. Ok?

  76. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    Hmm…I guess our resident comedic genius just laughed himself silly and is temporarily unable to respond. What a shame.

  77. James Canning says:


    Google Iran uranium enrichment 20 and you will have numerous references at your disposal.

  78. James Canning says:


    Iran announced it had trebled production of 20% U. Iran is producting enough 20% U in one month, to fuel TRR for one year.

    Surely you see the importance of the issue if Mohammad Javad Larijani has offered to cease productioon of 20% U.

  79. Karl says:


    After you have responded to Eric’s questions you should be able to answer to mine.

    1. Who say Iran is trebling?
    – Sources?
    2. How much does Iran need for medical reasons? Since you claim Iran is trebling you must know that its 3 times excessive.
    3. On what premise is it too much? Do you know Iran’s view why they (allegedly) trebling?

  80. James Canning says:


    Iran has offered to stop enriching to 20 percent.

  81. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The ALARMINGLY CREEPY certificably insane Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Than why are you screaming insults when someone accurately calls you one? 10 minutes ago you were screaming that I was “anti semitic” when I used that description. Hmm…so I guess you like “anti semitism” and consider it to be a compliment rather than the opposite impression I previously had. Thanks for clearing that up.

  82. James Canning says:


    Christiane Amanpour, reporting for ABC News March 15th: “Mohammad Javad Larijani…said the West should sell Iran 20 percent enriched uranium…”

    This is sensible proposal.

    And Iran can operate its nuclear power plants and provide its own fuel for those plants. (After Russian deal expires)

  83. Karl says:


    Settle this once and for all now, please respond to Eric’s questions.

  84. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    By the way, just so you know, your frantic response to the fact that someone calls you a Zionist is higly amusing, as were the frantic insults you hurled when someone called your close, personal, intimate friend “sASSss” a Zionist. That my friend, is what we call low (because it involves you) comedy.

  85. James Canning says:


    The Wall Street Journal’s most recent report on Iranian stockpiling of 20% U said experts agree Iran has at least enough 20% U on hand to operate TRR for next ten years.

    Why don’t you offer a reasonable reason for Iran to have trebled production of 20% U? R S Hack made good case showing Iran is producing 11-12 kg per month of 20% U.

  86. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The ALARMINGLY CREEPY certifiably insane Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    You are the one who has been screaming insults here. Oh that’s right, I guess you don’t consider callling someone a rapist an insult. Hmm…I am starting to worry about you.

  87. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    The creepy, mentally challenged Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    You are the one who is having fantasies about people chopping off people’s heads. I here that is a criminal offense in some states. But clearly I was mistaken before, since you have escaped from your usual confinement in the mental institution where you are usually housed and have decided to indulge your fantasies. Will someone pleace alert the staff and inform them a lunatic has escaped?

  88. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    Oh I have a sense of humor. Seriously I’ve been laughing this entire time you’ve been trying to insult me.

  89. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    I have no idea who “Sasss” is. Let me guess. He is another zionist stooge? I can’t tell you how big of an honor it is to have an islamist scumbag like you call someone that. It is a great compliment. If you think that then he must be alright.

  90. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    By the way, it is really funny debating someone who has no sense of humor and thinks that a substantive argument that questions something he says should be responded to by insults. I hope everyone here enjoys seeing demented Zionists tie themselves in knots as much as I do. Myself, I haven’t had a laugh this good since the last attempt by “Sassss” to spread Zionist propaganda on this blog.

  91. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    Authority? What authority? I mean you people just say whatever you want about Americans so I’m going to say whatever I want about you. You’re calling me creepy? You’re the one who gets off on chopping off heads and stoning women and I’m creepy? You should be a comedian.

  92. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    The creepy mentally challenged Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    You know more about that than me. Are you still paying “Sassss” to be your close, personal, intimate friend?

  93. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    The creepy, mentally challenged Zionist supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    If you consider supervising a mental institution of demented Zionists to be good, than by all means throw yourself a party. Just don’t commit any of the acts of violence you fantasize about on any of the attendees and everything will be fine.

  94. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    The creepy Zionist stooge supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Hey, I believe you should be able to have any fantasy you like as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. I suspect that the appropriate authorities might disagree with me on that however.

  95. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash(supervisor) says:

    What’s the matter? Am I not supervisor anymore?

  96. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    The Stooge Supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    I too am laughing at your own demented idiocy. Nice to see you to can appreciate your own utter stupidity and the absurdity of the views you hold. By the way, since you changed your own name first, hmm…I think I detect an obsession with me forming on your part.

  97. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash says:


    You’re pretty funny. I’m betting on the Islamist rapepublic as well. I mean they only had to murder,torture,and rape their people to retain power. That is working out well in that region these days lol.

  98. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    anonymous says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    To make it clear to the site’s moron reinforcement detail, I find it amusing to mock your friend since he considers it his mission to disrupt this site in any way he can. And with respect to your fellow Zionist, I correctly call him one because those are the views he holds, as shown by his actual statements. Unlike mine, which have never indicated I am (1. Muslim) or (2. Am an “anti Semite”) or 3. (Have ever raped anyone). By the way that last was more than a little creepy. Are some personal fantasies of yours involved perhaps, hmmm?

  99. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash says:

    You changed your name again just for me? bwahahahahaha. ROTFLMAO.

  100. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash says:

    I graduated to supervisor! What an honor coming from you. I think I’ll throw myself a party. Please go on. lol

  101. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    The American republic is finished. Barry, W, Newt, Mitt all of them meaningless given the power of special interests, and the fact that a murder cult like the monafeqin can so easily buy these worms says it all. As it said in the article, Freeh and the other clowns have a weekly conference on how to delist these murderers…nothing better to do with their pathetic lives.

    Poor Al Gore, calling for an “Occupy Democracy”…too late Al, grow back that beard and move back to the hills of Tennessee…

    “Y’all” keep betting on the US of A and I’ll keep betting on the IR of I.

    Sorry gotta run, running late for my weekly stoning an adulteress and cutting the hands of thief meeting…

  102. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    Zionist Stooge Supervisor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Note that your close, intimate, personal friend “Sassss” dumped 100 times more trash than I have, or could ever hope to in his own posting career. But you object to that don’t you warmongering coward, and when you are confronted you immediately start throwing insults. With friends like these…Sassss doesn’t need anyone pointing out his own Zionist propaganda.

  103. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash (Zionist Stooge Supervisor) says:
    March 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    And you too you coward. Yep, to use terms you will understand, I just kicked your ass and you cannot come up with a response other than mindless insults. Got anything else Stooge?

  104. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash (Zionist Liar No 1) says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    No, the word ZIONIST is used to expose an evil racist ideology that unfortunately currently dominates the POLITICAL culture of the state of Israel. But yeah, a great way to show you are not a Zionist is by claiming that correctly critisizing Zionism is “anti semitism.” Which of the statements I made is in any way “anti semitic?” I am waiting garbage man.

  105. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash says:

    You have a nice day now. Hahahahaha.

  106. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:

    ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash (Zionist stooge 2) says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Yeah, like faking a post from “david” and coordinating with “Sassss” to intentionally disrupt this blog is. Oh, but I called you on it didn’t I, which means that I must be AN EVIL MUSLIM. OH AND HOW DARE I ASK YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR UNPROVEN CLAIMS. SOB SOB SOB, I AM BEING PERSECUTED FOR BEING AN EVIL VICIOUS WARMONGERING STOOGE. HOW UNJUST CAN THE WORLD BE.

  107. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash says:

    That response is no different than the other trash I read on this site. I’d say it’s par for the course. By the way the word zionist started off as a political movement, but now it’s used by Islamist stooges like yourself so you appear less overtly anti-semitic. Don’t like your own medicine do you?

  108. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStoogesnamednonymous says:


  109. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    I’d like to associate myself with the “long rest.”

  110. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    anonymous (Zionist Stooge 2) says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    To respond in the way that you began (And note, I never start these things) you are a delusional, bigoted, hateful excuse for a human being that wants to start a war that will kill 100,000s or millions of people and will wreck the world economy. In the meantime, you do not serve in the military that you want to carry out that war and never did. Note that unlike your silly insults, every statement I made above is true.

    You are also a vicious racist that assumes anyone that criticizes you is a “basij” member or “muslim.” Let’s see, you were the one that whined about racism based on an obviously fake post in an attempt to defend your close, personal, intimate friend “Sassss” (This is assuming you are not just the same person using a different identity) when his own vicious warmongering lies were being exposed. Meanwhile, when your views are challenged, instead of responding in a calm, rational way, or defending them, you immediately start shrieking demented insults. Really, and I would ask you to overcome your demented hatred for a moment, do you think this persuades anyone to support your position? Or are you so obsessed with demented hate that anyone who dares to question you is automatically seen as evil and must be met with shrieking venom and insults?

    And in conclusion, if you want to see hacked off body parts, why don’t you speak to your terrorist friends in Syria or the “government” of Saudi Arabia which you so obviously support?

  111. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Thank God for leaders like Ayat. Khamenei and Mahmud-joon. I’ll take them over the assholes running the “civilized” world and “anonymous” parasites like you and the Rajavis who live in their anal tracts, any day of the week.

    Sorry gotta run, gotta go stone some adultress and chop off the hands of a thief… (Bussed-in “Ironic” Basiji)

  112. BiBiJon says:

    19 Guns Blazing

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    I’ve been pointing out a trend recently that Obama has been left w2ith no choice but to take on Likudniks, or that they’ll make sure he won’t get a 2nd term.

    Thanks for the link

  113. ExposeIdioticIslamistTrash says:

    Oh look I can do that too. Wow you’re right this is downright ingenious. You’re just a God among mortals. Seriously please keep talking. You crack me up.

  114. James writes to Paul:

    “It is clear Obama does not want war, unless it takes war to stop Iran from stockpiling 20% uranium etc. Why is Iran trying to provoke an American attack?”

    I’m seeing an increasingly disturbing pattern here, James.

    What you’ve written above is usually your first step in this pattern.

    Inevitably, someone replies by pointing out that Iran is “stockpiling” 20% uranium because it’s got a reactor that requires the stuff in order to operate – a reactor that makes medical radioisotopes that cancer patients need — and that there’s nowhere else for Iran to get the stuff.

    If you challenge that assertion, which usually you do not, someone walks you through the brief history of the aborted efforts to assure Iran a reliable outside supply of 20% uranium. Usually you accept that and move on to your next argument, which is:

    “But why is Iran making much more 20% uranium than it needs?”

    The inevitable response to that is: “What makes you say that it is?”

    Your equally inevitable reply is: “Well, that’s what people in the know are saying.” If pressed on who these people in the know are, you eventually give an example, such as: “Well, Ollie Heinonen says so.”

    Then someone will reply: “I see, and why does Ollie Heinonen say so? Does he state how much 20% uranium Iran needs? Does he mention how much it’s making? If he states both numbers, is the ratio between “makes” and “needs” really out of whack?” Almost always, when one reads what Heinonen, or some other person “in the know” has actually said, it becomes clear that this “authority” hasn’t stated any numbers at all, or has stated only one of the two necessary numbers at most, and that often those stated numbers don’t jibe with those tossed out by other people “in the know.”

    Inevitably, this step of the argument gets resolved by someone else doing his homework, getting actual numbers for both the “makes” and “needs” numbers from IAEA reports and other published data that you appear to accept as reliable, which numbers establish that Iran really isn’t producing more 20% uranium than it needs.

    At that point, your challenger typically will confront you triumphantly with a question something like this:

    “So what do you have to say about that, James?”

    You usual response to such a question is silence. You simply wait a decent interval (though not long enough for people to forget), and then you start all over again – by writing something essentially as you’ve written to Paul above.

    Given this pattern, why not just do one of two things:

    1. Take a long enough break to come up with some actual numbers that support your claims; or

    2. Give it a rest – a long rest.

  115. anonymous says:


    It is also pathetic the way you simply accuse everybody you disagree with of being a “zionist stooge”. Seriously you islamist pieces of trash need to come up with something original. That ones getting old. I’m just glad I don’t worship a pedophile who lived in a cave. I’m sure the hidden Imam is just going to pop out of a bush anyday now. Hahaha.

  116. anonymous says:


    You’re an absolute buffoon of a human being aren’t you? I guess you think it’s clever to keep changing your name to something even more stupid than the previous one. How original. You need to get out of your mommas basement kid.

  117. masoud says:

    Gareth Porter on the assasinations of Iranian scientist Rezaeinejad, an the role of the AP’s George Jahn, and ISIS’s David Albright.


  118. anonymous says:

    I love the fact that the Leverett’s allow scumbag rapists like the basij wannabe below to just make whatever ignorant statements they like about their fellow countrymen. You deserve losers like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad who have made Iran into an isolated crumbling regime. They torture their own people with help from basij scum like yourself. Shouldn’t you be stoning an innocent woman to death or hacking off body parts right now?

  119. Castellio says:

    FYI, if you can’t recognize the racism in your own statements I can’t help you.

  120. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Nice to see that the monafeqin are now buying US politicians. You dumb, fat, lazy Americans really deserve assholes like these as your leaders. Not mention Gingrich, romney, Santorum and “Barry”…

  121. ExposingWarmongeringNeoConStooges says:

    anonymous (Zionist Stooge 2) says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Your connection to “Sassss” is a little too obvious. Let’s see, you start out with insults, than proceed to thuggish statements that threaten the Iranian government, than you demonstrate support a war you will not participate in, and now you are on to making absurd, unproven statements. I expect that “anonymous” will soon start copy pasting entire articles from dodgy websites that make absurd allegations without providing any proof for them.

  122. fyi says:

    Castellio says: March 17, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    There are many Hindus that have an antipathy to Islam.

    Yet, I have not seen a single case that Hindus have inscribed the verses of Quran on a Naked Woman and have the entire appartus of the State supporting it as a form of political speech.

  123. fyi says:

    Karl says: March 17, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Axis Powers position had been (and not just in the case of Iran) that War is Cheap and Peace is Expensive.

    Just like Israel.

    Now they have become a bit more sane: “War is Expensive but Peace is also Expensive”

    May be in another decade they will become sane agaiin: “War is Expensive and Peace is Cheap.”

    One could only hope.

  124. Castellio says:

    FYI, get serious.

    You write “They provoke others under the guise of Freedom of (Political) Speech – like inscribing verses of the Quran on a naked woman. One wonders why they do not inscribe verses of the Gensis on a naked woman?”

    Your “they” is defined by the colour of the skin, and you ascribe crimes to that “they” defined by the colour of skin. You are a racist (and, a secondary identity of most racists, lazy, because although you vaguely know better but don’t have the energy to find the right terms).

    Well, at least its apparent for all to see.

  125. fyi says:

    Mr. Canning:

    The minimum amount of HEU (U-235) for a nucler bomb is 25 kg.

    At 20% enrcihment, Irnians will require to have 1200 Kg of U-235.

    The amount that they have now is not sufficient for a bomb.

    I think someone has told you that “20%” is the root of the problem and you have believed that person.

    And then like any gullible person you keep on posing the same question – which apparently puzzles you – “Why US-EU have been indifferent to Iran’s offer of suspending 20% enrichment?”

    And when the evidence point that “20% Enrichment” is irrelevant – the aim has been to use the nuclear file as a wedge nd not to settle it, you ignore that evidence.

    You are coming across as another troll trying to disrupt this site.

  126. Fiorangela,

    You mentioned an article by Sharmine Narwani. Here’s another interesting one by her, entitled “Syria Censorship at AOL-Huffington Post.” She reports that all of her blog articles on the Middle East (focusing on the Levant) were published without question until ownership of Huffington Post changed hands, but now very few of them are published.


  127. Karl says:


    “It is clear Obama does not want war, unless it takes war to stop Iran from stockpiling 20% uranium etc.

    Why is Iran trying to provoke an American attack?”

    Blaming the victim again.

  128. Karl says:


    “Rubbish? You welcome the infliction of $2 trillion of damage on Iran, and claim you seek to promote Iran’s best interests.”

    What is 2 trillion of value compared to one states destruction by foreign forces?

  129. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 17, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    The late Mr. Khomeini might have been careless in his statements.

    But the late Mr. Khruschev once also observed – to US – “That we will bury you.”

    I think you are clutching at straws here in trying to apportion some of the blame for the Iran-Iraq War to Iran.

    If it makes you feel better, let us say iran was responsible to the amount of “0.001 %”.

    For the late Mr. Hussein – on the eve of that war – issued a statement addressed to the “Peoples of Iran” and indicated that his quarrel was not over the disposition of Shat Al Arab etc. but rther strategic.

    But God – or the Hidden Imam – destroyed him, his sons, and his regime at the hands of another enemy of the Islamic Republic.

    Who knos, God may still have a few tricks up his sleeves (metaphrically speaking here), yes?

  130. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 17, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Damaged infrastructure, destroyed ships, etc. can be rebuilt.

    Human being cannot.

    Iranian planners must base their prognistications on capabilities and not intentions.

    That is how planners everywhere operate.

    A 10 kiloton attack on any major Iranian city can lead to hundreds of thousands of dead as well as hundreds of thousands of wounded.

    There is no assurance that Iran will not be attacked again by any of her neighbour’s.

    Nor is there any assurance that such a war will not see see WMD used again against Iran.

    And this concern about another future attack against Iran is widely shared in Iranian society.

    The only thing is that Iranians are generally too polite to bring it up with visiting Europeans and Americans.

    The Iran-Iraq War cannot be un-lived.

    The shredding of CWT in that war, supported by US, EU, China, and USSR, cannot be unlived.

    I have given my estimates for the impact of a US war against Iran since I wanted to be concrete in my on mind what option Iran has.

    I believe Iran will survive the American War – certainly that has been the estimation of the Iranian leaders based on their policies.

    Iran cannot survive if she is not a threshold nuclear weapon state.

    This is a fundamental security concern that mere assertions by you cannot address.

    In regards to EU damaging herself – we shall see.

    One must count one’s chickens at the end of Fall now, mustn’t one?

  131. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    That was their position in 2006.

    The developments after 2007 revelaed to the entire non-White world that Axis Powers are using the nuclear file as a wedge to destroy the Islamic republic of Iran.

    I think we have cleared a watershed over the last 2 monts; Axis Powers global political position with respect to Iranian nuclear file has collapsed.

    It demonstrated, in front of the entire world, that Iran is run by men whose discourse is informed by Reason while the United States and Israel are run by men whose discourse is devoid of Reason.

    For Iranians, this was a huge break-through in propaganda – “Mad Mullahs” were replaced by “Mad Lawyers” – the gray-bearded Rationalist Supreme Jurisprudent vs. the youn Jingoistic Juris Doctor.

  132. James Canning says:


    Khomeini blundered by shoting from the rooftops he wanted revolutions in the Gulf monarchies. He blundered by destroying Iran’s air force. He blundered by prolonging the Iran-Iraq war for several years. Need more examples?

  133. James Canning says:


    You virtually welcomed the latest round of sacntions against Iran, and you were confident those sanctions would hurt the EU more than they hurt Iran.

  134. James Canning says:


    Rubbish? You welcome the infliction of $2 trillion of damage on Iran, and claim you seek to promote Iran’s best interests.

    There is zero chance Israel or the US would launch a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran. Zero.

  135. James Canning says:


    I agree Obama wanted to reach out to Iran, but had little skill in doing this and Bibi Netanyahu compromised and blocked the effort.

    Iran’s enriching to 20 percent harmed Obama’s effort considerably.

  136. James Canning says:


    Japan, India and China do not want Iran to build nukes, Surely those countries do not adopt that viewpoint because they are “white”. Whatever being “white” means.

  137. James Canning says:


    Iran blundered by trebling production of 20 percent uranium. This was a great gift to Bibi Netanyahu and of zero benefit to Iran.

  138. fyi says:

    Castellio says: March 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Not at all.

    I have noticed North Amercans and Europeans to be singulalrly unappreciative of the sensibilities of the rest of the world.

    They provoke others under the guise of Freedom of (Political) Speech – like inscribing verses of the Quran on a naked woman.

    One wonders why they do not inscribe verses of the Gensis on a naked woman?

    Is it because Jews are now honorary “Whites”? Or is there some other reason?

    Mexican papers referred to the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq as the “War of Whites against the Browns”.

    I am not racist but I am not blind to people who willfully walk over the interests of the rest of the world.

  139. James Canning says:


    It is clear Obama does not want war, unless it takes war to stop Iran from stockpiling 20% uranium etc.

    Why is Iran trying to provoke an American attack?

  140. paul says:

    Many ‘alternative’ commentators have been deeply, mendaciously committed to selling us the image of Obama the peacekeeper even as Obama wages (economic and covert) war and drags us further towards (open) war. Many of us continue to be hopelessly naive about the likes of Juan Cole, Jim Lobe, Trita Parsi and Gareth Porter. These folks continue to paint a picture of Obama desperately trying to hold back the warmongering neocons. That in itself is quite a con.

  141. Castellio says:

    FYI writes: “Tht is now the global perception outside of the White races areas of the planet.”

    Your own racism (we think according to the colour of our skin) is becoming ever more apparent.

  142. fyi says:

    A-B says: March 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Dr. Parsi’s views, in that article the link to hich you had included in your post, are too charitable towards Mr. Obama.

    Mr. Obama orchestrated a careful (in his mind) campaign of destablization and pressure against Iran, coordinated with EU states.

    It began with the so-called plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States and it was continued in earnest with Mr. Danilon’s belligerent speech lst November in the US Brookings Institution.

    Next folloed the EU oil & finance embargo nd US CBI sanctions.

    These were supposed to cause regime change or regime chaos or regime surrender in Iran.

    However, were Mr. Obama and EU leaders blundered was the undestimation of power of the Chapmions of Israel to turn this campaign of coercive diplomacy against iran into a quick march to war.

    Iranians were left with no choice than to go to war to inflct as much damage as they could on the world economy, on US allies in the region, and on US.

    Mr. Obama and his fellow-travelers in the EU states were on the verge of loss of complete control.

    They had to sound a retreat or ride into war with the Champions of Israel.

    They beat a hasty retreat, making available all of the US officials – current or past – who uniformly stated that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, is not seeking nuclear weapons, and there is still time for diplomacy.

    Mr. Obama, Secretary Panetta, Mr. Danilon an assorted others were on the message repeating the same thing.

    All toegther a pathetic and deplorable sight to beheld – a foolish policy course finding its final demise.

    The damage to US position has been enormous; US has come across as a polity run by “Mad Lawyers” and “Deranged Israeli Firsters” who are gunning for Iran on behalf of Israel – just like they did against Iraq.

    Tht is now the global perception outside of the White races areas of the planet.

    What we have a cease-fire.

    It certainly will not lead to Peace – US and EU are now at the stage of “War is Expensive – but Peace is also Expensive.”

    The best that could be hoped for is a combination of overt diplomatic negogiations stretched over months and perhas years will back-channel communications.

    I think, politically, the leaders of the United States have finally answered the question “What price Israel?”.

    They are not willing to pay the War-with-Iran price.

    I hope I am not very wrong in thinking that the US policy post Iran NIE 2007 and Mr. Obama’s pressurizing Iran in the last months of 2011 have been diplomatic disasters for the United States – phyrric victories indeed!

  143. BiBiJon says:


    Going back to May 2009’s Obama-Neanyahu press briefing is fairly instructive. It seems Obama genuinely wanted to try a different approach. As it is clear that Netanyahu was going to have none of it.


  144. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm


  145. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/16/yes_we_can_contain_iran?page=0,0

    Interesting article by Will Marshall at Foreign Policy online, entitled “Yes, We Can Contain Iran.”

    Plenty to comment on in the article, but I’ll leave that to others. I will instead go off on a tangent based on this sentence, which Marshall considers a sound assumption (among others) for his argument that “containment” of Iran should not be ruled out:

    “Fortunately, there’s zero evidence that Americans are pining for a return to George W. Bush’s style of unilateral belligerence.”

    Zero evidence?

    Marshall overlooks the recent rise of what may fairly be labeled “peace-loving war-mongers” in the United States. This new contingent of Middle-East war advocates is to be distinguished from the large pre-existing body of Whack-A-Mole war-mongers from the Iraq war days (who undoubtedly welcome these new members to their group, though not overtly since the new members continue to think of themselves as peace-lovers who would not be caught dead in the same room with George W. Bush, much less John Bolton).

    For now, the “new” war advocates focus their attention principally on Syria, and seem to have varying views on war with Iran. Nonetheless, it is not hard to predict that their differences of opinion could be resolved, and their focus and combined enthusiasm thereupon shifted to Iran, if their efforts in Syria “succeed” through another no-muss no-fuss war like last year’s war in Libya – a source of endless fascination for erstwhile American peace-lovers who’d had no idea just how easy war can be.

    Some examples are so obvious as to be amusing. Juan Cole (who, one might forget if he ever stops reminding his readers at every opportunity, was a strong opponent of the Iraq war) fervently supported the NATO attack on Libya because it had been approved by the UN Security Council. He stressed on numerous occasions that Security Council approval, for him, is what clearly distinguished Libya from Iraq.

    But it’s proven difficult to dampen Juan Cole’s new lust for military intervention in Middle Eastern countries. He thinks military intervention – which he prefers to call “humanitarian” intervention – is advisable in Syria too. This time, however, he doesn’t consider himself obliged to accept the Security Council’s “no” decision. The Security Council’s view strikes him as unimportant now, an inconvenient fact that calls for condemnation of Russia and China, not for logical consistency from him. (Incidentally, as of my last visit to Cole’s website about a month ago, not one commenter had ever pointed out that Cole has shifted his position 180 degrees on this. I suspect his censor’s eye is especially watchful for any such insubordination.)

    Shallow beliefs and muddy thinking probably are the principal explanations for Cole’s flip-flop, but it may owe in part to the recent but widespread perception of how “easy” it has become for Western countries to intervene in Middle Eastern countries. It was easy in Libya, after all – for NATO, at least. I haven’t seen any polls asking the Libyan people whether it struck them as quite so easy, nor whether they prefer the current situation (even if the chaos should end with one opposition group or another getting a firm grip on power) to the status quo ante. One would expect such questions to be asked, often and in numerous variations, if NATO governments anticipated that the Libyan people would confirm the answers those governments have been giving on their behalf. Yet no one is polling the Libyan people.

    Cole is hardly alone. Judging from numerous reader comments on recent NY Times articles on Syria, it appears that very many Americans favor military intervention in Syria. Most predictably insist, like Juan Cole, that the intervention would be entirely “humanitarian” – though, regrettably, it might be necessary to deliver heavy weapons to the rebels to ensure that the humanitarian aid gets delivered. It is abundantly clear, after all, that the Syrian government wants to starve, torture and kill all of the Syrian people, and that only the rebels, armed by the West with heavy weapons, can save the Syrian people from this fate. Even more regrettable, it might be necessary, as in Libya, for NATO to send in its own warplanes to bomb Syrian cities and kill thousands of Syrian civilians if the Syrian government should stoop to using them as “human shields” – a barbaric practice which it is nonetheless easy to spot: whenever a NATO plane drops a bomb on a Middle Eastern country and the bomb kills innocent civilians, it follows that the government of that Middle Eastern country had been using those dead civilians as human shields.

    To their credit for candor, not all war-in-Syria advocates hide behind “humanitarian” motives. Some say bluntly: arm the rebels, land Western troops, bomb Syrian cities – whatever it takes to get rid of Assad, regardless of the effect on Syria or its civilians, and regardless of who or what might replace his government. The common thread among views of the new peace-loving war-in-Syria crowd seems to be that, just like Juan Cole in his younger days (2003), all of those pressing for Western intervention in Syria claim to have vehemently opposed the Iraq war, and there is no apparent reason to doubt this claim. Iraq was different, they insist. The American people were duped by false claims about WMD. Nobody’s claiming Syria has WMD (actually, a few do claim that, but no one cites it as the basis for his pro-war stance on Syria).

    The war-in-Syria advocates find it convenient to ignore that the Iraq war was also sold to the American public as a war of liberation, necessary to free oppressed people from a brutal dictator, even if the vast majority of those people might prefer that we mind our own business. (I don’t recall the Iraqi people ever being polled – before, during or after the US invasion – on whether they were happy that the Americans had invaded and occupied their country.) To mention today this “liberation” motive for the Iraq war is to highlight an embarrassing parallel between Iraq then and Syria now, which dictates that the Iraq war be characterized as having been solely about WMD.

    If this “humanitarian intervention” argument works in Syria, consider how easy their task might be if these peace-loving war advocates then turn their attention exclusively to Iran – unburdened (temporarily, at least) by the need to bring American democracy to multiple Middle Eastern countries at the same time, buoyed by a string of “easy” successes in Libya and Syria, and possibly supported by US troops that will have become available with the actual and predictable winding-down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One can easily imagine the arguments: Not only does Iran have oppressed people yearning to breathe free, just like Iraq, Libya and Syria; it’s undoubtedly got dozens or hundreds of nuclear bombs as well, mounted on missiles in underground silos, aimed at Israel, Europe and maybe even the US itself – WMD, just like in Iraq, only for real this time.

    That would be a heady brew of do-gooder motives. And to think that it could be accomplished through a quick-and-easy war as in Libya (and, by then, in Syria). Who could resist such a temptation?

    But let’s not get all dewy-eyed thinking ahead to Iran. Syria first.

  146. A-B says:

    Trita Parsi interviewed on RT: ‘Pursuit of quick victory behind Obama diplomacy failure in Iran’

    The 2 cents worth:

    Parsi seems to blame everyone except Obama for the collapse of the negotiations including Obama’s time planner. Apparently, he was compelled by a mysterious and sacred “one year” dead-line after which no diplomacy was allowed. Adding it all up, it DOES seem that Obama and the US administration never wanted diplomacy to succeed and just waited for and created excuses (what a surprise!). However, he points out how US officials increasingly and overtly question Israel’s military as well as moral prowess. For instance that US OFFICIALS now directly blame MKO and Israel for the murder of the Iranian scientists. So, you have to be a fanatical Israel-firster (i.e. an anti-American as well as an anti-Iranian, not to mention an anti-human) to deny Israel’s terrorism.

  147. James Canning says:


    Iran faces near-zero chance of an attack with nuclear weapons from Israel or the US. Biggest danger is posed by Pakistani nukes.

    You seem eager to have Iran lose its navy, air force, etc.

    Iranian blunders brought on the insane war with Iraq. You encourage even more blunders.

  148. James Canning says:

    Dan Cooper,

    Sassan apparently approves of Israel’s programme of assassinating Iranian scientists. David Cameron and William Hague have made clear the UK opposes these murders.

  149. James Canning says:


    The free market indeed would like to hear about Palestine. But some very rich and very powerful Jews would prefer the American people hear as little about Palestine as possible.

  150. James Canning says:

    Robert Kagan, the ardent neocon proponent of endless war in the Middle East and for idiotic levels of spending on “defence”, actually claimed the other day: “I did not know what [Eisenhower] was talking about” when the president of the US warmned the American people about the danger to their freedom posed by the military-industrial complex. Kagan is a shill for arms manufacturers and provides cover for foolish senators and congressmen who squander trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money on ill-conceived military adventures and unnecessary weapons. KAGAN IS AN ADVISER TO MITT ROMNEY. And Romney would be a moron in the White House along the lines of G W Bush.

  151. Photi says:

    anonymous says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    i was speaking generally, i am generally against government control of the media. I was citing an example i am familiar with concerning government control of the media as i do not generally read PressTV or concern myself much with internal Iranian politics.

    if “journalists” worry about their access to powerful government officials in a way that compromises their ability to be journalists, then something needs to change. If a journalist is demoted or discouraged from asking “What about Palestine?”, do you think that is indicative of a free media? When corporations control the media, and corporations determine what are US interests, then aren’t we actually witnessing an example of corporate tyranny when people like Cenk Uyger are demoted because he had to gall to ask the sorts of questions the viewers wanted to hear? Free market right? Well the free market wants to know about Palestine.

  152. James Canning says:


    Netanyahu said, “Gaza equals Iran.” (In piece you linked.) Islamic Jihad equals Iran. This indeed is the core issue. Netanyahu wants to keep the West Bank permanently, and to achieve this he wants to expel as many non-Jews as possible. He sees Iran as unwilling to accept expulsion of non-Jews from the West Bank.

  153. Karl says:


    I think you are wrong, while US often rule with force I dont think war will happen atleast not this year, maybe next term for Obama but not this year. They want to sanctions to have its effect and a added pressure, for example the upcoming SWIFT ban is rather US way to hurt iranians (compared to Israel that is hellbent on war, US doesnt share that view today).

    One should not forget that Saddam were (or rather the iraqi population/collective punishment) sanctioned for decades leaving the iraqis impoverished and millions of iraqis died due this policy. The policy on Iran hasnt reach such horrific lenghths yet, and until Iran isnt weak and encountering civil unrest I am confident that US will not attack, that goes hand in hand with statements by US military and CIA spokesmen et cetera.

  154. anonymous says:


    Did I present “news” from that outlet? Nice try. Press TV has fired their journalists for daring to show criticism of state officials and for the horrific crime of being jewish. Press TV only fools the simple minded.

  155. James Canning says:


    Interesting comments by Susie Kneedler March 16th that you linked: “Last year, [Cenk] uygur was the only MSNBC host to pipe uo about the Palestinians’ rights after Benjamin Netanyahu lectured Congress that Israel would never return to the 1967 borders.”

    The disgraceful performance of the US joint session of Congress last May was more a pep rally. Netanyahu opely defied Obama, and foolish senators and congressmen grovelled at his feet.

  156. Fiorangela says:

    Deja vu all over again.
    What is on stage and screen in Syria today is a rerun of a bad movie from 60-some years ago:


    Hollywood in Homs and Idlib?
    by Sharmine Narwani (source: Veterans Today)
    Wednesday, March 14, 2012

    “Editor’s note: As the drama in Syria intensifies, we are finally getting glimpses of the remarkable stage-craft that is going into propping up this one-sided storyline. The BBC just reported that armed opposition groups have planted explosives in Idlib, which has been touted as the scene for the next regime brutalities. But Sharmine Narwani brings us detailed testimony from within Idlib last Sunday that these fighters were laying down IEDs in and around civilian buildings as well. Why bomb homes except to create the impression of massive damage by regime forces? The plot thickens, but still, few are asking the hard questions on Syria. . . .

    65 YEARS AGO:
    TAPLINE, Building the Aramco Pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean http almashriq dot hiof dot no slash lebanon/300/320/327/notes/


    “”The situation in Damascus was dramatically different. Given the economic ties between Syria and Lebanon, and the dependence of Lebanon’s pipeline on Syrian approval, the resistance of the Syrlan regime to TAPLINE’s concessionary offer became a major problem in Beirut. Syria signed an accord with TAPLINE on September 1, 1947, but parliamentary ratification was delayed for political and economic reasons. The regime was critical of U.S. policy in Palestine, and it wanted more favorable commercial terms from TAPLINE. But then U.S. oil executives were unwilling to bend on matters of profit, preferring instead to pressure President Quwwatly of Syria and Prime Minister Mardam indirectly through Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, as well as directly through TAPLINE’s officers.

    When in 1948 it appeared that the Syrian negotiations might fail, preparations for construction in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan ceased, only to continue exclusively in Saudi Arabia to assure the ARAMCO operation. In practice, the March 1949 military coup in Damascus solved the problem. Within two months, in the presence of William Owen, attorney with TAPLINE and ARAMCO and later TAPLINE’s general counsel, and William A. Campbell of TAPLINE, the concession was approved, leading to the completion of construction at the Sidon end.

    Recent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the first military coup in Syrian postwar history indicates that CIA agents Miles Copeland and Stephen Meade, who acted as U.S. military attache in Damascus, were directly involved in the coup in which Syrian colonel Husni Za’im seized power. According to then former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland, the coup was carried out in order to obtain Syrian ratification of TAPLINE.14 Douglas Little writes that “Meade and Zaim completed planning for the coup in early 1949. On March 14, Zaim ‘requested U.S. agents [to] provoke and abet internal disturbances which [are] essential for coup d’etat’ or that U.S. funds be given him [for] this purpose as soon as possible.”15 Assistant Secretary of State McGhee, according to the same source, put in an appearance in Damascus at a critical moment in the course of these events, “possibly to authorize U.S. support for Zaim” in addition to discussing settlement of Palestinian refugees in Syria.

    On March 30, the coup took place, followed by
    -the arrest of the Syrian president and the prime minister and
    -the suspension of the constitution. In less than a month,
    -the new Syrian regime was
    -involved in negotiations with Israel,
    -planning for the resettlement of Palestinian refugees and, in mid May,
    -approving the TAPLINE concession.”


  157. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    “Unlikely since US doesnt seek war at this moment.”

    Karl, I wish that was true, but …

    Whatever prize there was in Iraq for US to hold on to, it has long since disappeared. Questions around Afghanistan is no longer if and when, but ‘where’, as in ‘where’ is the nearest exit. The disincentive of generating anti-Americanism no longer holds. What more would an unprovoked attack on Iran do to the regional public opinion that Koran-burning and civilian-killing has not already done.

    If economic, political, and diplomatic avenues are unavailable to the US to navigate through the current set of situations in the mid east, then pretty much all that is left in the tool belt is the military.

    Today, I’m not so optimistic.

  158. Photi says:

    anonymous says:
    March 17, 2012 at 11:16 am

    speaking of state-run tv, apparently Cenk Uygur was upsetting “people in Washington” and so was demoted with a pay raise. anonymous, is Cenk’s experience your idea of a “free” press?


  159. Karl says:


    Unlikely since US doesnt seek war at this moment.

  160. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    March 17, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Karl, could it boil down to a third possibility: preparation for an attack?

    If not, why not?

  161. Karl says:

    About the fleets in Gulf shouldnt be perceived as a build up for an attack by the US.

    Its rather boil down to two reasons.

    1. Canonboat diplomacy


    2. US arent looking for war, but they know Israel doing it and they know Israel wont tell US if they are going to attack Ira so US have to prepare themselves.

  162. anonymous says:


    You are aware that Press TV is a state run Iranian propaganda outlet right? We’re talking about the same site that accused the US Army of assassinating Princess Diana. That is how serious they take their “news”.

  163. BiBiJon says:


    on the other hand, “America, Israel and Iran ‘are now engaged in a three-way game of chicken’ in which ‘physical or political survival makes blinking more dangerous than confrontation’.”

    Another words, nobody is preparing for anything. They are just busy not blinking!


  164. BiBiJon says:


    “That will be at LEAST THREE carriers in the Gulf at one time and possibly FOUR.

    If that isn’t preparation for war – either by the US or Israel – I don’t know what is.”

    Sure doesn’t look good.

  165. Richard Steven Hack says:

    From the link to the Wired article on the Navy Gulf surge…


    And if all that wasn’t enough, Greenert disclosed that he and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon ask themselves if the Navy needs to rotate more aircraft carriers to the Gulf. That decision, so important that it’s Panetta’s to make, will come “in the next few months.”

    End Quote

    That will be at LEAST THREE carriers in the Gulf at one time and possibly FOUR.

    If that isn’t preparation for war – either by the US or Israel – I don’t know what is.

    US substantially increases forces in the Persian Gulf


    Next week the US will actually have three carriers in the region, with the USS Enterprise sailing on its final voyage to join the Vinson and Lincoln carriers already in the region, as well as the USS Makin Island big deck amphibious warfare ship (think small aircraft carrier).

    End Quote

    UK prepares for military strike against Iran: The Sun (from February 26)


    “MoD planners went into overdrive at the start of the year. Conflict is seen as inevitable as long as the regime (Iran) pursue their nuclear ambitions,” The Sun quoted a senior Whitehall official as saying on Sunday.

    “Britain would be sucked in whether we like it or not,” the official added.

    The report said a military attack against Iran is “a matter of when not if … with 18 to 24 months the likely timescale.”

    “The UK will first fly an infantry battalion to the United Arab Emirates, our (UK) strong ally in the region,” The Sun said. “Further troops could follow if our other allies Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar ask for help.”

    The Royal Navy has already gathered seven warships in the Persian Gulf. HMS Daring – one of its newest and most powerful destroyers – arrived in the region last month to join Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll.

    Minesweepers Pembroke, Quora, Middleton and Ramsey are also based in Bahrain and a nuclear submarine is stationed in the area.

    According to the report, a second submarine armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles will also be deployed in the region under the UK war plan.

    The Royal Air Force is also reportedly planning to send Typhoon and Tornado Jets to reinforce helicopter and transport plane crews already stationed in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE.

    End Quote

  166. Richard Steven Hack says:

    US threatens India with sanctions over Iran trade

  167. BiBiJon says:

    anonymous says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Expensive window dressing to make out that the upcoming peaceful negotiated settlement to the nuclear dispute was coerced out of Iran. Unless you think 10 close-action petrol boats are going to be decisive a 1,100 mile coast line.

  168. BiBiJon says:

    Analyze this!

    commenting on a poll last month (1) that showed increasing Iranian public ambivalence about nuclear technology, Dina Esfandiary says:

    “The change in polls numbers, assuming they’re accurate, indicates three things about Iranian public opinion. There seems to have been a significant drop in Iranian support for a nuclear energy program, more Iranians are aware of how sensitive the issue is (which may explain why so many more people chose not to answer), and less than half of those polled are in favour of developing a nuclear weapon.”


    I have only one word for Dina: Fukushima

    (1) ,http://www.gallup.com/poll/152633/Iranians-Split-Nuclear-Military-Power.aspx

  169. Karl says:

    Is US/EU/Gulf turning against Kofi Annan’s work on Syria?

    First the US, Gulf, EU pushed for arab monitors in Syria, then monitors got in but the conclusions was not of benefit for US, Gulf, EU when it was made clear that there was a violent part of the opposition that even attacked civilians. So the report were quickly ignored and buried.

    Now they have pushed Kofi Annan to be an envoy, however it is pretty clear from what I have read that Annan know that there will never be any peace unless pressure on both parties occur, more concrete that a ceasefire is established (which if indirectly mean that there is 2 violent groups, something that the US/EU/Gulf have tried to ignored) and that a dialogue is started (which is something the US/EU/Gulf backed opposition ignore.

  170. BiBiJon says:

    Dan Cooper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:46 am

    “Israel Too Small to Last Even One Week of Real War.”

    One of those cultural traits that Iranians joke about, and complain about, and nevertheless, cannot help indulging in to excess, is ta’arof, or blandishment.

    Factoring out the ta’arof quotient, Mr Salehi is actually saying Israel will implode instantly at the mere prospect of war.

    Note to Cameron and Obama:

    The surest way to stop Netanyahu ranting about war with Iran, is to actually give the green light to the Vieux Boulogne.


  171. BiBiJon says:

    For Fiorangela

    If of thy mortal goods thou art bereft,
    And from thy slender store two loaves alone to thee are left,
    Sell one, and with the dole
    Buy hyacinths to feed thy soul.

    From Saadi’s Golistan

  172. Dan Cooper says:


    The flowing articles totally refute Sassan’s claim that Iranian government is killing its own scientist.

    This is a “MUST READ” article which was published in the Telegraph.co.uK

    ON “16 February 2009” about Israel’s planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran’s nu-clear program.

    Please click on the link below:


    In 2007, Mossad was behind the death of professor Ardeshire Hassanpour, a prize-winning and a top nuclear scientist at Iran’s Isfahan uranium plant.

    Please copy_paste the link below:


    This article was published on by “theaustralian.com.au” on “February 05, 2007” .

  173. Dan Cooper says:

    The End Of Israel

    Israel Too Small to Last Even One Week of Real War.



    “If Israel ever makes that mistake [attacking Iran’s nuclear sites], that will set the time for the end of Israel. They know it very well.

    We don’t consider Israel a country. Israel is an entity, the extension of the US influence in the Middle East…. So, the real threat is the US,” he said.

  174. Dan Cooper says:

    The hundreds of nuclear weapons in Israel’s arsenal are never mentioned while the Jewish State’s hysterical claims that non-nuclear Iran represents an existential threat are repeated and magnified, ad nauseam.

    The leaders of the 52 know their Goebbels:

    A lie repeated often enough becomes an accepted truth.

    Israel’s “Petroleum Tax”: War Threats and the Price of Gas

    During the first 3 months of 2012, the price of oil rose 15% (over 30% since the summer 2011) largely due to Israel’s war mongering and threats to launch an offensive war against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Peres and Foreign Minister Lieberman have all repeatedly demanded the US bomb Iran, or failing that, they warn, Israel would launch its own offensive war against the Iranian people and drag the US into another war.

    Almost all oil experts and political analysts agree that the spike in oil prices is a result of Israel’s war mongering, as major international oil speculators bet that an Israeli assault on Iran will provoke a major disruption in production and transportation of petroleum in the Middle East and provoke a global shortfall[33].

    The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations have added to the war hysteria by echoing and embellishing on Israel’s claims of an Iranian nuclear threat (or Iran’s “growing capacity” to threaten Israel in the future)[34].

    During the first three months of this year alone, the increased price of gasoline – or more accurately Israel’s war tax on the American consumers and drivers costs an additional 60 cents a gallon, or $9 dollars more to fill a 15 gallon tank. This represents the tribute the Zionist power configuration has imposed on the American consumers in their push for a new war on Israel’s behalf. No US politician would dare discuss this issue, let alone speak up and tell the Zionist chattering classes and their “beloved leaders” to stop pimping for war or else risk the cutting off of Israel’s $3 billion dollar annual handout from the US taxpayers.

    Leading economists have stated that the price hike in petroleum (caused by a bellicose Israel) is stunting growth and pushing the US and EU back into recession … costing millions more job losses[35]. If we add the consumer losses caused by high gas prices to the losses in world economic output, the mere war chants of Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres and the AIPAC will cost the global economy hundreds of billions over the course of the year.

    Any mention of Israel’s gas tax on the American family’s budget will elicit outraged accusations of anti-Semitism from respectable Zionists and ugly threats from their thug accomplices. When Obama performed his infamous annual belly crawl to pleasure the AIPAC delegates and their Israeli guests, in the midst of cheers over his re-affirmation of America’s unconditional loyalty to the state of Israel, he also quietly asked Israel to lower the war cries at least until after the November elections because of its effects on the price of gasoline on the American voter[36].

    The high price of oil is damaging Obama’s chances for re-election. The American electorate may not understand the real cost of Obama’s submission to Israel and may not be aware of Israel’s gas tax, but they are holding their putative President responsible for their pain at the pump! There is only one thing that Obama cherishes more than Zionist support and that is the votes of an economically squeezed American electorate, who are turning against him in droves as the price of gasoline soars.

    Good article:

    Israel’s Willing Executioners:


    By James Petras and Robin Eastman Abaya

    From March 4th to March 9th, 2012, 13,000 militant Israel Firsters, took over “political Washington” and imposed a foreign regime’s (Israel) political agenda to the rousing applause and appreciation of their captive vassal US legislators.

  175. Castellio says:

    The good thing about Sassan (the paid stooge) is that he has brought The Propaganda Artist etc. to life.

    I hadn’t ever been on azerireport.com before. Generally speaking, Propaganda Artist etc., do you trust it as a source? Honest question.

    For instance, Mondoweiss is pretty solid with its reporting, Asia Times is very hit and miss depending on who is writing, Richard Silverstein is a one man outfit so you can learn what you’re getting, Al Jazeera has lost it, and so on and so on.

    How do you feel about Azeri Report? (Has anybody else tracked this site over a period of time and have an opiniion?)

  176. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Stooge says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:03 am

    You just don’t get it. As long as that original source does not provide evidence for its claim which it does not, than you still have no evidence and nothing on which to base your argument.

  177. Sassan says:

    The original source in Farsi: http://www.rahesabz.net/story/8637/

  178. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    The Zionist Stooge says:
    March 16, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    Stooge, let me introduce you to what appears to be a foreign concept. You have to provide evidence when you make a claim. A random website which publishes text which has no backing in reality and provide no proof that the claim is true is not evidence. Thus, your attempt to score fails again.

    Truth 5, Stooge 0

  179. Sassan says:

    Dr. Ali-Mohammadi’s House Raided Prior to His Assassination

    One day before his assassination, Professor Ali-Mohammadi’s house was raided by Ministry of Information agents. Also, his documents were reportedly confiscated.

    Moreover, two weeks prior to his assassination the professor resigned from all responsibilities of cooperating with nuclear organizations.

    Following his assassination, the professor’s family was threatened by intelligence agents in order to prevent the possibility of news circulating about the raid on the house.

    There were numerous intelligence agents present at the scene, even during the memorial service.

    Dr. Ali-Mohammadi, a prominent university professor who supported the Green Movement, was assassinated on January 12, 2010 by a remote-controlled bomb that went off at the front of his house in northern Tehran.


  180. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Stooge says:
    March 16, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Stooge, there are many individuals who were involved with the “Green movement” who now recognize the lies its “leaders” told were used to manipulate them. Just look at this board for evidence of that. They have not been imprisoned or assassinated. So your BS conspiracy theory here fails again. (By the way, why is it acceptable for you to peddle demented conspiracy theories that are not supported by evidence and to accuse Iran of lying at the same time?)

  181. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 16, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Zionist, your mental delusions are not the truth, nor are they facts that can be used to refute the truth. Since you failed to address any of the actual facts in the pieces that have been posted, you concede that they are true, and you have no evidence that refutes them.

    Truth 4, Stooge 0

  182. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    The Zionist Stooge says:
    March 16, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Truth 3, Stooge 0 (Sense a pattern here?).

  183. Sassan says:

    Sorry Fiorangela, the evidence is overwhelming. When India is forced to come out and reveal the truth (as they didn’t want to) then you know where things stand.

    By the way, the regime has not provided evidence that any foreign intelligence service was behind the assassinations of the scientists. You know, real evidence – not forced confessions from Evan Prison.

    In fact, at least for some of the scientists and in particular with Professor Ali Mohammadi who was with the Green Movement during the time of the protests (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/01/updated-who-murdered-professor-ali-mohammadi.html)

    Here is a very interesting article entitled, “Is Iran Behind the Death of its Own Scientists?”…: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/16/iran-death-of-scientists/

  184. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 16, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Iran’s nuclear program is needed for the state coherence and survival in the coming years and decades.

    Iran’s leaders made apoor decision when they signed NPT and when they remained in NPT after 1998.

    The Axis Powers can huff and puff, wage siege warfare and later on perhaps initiate a bombing campaign.

    All of that – 4 years of war, 60,000 dead in Iran, and 2 trillion dollars worth of dmages to Iran (and a wrecked world economy) – must be weighted against a 10 kiloton nuclear explosion over Tehran or multiple such attacks over other Iranian cities.

    No one in Iran in 1970s would have expected her to be subject of WMD attacks in 1980s.

    You have to thank your government, led by Mrs. Thatcher, in shredding CWT when it came to Iran.

    You cannot put that genie in the bottle.

    Any Iranian government that agrees to any restrictions on Iran beyond NPT should be kicked out of office forthwith.

    Iran must be and remain a threshold nuclear state for the safety and security of her people and those foreigners that depend on her.

    There is no other way.

  185. Fiorangela says:

    Gareth Porter: Who Was Behind the Delhi Bombing?


    “It was carried out with same method by which Israel’s Iranian proxy, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, had assassinated an Iranian scientist in mid-January. It occurred on the anniversary of the 2008 assassination of Hezbollah operations chief Imad Mugniyeh, which Hezbollah had vowed to avenge. And it happened at the same time as what appeared to be attempted bombings in Bangkok and Tbilisi.

    But a review of the evidence uncovered thus far makes the link to Iran begin to look very dubious. Instead, it points to the distinct possibility that the Israelis planned a carefully limited bomb attack that was not intended to cause serious injury to Israeli diplomatic personnel, but that would advance the larger Israeli narrative on the need to punish Iran.

    The evidence surrounding that bomb itself indicates a series of decisions by the terrorist team that is fundamentally inconsistent with an Iranian-Hezbollah revenge bombing. The preliminary forensic analysis of the bomb itself had estimated it to be 250-300 grams of explosives, but sources in the investigation later reduced the estimate to 200-250 grams. The 250-gram bomb that exploded near the Delhi High Court in May 2011 did not even damage the car under which it had been placed and was characterised by Police Commissioner B K Gupta as a “low-intensity and mild blast”.


  186. Sassan says:

    Sticky-bomb Iranian suspect linked to Bangkok plotters, India dials Tehran

    Prawesh Lama , VijaitaSingh : New Delhi, Fri Mar 16 2012, 23:37 hrs

    For the first time today, the Delhi Police linked an Iranian suspect in the attack on the Israeli diplomat in Delhi with a “Bangkok module” that was planning a similar attack in the Thailand capital.

    The Iranian suspect in the Delhi case, Houshang Afshar Irani, was reportedly in regular touch with one of the members of the “Bangkok module” arrested in Malaysia, Sedghatzadeh Masoud. It was while tracking the phone calls between them that investigators reportedly stumbled upon Urdu journalist Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi, who was in touch with Irani.

    In its first diplomatic contact with Tehran on the February 13 blast, India today called up Iranian ambassador in New Delhi Syed Mehdi Nabizadeh and sought the country’s cooperation in catching the Iranian suspects in the case. New Delhi had been careful not to name the Iranian link so far despite Israel’s insistence.

    The police believe it was Irani who attached explosives to the vehicle of the Israeli diplomat in Delhi, leaving her seriously injured. Hours after the blast in Delhi, Irani left for Malaysia on February 13 from the Indira Gandhi International Airport. Masoud was arrested in Malaysia on February 15. He was part of the group that was allegedly trying to target Israeli nationals in Bangkok when they accidentally blew up the house they were building a bomb in, a day after the Delhi attack. Another suspect had got injured when a bomb he tried to throw had bounced and hit him.

    While the Delhi Police had earlier obtained warrants against three other Iranians, including Irani, today they also got an NBW against Masoud.

    “With the help of intelligence agencies we got details of three men of Iranian origin involved in the botched terror attempt in Bangkok. While two men were arrested in Bangkok, the third suspect (Masoud) was detained at the Kuala Lumpur airport in Malaysia. The same module was operational in Delhi and it was being controlled by Masoud,” said a senior police officer.

    The other two accused in the Delhi attack, Syed Ali Sadr Mehdian and Abolghasemi Mohammad Reza, left the capital before the blast. “The return ticket of Mehdian was booked by Kazmi. Documents to this effect have been seized from the concerned travel agency,” said B K Gupta, the Delhi Police Commissioner.

    According to the police, Kazmi first met Mehdian when he went to Tehran in February 2011. “Kazmi said that in 2011 he went to Iran twice at the instance of Mehdian. There he also met Reza. On both occasions he was asked to provide assistance in India to their associates as and when required. He was paid $5,500. It was at Mehdian’s instance that Kazmi met Irani in Delhi and both then recceed the Isreali Embassy and its surrounding areas. They used the scooty purchased by Irani for the reccee. This scooty was recovered from the house of Irani,” said Gupta.

    Police said Kazmi had received foreign remittances both in his as well as his wife’s account. “Till date his wife has received Rs 18.78 lakh in her account and Kazmi got Rs 3.8 lakh, for which they do not have any satisfactory explanation,” said Gupta.

    Police have approached the Enforcement Directorate and the Financial Investigation Unit to probe the source of the foreign remittances.


  187. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The result of CIA chief Petraeus visit to Turkey…

    Turkey may consider buffer zone at tense Syrian border

  188. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Dealing With Iran
    Zogby and the Old Divide-and-Conquer Ploy

  189. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Fiorangela: “sometimes James Canning makes one long for a comment by sassan.”

    Nice one. I could do without Canning and Sassan – and all the people who continue to waste this thread on both of them (and now this “anonymous”).

  190. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Rehmat: “Afghanistan is ready right now to take all security responsibilities completely. To speed up this process, authority should be given to Afghans,” Karzai said…“If we maintain a steady, responsible transition process, which is what we’ve designed, then I am confident that we can put Afghans in a position where they can deal with their own security,” Obama told reporters after his meeting with Cameron.”

    That’s a complete joke. If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will “pwn” the country within a year (aside from the Northern Alliance part). The Afghan security forces are a joke, completely incapable of functioning on their own. And the cost of those forces still has to be paid for by the US because it is several billion dollars more than the Afghan government makes per year.

    So both Karzai and Obama are lying like rugs here – as usual.

  191. Richard Steven Hack says:

    fyi: “Swift was established in 1973. Iranians were trading before then; they will continue to do so afterwards.”

    And they’ll have to do it by snail mail or telephone because at some point the West will cut off their access to international computer networks – and by that I mean not just the Internet but everything. Of course, there may be no way to cut them off from “everything” – some countries might allow network connections into and out of Iran, maybe Azerbaijan or Pakistan. And once you have one connection you’re connected to everything.

    Still getting cut off from SWIFT is a significant impediment to dealing with the rest of the world. It’s not 1973 (or earlier) any more. Business is done differently these days. Aside from some individual writers, most people can’t walk back from computers to typewriters any more. Banks certainly can’t. Unless you offer a bank a good reason, such as big bucks, banks don’t accommodate people who can’t interface with their systems like the rest of their customers.

  192. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    By the way, Baku is in Azerbaijan. Funny how you don’t know that despite the fact you recently visited Iran’s neighboring “Azerbaijan province.”

  193. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    By the way Stooge, why do you support the corrupt tyranny of Azerbaijan? What follows is a list of the ways one website which opposes that tyrannical government suggests that supporters of that government be described:


    So after this it has to be asked, why does “Sassan” support the corrupt, anti democratic, totalitarian, “terrorist” regime that currently terrorizes the people of Azerbaijan?

    Truth 2, Stooge 0

  194. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    The following article conclusively disproves The Stooge’s claim that the US Saudia Ambassador “assassination” plot originated in Iran. It turns out this was just another absurd FBI “sting” operation, and just as in all the other absurd FBI initiated terror plots that they than solve, no actual plot to assassinate anyone would have occurred without FBI involvement. Note that the used car salesman in question was being investigated for drug smuggling and AN UNDERCOVER DEA INFORMANT “suggested” the assassination idea. Hmm…so an undercover informant for the DEA suggests an assassination…a rational human being would conclude the DEA is responsible. Also note that there is of course not one shred of actual evidence that the drug dealer in Iran connected to the used car salesman in question is in any way involved with the Iranian government.

    Here is a key quote from the article “Both that language and the absence of any statement attributed to Arabsiar imply that the Iranian-American said nothing about assassinating the Saudi ambassador except in response to suggestions by the informant, who was already part of an FBI undercover operation.”

    Here is the article that disproves the Stooge’s claims:


    In conclusion: Truth 1, Stooge 0.

  195. Fiorangela says:

    Sassan says: March 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    “what you posted is irrelevant to this discussion.”

    Discussion? What discussion? All I saw was a copy-paste-spam.

    “. . .at least three sovereign countries (I am not even counting the United States . .”

    We’ve got some common ground here — I wouldn’t count the US as a “sovereign country” either; it’s been overtaken by a pipsqueak pariah un-state.

  196. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Citing the claims of the demented sectartian totalitarian dictatorship of Bahrain just shows how utterly devoid of facts or reason your other absurd claims are. Yep, just keep on discrediting yourself, and I will continue to show you are an idiot.

  197. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    I already debunked your demented claim. Once again, you prove you cannot debate or engage with anyone who challenges your absurd views. But thanks for proving your complete lack of intelligence or ability to debate once again.

  198. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Fiorangela says:
    March 16, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    I don’t think our spamming friend is anxious to draw attention to that. After all, someone might start asking who funds him, and I have a feeling that inquiry would reveal some embarassing details that he would prefer were not disclosed.

  199. Sassan says:

    Fiorangela, what you posted is irrelevant to this discussion. In the last few months alone, this regime has had terrorists in at least three sovereign countries (I am not even counting the United States and the terror plot against the Saudi Ambassador) in aims of committing terror attacks. These include India, Thailand, and Azerbaijan. I have not even brought up Baku, Bahrain, and Kuwait in which Islamic Republic thugs in those countries have also been arrested. Just yesterday, Azerbaijan announced a spy ring of 22 people were uncovered and the Azerbaijan authorities recovered weapons, grenades, spy surveillance equipment and the such.

    This regime is a rogue regime. This regime is not the same as it was before. They do not seem to even have competent individuals to carry out these terror attacks. This is quite astonishing. India has been trying to strengthen their ties with this regime for trade etc. but now this? You know the Indian authorities were trying to sweep this under the rug but the links are too clear and strong and are directly tied to the terror cell that was foiled in Thailand as well.

  200. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    The Zionist Stooge says:
    March 16, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    Of course what is obvious from all the copy pasted spam that “Sassss” spews in defiance of all ordinary standards of online politeness is that ALL those accused have no link to the Iranian government at all. Obviously, if, for example, “Sassss” friends in the MEK decided to carry out a terror bombing either at the behest of Israel or if they became angry at Israel for any number of reasons (for example, failling to pay them for previous terrorist attacks) than this is the strategy they would use. Yep, glad to see that “Sassss” is concerned about terror against Israeli officials at the same time he supports murdering defenceless civilian scientists in Iran. And oh yes, how odd that the method used by Israeli agents to murder those scientists is the same as the method used in the later incidents. Yep, another claim by the Stooge debunked. The pathetic “Sassan” Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  201. Fiorangela says:

    Sassan @ 8:30 pm —

    Have the Indian authorities questioned Ed Rendell or Howard Dean or Michael Mukasy — or even Miriam Rajavi or your all-time fav, masked man Reza Khalili, on the whereabouts of the “Iranian” suspects?

    Glenn Greenwald in Salon: Hi-Profile US politicians linked to terror organization MEK

    “In August of last year, The Christian Science Monitor‘s Scott Peterson published a detailed exposé about “a high-powered array of former top American officials” who have received “tens of thousands of dollars” from a designated Terrorist organization – the Iranian dissident group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — and then met with its leaders, attended its meetings, and/or publicly advocated on its behalf. That group includes Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Michael Mukasey, Ed Rendell, Andy Card, Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Michael Hayden, John Bolton, Louis Freeh — and Fran Townsend. This is how it works:

    Former US officials taking part in MEK-linked events told the Monitor or confirmed publicly that they received substantial fees, paid by local Iranian-American groups to speaker bureaus that handle their public appearances.”


  202. Sassan says:


    India Seeks 3 Iranians in New Delhi Attack, Declares Link to Thai Blast
    17 Mar 2012 03:000 Comments

    Indian police announced Friday that they have issued arrest warrants for three Iranian nationals suspected of involvement in the February 13 bomb attack on a car registered to the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi. The three men — identified as Houshang Afshar Irani, Seyyed Ali Mehdian Sadr, and Mohammad Reza Abolghasemi — reportedly arrived in the Indian capital about two weeks before the attack, which injured four people, including the wife of an Israeli military attaché. Mehdian Sadr and Abolghasemi apparently left the country right before the bombing, while Irani flew to Malaysia just hours afterward.

    Last week, Indian authorities revealed that Syed Mohammed Ahmad Kazmi, an Indian national employed by an Iranian news agency, had been arrested on charges of collaborating in the attack, in which a motorcyclist attached a “sticky bomb” to the rear of the Israeli Embassy vehicle. On the same day as the New Delhi blast, a similar attempt to bomb an Israeli diplomat’s car in Tbilisi, Georgia, was thwarted. The following day, a large explosion in the Thai capital of Bangkok damaged a house that was evidently being used by its three Iranian occupants as a bomb factory; two of those men, Saeid Moradi and Mohammad Kharzei, are currently in Thai custody, while the third, Masoud Sedaghatzadeh, is being held in Malaysia awaiting the outcome of extradition proceedings. The Indian police also announced Friday that telephone records show that Irani and Sedaghatzadeh were in regular communication with each other and that they suspect Sedaghatzadeh was in charge of both the New Delhi and Bangkok bomb plots.

    The Los Angeles Times summarizes the case presented by the Indian police:

    Kazmi traveled twice last year to Iran at Mehdian’s request, where he also met Reza, agreed to assist the Iranians and received $5,500.

    The Iranians then instructed Kazmi to help Irani when he traveled to Delhi, which he did. In India, the pair discussed plans to carry out the attack, reconnoitering near the Israeli Embassy and a nearby area on a motor scooter that Irani purchased. After he left, Kazmi kept the motorcycle at his house.

    Mehdian and Reza also traveled to India for reconnaissance of the embassy with a particular focus on the routes commonly used by Israeli diplomats. This was done in Kazmi’s vehicle, a Maruti Alto. […]

    In addition to the Maruti and the motor scooter, police said they have recovered $1,250 at Kazmi’s house, a laptop computer and an Iranian mobile telephone card.

    According to the New York Times,

    Mr. Kazmi’s family has flatly rejected the charges against him and accused the police of falsely implicating him because of his work as a journalist, in which he wrote about the mistreatment of Muslims in India. […]

    On Friday afternoon, more than 100 people gathered in New Delhi for a protest rally and demanded that the police release Mr. Kazmi. His son, Shauzab Kazmi, 22, called the charges “completely baseless.” […]

    Officials at the Iranian Embassy [in New Delhi] declined to comment on the case. Mr. Kazmi’s son, though, sharply criticized the police and disputed that the seized scooter and Maruti represented evidence.

    “That scooter was parked at our house for the last two years,” he said. “When police claimed to recover it, it was not in working condition. They had to drag it away.”

    Asked how police could prove the link between Kazmi and Mehdian Sadr, reports Zee News, Delhi Police Commissioner Brijesh Gupta said, “The return ticket of Mehdian was booked by Kazmi and documents to this effect ha[ve] been seized from the concerned travel agency.” The commissioner added that Kazmi and his wife had received approximately $45,000 in foreign remittances for which “there is no satisfactory explanation.”

    The Indian Express details the connection Indian authorities have now made between the New Delhi and Bangkok operations:

    [An] Iranian suspect in the Delhi case, Houshang Afshar Irani, was reportedly in regular touch with one of the members of the “Bangkok module” arrested in Malaysia, Sedghatzadeh Masoud. It was while tracking the phone calls between them that investigators reportedly stumbled upon Urdu journalist Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi, who was in touch with Irani. […]

    The police believe it was Irani who attached explosives to the vehicle of the Israeli diplomat in Delhi, leaving her seriously injured. Hours after the blast in Delhi, Irani left for Malaysia on February 13 from the Indira Gandhi International Airport. Masoud was arrested in Malaysia on February 15. He was part of the group that was allegedly trying to target Israeli nationals in Bangkok when they accidentally blew up the house they were building a bomb in, a day after the Delhi attack. […]

    While the Delhi Police had earlier obtained warrants against three other Iranians, including Irani, today they also got an NBW [non-bailable warrant] against Masoud.

    “With the help of intelligence agencies we got details of three men of Iranian origin involved in the botched terror attempt in Bangkok. While two men were arrested in Bangkok, the third suspect (Masoud) was detained at the Kuala Lumpur airport in Malaysia. The same module was operational in Delhi and it was being controlled by Masoud,” said a senior police officer.

    Extradition proceedings that could result in Sedaghatzadeh being sent back to Thailand for prosecution began Thursday in a Malaysian court. Denying any involvement with the Bangkok explosion, he asked the judge, “Why am I here? I have nothing to do with this case.”

    Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/03/news-india-seeks-3-iranians-in-new-delhi-attack-declares-link-to-thai-blast.html#ixzz1pKTkUbUk

  203. Fiorangela says:

    Professor Alexis Castor, who teaches topics related to ancient history, archeology, and the cultures of Mesopotamia at Franklin and Marshall College, has spoken compelling of the rape of the Iraq Museum and destruction of other archeological sites in Iraq. :http://www.teachersyndicate.com/documents/oct_2010/TTC%20Guidebooks/Between%20the%20Rivers%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Ancient%20Mesopotamia.pdf

    Shortly after the so-called Guennol Lioness was sold at auction, this poem by an Iraqi woman was posted on the Dissident Veteran blog:

    this ancient lion of ours
    has been auctioned off.
    proceeds will go to a charitable trust formed by the martin family.
    one of these days
    an iraqi is going to steal the mona lisa
    and sell it for 57 million dollars
    for the proceeds to go to a charitable trust formed by abeer qassim hamza’s* family.
    and it will be a popular news item
    for many a web surfer to marvel at
    and pat themselves on the back
    for being informed.
    perhaps they auction mesopotamia’s artifacts
    and protect mesopotamia’s oil ministry
    and write mesopotamia’s constitution
    and stand guard at mesopotamia’s soil, rivers and skies
    because the true owners
    are too displaced
    too tortured
    too orphaned
    too dead
    to protect their own things themselves.

    –the author is an Iraqi woman

    * ;http://www.alternet.org/world/40481/
    “We must not forget the death of Abeer, who was allegedly stalked, raped and killed by American soldiers. Abeer was 14 years old; her name means ‘fragrance of flowers.’
    August 17, 2006 |
    Her birthday is August 19, her death day March 12.”


    What other gifts does democracy bring?

  204. Karl says:


    You have ignored 3 messages,




  205. James Canning says:


    Possibly some of Iran’s fine engineering talent could be devoted toward building better oilfield equipment?

    Iran’s ambiguous nuclear programme has obviously hurt Iranian oil and gas production.

  206. James Canning says:


    Were you saying the UK lacks secure oil supplies today?

    Since the UK, France, Germany, and other EU countries, do not want Iran to build nukes, how do you think they should be dealing with the problem of Iran’s stockpiling 20% urnanium?

  207. James Canning says:


    Syria on the “US” hit list? Or, on the warmongering neocons’ hitlist? There is a big difference. New gov’t in UK continued to try to improve relations with Syria. Obama wanted to but seems not to have known how to accomplish it.

  208. James Canning says:


    The Tunisian FM delivered same message to the German Chancellor recently: no foreign military intervention in Syria.

  209. James Canning says:

    Andrew Sullivan, writing in the Sunday Times (London) March 11th: “According to Rick Santorum’s view, the whole of Iran is essentially a suicide bomber against Israel.”

  210. Neo says:

    seems the seams are are falling apart:

    “Tunisian Foreign Minister Rafik Abdessalem, Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr and Libyan Foreign Minister Ashur bin Khayyal agreed that the Syrian crisis should be resolved in an Arab framework and that there should not be foreign military intervention, Abdessalem said after a meeting between the ministers, AFP and NOW Lebanon reported March 16.”

  211. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    March 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Good point, I guess some can say
    تفوُ بر تو ای چرخ گردون تفوُ

  212. fyi says:

    Karl says: March 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Yes, a few years earlier US was asking Syrian Government to intercept and disrupt the flow of men and arms into Iraq.

    That was after the Syrians stopped the cooperation that they had with US following the 9/11/2001 attacks on US.

    According to public statements by both Syrian and US officials, the Syrian cooperation had led to the saving fo American lives.

    But, later, when Syrians realized that they were on the US hit-list, they withdrew any and all cooperation with US.

  213. Karl says:

    correction: demanding that weapons being blocked from going to Assad.

  214. Karl says:

    Sometimes I wonder if the US or Israel or any other powerful nations know they are hypocrites/liers but try to conceal any criticism of such or are hypocrites and arent aware of it?

    Heres one news for example demanding that weapons being flowed to Assad.

    US wants Iraq to stop arms reaching Syrian government


    Ok, not that surprising. However when the messenger itself let weapons flow to the other side, the side US are supporting, they are silent of course, not to mention that US weapons worth billions of dollars could be found in any of the corrupt arab states that have seen uprisings.

  215. kooshy says:

    Here is a well written important article (which I missed and someone emailed me a link) with some relevance to one cause of the anger we are discussing here on RFI.

    When Cultural Identity Is Denied


    Published: March 9, 2012


    “Anger mixed with contempt simmers silently in Iran, Syria or Turkey. It is rarely vented in the international arena, if only because internal political problems make it impossible. In some cases, corruption and the lack of individual freedom needed to expose outrage publicly facilitate the wrecking of monuments. It would take a very courageous man to stand up in Uzbekistan and shout that artifacts, including glazed tile revetments, are dispatched to Western auctions.

    Collectors, public and private, who acquire such works under the cover of legality given by recorded purchase at auction or from a legitimate art gallery, would do well to think long term — half a century elapsed after World War II before the theft of art from Jews by the Nazi authorities, often carried out in the guise of “legal” albeit enforced sales, came to be recognized as an intolerable scandal. They should further note that the recent restitutions do not even concern, in most cases, items sacred to Jewish believers, but “only” pictures and objets d’art.

    The court of world opinion may decide one day that a 13th-century bronze knocker wrenched off the Great Mosque in Cizre (historic Jazirat ibn ‘Umar) in south-eastern Turkey, has its rightful place next to its match rather than in Copenhagen. Do not bet on the missing Kashan tiles from 13th-and 14th-century Iranian mihrabs now in Tehran still being in New York in 50 or 60 years.

    The political scene changes as time goes by. Enmities fade away, new alliances are struck. Just carefully check provenance next time you go after “Islamic art.”

  216. Fiorangela says:

    sometimes James Canning makes one long for a comment by sassan.

  217. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    March 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm


    “Decades ago, it was essential for British national security that the Suez Canal be protected. This strategic factor drove most of the decisions. The other, of course, was oil and the need to have an assured source of supply. Britain did not want to be dependent upon the US for its oil supplies.”


    From you? I sure welcome admitting a mistake for first attempted “clean break” after WWII, which was foolish and didn’t work, nor did the oil supply independency attempt by UK, unfortunately due to continued colonial mistakes today UK and the rest of Europe are nothing except US’s security and economic dependent lapdogs. That I am afraid eventually will suffocate the Europe and will settle with another European war.

    Gav- I wonder from which side of the bed you got up today.

  218. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 16, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    U-235 enrichment is not the cause of underinvestment in Iranian oil fields.

    That was driven by:

    1. politicization of contract negogiations by cunning but ultimately stupid Iranian politicians (not the professionals in the Oil Ministry),
    2. the bottom-less appetite in Iran for subsidies, and
    3. poor environment for capital formation in that country (due to fanatsies of Islamic Economics).

  219. Castellio says:

    Just to clarify one point, Fiorangela. The scientific method of trial and error and close perception of nature (not rooted in revelation) was common in Egyptian, Greek and earlier societies. Bacon was trying to reclaim what had been lost.

    For an example:

    In the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus, which is dated about 1650 BC, there is good evidence for 4 × (8/9)2 = 3.16 as a value for π.

    The first theoretical calculation seems to have been carried out by Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212 BC). He obtained the approximation

    223/71 < π < 22/7.

    Before giving an indication of his proof, notice that very considerable sophistication involved in the use of inequalities here. Archimedes knew, what so many people to this day do not, that π does not equal 22/7, and made no claim to have discovered the exact value. If we take his best estimate as the average of his two bounds we obtain 3.1418, an error of about 0.0002.

    which is from http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.html

  220. Karl says:


    I understand perfectly well that enrichment is not the issue. Your analysis run counter to the Leveretts analysis. Its only you on this board that think that enrichment is the reason US is picking on Iran.

    I would recommend you reading the rules for this site.

    “Provocations designed to derail discussions away from substantive debate into dead-end arguments;”

  221. fyi says:


    I draw your attention to the following statement by Mr. Canning (in a post to Mr. Kooshy):

    James Canning says:

    March 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    “Britain did not want to be dependent upon the US for its oil supplies.”

    And likewise, no international actor with an iota of aspiration to any sort of security and autonomy is going to accept being at the mercy of Axis Powers controlling the flow of energy exports out of the Straits of Hormuz and thus the price of energy world-wide.

    That is why Iran survives; many other states are helping her for this reason.

    Mr. Canning: Never again are Whites to dominate the Browns, the Blacks, and the Yellows of this planet.

  222. James Canning says:


    Is Iraq independent? Of course it is. Can the US do anything about that? No.

    Iran will continue to be independent even if it accomplishes the wrecking of its current navy and air force. US could do nothing about this.

  223. James Canning says:


    WARMONGERING NEOCONS CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2003. Full stop. Iran’s coming to the table meant zero. Zip. Nil.

    Iran’s oilfields suffer from lack of adequate equipment. What is oilfield infrastructure neglected in favor of enriching useless uranium?

  224. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    The burden of estabishing the veracity of your statements, such as my state of mind, rests upon you.

    In 2003, Iranains came to the table, US was not interested.

    In 2007, US and EU leaders had the political cover to take a different course with Iran but did not.

    Mr. Obama never relented in maintaining hostile US posture to Iran in international fora – something that Mr. Khamenei explicitly mentioned in one of his speeches.

    Axis Powers are against strategic autonomy of Iran – not nominal Iranian independence, say like under the late Vosooq al Dowleh back in 1919 – since that is needed to maintain their potential domination of the world.

    Chinese, South Africans, Japanese, Korean, and Russians all understand that – India being the one state whose strategic planners seems to be sleep at the wheels.

    Please take the time to explain – beside such sundry explanations such as Mr. Bush’s stupidity, Mr. Rice’s incompetence, Mr. Obama’s weakness – how Axis Powers Iran policy seems one bent on the destruction of Iranian power?

    I note here that Iranians could prevent any oil to be exported from Iraq and harm the world economy as retaliation against Axis Powers and their assorted allies and satrapies.

    That is one aspect of what is called strategic autonomy.

  225. James Canning says:


    Bravo. ISRAEL LOBBY blocked the Conoco Oil deal during the Clinton administration and inentionally injured the national security interests of the American people.

  226. James Canning says:


    All of Harry Truman’s military and diplomatic advisers told him Israel was a millstone around the neck of the US. Which of course was quite true.

  227. James Canning says:


    I think you are literally delusional about “Axis Powers” needing to eliminate an independent Iran. Iran will remain independent even if Iran insists on having its navy sunk and its air force destroyed.

  228. James Canning says:


    Decades ago, it was essential for British national security that the Suez Canal be protected. This strategic facotr drove most of the decisions. The other, of course, was oil and the need to have an assured source of supply. Britain did not want to be dependent upon the US for its oil supplies.

  229. James Canning says:


    You appear to have difficulty comprehending that Iran blundered by trebling production of 20% U. This blunder was entirely Iran’s own doing.

  230. Fiorangela says:

    kooshy says: March 16, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Some random thoughts toward developing a grand concept of Americanism in relation to Jewish-ness, all stemming from the Hebrew-Christian bible.

    Americans do not have a Shahnameh; we do not have our own national epic. Unless and until we do, we will be a dis-united people.

    In the first century or two after Jesus’s birth, whether the ‘New Testament’ should be linked to the Old Testament was a subject of a great deal of consternation. Marcion, who sought a more or less separated narrative, prevailed for some years but was ultimately vanquished; Constantine dictated the terms of the New Testament to suit his political prerogatives.

    Our mother country is Great Britain. Iranians do not have a “mother country;” Iranians ARE their mothercountry.

    Great Britain considered the Hebrew bible to be their national epic. King James had the bible translated by HIS ideological clients so that he could enshrine in the bible “divine” support for his belief in the supreme authority of the monarch. That notion is not found in the life and teaching of Jesus, tho elements of authoritarianism may be found in the books that were ultimately included in the canon of the New Testament. The composition of the Old Testament as well as the canonization of the New Testament were ultimately and essentially political acts, even as King James’ translation of the bible was a political act.

    One of the most important items of trade between Great Britain and the colonies in North America was the English bible. James popularized the bible.

    John Winthrop, a leader of an early group of Puritans who settled in Massachusetts, used Old Testament imagery to establish the (about to become) American people as “the chosen people of god,” superceding the choseness of the Jewish people.

    Roger Williams was a contemporary of Winthrop, but very much opposed to Winthrop’s notion that the state should be used to promote any version of ‘Christianity.’ Williams was the father of the American notion of separation of church and state, but his goal liberate the church to conduct its own affairs and not be under the control of the governing authority; Williams wished to free religion from usurpation by political authorities. Williams was also powerfully influenced by Francis Bacon, who instituted the greatest shift in thinking that the West has known; he sought to divorce the process of acquiring knowledge from the “authority” of “divine revelation.” He sought to find the sources of knowledge in nature, observed diligently and objectively and analysed logically. Jefferson, Madison, Ben Franklin were diligent students of Williams and of Francis Bacon and other similar Enlightenment thinkers.

    In fact, Roger Williams’ perspective has been and remains the minority view in the US, to the extent that it is recognized at all. Most Americans subscribe to the notion that the US is “chosen” and “exceptional.” Gingrich & Santorum would use political office to elevate matters of faith.

    AIPAC is a definite, concrete political movement specific to a place and relatively brief time; it does have enormous influence in American political and economic life, but the soil in which that political movement is planted is receptive to cultivating AIPAC due to its saturation with biblical elements over a grander expanse of time and history.

    I share Jefferson’s view: Hebrew scriptures are “morally deficient.” In contrast,the “Life and Morals of Jesus” reflect the highest moral teaching mankind has achieved — there was no Esther in Jesus’ realm. (Peace, my Muslim friends; Jefferson was not a close student of Islam. I think he would have come to consider himself sympathetic with Mohammed.)

    Americans must divorce themselves from the Hebrew scriptures as alien to the vision of their founding.

  231. Karl says:

    “Israeli threats of attack sparked new wave of Iran sanctions, officials say”


    The israeli conduct to get western states to do more about Iran is clear. Every now and then when Israel threat to strike Iran, western states hurry up to sanction Iran and drives the conflict further away from solving it, only drifting to the goal of Israel – war.

  232. Castellio says:

    This video regarding the role of Africom in Uganda supports Kooshy’s intention that Zionism fits into a much broader American colonialism:


    However, incorporating and managing Zionism in American foreign policy has also changed both US colonialism and US domestic governance in many, many, ways. And to say the obvious, the administrators of Zionism are exceedingly influential in the administration of all US foreign and domestic policy.

    There is no “going back”, there is no “reset button”, there are only strategic pauses to regroup. Don’t mistake the US elites and their government; they are actively seeking the impoverishment and dismemberment of Iran. They are disagreeing over the timing of tactics, not intentions.

    Consider the past twelve years (2000 – 2012), an agenda shared by few (PNAC and fellow riders) has become an agenda acted out and endorsed by both parties, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the DOJ and the Sec of State, the media.

    The reluctance of the US public, when it’s expressed (rarely) is easily managed.

  233. kooshy says:

    Karl / Cyrus

    In my comment I did not deny that the lobby doesn’t play a rule, I actually did say that the lobby’s interest coincides with America’s strategic desires and current necessities, one can’t think all American strategic planners likes of Zbig and US military strategists, are all Israeli firsters. Never less, that said, this group of not Israel firsters US strategists “still” desire and recommend to maintain Israel’s position as a junior partner to maintain America’s hegemony in the region which does coincide and makes the lobby’s job easier to form American polices. Same policy was implemented back in British mandate time.

  234. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: March 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    The Axis Powers did something that USSR never did during the Cold War; politicizing energy.

    [Arabs did that in 1973, during the war against Israel.]

    They alos gutted Chemical Weapons Treaty and NPT in case of Iran.

    Likewise, they initiated the first known act of cyberwar against industrial installation of another state.

    The Axis Powers paid the political price for these actions because the elimination of the strategic autonomy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been deemed essential to their continued dominance of the World.

    That is, their political dominance of the entire energy resources of the Middle East (the Persian Gulf basin) would guarantee their ability to harm Russia, China, or any other energy-dependent adversary in any future conflict.

    That is the nub.

  235. nahid says:


    Israel too small to last even one week of real war: Salehi

  236. Cyrus_2 says:

    Karl has a point.
    In the early 90’s Iran awarded US oil firm Conoco a contract to develop Iranian oil fields, offering the US an olive branch, although Conoco’s terms were less favorable for Iran than other competitors.
    The Clinton administration eventually blocked the deal, under immense pressure from the Israel Lobby and its stooges, almost immediately followed by the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.

  237. BiBiJon says:

    Success at sanctions?

    “The attitude is clear — we [china] must make sure that the volume of our shipments [of oil from Iran] will not drop,” Yan said. “The government regards it as a very important issue.”

    China may nominate an insurer to cover oil shipments from Iran to ensure that supplies can continue, Yan said.”


    Similarly denying SWIFT access to Iranian banks creates as many headaches for Iranian importers/exporters as it does for their counterparts all over the world.

    The combination of the adverse effects of these extrajudicial sanctions is creating uncompensated financial losses on businesses all over the planet outside the jurisdiction of Brussels, and Washington.

    politicization of trade in basic commodities (oil), and fouling up nuts and bolts of international commerce, added to overt manipulation of UN, IAEA, etc. will remain on people’s minds long after the current debacle with Iran.

    The axis-powers have gone bonkers.

  238. fyi says:

    kooshy says: March 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Thank you for your comments.

    Iran was pushed too far during the Iran-Iraq War.

    [There were men from 33 different nationalities among the war prisoners in Iran.]

    Wars are fought in the mind as well as on the battle field.

  239. Karl says:


    If you look at who plan, construct, push for more sanctions, more hostility and even war it is the israeli lobby and its supporters not to mention ruining every diplomatic efforts.
    That isnt to say that Iran and America would be best friends if it wasnt for the full support America gives Israel and the power of the lobby. BUT it wouldnt be as hostile and as brink of war status that we have reached today. So if it wasnt for the israeli lobby etc America and Iran would have had a more friendly relationsship with trade and the both parties would have pursued mutual interests in the region.

  240. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    March 16, 2012 at 11:08 am

    Misreading Tehran

    Iranians realize that the world is lined up against them, but don’t expect them to beg for mercy.


    fyi, I am just back from a two week trip to Tehran, I confirm and agree with many of reported facts on this this FP article.
    I would add, in my conversations, I surprisingly found that women are more adamant to demand for all Iran’s international rights including but not isolated to NPT rights alone.
    I also was told that currently there is more female physician then men, generally people are much more informed about the politics then US and the west.
    A private taxi driver (they call them Agance, and not Sassan’s) told me he voted for a conservative reformer (Mr. Mothari) because he feels there need to be a balance in parliament.
    Later he told me he was a Basij member and showed me his Basij card, he didn’t fear a US attack he thought that would be good opportunity to settle the old score for the loss of his older brother being in Iran-Iraq war a brother he didn’t remember since at the time he was only 4 years old, the martyred brothers’ picture was next to his Basij card.

    Karl says:
    March 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Karl –

    With all due respect, I find it to be difficult to justify, and frankly lazy for Americans/ and a class of Europeans to “only” blame the Israeli lobby for the American strategic policies toward the Middle East. As far as I have seen and heard, no one else in the world be sides the common Americans “only” blames the short comings of American/western
    Middle Eastern policy undertakings on Israeli lobby alone. In my opinion there are more strategic/hegemonic values that coincide with the lobby’s rule in American politics.

    Simply said, America’s strategic necessities can co-exist but cannot coincide with the Iranian nationalistic mentality at the moment, for two reasons, one is the rule of Israel that Americans desires for the Middle East, and the second one is the American policy for controlling the energy markets.

  241. Karl says:


    The issue with Iran does not stem from enrichment. The goal is regime change.

  242. Karl says:

    James Canning,

    Please provide sources that the iraqi military warned Saddam from invading Kuwait.

  243. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    You live in dream world.

  244. James Canning says:


    Wrong. The issue is Iranian stockpiling of 20% U.

  245. James Canning says:


    Let’s think back to the situation the grossly ignorant Saddam Hussein was in, toward the end of 1990. The USSR told him to get out of Kuwait or get thrown out. Saddam’s own generals had told him Iraq would get thrashed good and hard if it invaded Kuwait.

    Did Saddam look at the situation, and conclude he needed to agree to get out? No. Gross stupidity.

  246. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    The issue is Iranian power not 20%.

  247. James Canning says:


    Ahmadinejad obviously thought Iran had the option of stopping production of 20% U. So did Khamenei. This option is still available, obviously.

  248. James Canning says:


    India likely will be able to barter for Iranian oil, or pay in rupees. Good thing for India. And India opposes any Iranian nukes.

  249. James Canning says:


    Iran likely paid market price for the wheat.

  250. James Canning says:

    “If the war [in Afghanistan] was ever winnable, it was lost when the US decided to invade Iraq.” Philip Stephens, in the Financial Times March 16th. All too true.
    The moron in the White House was duped by neocon warmongers who support Israel right or wrong.

  251. James Canning says:


    Russia is concerned about an increase in heroin production and smuggling, if the West is too precipitate in withdrawing from Afghanistan. Russia suffers hugely from drug addiction.

  252. James Canning says:


    Surrender what? Khatami obviously sought to advance Iran’s strategic interests.

  253. James Canning says:

    Philip Stephens writes in today’s Financial Times: “President [Obama] and prime minister [Cameron] also happen to share what could be politely described as a distinctly low opinion of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.”

  254. Pirouz says:

    anonymous says:
    March 16, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    That’s not so much a sign of desperation as it is forward planning in times of an economic war being directed at it.

    If Iran were truly “desperate” they would simply attempt to surrender (again, as they did during the latter part of Khatami’s presidency).

  255. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    anonymous says:
    March 16, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Probably buying inferior goods at a discount. Of course, that applies to your purchase of “Sassss” commenting services as well. My advice, do some research before making the purchase next time.

  256. anonymous says:

    I hope we charged Iran a huge premium for that wheat. They are clearly desperate.

  257. Karl says:


    Thats what the relations should be between Iran and America, trade and mutual interests not hostility and wars (if it wasnt for the israeli lobby).

  258. kooshy says:

    Iran buys U.S. wheat again, trade set to grow


    “Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:10am EDT

    (Reuters) – Iran has purchased 60,000 metric tonnes (66,139 tons) of U.S. wheat, the U.S. government said on Thursday, raising the two-week tally to 180,000 metric tonnes, which industry sources said reopened grain trade ties between the two countries embroiled in a stand-off over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

    Iran’s purchases of U.S. wheat this year are its first in three years, and the sources said the OPEC member was close to completing purchases of another 220,000 metric tonnes to be shipped as early as April, and in talks with exporters to buy another undisclosed amount.

    The price tag for the 400,000 metric tonnes — 180,000 confirmed and 220,000 yet to be formally declared — could be around $160 million, export sources said.”

  259. Rehmat says:

    Karl – India, as a Hindu Shylock, is doing what William Shakespeare’s Shylock was doing. India needs oil and it will get it cheaper from Iran as the USrael sanctions grew tighter.


  260. Rehmat says:

    First urinating on dead Afghan bodies, followed by Holy Qur’an burning and latest massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a homicidal western Christian slodier – show that some interested anti-Muslim hands don’t want the western occupation of 100% Muslim country to end.

    As expected, Taliban leaders have suspended peace talk with United Stated negotiated by Qatar’s western-puppet Al-Thani dynasty . Earlier, Pakistan closed down two US-NATO supply routes to Afghanistan.

    Last week, Gen. James Mattis, chief of US Central Command (CentCom) held talks with high-ranking military and government officials in Islamabad seeking Pakistani cooperation to get 23,000 US troops out of Afghanistan later this year.

    To the great surprise to Obama’s Zionist-controlled administration – US appointed Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai demanded this week that NATO withdraw forces from the small, rural outposts that are the heart of its war of terror against Afghan population.

    “Afghanistan is ready right now to take all security responsibilities completely. To speed up this process, authority should be given to Afghans,” Karzai said in a statement issued shortly after he met with visiting Defense Secretary Israel-Firster Leon E. Panetta.

    This week, British prime minister David Cameron told his host Barack Obama in the White House that under public pressure, his government has decided to pull out British soldiers from Afghanistan.

    “If we maintain a steady, responsible transition process, which is what we’ve designed, then I am confident that we can put Afghans in a position where they can deal with their own security,” Obama told reporters after his meeting with Cameron.

    Occupation of Afghanistan was planned by Bush administration early 2001 but they needed a major attack on American interests to bring the US public on board its evil scheme. The Israeli Mossad and local Zionist elites provided that opportunity on September 11, 2001.

    These evil people needed Afghanistan under USrael control for the following reasons:

    1. to increase opium cultivation in Afghanistan .

    2. to construct a oil pipeline from Caspian Sea to Pakistani port of Gwader and from there to Israel’s Haifa refinery by shipping.

    3. to establish military bases near Iran and Chinese borders.


  261. Karl says:

    Missed to catch this news.

    More Iran-India trade would boost ties: delegation

    Is India playing two games here? Satisfying US and trying to get as much as possible from Iran before a possible war/additional sanctions?

  262. Karl says:

    It seems that expert analysts on the Iran issue never thought of the imposing of a SWIFT block, I wonder why since it could make tremendous impact on the iranian political and economic policy.

  263. Jay says:


    you have picked a side: Sassan. That is fine. Do you have anything of substance to say (in contrast to your friend)? Are you willing to answer questions? Or, should we exercise “skip comment” when we see your handle?

  264. BiBiJon says:

    Success at sanctions = failure of alliances

    “Clearing the way for oil refiners to pay Iran in Indian rupee, the Union Budget has exempted the payments made for crude oil purchased from the Persian Gulf nation, from any local tax.”


  265. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm
    I understood you perfectly well.
    And I stand by what I wrote: this is the way Muslims are – they are very very sensitive about certain issues that has to do with a notion that you (and people in the Axis states) no longer understand, comprehend, or appreciate.


    You might want to explain the ‘honor notion’ in western terms that they can relate too.,. As in, Eric, you no longer have a right to opine here or anywhere else, you are not free, you can not vote, or assemble or some such notions..

  266. fyi says:

    anonymous says: March 16, 2012 at 9:52 am

    I think you might be right about Iranians having miscalculated about Mr. Obama.

    They had been warned privately before.

    But I think Iranian leaders had planned for a possible war with US since 2003.

    However, most recently, Iran had no choice but to indicate the willingness to go to war.

    I believe Iranian leaders would have made good on their threat to close the Straits of Hormuz.

    Yes, US would have destroyed all that Iranians had built over the last 60 years, but US local and global poistion would also have been destroyed.

  267. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says: March 16, 2012 at 12:34 am

    When Indians and Paksitanis have unbearable power outages, then they know where to go to find energy.

    We have not reached that point yet.

  268. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    You are basically excusing Mr. Obama.

    That is no accurate.

    Mr. Obama instructed the State Department to continue opposing Iran on all international fora on any and all sundry issues.

    He did not have to do that and certainly he could have altered his government’s actions there with zero domestic political cost to himself.

    It is for a historian of future to evaluate the genesis of the “Peace President’s” Iran policy that brought US, Iran, and indeed the world to the verge of a generalized war in the Middle East and perhaps in the world.

  269. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says: March 16, 2012 at 12:17 am

    Swift was established in 1973.

    Iranians were trading before then; they will continue to do so afterwards.

  270. kooshy says:

    “I wonder if Khamenei has shopped around to find his favorite hole yet?”

    Yes , one that comes to mind is called Israel, which is a sinking hole for this country we live in.

  271. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    I understood you perfectly well.

    And I stand by what I wrote: this is the way Muslims are – they are very very sensitive about certain issues that has to do with a notion that you (and people in the Axis states) no longer understand, comprehend, or appreciate.

    That notion is “Honor” – and for Muslims that includes “Honor of Islam”, “Honor of the Prophet”, “Honor of (their) Womenfolk”.

    I think it will be a good idea for Western people – now in their un-honor phase – to not go out of their way to provoke Muslims on issues that very many Muslims prercieve to be impinging on the honor of their religion, their prophet, and their womenfolk.

    Curiously, the only people who still understand honor are the military forces of the Axis Powers – although there it is more of a personal one.

  272. anonymous says:

    It’s easy for all these little dictators to talk tough until the first bomb drops. Then they hide in a hole like a coward. I wonder if Khamenei has shopped around to find his favorite hole yet?

  273. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    One can sell alll the weapons of the world to the Southern Persian Gulf states, it will not impact the strategic situation.

    There is a body of water that separates the Arabian Penninsula from the Iranian plateau; it protects each side from the other’s invasion.

    The Southern Persian Gulf states do not have the man-power to pose an infantry threat to Iran (or anyone else).

    Their air assets cannot be used in combined arms operations; the mission profile of the weapons systems, the C3I of their military structure and the absymal quality of their conscripted forces (and the way they are treated) makes them a force on paper.

    Russians will sell to Saudis, it makes zero difference to Iran.

    I would add to this litany the observation that these states do not have strategic depth while Iran does. They can go to war with Iran but Iran will outlast them.

  274. anonymous says:


    You are delusional. Iran is not willing to go to war. They have always carefully crafted their policies to avoid war at all costs because they are well aware of how badly they would lose. Iran’s leaders are the ones who miscalculated. They never thought Obama could get the international support to make sanctions this effective and they underestimate his willingness to use force just like Gaddafi and Bin laden. Any conflict would inevitably end in Iran’s complete destruction. They would be helpless. Personally I wouldn’t mind watching us smack Iran around and make an example out of them. Their delusions of grandeur are nearly at an end.

  275. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Ms. Fassihi is wrong in her estimation that a useful deal for Iran can be reached with the Axis Powers.

    The essence of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s offer was “power-sharing” in the Middle East and in the wider world.

    Axis Powers are not interested in conceding power to Iran or take her views into account.

    Mr. Khamenei always understood this; but he did not oppose 3 very different governments in Iran, led by Mr. Rafsanjani, Mr. Khatami, and Mr. Ahmadinejad to try to reach such a strategic accomodation with the Axis Powers.

    Over the last 24 years, in my opinion, the aim of US policy (if not EU states) has been the overthrow of the first legitimately and legally and duly constructed constitutional order in Iran.

    Mr. Khamenei has been revealed to have correct in his estimation of Axis Powers aims all along.

    The factions in Iran who oppose him on this point now stand exposed to the charge of foolish hopefullness.

  276. pmr9 says:

    I don’t think the SWIFT ban on Iran is more than an irritant. SWIFT is just a secure messaging system; it doesn’t function as a clearing house. Two banks that want to exchange messages authorizing a transaction can just use digitally signed emails. What’s important is access to a clearing house, underpinned by a central bank, that can debit the reserves of the buyer’s bank and credit the reserves of the seller’s bank.

  277. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: March 15, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    In my opinion, nobody is so clever as to be able to concieve, orchestrate, and execute the scenario you are alluding too.

    There are not that many smart people in the world.

    Depend upon upon it that Mr. Obama had misjudged the Iranian leaders; he did not expect them to be willing to go to war.

  278. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 15, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    You live in dream world.

  279. Cyrus_2 says:

    Will SWIFT ban on Iran strangle Spain?
    With the upcoming EU electronic banking transactions ban on Iran, the Islamic Republic might face a crude economic pinch. However, in an attempt to pressure Tehran, technocrats in Brussels might actually be leading Spain to the scaffold.

    I sure hope so.

  280. BiBiJon says:

    David Cameron on NBC, yesterday

    “I don’t think as we stand today that military action by Israel would be justified,” I don’t think the Israelis should take that action now. We told them they shouldn’t and said we wouldn’t support it if they did. We’ve been very clear.”


    Some might look at statements such as this and interpret it as war rescheduling, wait till Iran is weaker, wait till public opinion is more amenable, etc.

    I think he means what he says. The issue has been decided. Cameron has Obama’s back. Obama owes Netanyahu a payback.

  281. Cyrus_2 says:

    The news of Iran’s exclusion from SWIFT is really sickening, though not surprising.
    Which steps can Iran take to circumvent this?
    Establish an alternative transaction system with its main trading-partners?
    Trade-deals in gold or local currencies?

  282. Castellio says:

    The tension that exists between those that say there will be an attack on Iran and those that say there won’t is partially explained by the division of those who feel Obama is responsible to “them that brung him to the dance”, and those who think he is responsible to the voices of reason within the armed forces and diplomatic corps.

    I’m getting the distinct feeling that he’s leaning towards “them that brung him”. Why? Because of shared values. Not only does he need them for his power base, he absolutely shares more values with the Chair of the Democratic National Committee than he does with… General Mullen, say, or Ambassador Freeman.


    I don’t see any withdrawal or reset. I see a playing for time until the inevitable is more generally appreciated as “inevitable”. I think, in that respect, Netanyahu is right, he has won the argument. The American Congress would agree. And I think Hillary Leavett called it right, too. The only thing Obama has actually managed to say is that the inevitable, while inevitable, is not now.

    There is a logic in the actions against Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. Within Washington that logic carries the day, and leads to Tehran. If the managers of the operation in the Pentagon complain, well, there are always other managers more willing.

    Allowing Israel to initiate is a way to give both China and Russia an excuse to sit it out.

    Such high hopes for Erdogan… some day the story of Turkey in the last decade will have to be told.

    I am no warmonger, I am just saying that I believe the US has again chosen the path of war and Obama wants to choose the timing of, and the means by which, the war is initiated. He is simply angling to get an airtight argument to be used with a reluctant population. Israel initiating, Iran responding, is his ticket.

  283. Photi says:

    Photi says:
    March 16, 2012 at 1:11 am

    …but then again, it is not as if we should expect Netanyahu to telegraph his intentions towards Iran, his statements could be all one big exclamation point before the upcoming P5+1 negotiations take place. a final threat before they collect. In the Dr. Larijani interview, he says the biggest bomb, the biggest failure in the region has been Israel’s lack of vision when it comes to defining its role in the region. (Dr. Larijani also discusses the supposed wiping off the map statement)

    Does Israel understand any language other than threat?

  284. Photi says:

    Thanks for the Haaretz article Richard, Hillary Leverett did not have much confidence in what Obama was saying at AIPAC. Her predictions about no Israeli attack until after November may prove to be too conservative.

  285. Castellio says:

    The Guardian newspaper reaches new lows:


    This is after a previous low:


  286. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Minister: Saudi Arabia will fail to compensate for Iranian oil supplies


    Saudi Arabia will not be able to compensate for an oil shortage on world markets in the even tof strict sanctions against Iran, Al-Jazeera quoted the country’s Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, as saying on Wednesday.
    “All the statements that Saudi Arabia increases oil supplies to compensate Iranian supply, are baseless,” he said.

    Al-Naimi said Saudi Arabia will not be able to supply this deficit, and does not pursue such goals.

    End Quote

    In other words, Saudi Arabia has now told Obama that he either goes along with the KSA’s plan for Syria – or he gets high oil prices this summer that doom his re-election chances.

  287. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Obama hangs tough on Syria


    On the other hand, the Anglo-American juggernaut continues to roll on in pursuit of the strategy of forcing a regime change in Syria – except that the new word is “transition”. Any calibration would be merely over the methodology of bringing about the desired denouement of the removal of Assad from power.

    The preoccupation at the moment is to get the humanitarian mission going – “in a robust way” – while knocking the heads of the opposition together so that they stop squabbling and arrive at some degree of unity that would qualify them as eligible recipients of vastly bigger Western support.

    Significantly, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus, paid a surprise two-day visit to Ankara on Monday and had detailed consultations with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, regarding “more fruitful cooperation on the region’s most pressing issues in the coming months”. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan received Petraeus.

    Petraeus’s consultations in Ankara also point toward Washington’s determination not to let up on the agenda of regime change in Syria. Obama has come under pressure to heed the Saudi sensitivities, with Riyadh conveying its displeasure – most recently with the visiting German foreign minister – over the US’s hesitation to arm the Syrian opposition.

    The Saudis have threatened that, with or without the US, Riyadh intends to go ahead with arms supplies and other help for the Syrian opposition.

    End Quote

    The CIA is there – that should tell you all you need to know about Obama’s intentions toward Syria…

  288. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Pepe Escobar on War, Pipelineistan-style



    United States Secretary of State Hillary “We came, we saw, he died” Clinton’s message to Pakistan was stark; try to go ahead with the IP (Iran-Pakistan) gas pipeline, and we’re going to take you out financially.

    Clinton evoked “particularly damaging” sanctions – tied to Washington’s push to isolate Iran by all means available and the no-holds-barred campaign to force particularly India, China and Turkey to cut off their imports of Iranian oil and gas.

    Predictably, Washington’s anti-IP campaign has been relentless – including, of course, shadow war. Islamabad is convinced that the CIA, the Indian intel agency RAW, the Israeli Mossad and the British MI-6 have been actively conspiring to get some sort of Greater Balochistan to secede from the central government. They have been, a la Libyan model, financing and weaponizing selected Baloch fighters. Not because they love their independent spirit – but as a means to balkanize Pakistan.

    To compound Washington’s fury, “isolated” Iran, by the way, is about to start exporting an extra 80,000 barrels of oil a day to Pakistan; and has already committed $250 million to the Pakistani stretch of IP.

    This has got the potential of becoming much, much uglier. Washington won’t be deterred from its intent to smash IP. For an Iran under pressure and a strangled Pakistani economy – as well as China – this is all about the Asian Energy Security Grid.

    ICBC may be out – sort of. But the whole thing could become even juicier if Beijing decides to step in for good, and turn it from IP to IPC. Will Washington have the guts to defy Beijing head on?

    End Quotes

  289. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Global Network Expels as Many as 30 of Iran’s Banks in Move to Isolate Its Economy


    According to Swift’s 2010 annual review, the latest available, 19 Iranian member banks and 25 financial institutions used the network more than 2 million times that year.

    End Quote

    That’s two million times more than they will this year.

  290. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Castellio says:
    March 15, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Just consider it a public service, provided free of charge to the RFI community.

  291. Richard Steven Hack says:

    More preparation for war…

    U.S. doubling minesweepers in Persian Gulf

  292. Richard Steven Hack says:

    So much for that report…

    U.S. denies sending warning to Iran via Russia


    Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said he could neither confirm nor deny the information published in Kommersant. He did not elaborate.

    End Quote

  293. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Forgot to quote Aluf Benn’s most important points in the Haaretz editorial…


    That being the case, then Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama’s tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: “I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel’s right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved.”

    End Quote

    And this:


    To use Netanyahu’s “duck allegory”, what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a “bluff” or a diversion tactic. Until his trip to Washington, Netanyahu and his supporters in the media refrained from such explicit wording and made do with hints. But since he’s been back, Netanyahu has issued an emergency call-up for himself and the Israeli public.

    End Quote

  294. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Top Israel official: Move to cut Iran from SWIFT network is ‘mortal blow’ to Tehran


    The move is an unprecedented measure that will effectively prevent Iranian institutions from electronically transferring global funds.

    End Quote

  295. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The Haaretz editorial referenced below.

    Netanyahu is preparing Israeli public opinion for a war on Iran

  296. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Israeli strike on Iran could raise gas prices to $6 per gallon, analysts say


    Sabotage against oil facilities in Iraq or Saudi Arabia is a lower probability but would have a bigger effect, said Caruso, who headed the independent federal Energy Information Administration during the George W. Bush administration.

    Caruso estimated that such sabotage would send crude oil prices up by $10-$20 per barrel, with a corresponding increase in gasoline prices of 25-50 cents per gallon in the short term.

    He predicted that an Israeli strike would quickly send crude oil prices up by 10 percent to 20 percent over two days as “everyone on Wall Street goes nuts,” and from there it would depend on what comes next.

    Lynch said an Iranian missile attack on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz is the most aggressive potential response, and forecasted that it would prompt a 50 percent jump in crude prices.

    “I am not one of those who says we are going to hit $5, except briefly in the worst-case situation,” Lynch said.

    End Quote

    Remember, these people are not military analysts and they have no clue what is possible militarily. So their estimates of what Iran might do are worthless. Their estimates of how high the oil price will go are basically conservative, in my view.

  297. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Fox News Poll: 78% of Voters Oppose Sending Troops to Syria


    Larger majorities oppose the U.S. providing weapons to anti-government groups (64 percent) and launching air strikes to try to oust the Syrian government (68 percent). Fully 78 percent of voters oppose U.S. troops on the ground in Syria.

    End Quote

    Good luck with the electorate controlling the government…

  298. Richard Steven Hack says:

    NPR Propaganda Watch. Faux Debate on U.S. Role in Syria.

    Another example of how the MSM spins public opinion.

  299. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Netanyahu Makes the Case for Going It Alone Against Iran

    Notable Quotes

    By his own account, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Washington this month with two goals. One was to continue his 15-year campaign to push Iran’s nuclear program to the top of the world’s agenda. That mission was accomplished, Netanyahu declared to the Knesset on Wednesday. The other aim was to hear Washington acknowledge that Israel has the right to launch a military operation on its own against Iran if it sees fit. “This position was positively received in the United States, I would even say in the most profound way,” he said.

    With that, the Israeli premier launched an extended argument for defying American requests for restraint and going ahead with a strike on Iran

    The liberal Haaretz was alarmed. “Netanyahu is preparing Israeli public opinion for a war on Iran,” was the headline on the column of editor Aluf Benn.

    End Quotes

  300. Castellio says:

    ToivoS… I accept your points and appreciate your comments. Thank you.

  301. Castellio says:

    To the Propaganda Artist etc…

    Yes, I know you know. And I have no problem with your approach. I just wish you were getting paid, too. Level the playing field a bit. Maybe we can take up a subscription.

  302. ToivoS says:

    Castellio says: March 15, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    At one level I probably agree with you. Kennan is what we now call a ‘realist’. George Kennan’s famous Long Telegram of 1946 is probably his most famous writing. That became the basic foundation of the cold war. Once the cold war began he spent the rest of his career trying to dissociate himself from those words. Like I said before, Kennan was one very complicated man. To his credit he opposed the Vietnam war, the wars against Iraq and America’s unilateral support for Israel.

    BTW Walt and Mearsheimer are today’s FP realist.

  303. BiBiJon says:

    this morning i was scratching my head trying to figure out where did this come from:


    then i realized it is to cover this:

    Jeremy Scahill: Why is President Obama Keeping Yemeni Journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye in Prison?

  304. Ataune says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    The release news is denied here…”

    Obama must be thrilled, at least for the moment. He needs merely to get a rumor started that strategic oil reserves might be released, and the price of oil drops without actually having to release any. It wouldn’t surprise me that we hear a succession of such rumors between now and the election, and eventually even an actual release if rumors alone cease to be sufficient to keep oil prices down.

  305. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 15, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    no hard feelings.

  306. BiBi Jon,

    Sorry to have offended you.


  307. ToivoS,

    “Kennan was a very complicated individual and I suspect that a neocon like Gaddis could paint a picture that Bush’s policies derived principles advocated by Kennan.”

    I wasn’t aware of Gaddis’ neo-con credentials, but I’ll keep them in mind as I continue reading. He does actually say that Kennan’s “containment” policy was distorted considerably, from the very outset but especially by the time Vietnam came along (which disgusted Kennan). Now that you mention Gaddis’ leanings, though, I’m reminded that, although Gaddis generally agrees with Kennan’s grumblings about his containment policy having been distorted in practice, Gaddis does mention from time to time that Kennan’s expression of that policy sometimes was insufficiently precise to prevent such misinterpretations. I agree with that observation of Gaddis.

    Incidentally, as you know, Kennan’s memoirs consist of several volumes. If you haven’t already, I recommend you not miss the middle volume, from the early 1920’s to around the time of his belated fame in the late 1940s. He comes across as a humbler person in that volume (though, as I mentioned in my preceding post, he naturally leaves out some embarrassing facts that Gaddis includes in his biography — good thing he waited until Kennan had died).

  308. Castellio says:

    James… do you have more information about Russia’s desire to sell arms to SA? When was this? As you know SA just committed 60 billion to the US for arms that won’t do a thing for the country, other than depreciate.

    What was the idea?

  309. Castellio says:

    ToivoS writes: Kennan was a very complicated individual and I suspect that a neocon like Gaddis could paint a picture that Bush’s policies derived principles advocated by Kennan.”

    You’re trying hard not to see the many connections. If not causal, at least running in parallel.

    I’ve never read Gaddis. But I have read Schwarz’s American Strategy: A New Perspective : The Growth of Political-Military Thinking in the United States. That was published in 1966, prefaced by Kissinger.

    The similarities between Kennen, Kissinger and current neo-con strategies is not make believe.

  310. ToivoS says:


    I read Kennan’s memoirs but not the Gaddis biography. It is unfortunate that Gaddis became a neocon after Kennan agreed to make him his official biographer. I might read what Gaddis has to say once second hand books show up on Amazon. You must know that Gaddis was an adviser to Bush Jr and encouraged him to go to war against Iraq.

    Kennan was a very complicated individual and I suspect that a neocon like Gaddis could paint a picture that Bush’s policies derived principles advocated by Kennan.

  311. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    By the way “Sassss” since you are so concerned about assassination plots, real and imagined, when will you post the complete transcription of the Israeli hired spy that murdered a defenceless civilian scientist. Oh, sorry, I was confusing you with a normal, rational human being for a moment. My mistake.

  312. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    By the way since “Sassss” has already posted information about this, it clearly qualifies as spam. Really illustrates how pathetic he is when he cannot make an actual argument and he substitutes spamming whole articles rather than acting like a normal person and just posting a link to the article.

  313. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    You already posted information about this non story you spamming moron. You must really be getting desperate.

  314. Sassan says:

    Azerbaijan arrests 22 suspected of plotting to attack US, Israeli Embassies
    Suspects linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards; other alleged targets include Israeli ambassador

    BAKU, Azerbaijan — Authorities in Azerbaijan have arrested 22 Azeri citizens suspected of spying for Iran and plotting to attack Western embassies and companies, the National Security Ministry said on Wednesday.

    The arrests come two months after two men were arrested in Azerbaijan, Iran’s northern neighbor, on suspicion of plotting to attack foreigners, including the Israeli ambassador and a rabbi, and after bomb plots in India, Thailand and Georgia that Israel blamed on Tehran.

    The ministry said the arrested people had links with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (Sepah) and their alleged targets included the U.S. and Israeli Embassies as well as British oil major BP.

    Azerbaijan, a secular Muslim country, is home to more than 9,000 Jews and has friendly ties with Israel and the United States. A major energy producer, it exports oil to Israel and imports weapons and military hardware.

    “Twenty-two citizens of Azerbaijan have been arrested by the national security ministry for cooperating with the Iranian Sepah,” the ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

    “On orders of the Sepah they were to commit terrorist acts against the US, Israeli and other Western states’ embassies and the embassies’ employees.

    “Sepah wanted to set a special contingent in Azerbaijan under a cover of religious activity,” the ministry said, adding that the suspects were equipped with rifles, grenades, detonators and “special equipment for spying.”

    The suspects are suspected of gathering information to be used against Azeri security services, recruiting others to spy for Iranian intelligence and creating ammunition depots around the country.

    Relations between Iran and Azerbaijan have soured in recent months as Tehran accused its neighbor of assisting Israeli intelligence in the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists. Israel has not commented on accusations it was behind the assassinations.


  315. BiBiJon says:


    at March 15, 2012 at 11:37 am you derail a conversation with me by the following type of snark.

    “I see. The Iranian government will simply stress to its people its many years of resistance to Western pressure, sanctions, and threats of war.

    Will the Iranian government also mention that it finally succumbed to all that pressure and signed an agreement more or less imposed upon it by the US? Or do you recommend that the Iranian government not mention that?”

    then at March 15, 2012 at 11:47 am you snark up fyi thus

    fyi writes:

    “I might object but there is also a thing called Empirical Reality.”

    There is? Empirical reality? In world politics?

    Well, that makes a big difference indeed — I wish I’d known that earlier.


    i have endured lectures of yours delivered to RSH about civility. but now you demand an apology from fyi, not clear why.

    i don’t understand why you engage people when you’re not in the mood. don’t do it again.

  316. ToivoS,

    “In reading his autobiography I was struck by his description of Jews, people in Baghdad and the Chinese. To modern sensibilities they sound racist, though perhaps were common attitudes at the time.”

    Just curious: are you reading his memoirs, or are you referring to the recently released biography by John Lewis Gaddis (which I’m currently reading)? I did notice such descriptions in Gaddis’ book. It’s been so long since I read his memoirs that I can’t remember such details, though I note that Gaddis’ book includes a number of tidbits that Kennan understandably left out of his memoirs.

  317. Karl says:


    The notion that the president solely decide on this matter is wrong.

  318. fyi,

    “What is your point? The Muslims are what they are, accept them the way they are or leave them alone.”

    You missed my point entirely. I have nothing against Muslims, as should be clear by now to any fair-minded person who reads what I write on this website. Frankly, I feel an apology from you is called for on that.

    My comment had to do with government officials issuing orders to members of a particular religious group to kill someone because he has written something critical of that religion. I consider such an order to be entirely inappropriate.

    As I thought I made clear by my example involving Israel, you actually agree with me — unless you feel that issuing such a “kill” order is inappropriate for government officials OTHER THAN Muslim government officials, in which case you should acknowledge that for your own sake and acknowledge it to me as well. If, on the other hand, you feel that it’s acceptable for a Muslim government official to issue such an order, but not acceptable for a government official of any other religion to do so, then we simply disagree. Strongly disagree.

  319. James Canning says:


    I think you are wrong. Obama sought better relations, and bungled the effort. Iran should have shown more patience, and given more weight to the heavy penalty the Israel lobby would try to inflict on him, and would have in fact inflicted on him, for improving relations with Iran.

  320. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Oh my GOD!!! THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC CYBER ARMY IS COMING!!! Run for your lives folks, hide your children, and destroy your internet connections, because if you have access to a computer, you can be tortured and imprisoned online, no matter where you are. By the way “Sassss” I assume you are speaking from personal experience here, when were you tortured and imprisoned by the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC CYBER ARMY?

  321. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Stooge, someone who maintains over 6 Disqus accounts and copy pastes posts that are word for word the same, who is unable to respond when their views are challenged or debunked and who never presents any evidence for their assertions is clearly a paid stooge. But of course you already know that since you are one. By the way, I will soon be joining you on Tehran Bureau so you can forget about using that as a platform to spread your vile Neo Con, Islamophobic, warmongering propaganda unchallenged any longer.

  322. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Castellio says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    I realize that. That is why I am pointing it out. Note that he cannot be considered to have “won” when his lies are debunked and he is revealed to be the ranting stooge he is.

  323. Karl says:


    It would be suicide for a american president to establish ties with Iran. Therefore the goal is regime change.

  324. ToivoS says:

    “What was “racist” about George Kennan?”

    In reading his autobiography I was struck by his description of Jews, people in Baghdad and the Chinese. To modern sensibilities they sound racist, though perhaps were common attitudes at the time.

  325. James Canning says:


    Sensible comments by John Baron, MP, that you linked (in RussiaToday). He is right that Iran should have had more patience with Obama’s clumsy effort to reach out.

  326. James Canning says:


    What was “racist” about George Kennan?

  327. ToivoS says:

    Castellio, George Kennan really was great foreign policy intellectual. He did have his weaknesses to be sure. His attitudes towards the ME, South and East Asian just reeked of racism for its inhabitants. He didn’t like Jews very much either. However, the principles he advocated would never have led him down the neocon road. He was too much of a realist to support wars based on ideology. You should be able to see some of that in that quote you present. He would never have supported “humanitarian” war unless a tangible US interests were at stake.

  328. James Canning says:


    Vladimir Putin would like a close working relationship with the US and with the EU.
    And with China.

  329. James Canning says:


    The latest round of sanction was caused direclty by Iran’s announcement last Jue of intent to treble production of 20% U. Full stop. Iran blundered. Full stop.

  330. James Canning says:


    Yes, warmongering neocons and other supporters of Israel right or wrong want regime change in Iran. That, however, was not Obama’s agenda. But regime change would be better than war, if it were a realistic option – — which in my view is not the case.

  331. James Canning says:


    The Russian Federation is sufficiently opposed to Iran’s building nukes, that an attack on Iran to prevent such activity almost certainly would get tacit approval from Russia.

  332. Karl says:


    Hopefully that was not the full interview, too much editing, even though the iranian got the chance to get some information out.
    Cnn woman are just naive, thinking that the pressure on Iran is about WMD while it of course is regime change that are the goal. Interesting this same woman although criticized the media on the build up on Iraqwar.

  333. James Canning says:


    The Financial Times opposed release of emergency oil reserves, to address temporary problem of rising oil (and gasoline) prices. But Republicans might be able to make something of this nonissue, given how ignorant most American voters are.

  334. James Canning says:


    Are you aware that Russia was involved in negotiations intended to allow Russia to become a principal supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia?

  335. James Canning says:


    Russia obviously wants an independent Iran, and an Iran not armed with nukes.

  336. James Canning says:


    George Kennan was quite right in 1948 to anticipate the Communist takeover of all of China, and that the US could do nothing to prevent this from happening.

    How many million died in China, due to measures adopted by the Communists for control and for ideological reasons?

  337. James Canning says:

    Farnaz Fassihi, writing in the Wall Street Journal March 15th: “Mr. Ahmadinejad and his team are eager to reach a deal with the West and have said they favor negotiations, but so far, Mr. Khamenei, who has ultimate authority, has shot down a compromise so as not make the regime appear weak.” No mention of Iran’s offer last September, backed obviously by Khamenei, to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent. Surely this was a “compromise”.

  338. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    “In my opinion, Mr. Obama’s inadvertently aggravated the Axis Power confrontation with Iran to the point that WWIII became a distinct possibility.

    It seems that he lost control of the dynamics of the situation and he either had to de-escalate or go to war – when so challenged by Iran.”

    fyi, yours is the sensible view. i’m sure you realize i’m thinking out the box, and deliberately putting out provocative ideas for the sake of a discussion.

    is it at all possible that obama cleverly rode the ‘institutionalized’ anti-iran wave and then used americans’ war-weariness to get off that wave at exactly the time and place he needed for the elections. i.e. if he manages to wring out an acceptable modus vivendi with iran, and sell it as the triumph of his being tough and uncompromising with sanctions, won’t that be a feather for his re-election cap?

    if indeed that was the plan all along, and he had brought in ross and clinton just to use their natural talents to speed up the arrival at the precipice, wouldn’t that make him a ‘smooth operator’?

  339. Sassan says:

    Castellio grow up. You can call me whatever names you like but for you (or others) to be so pathetic to claim that others who disagree with your viewpoints are “paid” and such are quite intellectually feeble. If you haven’t been following the news, that is the job of the Islamic Republic Cyber Army (along with tracking Iranians inside of Iran) to imprison and torture.

  340. Castellio says:

    ToivoS… somewhere back there you thought it a complement to relate the Leverett’s to George Kennan. I think that a mistake.

    Let us quote Kennan in 1948: “Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

    For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples—the Chinese and the Indians—have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

    In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

    …. The initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part.”

    My comment on this is straight forward, the lineage from Kennan’s quote to the neoconservative strategy and rationales six decades later is all-too-evident: all motivations by others are framed as “envy and resentment”, all claims to human rights are understood to be “vague and unreal” and all American action is to be guided by “straight power concepts” and te UN, unless subservient, is a hindrance. His opinion on the Asian people and their helplessness is simply racist Orientalism.

    In any case, all to say that George Kennan got it wrong. He had some of the right facts, but his moral compass collapsed in front of them, and led him to the wrong conclusions. I suspect, and hope, that the moral compass of the Leverett’s is rooted in a less opportunistic agenda.

  341. Castellio says:

    Dear Propaganda Artist…. etc.

    Sassan is paid to do what he does. He is a made up identity. I said this a very long time ago and have no reason to believe differently today. If he can have people arguing against him he has done his job. The fact that so many on this site fell for it, and repeatedly….

  342. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:40 pm


    I read your comments on FP, I thank you

  343. fyi says:

    Rd. says: March 15, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Strategically independent Iran is essential to the security (and defense) of the Russian Federation.

    That will not change.

  344. ToivoS says:

    I posed a question about the role of shia clergy in the overthrow of Mossadegh — this was a question that has puzzled me for a number of years.

    Thanks for the responses from all of you. One point I should make clear — my opinions of the current government are completely irrelevant to what I believe should be our policy towards Iran. First no war and if the Iranian people want to ruled by a religious order then that is their choice and neither mine nor the US government’s.

  345. BiBiJon says:

    Cyrus_2 says:
    March 15, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    so much for ksa’s vaunted spare production capacity.

  346. Cyrus_2 says:

    Britain has decided to cooperate with the United States on a release of strategic oil stocks that is expected within months, two British sources said, in a bid to prevent fuel prices choking economic growth in a U.S. election year.

    US election fever or anticipating on a war on Iran?

  347. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    there is one way that the past can be quickly forgotten and forgiven. That one thing is a realignment with israel.

  348. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    After doing a little basic research I have discovered that “Sassan” engages in the same kind of behavior on many other sites. He has used at least half a dozen Disqus profiles, and a number of other profiles to do this. On each of these sites, he has made the exact same statements, in many cases using exactly the same wording as he has used on this site. That includes copy pasting walls of text such as the “magh bar Israel” text wall that he reproduced several threads ago. This particular text wall has been reproduced, down to the last letter, several dozen times on multiple sites. On each of these sites he has also insulted anyone who disagrees with him, has made exactly the same absurd assertions without proof, and has consistently ignored responses that challenged or disproved his views. He is currently spamming PBS with the same comments that he uses here (Specifically his Afghanistan related comments, among others).

    The following are some of the identities used by “Sassan” on Disqus alone.

    3.Sassan K. Darian
    5.Sassan Darian

    The Identity suddenly appeared on a number of websites about 1 year ago, and started to frequently comment several months after that. There is no evidence he existed at any time before this. Note that his comments, from the beginning of his posting career to the present, are of exactly the same quality and use the same phrasing.

  349. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    Russia and China publicly stated their opposition and Russia went so far as stating that attacking Iran was considered, by the Russian Federation, as an attack on Russian interests.


    Do you believe the Russian position in that regard is idealistic? Or if the interests change, so will their position?

  350. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: March 15, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    In my opinion, Mr. Obama’s inadvertently aggravated the Axis Power confrontation with Iran to the point that WWIII became a distinct possibility.

    It seems that he lost control of the dynamics of the situation and he either had to de-escalate or go to war – when so challenged by Iran.

    Russia and China publicly stated their opposition and Russia went so far as stating that attacking Iran was considered, by the Russian Federation, as an attack on Russian interests.

    Unlike the War in Palestine, where US leaders’ strategic greed caused them to lose the control of the war there, in case of Iran, the American leaders clearly were frightened of the prospects facing them and started pedaling back.

    A costly and foolish exercise.

    Now, the chasm between Iran and Axis Powers is so large that it will take years of tough negotiations to get anywhere “soft”.

    Americans have to have something form Iranians and vice versa.

    All of this could have been avoided if in 2007, the Axis Powers had chosen a different path.

    You cannot go to the verge of war with a country and expect to get back to a soft landing with them in a short time.

  351. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:

    as for airbases in russia, well russia simply loves high oil prices. as fyi would say, how does the us benefit?


    As Brzezinski often says, Russia is part of the west, they just don’t want to be a junior partner. And the ambassador suggests, Russians don’t want to be a junior partner to the future Chines economic powerhouse either. They also need the western capital investment at this point to expand their economy and reduce its dependency on oil exports. So if it serves Russia’s interest, they can play ball.. hence where US may benefit. Putin’s return should not necessary be viewed as the crusader for the benefit of the resistance camp.

  352. Karl says:

    A british MP interview by RT – John Baron, hes arguing like the Leverett’s!

    ‘Sanctions and force against Iran illogical and naive’ – British MP

  353. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    BiBiJon says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Cyrus_2 says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Unfortunately, while it would be great if ignoring “Sassan” worked, it has not worked, and it has allowed him to continue to spread his lies and support for a war unchallenged.

  354. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Humanist says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Note (and I don’t mean to be impolite about this) that just because I disagree with your interpretation of the situation does not make me part of a “conspiracy” to disrupt this blog. Sassan is a serial spammer (I will present evidence of this shortly) that uses exactly the same tactics on a wide range of sites in a clear attempt to disrupt those sites and generate support for a war against Iran. Considering that this is the objective of his lies, I have every right to respond to his lies with truth. He is already disrupting this site by his presence and the way he constantly hijacks any discussion to push his own extreme, radical views. As someone who values this site just as much as you do, I have every right to object to this and oppose it. And as far as politeness goes, as I said before, as soon as the Identity stops spamming this site with copy pasted walls of text, insulting everyone he comes into contact with, ignoring questions and challenges that disprove his views and trying to divert the discussion so he can drum up support for another war, than I will respond appropriately. Until that time, my response is perfectly justified.

  355. BiBiJon says:

    Humanist says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    unfortunately, not talking to/about him involves talking about him.

  356. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ Humanist

    I rarely post here (though I am a dedicated reader), but I fully agree with you.
    Stop engaging him.

  357. BiBiJon says:


    here’s cameron’s & obama’s answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNxdHY8aMY&feature=player_detailpage#t=1956s

    as for airbases in russia, well russia simply loves high oil prices. as fyi would say, how does the us benefit?

    obama wants a soft landing. iran wants a soft landing. russia would like a soft landing. these realities are going to make a hard landing on israeli expansionist fantasies.

  358. Humanist says:

    About Sassan:

    Here on RFI on March 14, 2012 at 2:33 pm I posted a message to SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge asking him to stop degrading this valuable site.

    His reply to me on 3:05pm proved he is unable to realize the importance of the issues I had raised. I now suspect him to be a part of the scheme to sabotage RFI.

    I am asking everyone to view my post 2:33pm post, then if the discussed points make sense ignore Sassan and STOP conversing with him and with SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge

    In my view Sassan is a distasteful character who has a filthy mission to lower the quality of RFI (or maybe worse). I do not agree with banning him since this site should not abandon its high spirit of the free thinking. I am just warning not to fall in his trap by reacting to his provocations.

    Any better idea?

  359. Rd. says:

    BiBiJon says:

    One way or other Iran had a defining role in post-taliban afghanistan, and again in post saddam-iraq. If there’s to be a post-assad syria, invited/univited iran will be at the table, methinks.


    I don’t disagree with that.. don’t think the west looks at it that way.. are they really looking at negotiations? Or just buying time and stirring the pot?

    The SWIFT sanction are about to be implemented. The usual western approach to negotiations.

    And according to the Ambassador B, the Russians are offering an air base for US in Lenin’s birthplace!

    The US is not in a position to go to war at this point, but are they really going to resolve this issue with negotiations? They certainly don’t have a good track record.

  360. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: March 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    I suspect as much.

    We shall know in a few weeks.

  361. Karl says:


    Do you deny that Obama have declared he could use nuclear weapons against only two states? (North Korea and Iran).

  362. BiBiJon says:

    Here is the relevant segment of obama’s answer to a press question regarding iran


    this is what i heard.

    obama said ‘BECAUSE the international community has applied so many sanctions, because we have employed SO MANY of the options open to us to persuade iran to take a different course the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking.’

    and then he said ‘ i hope iran understands that this is their best bet to rejoin the community of nations, and to prosper, and feel secure themselves’

    now for my reading

    obama is saying he went along with the sanctions not according to dennis ross’ timetable for war, and/or permanent confrontation enshrined in “containment”, but rather a final, peaceful solution.

    his alluding to ‘SO MANY’ sanctions means to me he has reached the end of the road in utility of sanctions. therefore he is either demanding surrender, or he is proposing compromise.

    here’s the objective reality. it is not going to be war. see ,http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/iran-drumbeat-watch-i-say-its-not-going-to-happen/254320/

    the sanctions are hurting both sides. in this shrinking window both sides can drive for sufficient bending from the other side to satisfy their face-saving requirements.

    i think it will all start with a moratorium on european oil embargo reciprocated by iran’s cessation of 20%. Then it will be an easing of cbi sanctions premised on iran escrowing 20% stock pile in turkey. these will happen quickly in april.

    once the ‘sustained’ and ongoing negotiations become old hat, and not newsworthy, expect the news lull in august to contain references to putting iran’s nuclear program under iaea supervision for five years, signing ap, and adopting modified 3.1, etc in exchange for complete lifting of sanctions (prosperity), complete cessation of threats (security) and incremental normalization of bilateral ties (joining the community of nations).

    with cameron backing him up, obama has ditched Israeli wishes for permanent confrontation. i am awed by the fact that obama appears to have been 2 steps ahead of ross, and clinton engineering this bargain.

    as empty would say, however, some stories are best left to tell themselves.

  363. Karl says:


    “Where do you get the idea Iran would be allowed to build nukes?”

    What should stop them?

  364. James Canning says:


    The phrase “all options are on the table”, regarding US/UK dealings with Iran, do not include first-strike attack with nuclear weapons. This is pure fantasy.

  365. James Canning says:


    Where do you get the idea Iran would be allowed to build nukes?

  366. James Canning says:


    Russia is unlikely to accept a UNSC resolution calling for regime change. The Syrian government likely will be obliged to enter into negotiations for a resolution of the unrest. Opposition will have to drop preconditions.

  367. Karl says:


    Taking in regard the huge pressure being put on Iran and the threats of war, iranians may like any other, would probably view a nuclear deterrence as the only way to guard their state from outside attacks.

    Watch this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMN16Fc_sJ8

  368. James Canning says:


    The danger to Iran posed by Pakistani nukes is not that Pakistan would hit Tehran with a nuke or two. The danger is from nukes gettting loose in civil war conditions.

  369. James Canning says:


    Where do you get the idea Iran needs nukes for “its existence”?

  370. James Canning says:

    Sergei Lavrov has again said that Russia is concerned about negative repurcussions from an overly-hasty Western withdrawal from Afghanstan. Russia will make an airbase available for supply transit to and from Afghanistan.

  371. Karl says:


    What would stop Iran if they want to choose that path? Its a matter of their existence.

  372. James Canning says:


    Where do you get the idea Iran can go ahead and build nukes should she so desire?

  373. Humanist says:

    Polls by University of Maryland have proven themselves to be very reliable.

    The following is their important March 13, 2012 poll on American Public Opinion about US/Israel/Iran and its atomic bomb..


    Some encouraging numbers, yet 80% of Republicans believe if Iran gets the bomb it will use it against Israel! Another colorful example of how Nazi style propaganda works!

  374. Karl says:


    Who cares for what reason states build nukes? If one have built one, the race is on. Also you forget that Iran not only have to pay attention to israeli nukes but to sunni state – Pakistan, that hates shia.
    Also again its not up to either you or me or to western hegemonic powers to decide what Iran should/should not do, US, Israel and some of their allies puhsing Iran to develope nukes and one cant seriously blame them if they do or eventually take that step.

  375. James Canning says:


    I think your expectations of a Mitt Romney in the White House would meet with disappointment. Romney clearly lacks any understanding of the Middle East and he is a dedicated stooge of the neocons and other radical supporters of Israel right or wrong.

  376. James Canning says:


    Yes, the US and the UK should pressure Israel to sign the NPT and get rid of Israeli nukes.

  377. James Canning says:


    India developed nukes because of China. Not because of Israel.
    Pakistain developed unkes because of India, not because of Israel.
    Maybe half of all Israelis favor getting rid of Israeli nukes.
    You apparently want Iran to try to build nukes and plunge into catastrophe needlessly.

  378. Photi says:

    ah, ministry of foreign affairs, that place where they sell their messed up vision of themselve.s

  379. Photi says:

    Fiorangela says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Fiorangela, i am still trying to figure out what MFA means.

  380. Fiorangela says:

    Richard Steven Hack says: March 15, 2012 at 9:57 am

    “I want to congratulate Sassan, and the rest of you who have wasted almost this entire thread going back and forth with him.
    This thread wins as the worst thread in the history of the site, as far back as I can remember, anyway.”

    which means, then, that Flynt’s brief video message is the most important material on this site, based on the Sassan Quotient

  381. Karl says:


    If it was this conference I scrubbed it through.

    Nothing new really same old lies and propaganda.
    They have to read from papers. I see two friends caressing each to other, thinking they know something while would be completely clueless if anyone on this board approached them on this issue.
    They get of course asked questions by approved journalists that wont ask any hard questions and that will push their agenda out. Its just a show.

    Something that is ridiculous and an obvious lie is when Obama say that Iran will trigger an arms race. Thats nonsense. Israel is the only nuclear power in the middle east (not to mention the two other american allies India and Pakistan), the arms race is already on and its because of the israeli regime who started it. One should remember that when Israel got its nukes both Egypt and Iraq instantly built more powerful missiles (and also here people were assassinated (see for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull)
    and if Iam not misstaken thought of creating nuclear weapons.
    Since Obama doesnt even acknowledge that Israel have nukes he tried to portray such a stance to the world thus making Iran the initiator of a nukes race in the region. He so insincere.

    So if US and UK are so scared of an arms race they could end it today by pushing Israel to sign the NPT.

    Well say Obama, “Israel must have a nuclear weapons because they live under a threat from the surrounding states” – Well if thats the reason why then do Obama and Cameron make the conflict harder to solve since the mother of all problems stems from the illegal occupation and landgrab (which Obama even used his veto to approve in the UNSC) thus making every reason for the surrounding states to have a animosity towards Israel illegal actions? I mean who wouldnt? That isnt to say that Israel face a military threat by any neighbour, thats nonsense. At the same time Israel’s nuclear deterrence is not working, as far as the war post 1960 have kept on going. Israeli nukes havent saved Israel from warfare.
    Even if that were true (that Israel lived under military existential threat) why then doesnt Iran have the right to have a deterrence through a nuclear weapon? Because rest assured Iran is the most threatened nation on this planet. Is their a veiled racism from Obama/Cameron that some people must have nukes to defend itself while other, muslims arabs, persians simply doesnt have this right?
    I am not sure which interests Obama say he want to defend in the middle east, US would gain alot by having a stron relationsship with Iran instead of Israel that havent been a strategic asset since atleast soviet left the middle east. Israel is a strategic burden for the americans no doubt.

    At the same time there would be a really simple solution to the Iran-issue for Obama if he were sincere. Direct talks without any precondition in a non-hostile way. Since Obama have his hand tied by lobby, congress and people like Ross he cannot go that route so instead he have to put all blame on Iran for the conflict and becomes a stalemate.

    Instead he use the usual warmongering tactic.

    “we have exhausted all diplomatic efforts”

    “Iran is not only a threat to 1 or 2 states (Read Israel) its a threat to whole world, and a volatile region”

    “Iran must live up to its obligation if not they will face the consequences”

    “Iran will embolden terrorists (read occupied palestinians)”

    I almost think that Romney would be better as a president on this issue, sure his and the republican war talks is worse than from Obama, but as soon as Romney enter the White house and give it a little thought he would sure back off from starting a war and we would be back on square one, that is the position Obama started from on the Iran issue when he became an elected president.

  382. Photi says:


    How reasonable or sincere is it for Americans to discuss human rights with Iran when the Americans are the ones unwilling to cease threatening Iran with nuclear obliteration (ie, all options are on the table)?

  383. Karl says:

    On Syria,

    I think Russia soon will stupidly accept a UN resolution that will either push for regime change or any other impediment on Assad while putting no pressure on violent groups backed by the west. Or that Russia will accept a UN resolution that could be understood as saying atleast 2 things, just like the Libyan mandate which the west used as a key for regime change and the ousting of Qadaffi.

    For example Russia said this the other day:

    “Russia says it won’t intervene militarily in Syria”


    While no one belived that Russia would send troops etc to Syria to defend Assad all these annoncents of their tactic only hurt them because it really portray a Russia doesnt really care much about Syria and could be bought off to the other side. If Russia doesnt play the dubious game of the west they will be backstabbed and fooled just like Libya.

  384. http://www.al-monitor.com/cms/contents/articles/opinion/2012/barbara-slavin/hagel-praises-obama-approach-to.html

    For those who missed the Chuck Hagel interview cited by BiBi Jon, it’s well worth reading.

  385. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    March 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    “On your question, sorry I dont understand the context. Have Cameron made any speech?”

    yes. both cameron and obama after an extraordinary 19 gun salute, pomp and ceremony, reception at the white house both made speeches laying out the meaning of a special relatioship. almost on every point they made defining the us-uk enduring alliance seemed to contrast rather sharply with the miserable state of affairs currently enveloping us-israel relations.

    watch c-span. it was broadcast live yesterday

  386. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 15, 2012 at 11:47 am

    The empirical reality is that religion is force in world politics.

    What is your point?

    The Muslims are what they are, accept them the way they are or leave them alone.

  387. Karl says:


    On your question, sorry I dont understand the context. Have Cameron made any speech?

  388. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 15, 2012 at 11:37 am

    “Will the Iranian government also mention that it finally succumbed to all that pressure and signed an agreement more or less imposed upon it by the US? Or do you recommend that the Iranian government not mention that?”

    I AGREE. if i were iranian government i would say to my people that our resistance cost the us so much petro-economically, and geostrategically that by and large they accepted our 2003 stance that cooperation makes more sense than confrontation. Also, iran is proud as a matter of islamic principles, and good world citizenship to reduce unnecessary tensions, and mistrust.

  389. fyi writes:

    “I might object but there is also a thing called Empirical Reality.”

    There is? Empirical reality? In world politics?

    Well, that makes a big difference indeed — I wish I’d known that earlier.

    I have just one last question for you:

    If I want to find out what this “empirical reality” is, who should I ask? The US government? Or the Iranian government? Or won’t it make any difference, since, after all, empirical reality is empirical reality?

  390. BiBi Jon writes:

    “If we agree that the US can present her ability to put together a coalition, and the resulting sanctions, etc. as face saving for the US, then it is iran who needs to save face in front of her population. That too, i believe, is in the hat. iran will simply point to her resistance to pressure over the years.”

    I see. The Iranian government will simply stress to its people its many years of resistance to Western pressure, sanctions, and threats of war.

    Will the Iranian government also mention that it finally succumbed to all that pressure and signed an agreement more or less imposed upon it by the US? Or do you recommend that the Iranian government not mention that?

    Or are you assuming that the US and Iran will have reached an agreement under which the US accepts Iran’s long-standing proposals and accepts Iran’s long-standing assurances that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful? If so, is it realistic to assume that any such agreement will ever actually be reached?

    It’s easy simply to say what the US “should” do. Some writers here even insist that the US “must” do certain things. But in real life, the US government decides what it “should” and “must” do, whether or not you and I agree with its decision (and neither you nor I does agree with its decisions).

    If Iran really wants an agreement, it has to bend or it has to wait. If I were Iran, I’d be willing to bend a little (for example, I might explore whether this “20% enrichment” approach I’ve mentioned has any real promise). But mostly I’d resign myself to wait — to go about my business, fueling and operating my Tehran Research Reactor, continuing to develop my peaceful nuclear energy program as best I can despite all the obstacles thrown in my way, strengthen myself and tighten alliances with other strong countries, and bide my time until the US is prepared to make a reasonable offer to settle this nuclear dispute. Or wait long enough that I don’t care all that much whether the US wants to strike a deal and I can afford to ignore the US if I don’t like its offered terms.

  391. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 15, 2012 at 11:25 am

    i’m refering to the proposals here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06zarif.html?_r=3&scp=3&sq=javad%20zarif&st=cse

    and in the interim cessation of 20% enrichment, and possibly shipping the existing 20% stocks to turkey. you might have to use a large envelope!

    the argument returns to the ‘then and now.’

    us national interests require iran’s regional cooperation. if that is not true, then you can use the back a very small envelop.

  392. BiBiJon says:

    Rd. says:
    March 15, 2012 at 10:58 am

    This notion of peace talks, whilst ratcheting up the Syrian regime change efforts “may be” viewed as a diversion over the blanket.. we’ll make peace, if you let Syria go.. you can guess the rest.


    another applicable mullah nasreddin fable:

    He was washing his underwear (tonboon) in a brook, when a sudden rush of water swept his tonboon downstream. He ran after his tonboon for a while, and out of breath, he shook his fist at the sky saying “if only i had the strength of my youth.” but, quickly he said afterwards “let’s be honest, i was no athlete back then either.”

    One way or other Iran had a defining role in post-taliban afghanistan, and again in post saddam-iraq. If there’s to be a post-assad syria, invited/univited iran will be at the table, methinks.

  393. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 15, 2012 at 11:19 am

    I might object but there is also a thing called Empirical Reality.

    That is why I have cautioned against policies that enflame religious opinion and aide religious war.

  394. BiBi Jon writes:

    “…the substance of the [US/Iran] agreement can be any/all the proposals iran has been putting on the table, which obama can say he’s comfortable believing iran has thereby foresworn anything other than peaceful nuclear energy. no?”

    In other words, the only thing standing in the way of a US/Iran agreement is that the US won’t accept Iran’s proposals and take Iran’s word for it that its nuclear program is peaceful?

    If that’s all it is, how about if you just explain all this to the US while I’m writing up something on the back of an envelope for both sides to sign? We can probably wind this up by tomorrow afternoon.

  395. fyi writes to ToivoS:

    “For when the late Mr. Khomeini issued his legal opinion regarding Mr. Rushdie, not a single head of state or head of government of any Muslim state went against him publicly. This is the nature of Islam as it exists today.”

    I can’t speak for ToivoS on this, but I suspect he’ll tell you that he agrees with your final sentence. But he feels that governments shouldn’t put out orders to kill a writer, no matter how much his writing upsets them. If the Israeli government issued a “fatwa” ordering Jews everywhere to kill a writer who’d written a scathing criticism of Judaism, I predict you’d object to that.

  396. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 15, 2012 at 11:11 am

    You cannot save people from the consequences of their actions.

    Mr. Obama spread a bed, decided he did not want to sleep in it, now he must pack it without loosing face.

    Well, life is tough.

    And about Israelis: let them go to war with Iran.

    It will make the destruction of Israel a long-term Shia project.

  397. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 15, 2012 at 11:05 am

    If we agree that the us can present her ability to put together a coalition, and the resulting sanctions, etc. as face saving for the us, then it is iran who needs to save face in front of her population.

    That too, i believe, is in the hat. iran will simply point to her resistance to pressure over the years.

    the substance of the agreement can be any/all the proposals iran has been putting on the table, which obama can say he’s comfortable believing iran has thereby foresworn anything other than peaceful nuclear energy.


  398. fyi says:

    Arnold Evans says: March 15, 2012 at 1:40 am

    Clealry the US soldier(s) have fallen the deep-end under the stress of infantry combat.

    This is an understandable event – the anger of soldiers that have been deployed 3 times to a war zone where they are being constantly attacked, where their friends are killed everyday, and the population is not trustworthy to be friendly.

    Ramification is this: US and EU cannot stay in Afghanistan in any way shape or form.

    Pakistan and Iran will settle the post NATO Afghanistan.

  399. fyi writes:

    “You are not looking at it the right way. Mr. Obama needs to demonstrate some sort of progress with Iran. Iranians must decide what to offer him to take back to his people; so to speak.”

    Now I see. And once Obama receives Iran’s offer, his job will be to go back to the American people and the US Congress, and try to persuade them that the US should accept Iran’s offer? Am I looking at it the right way now?

    What if Obama fails in that effort? What should he do then? Come back to Iran and ask for advice on how to deal with the myopic American public and stubborn Congress? Or should he give Bibi Netanyahu a call?

    What if Obama tells Iran he’s inclined to give Bibi a call? Should Iran then tell Obama that under no circumstances is he to call Bibi, that he instead is to sit tight until he’s received further instructions from Iran?

  400. fyi says:

    ToivoS says: March 15, 2012 at 2:18 am

    Then you better be against Muslims everywhere.

    For when the late Mr. Khomeini issued his legal opinion regarding Mr. Rushdie, not a single head of state or head of government of any Muslim state went against him publicly.

    This is the nature of Islam as it exists today.

  401. BiBi Jon,

    “Doesn’t the US already have a face-saving scenario. namely the tough sanctions brought Iran to negotiate from a weak position, and therefore anything Iran agrees to can be portryed to have been extracted under duress?”

    Certainly, if the objective is for one side to declare victory and not reach any agreement. But if the objective is to reach an agreement, it’s useful if that agreement appears to have been, and in fact is, voluntarily made by both sides, and if each side gets something it can present to its people as a victory.

  402. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 15, 2012 at 12:18 am

    You are not looking at it the right way.

    Mr. Obama needs to demonstrate some sort of progress with Iran.

    Iranians must decide what to offer him to take back to his people; so to speak.

    The important thing is to make some useful gestures that can be taken as victories by the Americans and that could cuase the negogiations to continue.

    Mr. Obama brought US to the egde of war with Iran; he had been clearly poorly advised.

  403. BiBiJon says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 15, 2012 at 10:54 am

    doesn’t the US already have a face-saving scenario. namely the tough sanctions brought iran to negotiate from a weak position, and therefor anything iran agrees to can be portryed to have been extracted under duress?

  404. Rd. says:

    Great write up on Bibi vs Obama..

    There is an old Middle Eastern anecdote, one of the tales attributed to the fictitious character, known in Iran as Mollah Nassreddin, whose humor bears a lot of wisdom.

    Mollah Nassreddin was resting in his loft when he heard a commotion down on the street below his window. He saw two people in what seemed to be a serious quarrel. He rushed down to mediate, and succeeded in separating the combatants. When he returned to his room he noticed that he was robbed of his blanket!

    The next day a friend asked him what that street brawl was all about. “Oh, that was only a diversion; as it turned out, it was over my blanket.”



    This notion of peace talks, whilst ratcheting up the Syrian regime change efforts “may be” viewed as a diversion over the blanket.. we’ll make peace, if you let Syria go.. you can guess the rest.

  405. Pirouz says:

    Well, all those Iranian-American “analysts” are red faced once more with their unreliable observations: Khamenei just reappointed Rasfansjani as head of the Expediency Council.


  406. BiBiJon says:


    do you agree npt is no longer able to meaningfully stop proliferation?

  407. BiBi Jon writes:

    “Chuck Hagel, who co-chairs the Obama administration’s Intelligence Advisory Board, says the United States should offer Iran “face-saving ways” out of the nuclear crisis.”

    The US also needs some “face-saving” way out. Though I remain pessimistic about any agreement, a “face-saving” opportunity may nonetheless be presenting itself in the form of the overhyped threat of “20% enrichment.” It takes little imagination to think of ways that the governments of both the US and Iran could strike a deal along the lines proposed by Vali Nasr in the article cited by Arnold, and present that agreement to their respective populations as a “victory” over the other side.

    Again, I’m not optimistic, at least in the near- and medium-term, but this “20% uranium” issue nonetheless offers an approach worth exploring further.

  408. BiBiJon says:

    Doubling down on my previous de-escalation bets.

    Barbara Slavin cites numerous developments inside and outside Iran that suggest new possibilities for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program–and a general decline in tensions between the U.S. and Iran.


    It is this very real possibility of a peaceful, and “permanent solution” to the US-Iran debacle that Israel has been fighting so hard, and which Obama had to fire 19 guns at Bibi preempting his moves.

  409. Richard writes:

    “Arnold: “It is important for Americans to believe they are the good guys, and puncturing that may be the biggest threat to the US war effort in Afghanistan.” Well My Lai worked in Vietnam. Or did it?”

    I’d ask the same question. I remember well watching TV news reports of the My Lai massacre. It happened in March 1968. I also remember watching American soldiers scrambling to board the last US helicopters leaving Vietnam.

    That was in April 1975, more than seven years later.

    Even then, their departure did not appear to be voluntary, but rather seemed to be connected in some way to the fact that their launching pad was about to be overrun by Viet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers.

  410. fyi says:

    ToivoS says: March 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    Americans and English were waging an economic war against Iran at that time – just like now and just as US did against Chile in 1973.

    One faction of Iranians were manipulated by US-UK to overthrow the constitutional order; just like Chile.

    Without US-UK putsch, that liberal government would not have fallen; just like Chile.

    The events of 1953 have been perceived as a watershed in Iranian history and the emotional response to those events by Iranians must be understood as a species of collective judgment.

    That collective judgment is abiding hatred for the United Kingdom, the United States, and the old ruling elite that sold Iran to the infidels and foreigners.

    The response was the Islamic Republic which has sought to achieve strategic autonomy for Iran, and, to remove any vestiges of Western influence that has not been thoroughly assimilated within Iranian culture.

    The events of the last 10 years, in my opinion, have also strengthened the late Mr. Khomeini’s arguments that Iranians in particular and Muslims in general must come back home to Islam and their own authentic culture and traditions.

    Specifically, all those Iranians who though anything beyond transactional relationships with EU or US or India are possible have been thoroughly and soundly discredited.

  411. BiBiJon says:

    from http://www.al-monitor.com/cms/contents/articles/opinion/2012/barbara-slavin/hagel-praises-obama-approach-to.html

    Chuck Hagel, who co-chairs the Obama administration’s Intelligence Advisory Board, says the United States should offer Iran “face-saving ways” out of the nuclear crisis.

    I have not read or heard or talked to anyone privately who knows something about this who does not believe that Iran would not respond in probably a rather significant way, the asymmetric capacity Iran has to hit our vulnerabilities, other vulnerabilities… There will be a lot of killing. These things start and you can’t control. They escalate. They always do and they always will.

    … I don’t think that we are necessarily locked into one of two options. And that’s the way it’s presented. We are great in this country and in our politics of responding to false choices; we love false choices.

    Al-Monitor: Bomb Iran or live with Iran with a bomb?

    Hagel: Exactly. We may eventually wind up with those choices. But I don’t think we’re there now. We’ve got some time, keep ratcheting up the sanctions, keep the world community with you.

    …You cannot push the Iranians into a corner where they can’t get out…You’ve got to find some quiet ways – and you don’t do this in the press or by giving speeches – to give them a couple of facing saving ways out of this thing so they get something out of this, too. And recognizing internally what’s going on in Iran; things are not going particularly well. Let that play out… So you work this thing on a number of parallel tracks.

    Our friend Andrew Parasiliti [board member of Al-Monitor] had this in a piece he wrote recently. He talks about Ahmadinejad laying on the table [and offering to stop producing] 20 percent [enriched uranium]. We’ve got to test all that. There’s a great Arab proverb: Trust Allah, but tie up your camel.

    …You’ve got to break into some creative thinking here…don’t get caught in these damn traps. If you listen to the Republican presidential candidates, they can hardly race to say who would bomb Iran first; it’s just amazing.

    Al-Monitor: Do you know if there any private approaches going on or is it all through the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany?

    Hagel: I know more than I can tell you; there may be. I hope. I don’t see any other way around this. Because you can’t deal with something … as explosive as this is out in the public.

  412. BiBiJon says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    March 15, 2012 at 9:57 am


    I have time on my hands and would dearly love to hear your opinions of questions I’ve posed.

    If you’re online, remark on my questions.

  413. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Lobbying for War
    by Philip Giraldi

    Phil gets it right, as usual.

    Notable Quotes

    Those Americans who still revere the Constitution and the advice of the Founding Fathers should rightly be appalled that a war is even being considered on behalf of a small client state with which the United States has no treaty obliging such intervention. War with Iran would undoubtedly follow the usual pattern, being authorized by the White House without the constitutionally mandated declaration of war by Congress and likely developing out of an evolving situation in which Israel is being given a free pass to initiate the conflict.

    Sen. Carl Levin is now calling for a military blockade of Iran, a clear act of war. Thirty-two senators, including Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman, are supporting legislation that will essentially authorize taking military action against Iran because it has the “capability” to create a nuclear weapon…

    It is being argued in some circles that Obama has been resisting the Israeli drive to go to war because his defense and intelligence chiefs insist that the “red line” with Tehran is the actual possession of a nuclear weapon, but is that really true? He has muddied that apparent position by insisting that he will “prevent” the Iranians from obtaining the bomb. Prevention means preemption, possibly based on the same type of fabricated intelligence Americans saw in the lead-up to Iraq.

    On March 9, 86 Republican members of Congress demonstrated how it will work, sending a letter to Obama pledging “unwavering support” for Israel and concluding that the White House must “make our offer of support and assistance to Israel crystal clear if Israel finds it necessary to take action against Iran.” So Israel is empowered to make the decision whether America goes to war or not, at least for those 86 Republicans, who would almost certainly be joined by numerous Democrats. Given that reality, if someone can come up with an alternative scenario in which automatic American involvement does not take place, it has yet to be explained plausibly. Will Obama simply refuse to play? In an election year? Not likely. Many are convinced the war is coming, including White House senior staff.

    So what can the rest of us do when the war comes? Very little. The only man who can conceivably stop it, President Obama, is clearly thinking of timing. If the fighting starts too soon and goes sour, which it will, he will lose the presidency. If it happens just before elections, he can pitch in to help brave little Israel and ride to victory as the latest in America’s unforgettable series of wartime presidents. If there is no war at all, Obama wins because he kept the peace. So the timing must be right if there is a war, and this is another thing that the Israelis understand. They and AIPAC can make or break Obama, and the president can do little to derail the process. Will Bibi want to continue with the man he dislikes and distrusts in the White House or will he feel more comfortable with Mitt Romney, a man who has already stuffed his foreign policy team with the same neoconservative Israel-firsters who brought about Iraq and who genuinely do have Netanyahu’s back come hell or high water? Stay tuned.

    End Quotes

  414. Richard Steven Hack says:

    I want to congratulate Sassan, and the rest of you who have wasted almost this entire thread going back and forth with him.

    This thread wins as the worst thread in the history of the site, as far back as I can remember, anyway.

  415. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Arnold: “It is important for Americans to believe they are the good guys, and puncturing that may be the biggest threat to the US war effort in Afghanistan.”

    Well My Lai worked in Vietnam.

    Or did it? Here we are thirty five or so years later and for the last TEN years US troops have been killing civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a half dozen other countries.

    US troops have murdered civilians in every single war the US has been involved in going back to the Philippines and before. That is what soldiers do. And very few US civilians give a damn.

    The US is planning to kill another million or three Iranian civilians over the next ten years and displace probably another five or ten million, in addition to bombing the infrastructure into the Stone Age.

    And it won’t stop until someone nukes Washington and New York and every place else in this country the ruling elites live. Or for some reason the US electorate finally gets pissed off and kills them themselves.

  416. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    March 15, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Karl, and anyone else who’s online, any remarks on my questions for the board?

  417. Rehmat says:

    Sassan – According to the “Jewish Virtual Library” – anyone born to a (born) Jewish mother is ‘JEWISH’ no matter whether he/she practices Judaism or convert to other religions. Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, Lenin, Herzl, Stalin, Weissmann, Ben Gurion, Lenni Brenner, Ariel Sharon, etc. were all atheists and haters (anti-semites) of their fellow Jews.


  418. Sassan says:

    Read this article from the Huffington Post, “Atheist Jews: Judaism Without God” – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/atheist-jews-judaism-without-god_n_978418.html

  419. Karl says:


    Hitchens argument that it was a stupid idea for settlers to build Israel, thats the foundation of the state. A superstitious one, funny how you as a anti-religious person accept such claims.

  420. BiBiJon says:

    Question for the board

    19 Gun salute in honor of David Cameron, or exquisitely aimed at Bibi Netanyahu?

    Also consider all the details that were given in both Obama’s and Cameron’s speeches to define the term, ‘essential relationship.”

    Were both Obama and Cameron ‘essentially’ saying US-Israeli relationship doesn’t measure up?

    Side by side, echoing one another, did Obama & Cameron isolate Israel, and portrayed Israeli intransigence on US demands that sanctions/diplomacy be given a chance as an ugly blackmail on the West?

    Note that it was a British PM’s visit that occasioned this poke in Bibi’s eye. No matter how much ink flows freely in MSM aggrandizing the concocted ‘kinship’ between US and Israel, no one would dare question the actual kinship that binds British and American people.

    I am with Eric. I think I’ll vote for Obama again. He has used Dennis Ross’ “halfhearted engagement as platform for launching unprecedented hostility” not towards Ross’ intended target, but at the Likud mindset that costs the US dearly.

  421. Sassan says:

    Albert Einstein had helped Chaim Weizmann campaign for the creation of Israel and he was not a practicing Jew (in fact he was a non-believer). In fact, it is believed that the founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl may have been an atheist Jew himself. For many Jews, the creation of Israel was more of a cultural thing than religious. In fact, many atheists who are Jewish still consider themselves Jewish as they are culturally Jewish and the Jewish authorities recognize them as Jews.

  422. Sassan says:

    Karl, did you even watch the video you posted for me to watch? I watched it. Hitchens’ answers the question that Israel has the right to exist under sovereign borders. Please watch the video you asked me to watch yourself.

  423. Karl says:


    Hitchens is against the state, you dont agree with him at all. Dont you understand by the way that the fact that jews went to Israel was because of superstitious idea that they were the chosen one, that the land had been given to them?

  424. Sassan says:

    Yes Karl. I am against illegal settlements and messianic Jews. They are quite dangerous. Being against illegal settlements and recognizing Israel’s right to sovereign existence with peaceful neighbors is two separate issues. I am against religion of all kinds and Judaism is just as vile of a religion as Islam. But the facts remain that the majority of Israelis are not religious at all as 60% of them consider themselves secular Jews and an estimated 15-30% of Israelis are atheist Jews. Again, I am against the illegal settlements and the messianic Jews and Christians.

  425. Karl says:


    You agree with Hitches on this one too?

  426. Sassan says:

    The GREAT and late Christopher Hitchens on Iran and Iranians..: http://youtu.be/qrBVQjivS08

  427. Cyrus_2 says:


    Iran’s Grand ayatollah at that time, Seyyed Borujerdi, remained neutral in the dispute between the Shah and Mosaddeq.
    The CIA bribed ayatollah Kashani away from Mosaddeq’s camp.
    And with him, his many followers also swithed sides.
    The CIA also bombed the homes of clerics and blamed the Tudeh for the attacks, setting the pious against Mosaddeq.

  428. An Iranian View says:

    In my opinion Sassan’s dishonest propaganda is not a problem at all. One sees this sort of material every day in the western mainstream press. The problem is that like Scott Lucas, he is trying to disrupt debate here. Many people come to this website not just to read the articles, but also to read the comments. This is a unique website, because it has a unique group of well informed people providing information that others will not provide.

  429. BiBiJon's last post on Norooz, unless ... says:

    Have to find a nice poem for Fiorangela on Norooz. This year I think I’ll give 10,000 hyacinths.

  430. An Iranian View says:

    I think everyone agrees that Sassan is against debate and discussion. He can’t tolerate a single English language website criticizing US and foreign policy.

  431. BiBiJon says:

    nNPT is dead, Iran is the solution

    I’ve thirsting for more of Eric, RSH, Arnold, et al discussion of the Bertrand-Russellish search for ‘Meaning and Truth.’

    I think the discussion is in fact very relevant. And, here’s why.

    nNPT inhaled its last breath on May 28th, 1998, when a deeply impoverished countrty, Pakistan, tested a ‘nuclear explosive device’ in an underground iron-steel tunnel which had been long-constructed for that singular purpose during the 1980s.

    nNPT started to unravel as a meaningfully binding contract immediately after it was conceived because the nuclear-haves reneged on their side of the bargain. Nevertheless it held together because it was assumed that without the nuclear-haves’ transference of technology, third-world countries would not be able to make one. With nukes on the loose curtsey of USSR’s collapse, and Pakistan’s demonstration of nukes on a shoe string, nNPT has been rendered a treaty with no spirit.

    The only way to reintroduce any meaning to the treaty is to have Iran be allowed to change the safeguards protocols as a ‘standard’ for all nuclear-have-nots. Iran’s profound need for iron-clad assurance that mid eastern tinpot dictatorships do not wind up ‘hosting’ Western nukes, and/or buying loose nukes, and/or starting to put ‘things’ on Eric’s tables, gives Iran unmatched motivation as well as unequaled experience with inadequacies of IAEA’s safeguards arrangements to be the vanguard on drafting the new nNPT.

    I hope this is what Iran proposes in April.

  432. Karl says:

    U.S. May Sanction India Over Level of Iran-Oil Imports

    If this is the future (sanction on states that do business with Iran), US stands to be the loser in the long run.

  433. BiBiJon says:

    To the webmaster

    Excuse my interrupting Sassan’s endless streams of wisdom here. I will stop posting any opinions I might have on RaceForIran on 3/21/2012.

  434. BiBiJon says:

    Karl says:
    March 15, 2012 at 5:03 am

    I think the leveretts should encourage this guy to start a weblog of his own. he sure has material enough. Perhaps a first step would be to ban him if he comes up with any more unsourced accusations.

  435. Karl says:


    This site isnt supposed to be a megaphone for hatred and racism and pastings of whole articles. Read the board rules.

  436. Karl says:

    William Hague are indeed himself detached from reality. There is something absurd with people who think that their crimes, actions against a people are something the specific people (in this case iranian population) arent aware of. Why doesnt Hague travel to Iran to see how popular he is among the people he trying to reach out to?

  437. Sassan says:

    BiBiJon: The quran and Islam demands the deaths of all apostates. Christianity does not do that. While I consider all religion to be inherently evil; none is more evil than Islam. Below is what I personally wrote on the subject:


    Some people like to make the claim that Islam is a “peaceful” religion, that the acts committed by a few radicals do not represent the religion in any way. In a claim to support their rhetoric, they give examples of a few isolated cases in which Christians have used their religion in the name of “god”. Such examples include Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing, and Christian extremists placing bombs at abortion clinics. All this means to me is that while Christianity is still a violent religion, it is much less violent and extremist and carves the path to extreme fanaticism to the point of killing oneself to a much less and difficulty accessed path through the Christian faith.

    Then we hear the claims of the violence that Christianity has carried over throughout the years and the millions of people who have died in the name of Christianity through warfare. Again, I concur with this statement. I believe that all religion at its roots (especially the “great” three monotheistic religions – Christianity – Judaism – Islam) is pure evil. What these same people fail to leave out is that due to the evils that was propagated by the Catholic Church along the sale of indulgences to the wealthy faithful – Christianity had a period where it actually did reform and went through the Dark Ages, Reformation, and Enlightenment periods where Christianity was able to modernize and secularize to becoming a religion that has become mostly benign. Some of those who experience Christian fundamentalists (particularly in the Bible belt) claim that this is not true, that fundamentalist Christianity is actually on the rise! I like to refer to some examples of regardless of a subjective trend of slight rises and drops of religiosity among their communities the true differences between the Islamic and Christian faiths and how they incorporate their differences into modern day life and modern day world affairs.

    First, for anyone to make the claim that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan had anything to do with Christianity or religion by our top decision makers are erroneous and should stop reading now. Some individuals live and persist in delusions, and one cannot alter their thinking and mindset no matter how much you try. Our government and system embodied by our great constitution and rules of laws are based on secularism and have thus progressed in times with the modernity of the world which is sorely lacking throughout the Islamic world. One can have political differences, but surely you are not stoned to death for adultery are you? You can sleep with how many people you want and cheat on your spouse but the worst that can happen to you under the system of law is divorce (and some money transfer). In contrast, what does Islam demand of adulterers? Stoning. In reference to the separation of church and state and how Christianity “matured” or reformed with modern times due to the Dark Ages, Reformation, and Enlightenment periods; this unfortunately is not possible with Islam. Why would I say such a thing? The Bible simply does not state the requirement of a Christian government or jurisprudence. In contrast, the Quran requires that only states and nations be Islamic by nature and follow Shariah law. You might have read of Shariah law before, what is it exactly?? Shariah law is law based on Islamic jurisprudence and the requirement of every true believing Islamic state; they believe that all law should be based on the teachings of Muhammad and its primary sources are the Quran and Hadith. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Quran, but some may wonder what the Hadith exactly is?? The Hadith is almost as important as the Quran and the majority of Islamic law is inscribed through the Hadith. The Hadith are a set of text believed to be the written inscribing’s of Muhammad and his closest compatriots. The Hadith has two parts; the first part refers to the specific content or text of the statements and actions of Muhammad and his closest confidants. The second part is more a sort of bloodline of Muhammad descendants which is a big source of conflict between the Sunni and the Shiite. The Shiite believes that following Muhammad’s death, leadership was passed down to his cousin or son-in-law Ali (which is revered by the fanatics in Tehran) but the Sunnis believe otherwise (to put in short without going into details). Therefore, even within inter-religious disagreement, the bloodiest deaths arise over what rationalist people would consider miniscule and nonsensical issues. They share one key component: to be a true Muslim one must accept the Quran word-by-word, paragraph by paragraph as the true word of God; that “God’” spoke these words to Muhammad in a cave and later recited it to be written down. If one says “some of the Quran is true” or that we must “take it into context with modern times”, one simply is not considered a true Muslim in the eyes in the most devout believers. In contrast with Christianity, many top priests and clergy have stated that the Bible must not be taken literally word-by-word. The Pope has even recently stated that evolution “may fit in with the Bible” and that the literal inscribing’s of the resurrection should not be taken so literally by devout believers. Therefore, the Pope is trying to have his cake and eat it too; but in contrast, a fellow Muslim scientist in the United Kingdom made a statement that evolution is not incompatible with Islam, what happened?? He received death threats all over the U.K. and had to make public statements of apology and to resign to the fact that he can no longer attend that mosque out of fear for his own life. The demands Islam places upon its believers are like no other; and the requirements to what is the definition of being a Muslim and follower of Muhammad, make such a similar “reformation” quite unlikely to happen since it would mean to the true believers that those individuals are actually apostates and they must fight them until death.

    Let’s go back to a few examples before I divulge into some scripture. When an author writes a book criticizing Christianity or its major tenets, do you see outrage or violence erupt around the world? To quickly sidestep, some individuals might simply state that such “violence” that is “overblown” by the minorities of the religious do not constitute the vast majority of the religion or its teachings. While this statement is laudable, it begs to ask the question: where is the majority to speak out for the “atrocities” committed by the “minority” pretending to be of their faith?? The problem remains that the majority remain “silent” and are complacent in the actions of the minority by either refusing to take responsibility for the problems that constitute real elements of their own faith or by deflecting blame to an outside third party such as the “Zionists”, “Americans”, or the “west”. How convenient is this outcome? Then of course comes violence against innocent people by calling them the enemy which is a natural course or such mentalities. To go back to the premise of this paragraph; when Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses where were all those to condemn the Ayatollah Khomeini for offering a reward or calling it a duty of every Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie for writing a fictional book of his choosing? When Bibles are burnt and ripped apart, where are the mass demonstrations by Christians leading to burning down of buildings, embassies, and even beheadings? When cartoons are drawn making fun of Jesus Christ or of Christians, where are the demands of death marched through major cities worldwide? It doesn’t happen because Christians have become more benign, and for the most part don’t act like animals when being “offended” but rather act like human beings. There was a “museum” in Montana which exhibited various kinds of artworks. It one of the pieces was some type of “art” which depicted a homosexual act being taken place on Jesus. One Christian woman was offended and got a crowbar or hammer from her car and destroyed it into multiple pieces. What was the result? This lady was arrested and the “artwork” was repaired and sent back to the museum. One can only imagine the horrors of what would happen worldwide if such a piece was of Muhammad instead and the simple fact that such a piece existed. The reactions would surely result in murders, riots, and chaos worldwide.

    Now to the Islamic teaching itself; unfortunately the Quran is a book full of many words. It is a book that is hypocritical (like other religious books) due to the fact that it requires every single word in the Quran to be of “the word of god” while providing many scriptures that suit the hearts of the good person and bad person alike. Therefore, while not every Muslim is a bad person or a terrorist, nearly all or the vast majority of true extremists (those ready to commit violent acts in the name of their religion) are Muslim. Islam guides the path to extremism in ways that other religions simply do not. One can use the Quran and Islamic teaching to cite examples of good and evil alike; but again, the issue arises when the Quran must be taken literally word by word for the true believer. For example, as stated, women who commit adultery should be stoned to death: (Bukhari 8:6814; see also 8:6825; 8:6829) “Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.” There are other examples and Hadith writings we can use for justification of stoning but there is no doubt that stoning is a part of fundamentalist Islamic culture and believed to be just by the most hardcore believer who has a sound knowledge of both the Quran and Hadith. Remember, most of Islamic law is actually derived from the Hadith even though the Quran is a very violent and vengeful book about chaos, death, and destruction. In regards to non-believers, it is blatantly clear that those who are born Muslim are not allowed to leave their faith. In doing so, they become “Kaffars” and their punishment is death. There is no way to get around this fact. Islam allows others to convert into Muslims, but one who is born a Muslim cannot leave their faith or death shall come upon them as an apostate: (Sura 3:90) “But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, – never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have [of set purpose] gone astray”. (Sura 16:106) “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, – except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (Al-Bukhary #6922) Ibn Abbaas: “The Messenger of Allah said, Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him”. (Sahih Muslim #1676) “Abd-Allah ibn Masood: The Messenger of Allah said, It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears a witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases: a soul (in case of murder), a married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims”. Remember people, an apostate is looked upon worse as someone who is an infidel (non-Muslim who has not left his/her faith) and are punished more severely with less leniency in all cases one can imagine. For example, in Iran after the revolution the judges would ask young kids who were being taken in court for “anti-revolutionary” activities and ask if they were Muslim, and those who answered they were but their parents were not religious were sometimes spared the death penalty compared to their who said their parents were religious. There is no doubt that one is not allowed to become a non-Muslim once being born Muslim and no punishment is just other than death. In regards to women’s rights, Islam allows the hitting of your wife, the rape of your wife, and the rapes of those captured in battle referred to as “slave women” or your “right hand”. Therefore, those young sisters who have been raped by this Islamic Republic of Terror that has occupied and destroyed the once great nation of Iran were done so in accordance to the Quran. One example, (Sura 4:34) “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in [the part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them [first], [Next], refuse to share their beds, [And last] beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means [of annoyance]: For Allah is Most High, great [above you all]”. In regards to raping your wife, (Bukhari 4.54-4.60) Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed, and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” (Ibn Majah 1854) Muhammad says: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself (to him for sexual intercourse) she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle”. In regards to raping slave women, (Sura 4:24) “Also prohibited are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (referring to slave women) …”. Remember, the term “Right hands possess” refers to slave women in Islam. In Islam, you can do whatever you require of your slave women, and they are considered “your right hand” hence property, and do not have the moral restrictions you do with married women; and can do as you wish of them like your property. So pass them along as property if you like… ; Regarding homosexuality, the Quran is full of stories of punishing homosexuality including destroying entire villages/communities including the “city of Lut” most conveniently often times through natural disasters: (Suras 26:165-175) “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: “If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!” He said: “I do detest your doings:” “O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!” So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful.” For all these examples, there are many more to be sighted in the Quran and Hadith but I just wanted to give you a little taste of what Islam demands in its teachings for those who make the claim or believe the claim that “Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked from the extremists”. Again, while not all Muslims are not bad people, Islam guides the path to extremism quite easily.

    Some people also like to make the claim that Islam “embraced and advanced science”. The many individuals they cited as “Muslim Scientists” for the most part were not even practicing/fundamentalist Muslims and I will cite one example: Omar Khayyam, the great Persian scientist, poet, astronomer, mathematician who in contrast was an avowed atheist. For those who claim that Islam and modern science is not incompatible let’s look at the basic teachings of Islam: (Sura 2:65) “And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” “ . This refers to apes having come to bring through a curse from god when they were humans working on the Sabbath. (Sura 7:189) “It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her [in love]. When they are united, she bears a light burden and carries it about [unnoticed]. When she grows heavy, they both pray to Allah their Lord, [saying]: “If Thou givest us a goodly child, we vow we shall [ever] be graceful.” Implies human created from a single man. (Sura 15:26) “We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape”. Need I say more?? Continued: (Sura 15:27-29) “And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind, Behold! Thy Lord said to the angels: “I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud mouldered into shape; “When I have fashioned him [in due proportion] and breathed into him of my spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him”. By the way, the Jinn race is a supposed invisible race of evil people that are just as abundant as humans. (Sura 2:36) “Then did Satan make them slip from the [garden], and get them out of the state [of felicity] in which they had been. We said: “Get ye down, all [ye people], with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood – for a time.” (Sura 2:117) “To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When he decreeth a matter, He saith to it: “Be,” and it is.” And interesting enough the Sahih Bukhari (4:55, 543) states that early humans were 90-feet tall and humans have been declining in height ever since. The problem in Islam is that one can find any verse to justify anything they like and Islam provides all of this so conveniently.

    To close, one must also move away from the literal scripture and look back at the history of the religion as well. The symbol of Jesus Christ (whether he was a real person or not) was someone of “peace” who died for “us” or “our sins”. Jesus Christ says to “love your enemy” and love your neighbor. The teachings of Jesus and the New Testament are much more benign than the teachings of the Quran. In addition, Christians adore Jesus Christ; Muslims adore Muhammad. Muhammad was a man who once had power was a fighter, a killer, and what we would call today a terrorist. Islam commands the deaths of infidels and non-believers and there is no way to get around this fact. Islam is a religion that simply will not be happy to sit in place and live their lives but is a religion that advocates death, war, and genocide in order to accomplish their longer-term goals of world control and eventual apocalypse. In addition, it is no surprise that women are under the oppressive control and terror of Islam in the ways that they are. Under Shariah law, a women’s testimony is worth half that of a man. A woman receives only ½ inheritance from her parents under Shariah law. A woman is basically worth half of a man in society. These are facts that one must not and cannot go around by giving ridiculous justifications. At its root, its founder or founder Muhammad was a child molester. He acquired Aisha when she was only 6-years old and was such a gentleman to wait until she was 9-years old and having her menstrual cycle to have vaginal intercourse sex with her. Of course other sexual acts were done in the mean-time that was not vaginal but this is the founder of the religion! I know “times were different” but at least Christians waited until the girl was 12 or 13 and formed some resemblance of a women before indulging into sexual activities. In Islamic conquest, the war is not over. The first stop is Jerusalem accorded by the Hadith, and then to the west! In doing this, 1/3rd of world population must die out through havoc, war, famine, disease and the so on to bring the return of the Hidden Imam (in Shiite ideology). Through the particular Hadiths they judge to be true for their sect of Islam, they have their own end-of-the world dreams and prophecies that they are trying to enact; but the bottom line is this: Islam is a problem that people throughout the world must not ignore. Islamic fundamentalism and violence is not the perceived result of U.S. interaction in the Middle East; the topography and forms might be different depending on the current situation that it partakes; but Islamic fundamentalists will not be happy until you or me are forced to become Muslim or die. When the religious writings and teachings so explicitly state the “destruction of entire villages or cities” that includes women and children. No one survived in the havocs of Muhammad and his men except potentially the most “beautiful virgins” which were saved for the captors as “slave booty”. (Sura 5:104-105): O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith”. Basically, don’t ask questions about things which contradict the Quran (i.e. science) because those who did a little free thinking and investigation for themselves decided to become non-Muslim and leave the faith. What a great religion that encourages free thinking and scientific advancement doesn’t it? The next Surah I thought was quite comical and interesting: (Sura 5:106) “It was not Allah who instituted (superstitions like those of) a slit-eat she-camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from work: It is blasphemers who intent a lie against Allah; but most of them lack wisdom.” Quite further comical the Quran continues by stating others that that “those before them knew more” but isn’t it what we are saying now? Those who followed those holy books back when human intelligence was truly primitive have no relevance in the modern day 21st century? Why should we respect such primitiveness? It is also important not to forget the fact than Islam allows Taqiyya (different term for Sunni Muslims) where you can lie to advance your faith. So when you hear religious Muslims speaking on how “peaceful” Islam is or how “Islam requires no compulsion” in religion ask them how they can reconcile some of the specific Surahs and Hadith examples that I have provided for you.

    Belief without evidence, or faith, will continue as long as mankind continues to be ignorant and attempt to shield his/her fear of death. What we can do is provide education and knowledge about the beauties of science, whether on the marvels of the vast universe or the nature of life on Earth. We can look into the hundreds of billions of stars that exist in our own Milky Way Galaxy alone, or to the vast expanse of life that exists on Earth and the fact that 99% of all life that has ever existed on Earth is now extinct. If we are going to be extinct as a species is going to come down to whether we as western people and western societies advance the notions of democracy, freedom, and human rights or are we going to allow the false notion of multiculturalism allow western societies to diminish through barbaric religious teachings and practice? In our attempt to become too tolerant will we allow those who want to kill us and destroy western civilization to get their way? These are important questions that many people ignore but I will close with this fact: there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand all over the world. There are nearly 200 billion stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy with billions of planets and potentially hundreds of millions of Earthlike planets (see recent Kepler findings); in addition, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Interstellar space travel would be amazing but unfortunately the distances are so vast and our technology is too primitive; but we surely a grain of speck compared to the enormity of the universe. Are we going to die out just like the 99%+ of life that have? We shall see; but my hope is that reason, logic, and rationality will prevail over the suicide-cult culture that has engrained too many of blaming others for their problems (i.e. moderate Muslims blaming others for the fundamentalism that exists in their own religion) or blaming themselves for the extremism that exists throughout the Islamic world (i.e. self-hating leftist masochists). Islam has destroyed the great ancient Egyptian and Persian civilizations by infesting their hate and forceful vengeance by the sword through their belief-filled venom ever since its inceptions; it’s time for us to say enough is enough! Modernize to the 21st century or go infest yourself but leave other free people alone to advance humanity, science, and the longevity of the human species.

  438. BiBiJon says:

    When Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes (watch video) how her brother threw her in an open latrine, prompting her mother to call him a Jew, and throw him in the latrine, and she postulates all Muslims are like her own sterling family, one would expect Ayaan’s other opinions be a source of inspiration to other latrine-dewlling trolls.


    On whether Islam is a religion of peace, Professor Jenkins of Penn State University asks Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

    “… the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says. Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

    “By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says.

    “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

    from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

  439. Sassan says:

    My man William Hague giving a message to the Iranian people!!!: http://youtu.be/-sKOrkqCapU

  440. BiBiJon says:

    When Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes (watch video) how her brother threw her in an open latrine, prompting her mother to call him a Jew, and throw him in the latrine, and she postulates all Muslims are like her own sterling family, one would expect Ayaan’s other opinions be a source of inspiration to other latrine-dewlling trolls.


    On whether Islam is a religion of peace, Professor Jenkins of Penn State University asks Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

    “… the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says. Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

    “By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says.

    “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

    from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

  441. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:31 am

    Really? Than why do you ignore it when it arrives at a conclusion you do not like or disproves one of your arguments?

  442. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Here is the truth about the despicable excuse for a human being that “Sassan” considers a hero.


    If anyone is at all interested in what Hitchens promoted, this article, as well as some others you can find linked in it, fully reveals what he was and the ideas he held.

  443. Sassan says:

    ToivoS says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:25 am

    “BTW, I notice that Sassan has attached himself to my comments — he is an idiot and I have nothing to do with him. He wants war, I do not.”

    I respect your viewpoint in calling me an idiot. Unlike among fascists, we in the west welcome criticisms and don’t resort to violence as a result.

  444. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:18 am

    Someone who supports the violent subjegation of 1.5 billion people has no right to talk about peace in any way, shape, or form. Once again, this nonsense shows exactly how extreme “Sassan” is. Of course, when it comes to supporting actual, real Salafi fanatics in Syria, the Stooge suddenly adopts a different position.

  445. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:21 am

    Oh the heroic Hitchens. Do you want me to get started on him now Stooge? Really? I promise you will not like the results if I do.

  446. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:


    Note the ranting extremism of this “hero”, her hypocrisy and double standards. Note how she can scarcly make a coherent point when someone challenges her radical extremist views. When someone says that Daniel Pipes and George W Bush are “moderate” you are truly talking about the ranting radical fringe of the fringe. Did a certain Stooge recently mention racism in one of his previous posts?

  447. ToivoS says:

    Dear Kooshy

    Again thank-you for your respectful reply. Like I said before, I am working here in the US against any attack against Iran.

    I remain very distrustful about your current Islamic regime given how they brought the Shah to power in 1954. I have to say that I still consider your Ayatollan Khomeini my enemy. That fatwa against Salmon Rushdie remains a major sticking point and I would hope to see that the current Mullahs would somehow figure out a way of reversing it. But if you Iranians are tied to the fatwa of some old dead Ayatollah, then don’t come crying to us if it blows up in your face.

    BTW, I notice that Sassan has attached himself to my comments — he is an idiot and I have nothing to do with him. He wants war, I do not.

  448. Sassan says:

    The Caged Virgin
    Holland’s shameful treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    By Christopher Hitchens|Posted Monday, May 8, 2006, at 3:44 PM ET

    Three years ago, at a conference in Sweden, I was introduced to a Dutch member of parliament named Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Originally born in Somalia, she had been a refugee in several African countries and eventually a refugee from her own family, which had decided to “give” her in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met. Thinking to escape from such confines by moving to the Netherlands, she was appalled to find that radical Islam had followed her there—or in fact preceded her there—and was proselytizing among Turkish and Moroccan and Indonesian immigrants. In ancient towns like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, where once the refugees from Catholic France and inquisitional Spain had sought refuge, and where Baruch Spinoza had been excommunicated and anathematized for his opposition to Jewish fundamentalism, there were districts where Muslim women were subjected to genital mutilation and where the Dutch police were afraid to set foot.

    Entering politics to try to alert the European left to this danger, she was first elected as a deputy for the Labor Party, but after 9/11 she changed her allegiance to the Liberals. This, she explained, was because many Labor spokesmen preferred to think of immigrants as possessing “group rights.” They had become so infatuated by their own “multi-culti” style that they had ignored the rights of individuals—especially women and girls—who were imprisoned within their own ghetto. (That, by the way, was precisely Spinoza’s problem as well. The Dutch rabbis cursed him and condemned him in their own sectarian “court,” of which the Christian authorities approved because it took care of dangerous secularism among Jews.)

    At the Swedish event, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke calmly and rationally about the problem. I never know whether or not it’s right to mention, with female public figures, the fact of arresting and hypnotizing beauty, but I notice that I seem to have done so. Shall I just say that she was a charismatic figure in Dutch politics, mainly because of the calm and reason to which I just alluded? She was the ideal choice of collaborator for the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (a distant descendant of the anguished painter) on Submission, a film about the ignored problem of enslaved and oppressed women in Holland. Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote the screenplay and provided the movie’s voice-over.

    You probably remember what happened next: Van Gogh was bicycling to work one morning in 2004 in the capital city of one of Europe’s most peaceful and civilized countries when he was shot down in the street and then mutilated in a ritual fashion by an Islamist fanatic. The murderer (who had expected to become a martyr but who was only wounded in the leg by the gentle Dutch cops) left a long “martyr’s letter” pinned to van Gogh’s corpse by an equally long knife. In it, he warned Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she was the next target, and he gave a long and detailed account of all the offenses that would condemn her to an eternity in hell. (I noticed, reading this appalling screed when it was first published, that he obsessively referred to her as “Mrs. Hirshi Ali,”as if trying to make her sound like a Jew. Other references to Jews in the text were even less tasteful.)

    She has had to live under police protection ever since, and when I saw her again last week in Washington, I had to notice that there were several lofty and burly Dutchmen acting in an unaffected but determined way somewhere off to the side. I would urge you all to go out and buy her new book, The Caged Virgin, which is subtitled An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. The three themes of the story are: first, her own gradual emancipation from tribalism and superstition; second, her work as a parliamentarian to call attention to the crimes being committed every day by Islamist thugs in mainland Europe; and third, the dismal silence, or worse, from many feminists and multiculturalists about this state of affairs.

    Before being elected to parliament, she worked as a translator and social worker among immigrant women who are treated as sexual chattel—or as the object of “honor killings”—by their menfolk, and she has case histories that will freeze your blood. These, however, are in some ways less depressing than the excuses made by qualified liberals for their continuation. At all costs, it seems, others must be allowed “their culture” and—what is more—must be allowed the freedom not to be offended by the smallest criticism of it. If they do feel offended, their very first resort is to violence and intimidation, sometimes with the support of the embassies of foreign states. (How interesting it is that the two European states most recently attacked in this way—Holland and Denmark—should be the ones that have made the greatest effort to be welcoming to immigrants.) Considering that this book is written by a woman who was circumcised against her will at a young age and then very nearly handed over as a bargain with a stranger, it is written with quite astonishing humor and restraint.

    But here is the grave and sad news. After being forced into hiding by fascist killers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali found that the Dutch government and people were slightly embarrassed to have such a prominent “Third World” spokeswoman in their midst. She was first kept as a virtual prisoner, which made it almost impossible for her to do her job as an elected representative. When she complained in the press, she was eventually found an apartment in a protected building. Then the other residents of the block filed suit and complained that her presence exposed them to risk. In spite of testimony from the Dutch police, who assured the court that the building was now one of the safest in all Holland, a court has upheld the demand from her neighbors and fellow citizens that she be evicted from her home. In these circumstances, she is considering resigning from parliament and perhaps leaving her adopted country altogether. This is not the only example that I know of a supposedly liberal society collaborating in its own destruction, but I hope at least that it will shame us all into making The Caged Virgin a best seller.


  449. Sassan says:

    Debate ft. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Full), Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

    For the motion: Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz. And against the motion: the beautiful and intelligent Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray.


  450. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:16 am

    What about the word “fraud” do you not understand?

  451. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 3:14 am

    You are not a “hero” of any kind when you support depriving others of rights. But what a surprise you support a vicious fraud like Ali and consider her to be a “hero.” Are you completely incapable of producing any facts to defend your views?

  452. Sassan says:

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “They can kill me, but they cannot kill my message”


  453. Sassan says:

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero for women’s rights and for humanity itself. She is one of the true heroes of modern times.

  454. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:35 am

    What a surprise, “Sassan” supports another malignant, hateful fraud.

    Here is a documentary that exposes her for the liar she is:


    Note she was expelled from the Netherlands for telling these very lies, which is ironic since she herself supported and proposed the immigration law that led to her well justified expulsion. She was allowed to move to the US where she was immediately given citizenship and went to work for a Neo Con think tank, where she now advocates depriving American Muslims of their civil rights. Yep, that is someone we should listen to.

  455. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:18 am


    Thank you for your response, if by secularism you mean not to practice religious duties you can consider me one, but if that to you means to be against religion inside and outside of state politics than I am against it, unless if it is voted by majority. As for the Salmon Rushdie’s book you have a different concept of its reason than I do, I see it with a political motivation, but ayatollah Khomeini as Muslim religious leader had a duty to issue the fatwa like many other Muslim religious leaders in the Muslim world, much like if you expect the pope to approve the gay rights or the right to abortion. Ayatollah Khomeini even if he didn’t want to have no choice but to issue the fatwa, so would have done so any other prominent Muslim religious leader. Clearly it was a propaganda tool used by the west to demonize ayatollah Khomeini. This is where the political motivation that I am talking about is, because in the west the fatwa purposely was attached to the political rule of Ayatollah Khomeini and not his religious rule. This is how in the western world you get to know the relation of the politics and religion in the Muslim world. In Islam politics is part of the state (westerners should accept as it is, and not try to impose their way of politics). You can see how the western forced middle eastern dictatorships are currently turning Islamic that’s not by design that’s by natural.

  456. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:41 am

    Thank you for your royal decree oh Shah. We will correct our foolish misperceptions now after being exposed to the blinding majesty of your intelligence.

  457. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:07 am

    The Stooge says “The difference is kooshy that Iran is ruled by terrorists and a “Supreme Leader” who is only “answerable to god” – not an elected government.”


    When even Wikipedia proves you are wrong you are truly pathetic. Note who ELECTS the council of experts and what its powers are. Yep, the amazing Sassan Identity who “spent 8 months in Iran”, ladies and gentlemen.

  458. Sassan says:

    And to add: you cannot be pro-Iranian and be pro-Islamic Republic. Being pro-Islamic Republic is being anti-Iranian people. Hence, against the culture and the aspirations of the Iranian nation.

  459. Sassan says:

    And here is Salman Rushdie in a fascinating interview and discussion with the GREAT and late Christopher Hitchens: http://youtu.be/HBwDmepta7g

  460. Sassan says:

    Beautiful ToivoS. And may I say, Salman Rushdie is a hero for standing up against the Ayatollah despite the threat on his life.

    Here he is with fellow atheist and human rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali..: http://youtu.be/jnCoE_B_g2I

  461. kooshy says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:07 am


    Shabbat shalom, never less I am confident that the western apartheid project of state of Israel will not last, unless you can move it to a safer neighborhood like Alaska. As Hack says good like with that, being anti-Iranian like you feel you should be would not save the demise of Israel, your Israel problem is not due to Iran is the idea that never was possible to work.

  462. ToivoS says:

    Thank you again for your response. As a secular American (who has been involved in some our own fights against Christian fundamentalism) I will respect your sentiments.

    If your family supported Mossadegh but you find my use of ‘regime’ to refer to the current government then I will stop. My family, going back a half century were communist. I left that ideology years ago. I remain puzzled. Why do you support a regime that has gained state power by allying itself with Western imperialism. I mentioned before that the Mossadegh govnernment was taken down by the street demonstrations that were led by the Shiite Islamist. You seem to disagree.

    I have to say this: my antagonism against the current Islamic government of Iran began after your Ayatollah Khomenei issued a death fatwa against Salmon Rushdie for his novel “Islamic verses”. I have to say right now, if you insist it is correct to kill writers that you disapprove of, then you will be my enemy.

  463. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 2:07 am

    No Stooge, you compare governments based on their actions. So when did Iran invade another country and cause the deaths of 1,000,000 of its citizens in addition to creating 4.5 million refugees and destroying its society and economy? I think that any normal human being would refer to that as state terrorism. Whereas in Iran, no one in any leadership position has committed any act of terrorism, unlike say, the terrorists you support in Syria, or the terrorist actions of the Israeli state. Yes Stooge, your argument is a powerful justification for the brutal murder of 1,000s of innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Yep, as long as they were “democratically” murdered it is fine. The pathetic, morally bankrupt, hypocritical Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  464. kooshy says:

    It reminds me of the last few years of Vietnam War, same script, ending with people climbing the ladder to the roof of the embassy.

    One Iranian proverbs says “experiencing the experienced is a mistake” in Persian “Azmodan e Azmodeh Khatast”

  465. Sassan says:

    The difference is kooshy that Iran is ruled by terrorists and a “Supreme Leader” who is only “answerable to god” – not an elected government. You don’t compare democracies such as the United States to fascist theocratic regimes such as the terrorist regime currently occupying Iran as an illegal regime.

  466. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:44 am

    Earth to Stooge, the overwhelming majority of Afghans want the brutal corrupt occupation to end and they want the corrupt government it supports out of power. As for the “justice” that the Stooge supports, let’s go back to a previously posted article here and see how that worked out…

    “In fact, in retaliation, savagery returned with a vengeance as United States Marines immediately bombarded Fallujah, killing over 600 Iraqis, most of them women, children, and the elderly in the very first week of the assault in early April 2004, eleven months after George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.” By the end of the year, after two massive assaults on the city by the U.S. military, over 2,000 Iraqis, including hundreds of women and children, had been killed by American soldiers, thousands more injured and at least 300,000 displaced.”

    This is the “justice” that “Sassan” supports and wants to inflict on the Iranian people.

    “According to the official U.S. government story, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were carried out by 19 hijackers, none of whom were from Afghanistan. Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and another from Lebanon. None of them lived in Afghanistan”

    “By early December 2001, over 6,500 tons of munitions had been dropped on Afghanistan by US-led NATO forces, including approximately 12,000 bombs and missiles. By the end of March 2002, over 21,000 bombs and missiles had been dropped,murdering well over 3,000 Afghan civilians in air strikes”

    This is the “justice” that “Sassan” wants to visit on defenceless women and children in Iran.

    “Just last month, on February 8, 2012, a NATO air strike killed several children in the eastern Kapinsa province of Afghanistan, with “young Afghans of varying ages” identified among the casualties. Similar strikes were responsible for the murders of nearly 200 civilians last year alone.”

    This is the due process and freedom “Sassan” wants to bring to people walking in the streets of Iran.

    “An estimated 12 to 20 night raids now occur per night, resulting in thousands of detentions per year, many of whom are non-combatants.”

    Nothing says justice like a bunch of armed men bursting into your home and murdering everyone in it. But what a surprise, “Sassan” supports this to.

    Following the death of one soldier (and wounding of two others) by a roadside bomb, a squad of Marines killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women, an elderly man, children, some of them toddlers.

    Justice, ladies and gentlemen, as advocated by this blog’s resident chicken hawk “Sassan.”

    “Despite overwhelming evidence, only a single solider, Wuterich, stood trial for these murders. All charges against the other Marines who committed these atrocities were dropped or dismissed. Wuterich, whose own charges of assault and manslaughter were also dropped, was convicted on January 24, 2012 of only negligent dereliction of duty. He got a demotion and a pay cut. His sentence did not include any jail time.”

    JUSTICE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUSTICE. Is their a single person in Iran who does not want this to happen there, to their children? If their is one, they are clearly a terrorist and need a serving of the justice that “Sassan” supports.


    And thanks to Kathleen for originally posting this. I would recommend reading the entire article as it contains a number of additional insights about the “justice” that the Stooge supports.

  467. Sineva says:

    I think its about time that Sassan was banned/restricted,his earlier posts had some small value but the vast bulk of his later posts consist almost wholly of his suppost for Israel/zionism and its policies,these make little to no contribution to this site apart from bringing down its value

  468. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    March 15, 2012 at 12:52 am


    Regarding the current governing system in Iran, I do respect your personal opinion, however I believe your facts of religious movements in Iran and the rule of religion in Iranian politics since the 15th century is totally driven from a western perspective and not an Iranian one, to draw a more realistic perspective of Iranian politics one needs to consider that the shih Islam is part and parcel of Iranian nationalism since the 15th century, after all Dr. Mossadegh’s PhD thesis was on shih, he was supported and opposed by many shih religious personalities he still is.

    I would have more respect for your opinions if in future you care to use the elected government of Iran instead of “regime” if so, I will do the same when addressing the US administration.

    As a reference, I was raised in one of least religious families in Iran, and since the inception of the Islamic republic I have had no member of my family ever working or participating in Iranian governments or attached to any political movements inside or outside of Iran.

  469. Sassan says:

    *rudimentary education

  470. Sassan says:

    Our mission in Afghanistan is just and resolute. This lone killer will receive the justice he deserves. When one of our soldiers go rogue such as this killer and commits crimes against humanity, they face the justice they deserve. We should be proud of the fact that we are helping the Afghan people, particularly the women and young girls. While things may not be perfect in Afghanistan, the majority of Afghans appreciate our sacrifices and the fact that we have helped get rid of the Taliban. Women are now allowed to work out of the home and 40% of Afghan girls now receive a rudimentary educated compared to 0% before. We are providing a service for both global security in the fight against terrorism and the human rights conditions of the Afghani people.

  471. Arnold Evans says:

    Question for the floor: What do you make of the killing in Afghanistan?

    On the one hand, I feel like this lone gunman story is unbelievable even if it hadn’t been contradicted by multiple witnesses. On the other hand, it would be a weird lie to tell, because nobody believes it and there’s a point where it’s better to just tell the truth than lie if your lie is going to be transparent.

    So my instinct is that it was a group of soldiers, but I can’t figure out where this lone gunman story would have even come from.

    As far as a bigger picture, the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan are now even more against the US than before. Maybe more important for what happens on the ground, US war fatigue is possibly increasing faster because of this.

    As far as the lie, the audience it would make a difference to is the Americans. Americans can accept one soldier snapping but don’t want to deal with the idea, immediately after the burning Koran incident, that Americans are joyfully killing Afghanistan’s families for fun.

    It is important for Americans to believe they are the good guys, and puncturing that may be the biggest threat to the US war effort in Afghanistan.

  472. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    By the way, I think that “Sassan” must have a more than normal admiration for Kahlili, considering that they are both irrational ranting frauds that love to make up stuff whenever they feel like it and pass it off as unchallanged truth.

  473. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:03 am

    Of course we can see that the author presents not a trace of evidence for his historically revisionist assertions here, but of course opponents of Iran don’t have to do that, they can just make any assertion they please and get away with it. Yep, just the kind of fact free assertions that the Identity likes.

  474. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 15, 2012 at 1:13 am

    Multiple posters have already debunked the fraud Kahlili. But what a surprise Sassan emerges from under his bridge to dump more propaganda. And from the dailycaller as well. Sassan seems to consider his reputation as an idiot to be FAR too important to let it be disturbed by anything remotely resembling facts or logic.

  475. Sassan says:

    Iranian military commander: We must destroy America
    Published: 12:37 AM 03/15/2012
    By Reza Kahlili

    The head of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force says his country has no choice but to destroy America in order to build an ideal society.

    In a video broadcast to Basij members on Feb. 26, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi said the Islamic regime’s “independence and unhindered advance toward perfection is subject to removing the despotic powers and the Zionists,” referring to America and Israel.

    “In every field in which the Islamic Republic of Iran tries to advance,” Naqdi said, “America is there to create obstacles for us. … When we want progress in science, they enforce sanctions and kill our scientists.”

    The Basij force is a militia unit, established in 1979 by revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, best known as a security force responsible for reacting to protests and other assemblies of dissident groups. It is a subset of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

    Naqdi, who was born in Iraq, was a member of the Iranian Quds Force — another Guards subgroup — and involved in international terrorism before Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appointed him to command the Basij in 2009. He has previously threatened to assassinate American generals in retaliation for the killings of Iranian nuclear scientists.

    Last year, the U.S. Treasury slapped sanctions on Naqdi for human rights abuses during the country’s 2009 pro-democracy uprising.

    “As long as America exists, we will not rest,” Naqdi said. “In revealing the truth about America and the Zionists, we must raise public hate against the despotic powers and create the environment for the destruction of America.”
    Ads by Google

    One week after Naqdi’s speech, during an event at the University of Tehran called “Quds [Jerusalem] Is Calling Us,” Iranian ideologue Hassan Rahimpour Azghodi said the Saudi monarchy also must be destroyed, since it would result in the destruction of Israel.

    Azghodi emphasized that the Saudi regime is heavily dependent on America and is supporting Israel behind the scenes, making its destruction a priority.

    The speed with which changes are taking place in the region, Azghodi said, is unprecedented and could result in major political changes at a historic pace.

    “Some Zionists compare the current climate in the Middle East to the environment which existed in World War I and World War II when major geopolitics of the world changed,” Azghodi added.

    “Currently some of the dependent regimes have fallen,” he said, referring to nations that are friendly to the United States, “and the Islamic movement is set to change the setting of the world.”

    Azghodi descried what he said were two fronts in this global confrontation. “One front is clearly supporting the Zionists, and in reality the Zionists are considered as a family: America, Europe and the corrupt Arabic regimes who have for over 30 years opposed our Islamic revolution.”

    “On the other side is the front that carries the flag of Islam, which has changed the geopolitics of the region.”

    Khamenei, who holds absolute power in Iran despite the presence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a figurative president, has repeatedly called the uprisings in the region an “Islamic Awakening,” claiming that the region’s repeated uprisings are a “clear indication of the fact that Allah’s promises mentioned in the Holy Quran are definitely materialized.”

    Azghodi ominously warned that events in the coming months will be hard for anyone to predict, but he promised that the downfall of Israel is closer than ever.

    In a September 2011 speech broadcast on Iranian state television, Azghodi spoke of the presence of “fellow fighters” on five continents, and the need for Muslims to get ready for a global operation and an international jihad in preparation of the coming of the Imam Mahdi.

    Mahdi is the Shiites’ 12th Imam, whose messianic return Shiites believe will accompany the killing of all infidels and the raising of Islam’s flag in all corners of the world.

    Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the author of the award winning book, ”A Time to Betray.” He teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/15/iranian-military-commander-we-must-destroy-america/#ixzz1p9wSToiO

  476. Sassan says:

    ToivoS, I thought this would interest you:

    Clerics responsible for Iran’s failed attempts at democracy

    By Ray Takeyh
    Wednesday, August 18, 2010

    Thursday marks the anniversary of one of the most mythologized events in history, the 1953 coup in Iran that ousted Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq. CIA complicity in that event has long provoked apologies from American politicians and denunciations from the theocratic regime. The problem with the prevailing narrative? The CIA’s role in Mossadeq’s demise was largely inconsequential. The institution most responsible for aborting Iran’s democratic interlude was the clerical estate, and the Islamic Republic should not be able to whitewash the clerics’ culpability.

    The dramatic tale of malevolent Americans plotting a coup against Mossadeq, the famed Operation Ajax, has been breathlessly told so much that it has become a verity. To be fair, the cast of characters is bewildering: Kermit Roosevelt, the scion of America’s foremost political family, paying thugs to agitate against the hapless Mossadeq; American operatives shoring up an indecisive monarch to return from exile and reclaim his throne; Communist firebrands and nationalist agitators participating in demonstrations financed by the United States. As Iran veered from crisis to crisis, the story goes, Roosevelt pressed a reluctant officer corps to end Mossadeq’s brief but momentous democratic tenure.

    Yet this fable conceals much about the actual course of events. In 1953 Iran was in the midst of an economic crisis. An oil embargo had been imposed after Tehran nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., and by that summer, the situation had fractured Mossadeq’s ruling coalition. Middle-class Iranians concerned about their finances gradually began to abandon Mossadeq. The merchant class was similarly anguished about the financial consequences of Mossadeq’s stubborn unwillingness to resolve the stalemate with the British. The intelligentsia and the professional classes were wary of the prime minister’s increasingly autocratic tendencies. Rumors of military coups began circulating as members of the armed forces grew vocal in their frustrations with the prime minister and began participating in political intrigues.

    Not just the stars but an array of Iranian society was aligning against Mossadeq.

    Now, the CIA was indeed actively seeking to topple Mossadeq. It had made contact that spring with the perennially indecisive shah and Iranian officers, including Gen. Fazollah Zahedi, an opportunistic officer who sought the premiership himself. Roosevelt had laid out a plan in which the shah would issue a monarchical decree dismissing Mossadeq; it was to be served to him on Aug. 15. But the commander who was to deliver the message was arrested, and the plot quickly unraveled.

    This is where the story takes a twist. As word of the attempted coup spread, the shah fled Iran and Zahedi went into hiding. Amazingly, U.S. records declassified over the past decade indicate, the United States had no backup plan. Washington was largely prepared to concede. State Department and CIA cables acknowledge the collapse of their subversive efforts.

    But while crestfallen Americans may have been prepared to forfeit their mission, the Iranian armed forces and the clergy went on to unseat Mossadeq. The senior clerics’ reaction to the developing nationalist crisis was always one of suspicion and concern. The clergy had always been averse to the modernizing penchants of secular politicians such as Mossadeq and their quests for republican rule and liberalization. The mullahs much preferred the deference of the conservative, if vacillating, shah to the secular enterprise of Mossadeq. After the attempted coup, the esteemed men of religion in Qom gave their tacit endorsement to the speaker of Parliament, Ayatollah Kashani. Through their connections with the bazaar and their ability to galvanize the populace, they were instrumental in orchestrating the demonstrations that engulfed Tehran. Mossadeq was already isolated. As the street protests tilted toward the shah, the military stepped in and displaced Mossadeq. A few days after the failure of the CIA’s putsch, the shah returned to Iran amid national celebration.

    Through all of this, Roosevelt and his conspirators were more surprised observers then active instigators. Roosevelt’s most significant contribution to Iranian history was to publish an embellished account of his misadventures more than two decades after the coup. This flawed account went on to define the debate and capture the popular imagination — even though, in reality, Washington was caught flat-footed about how to respond to events in Tehran. President Dwight Eisenhower conceded to his diary after hearing Roosevelt’s account, “I listened to his detailed report and it seemed more like a dime novel than historical fact.”

    American politicians have a penchant for acknowledging guilt and apologizing for past misdeeds. But responsibility for the suffocation of the Iranian peoples’ democratic aspirations in the summer of 1953 lies primarily with those who went on to squash another democratic movement in the summer of 2009 — the mullahs. It is they who should apologize to the Iranian people.

    The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.


  477. ToivoS says:

    Dear Kooshy

    Thank-you for your response. I had read a history of the Mossadegh downfall that included the story that Islamist were part of the street riots that led to the situation where the white man (CIA and MI6) could bring the Shah back to power. I know that the Communist Party opposed Mossadegh, but I never heard that they had entered into an alliance with the imperialist powers to depose him. But I have heard stories that the Islamist, that now rule Iran did.

    As I mentioned before I am extremely distrustful of religious political movements. Especially those that are willing to enter into political alliances to destroy their secular political enemies.

    I believe Iran should sort out its own problems without American and Zionist intervention. This whole idea that Iranians should determine their own destiny makes total sense to me. But here is the problem that I see. Today the Islamist rule and they appeal to Iranian nationalism to back their rule. It seems clear that many Iranian nationalist have responded to that appeal. But in 1953 these same Islamist entered into a political alliance with the Shah and his imperialist backers to depose the Mossadegh government because he was secular.

    Do you see the problem? Imperialism is good if it is used to destroy secular political movements. Imperialism is bad if it opposes fanatical Shiite movements inside Iran.

    Like I said before, Iran should sort out this mess themselves and from my feeble perch inside the US I will oppose any effort to destroy your government with our military. But please, do not count on my support for your repressive, reactionary Islamic regime that uses capital punishment to suppress your own people, be they Bahi, Christian, gay or communist.

  478. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    masoud says:
    March 15, 2012 at 12:13

    My pleasure.

  479. Arnold cited an article by Vali Nasr that has made me wonder whether the brouhaha about Iran’s enrichment-to-20% might be used to its advantage. Being skeptical that any deal is possible under which the US acknowledges Iran’s right to enrich uranium, I still think the answer is “no,” but it’s nevertheless worth considering.

    Here’s the relevant passage from the Vali Nasr article:

    “Officials in Washington would like Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium to the 20 percent level and to hand over its stockpiles of 20 percent enriched uranium. Instead, Iran would buy the fuel rods it needs for medical isotopes from abroad. In exchange, Iran’s right to enrich uranium up to 3 percent to 5 percent should be formally recognized — that would be sufficient for a civilian nuclear-power program, but not for bomb making…”


    It’s unfortunate but unavoidable, of course, that Nasr switches from “would” to “should” near the end, parting company with those unnamed “officials in Washington,” who presumably think it’s a good idea for Iran to stop producing 20% uranium but not such a good idea that Iran get anything in return. I nonetheless wonder whether Iran might parlay its 20%-enrichment into a deal along the lines that Nasr says “should” be acceptable. While i don’t consider Iran’s 20%-enrichment either threatening to the US, or anything else but inevitable, it’s nonetheless been portrayed in the Western press as being just a step shy of a ready-to-fire nuclear weapon.

    Might that laughable hyperbole be a good thing for Iran? If I’m correct that Iran’s agreement to observe the Additional Protocol has near-zero bargaining-chip value, might its agreement to stop enriching to 20% have some?

    Again, I’m not optimistic that any deal is possible under which the US recognizes Iran’s right to enrich uranium. But for those a bit less pessimistic about the prospects, this may be a useful approach.

  480. masoud says:

    Dan Cooper says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Dan, That was excellent.
    My thanks to ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity for pointing it out.

  481. Jay says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm


    The framework you are using is considered established (standard, old,..) propaganda. Propaganda theorists of recent identify multiple new purposes for the use of propaganda. Mobilizing public support, and demonizing “the enemy” at the home front is an example of “old propaganda”. An instance of new propaganda as a “force multiplier” was brought into service formally (after several test runs – for example, in Serbia) during the Iraq invasion. This format by itself was a rehash of old techniques but it was later extended with newer techniques such as multi-point presentations/briefing, echo chambers and several others. The foundational ideas go back to the notion of pathos – but now directed at creating an alternative reality for every man, women and child of the so-called enemy. It is not sufficient to make them unwilling to fight – the goal is to create the paradigm in which they are willing to fight on your behalf.

    The current example at work is Syria. Generating public support in the US/Canda/UK, friendly Arab countries, etc. is now used routinely. the new War by media is focused on undermining the degree of belief of an average Syrian in his/her own observations – creating an alternative reality where an average Syrian believes that much misery and pain is yet to come and the government of Asad is unable to change the path of events. This equals surrender of beliefs and the willingness to fight against the state – sometimes in subtle ways, and sometimes violently.

    The target of Clinton’s remarks is the Iranian populace. The US wants not only to marginally increase the misery level of the Iranian people, it also wants to project the view that much much worse is yet to come and there is nothing anyone can do about it – including the “used-to-be-powerful” Russia. However, if the Iranian people are willing to fight their government, the US will be there for them.

  482. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Dan Cooper says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    By the way that was quite funny. No wonder the Identity got so upset about it. Yep, can’t make any jokes about Israel here or the “anti semitic” “Sassan” will accuse you of being “anti semitic.”

  483. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    And thanks for admitting you are behind “david”, we all appreciate this very rare moment of candor from someone who lies so often.

  484. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    No Zionist, the toll here is the person who copy pastes spam, refuses to answer questions, or engage in any debate when their views are challenged. You adopt the same attitude with everyone so…an intelligent person could figure out the rest but we are talking about you…

  485. Sassan says:

    It does indeed feel like a sock puppet. All I can do myself is to ignore the troll as I am doing.

  486. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    You just proved you are incapable of serious debate. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  487. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    I will repeat what I said earlier, when are you going to condemn the brutal murders of civilian scientists in Iran by the Israeli terror state. I know you are still on here, and I await your response.

  488. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Wow, so the Stooge just mindlessly spammed another copy pasted wall of text that repeats the same dumb Israeli claims that have no independent evidence or confirmation to support them. Yep, you just keep on lying don’t you, you precious little Zionist.

  489. Photi says:


    “Unless that was the intent – to have the Russians leak to Iran that the US DEFINITELY intends to attack and therefore Iran better shape up.”

    But shape up to what? Iran was forced to enrich uranium to 20% because none was available to them on the international market. The US needs to quit negotiating in bad faith and then maybe some of these diplomacy problems will go away.

    To the Secretary of State–Just because President Obama used up all of his political capital with AIPAC a couple weeks ago does not mean Iran should now be willing to give up their sovereignty. America needs to get real and recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran. It seems to me that is the beginning point of negotiations with Iran, taking “regime change” off the table.

    Are we barbarians Mrs. Clinton? Your aversion to diplomacy makes me wonder.

  490. Sassan says:

    Azerbaijan arrests alleged Iran-hired terrorists
    By Aida Sultanova
    Associated Press / March 14, 2012

    BAKU, Azerbaijan—Security services in Azerbaijan have arrested 22 people they say were hired by Iran to carry out terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israeli embassies as well as Western-linked groups and companies.

    The national security ministry said Wednesday that the 22, all Azerbaijan citizens, had been trained in Iran, its southern neighbor, by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. It did not specify when the arrests were made.

    In February, Azerbaijan announced the arrest of another suspected terrorist group allegedly working for Iran’s secret services, and in January it arrested two people accused of plotting to kill two teachers at a Jewish school in the capital, Baku.

    In 2007, Azerbaijan convicted 15 people in connection with an alleged Iranian-linked spy network accused of passing intelligence on Western and Israeli activities.

    Azerbaijani authorities said a Revolutionary Guard operative, Akper Pakravesh, recruited an Azeri identified as N. Kerimov while he was in Iran in 1999 and gave him the job of assembling a group of other Azerbaijanis to act as spies.

    The security ministry said in its statement that Pakravesh met with members of the group in Moscow and in the Syrian capital of Damascus, giving them with financing and equipment.

    Automatic assault rifles, grenades, ammunition, explosives were seized during the group’s arrest, officials said.

    Planned targets included diplomatic missions, the offices of a Jewish organization, the local headquarters of international oil giant BP and an American-themed fast food restaurant.

    Israeli authorities have linked Iran to three other incidents — claims that Iran denies.

    Authorities in Thailand in February arrested a group of Iranian citizens they said were planning a bomb attack on Israeli diplomats.

    In the same month in New Delhi, the wife of an Israeli diplomat and three others were wounded by attackers using magnetic bombs. That same day, a similar bomb was found on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

    Tehran denies any links to the attacks outside its borders, but accuses Israel of directing the slayings of Iranian scientists as well as other clandestine acts, such as a computer virus that targeted uranium enrichment equipment.

    Azerbaijan, an oil-rich former Soviet nation of 9 million people wedged between Russia and Iran, has nurtured close relations with the United States and played an active role in Western-led counter-terrorist programs. That foreign policy has placed a strain on its ties with Iran, which hosts a sizable ethnic Azeri community.

    Authorities in Baku have repeatedly insisted, however, that they will not permit use of the country for any military action against Iran.


  491. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    So Stooge, when are you going to condemn your terror state of Israel’s brutal assassination of civilian Iranian scientists? I’m waiting.

  492. masoud says:

    david says:
    March 14, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Sassan is a KURD, a zionist pawn. Don’t engange with this traitor.

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    lololol now I am a “Kurd”. I have been called about 4-5 different ethnic identities, religions, nationalities on here. While I have GREAT respect for the great Kurdish people, I am not a Kurd. And if I was, what’s wrong with that? Kurds are Iranians. What a racist and despicable comment.

    I’ve never read a “david” comment here before. How nice for Sassan that he choose to show up right when Sassan’s practices and viewpoints are under severe scrutiny, and take steps to reinforce Sassan’s seemingly correct depiction of the racist, xenophobic mindset of the regular forum contributors here here. What fortunate luck that Sassan has.

    I must say Sassan, that incidental affirmation of your superior powers of deduction, which I don’t find suspicious in the least, has singlehandedly changed my mind about the truth and overall value of all that you’ve said and disagreed with everyone else about. I’m sure I’m not the only one here to see it that way.

    On a more serious note, sock puppetry, if pulled off properly, can do alot of damage to forums like this. Unfortunately for Sassan, doing it properly is seems to be out of his range for the time being. But that might not be the end of the story.

  493. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    And by the way, this constant, deliberate bad behavior from the Stooge is what I was discussing earlier. Note to Stooge, continuing behavior that has led you to be ridiculed on this blog does not do anything to restore your credibility.

  494. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    Sigh…you do realize that most serious people do not consider the Telegraph to be a reliable source don’t you? Oh that’s right, I forgot which Idiotic Zionist Stooge we were just discussing.

  495. Sassan says:

    Azerbaijan arrests ’22 Iranian spies’
    9:28PM GMT 14 Mar 2012

    Security services in Azerbaijan have arrested 22 people they say were hired by Iran to carry out terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies as well as Western-linked groups and companies.

    The national security ministry said Wednesday that the 22, all Azerbaijan citizens, had been trained in Iran, its southern neighbour, by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. It did not specify when the arrests were made.

    In February, Azerbaijan announced the arrest of another suspected terrorist group allegedly working for Iran’s secret services, and in January it arrested two people accused of plotting to kill two teachers at a Jewish school in the capital, Baku.

    In 2007, Azerbaijan convicted 15 people in connection with an alleged Iranian-linked spy network accused of passing intelligence on Western and Israeli activities.

    Azerbaijani authorities said a Revolutionary Guard operative, Akper Pakravesh, recruited an Azeri identified as N. Kerimov while he was in Iran in 1999 and gave him the job of assembling a group of other Azerbaijanis to act as spies.

    The security ministry said in its statement that Pakravesh met with members of the group in Moscow and in the Syrian capital of Damascus, giving them with financing and equipment.

    Automatic assault rifles, grenades, ammunition, explosives were seized during the group’s arrest, officials said.

    Planned targets included diplomatic missions, the offices of a Jewish organisation, the local headquarters of international oil giant BP and an American-themed fast food restaurant.

    Israeli authorities have linked Iran to three other incidents – claims that Iran denies.

    Authorities in Thailand in February arrested a group of Iranian citizens they said were planning a bomb attack on Israeli diplomats.

    In the same month in New Delhi, the wife of an Israeli diplomat and three others were wounded by attackers using magnetic bombs. That same day, a similar bomb was found on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

    Tehran denies any links to the attacks outside its borders, but accuses Israel of directing the slayings of Iranian scientists as well as other clandestine acts, such as a computer virus that targeted uranium enrichment equipment.

    Azerbaijan, an oil-rich former Soviet nation of 9 million people wedged between Russia and Iran, has nurtured close relations with the United States and played an active role in Western-led counter-terrorist programs. That foreign policy has placed a strain on its ties with Iran, which hosts a sizeable ethnic Azeri community.

    Authorities in Baku have repeatedly insisted, however, that they will not permit use of the country for any military action against Iran.

    Source: AP


  496. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Unlike you, Dan has shown no signs that he supports terrorism and dictatorships. And his opposition to Zionism pales in comparison to you own “anti semitism.”

  497. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    You support terrorists and every vicious pro Israeli dictatorship in the world. Unlike you, Iran opposes terrorism and war.

  498. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    I do not think it is possible for someone to express a more absurd set of “opinions.” The pathetic Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  499. Sassan says:

    Dan Cooper: Without a shadow of a doubt you are one of the most extreme anti-Semites on here. So extreme that a westerner you justify the human rights violations of the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic.

  500. Dan Cooper says:

    What happens if an insect falls in a cup of coffee?!

    The British: will throw the cup into the street and leave the coffee
    Shop for good.

    The American: will get the insect out and drink the coffee.

    The Chinese: will eat the insect and drink the coffee.

    The Israeli will:

    (1) Sell the coffee to the American and the insect to the Chinese.

    (2) Cry on all media channels that he feels insecure.

    (3) Accuse the Palestinians, Hizb Allah, Syria and Iran of using
    (4) Keep on crying about anti-Semitism and violations of human rights.

    (5) Ask the Palestinian President to stop planting insects in the cups
    Of coffee.
    (6) Re-occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip.

    (7) Demolish houses, confiscate lands, cut water and electricity from
    Palestinian houses and randomly shoot Palestinians.

    (8) Ask the United States for urgent military support and a loan of
    One million dollars in order to buy a new cup of coffee.

    (9) Ask the United Nations to punish the coffee-shop owner by making
    Him offer free coffee to him till the end of the century.

    (10) Last but not least, accuse the whole world to be standing still,
    Not even sympathizing with the Israeli Nation.

  501. Sassan says:

    masoud: I read the content on the link you posted. This is what bothers me about Obama. He supported Egypt and Libya which consists of shady Islamic extremists but has failed to support the Syrian and Iranian people. It is quite disturbing.

  502. masoud says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    March 14, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    My God, what are you all, masochists?

    Mainly, we’re Iranians.
    (That’s a yes)

  503. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Are you proud of the suicide bombing terrorists you support in Syria? We already know you are proud of the apartheid terror state of Israel.

  504. ThePropagandaArtistCurrentlyKnownAsTheSassanIdentity says:

    The Stooge says “fyi: It appears the real war mongerer is you. We Iranians have no beef against Israel.” No Stooge, the real war monger(er?) is you who support the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people by Israel and your disgusting, blood thirsty desire for Iran to be invaded by the US. You seemed to have ignored my earlier post where I pointed out your cowardice in wishing war on the Iranian people while you sit here and scream for death and destruction. And no, for the last time, you do not speak on behalf of any Iranian at all, much less for the Iranian people as a whole.

  505. Rehmat says:

    Obama: ‘No war with Iran for Israel’

    “Having followed Iran’s nuclear policies for 20 years,
I’m amazed that Tehran has not by now managed to deploy nuclear weapons. Even Israel’s defense minister recently wondered aloud why Iran hadn’t already
produced such weapons,” says Eric Margolis, Canada’s syndicated war coresspondent, author and blogger.


  506. A-B says:

    What you say about ultimata in diplomacy and loss of credibility if they are not followed through, resembles issuing a religious decree, like “nuclear weapons are a sin”, which you can’t easily back out of. The difference is that the former is a threat of violence while the latter is a threat of …. peace? :-)

    Fyi: This is why I said I agree with you (for what it’s worth…)
    That Iran has escaped the “military wrath” of the West for so long (since 2002) explains Israel’s increasingly desperate and insane behavior. As time has gone by, the preposterousness of the West’s stance against Iran is becoming more and more conspicuous. Israel was never this despised in 2002 as it is now, at least in public opinion. Increasingly, Israel can’t use the “Holocaust” card without people responding with the “Aw, shaddap” card, doing so confident that they are not defending the Nazis and with no fear of being labeled “Anti-Semites”. Meanwhile other non-Western actors have become emboldened.

  507. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Eric: ““The report in Kommersant did not give further details regarding the kind of military action the U.S. was threatening”

    In other words, they misinterpreted it as well.

    There’s no way Clinton would have said the US WILL attack Iran in a matter of months.

    If she did, of course, my predictions of an eventual US attack on Iran would be confirmed. But as you can see, I don’t even agree that is what she suggested.

    It just makes no sense that the Secretary of State would directly contradict the President’s public statements, even in private discussion with Russian diplomats. Even if both she and Obama were on the same page and Obama wanted the Russians to know in advance that he intended to attack Iran, they could expect there would be a leak from the Russian side, at least to the media and almost certainly to Iran.

    Unless that was the intent – to have the Russians leak to Iran that the US DEFINITELY intends to attack and therefore Iran better shape up.

    But that would be responded to by Iran publicly (and probably Russia), again directly contradicting what Obama has said publicly.

    I can’t buy it at all. The Occam’s Razor explanation is it’s been misinterpreted by either the Russian diplomatic source or the paper’s writer as a US strike when she meant an Israeli strike.

    “Typical media vagueness — probably intentional, maybe just sloppy.”

    I’m inclined to go with sloppy, although given that it’s an Israeli paper it could well be intentional at least on the part of whoever wrote the piece (and his editor.)

    Kommersant may have intended it that way was well, but I haven’t seen that (if it is in English.)

  508. I should add a more practical reason why an ultimatum is rarely a useful diplomatic tool.

    An ultimatum typically demands that the recipient limit its response to a few matters or even just to one matter (for example: “Forswear enrichment forever, Iran, or else!”). The recipient might have been prepared to make a concession on other important points not covered in the deliverer’s ultimatum that, taken together with other parts of the recipient’s offer already on the table, might have persuaded the ultimatum deliverer that an agreement could be reached, albeit not on exactly the terms demanded in its ultimatum.

    For example, suppose a prospective car buyer tells the seller: “I won’t pay a dime more than $5,000 for your car. Take it or leave it. My offer expires tomorrow at 10 PM.” The seller might have been prepared to say: “I’ll sell it to you for $5,100, but I’ll wash it and wax it and drive it to your house,” and maybe the buyer would have found that acceptable. But since the buyer has delivered an ultimatum, the seller might be reluctant to make that counter-offer, since doing so would upset the buyer by suggesting that the seller doesn’t take his ultimatum seriously.

    In the same example, what if the prospective car buyer is really willing to pay $5,200 for the car but hopes that his “$5,000 and not a penny more” ultimatum will persuade the seller to lower his demand from $5,400 to $5,000. What if the seller replies: “Darn. To be candid, I’d have been willing to come down to $5,200, but not to $5,000. So it looks like we don’t have a deal – too bad.” What does the ultimatum-delivering buyer do then? Stick to his guns and give up a car he could have bought for the $5,200 he was willing to pay? Or back down, offer the $5,200 and strike a deal?

    If the buyer does the latter, it may not matter the next time he negotiates to buy a car, since a new seller probably will be involved. But when governments are involved, they tend to remember previous negotiations.

    For this reason, the earlier reasons I mentioned, and several other reasons, diplomats tend to avoid ultimata – again, not always, but usually. For an example that drove this point home for me, in Sir Neville Henderson’s “Failure of a Mission” (about the British/French/German negotiations just before World War II, which led to the Munich agreement), one British counter-offer to the Germans had unintentionally been phrased in such a way that the Germans might have mistaken it as an ultimatum. The British Foreign Office promptly clarified that this was not the case, since this would have limited the Germans’ acceptable responses and lessened the prospects of a deal. Certainly one can argue that anything preventing a deal such as the Munich agreement would have been a godsend. Nonetheless, it could have been worse. I don’t remember exactly what the British counter-offer in question was, but I do remember agreeing with Henderson’s assessment: If the Germans had treated it as an ultimatum, and rejected it, as they almost certainly would have, the British were in no position to carry out the “or else.” And so Hitler would probably have done exactly what he ended up doing anyway, and possibly worse since he would have concluded that British threats were not to be taken seriously.

  509. Karl says:


    “. I would love to see it disappear in the pages of time because it is a reactionary intolerant religious political movement that will hold Iran down as long as it rules.”

    What if people want to live in Iran with the current system or with some modication/reforms as Leverett points out in the video?

  510. Karl says:


    Accepting a two state solution is accepting a israeli state. As usual radical zionists will always come up with reasons not to pursue peace. “Israel have cleansed palestinians for 60 years, why not use force a bit longer since it works so good” – is the view of the israeli gov.

  511. kooshy says:

    ToivoS says:
    March 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    “If this is so, why do the Iranians continually complain about Western intervention, when it was Islamist forces that created the crises that killed that early experiment in democracy?”


    This simply is not so, you have your facts wrong, I am afraid you did not read the Iranian side of what went on in summer of 53 you may want to read none American written history of the cope, true there where political differences between Dr. Mossadegh and some religious figures like Ay. Kashani as well as with communist party, but at no point the religious group or the communists participated or welcomed the cope, infect no one in Iran supported the American cope except for a few hundred paid street gangs of Shaban Jafari who died in exile in LA a few years back.

    Secondly I am supporter of Iran and the legal government of Iran, who is elected with a 60% majority, but much like you I don’t support any child murdering regime like what has become of the US today, and like you I love to see child murderers to disappear in pages of history. Can you live with the fact that current regime in US on daily bases is killing more innocent people including children than any other legal elected entity in the world.

    Dr. Mossadegh and many of his close advisers where close friends of my family, my father was trusted to publish his memoirs, I have never read or heard of what your perception of the events before and after the 1953 cope is.

  512. Richard,

    I can understand how you interpret the Haaretz article as not being clear on whether the US or Israel would be the attacker, given how it was phrased:

    “The report in Kommersant did not give further details regarding the kind of military action the U.S. was threatening, but quoted Russian diplomats at the UN as saying they believe that it is a “matter of when, not if” Israel would strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

    This could mean either (1) it’s not clear what type of military attack the US will launch if Iran doesn’t comply with the US’ demands and so the US carries out its threat but, regardless of what type of attack the US launches, Israel will attack soon;” (my interpretation) or (2) “it’s not clear whether the US will actually attack but, whether the US attacks or not, Israel will attack soon” (your interpretation, I gather).

    Typical media vagueness — probably intentional, maybe just sloppy.

  513. Richard Steven Hack says:


    My God, what are you all, masochists?

  514. Sassan says:

    The great patriot Alireza Nourizadeh: http://youtu.be/XzcwO9dkTB8

  515. Sassan says:

    James: Hamas has never once indicated that they accept Israel’s right to exist under a sovereign state with sovereign borders. You don’t negotiate for a temporary settlement with your mortal enemies who want to kill you.

  516. James Canning says:


    Hamas would accept Israel WITHIN ITS “1967” BORDERS. Attempted theft of large portions of the West Bank is the core problem.

  517. James Canning says:

    A remarkably stupid comment by John Lehman, one of Mitt Romney’s national security advisers: “At a time when danger to the US and its allies and interests is growing the Obama administration has embraced the view that American power is in decline and that the decrease can be safely accomodated, even welcomed, in the interest of a safer world.”

    Lehman was a leading cheerleader for idiotic levels of “defence” spending during the two Reagan administrations.

    US Navy is ten times the size of all other navies on the planet, measured by gross toonage. Not big enough according to Lehman. Who cannot grasp the simple fact the decline of the US is in part the result of foolish levels of spending on “defence” advocated by people like himself.

  518. Sassan says:

    lol sure

  519. Karl says:


    Again you are not reading my links, there is no point in talking with you unless you read the basics. You are terribly indoctrinated and hateful.

  520. Sassan says:

    And I do read all of your comments and comments.

  521. Sassan says:

    Wrong Karl. The two-state solution has been a core part of Israeli policy for years. The difference is that Israel refuses to negotiate with any government that does not accept Israel’s sovereignty and right to exist as constitutes Hamas.

  522. Karl says:


    You dont even read my links. Israel reject a palestinian state and reject outright the world supported 1967 borders. Israel not only want to wipe palestinians off the map, they are doing it. Go figure why it live millions of palestinians outside of their home, refused entry to Israel/Palestine.
    You are simply ignorant of basic facts.

  523. Sassan says:

    Karl: Netanyhu broke ranks and has supported a two state solution.

    The problem is Hamas wants to wipe out all of Israel.

    And to call Israel an “apartheid state” is ridiculous. Israel is the only country in the region that is democratic and respects human rights. While they have made horrible judgements in the past they are a country with real courts and justice and one which respects the rule of law. They are one in which the people in Israel have all the democratic rights as any other democratic nation. In fact, 20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims who appreciate the full rights of any other Israeli citizen.

  524. Sassan says:

    James Canning: Bingo on the Mossadeq issue! In fact, the Mullahs had more of a hand in the 1953 coup than the CIA did. See Ayatollah Kashani. So when people refer to the “grievances of the regime” in regards to the 1953 coup, they don’t realize how irrelevant their beliefs are. The type of people in the regime supported the 1953 coup. In fact, the Shah was very soft of the Mullahs and tried to appease them. In fact, the Mullahs were exempt from military service while it was compulsory for the rest of Iranians. Something I am very critical on the Shah about.

  525. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Will Obama’s Wars Come Back to Bite Him?

    Considers whether Israel can use an Iran war to unseat Obama and whether Afghanistan might be enough to unseat him.

    My take is that there are a number of other possibilities – Obama could get a war boost from attacking Syria – or vice versa get a negative response. Israel could start another war in Gaza or Lebanon and end up affecting Obama’s chances.

    Or Israel could go ahead and attack Iran and either boost or sink Obama depending on his reaction and the mood of the electorate and how it’s spun in the media.

    I still think while it MAY be in Obama’s plan to try to prevent any new wars this year until after the elections, I believe Israel intends to derail that plan by SOME new military adventure, either in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria – or Iran.

    It could also be in Obama’s plan to START a new war in Syria under his own time table or to allow Israel to start a new war in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran.

    Anything is possible. No one knows Obama’s plans until the elections and that’s the bottom line.

  526. Karl says:


    You dont know much about anything, you dont even know what the world view of the Israel/Palestine conflict is.

    Whole world support the palestinian view, that is two states along 1967 borders.
    But Israel as the only party refuse.

    Likud Charter Does Not Recognize Palestine

    Its funny you are using the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to such extent that you defend a apartheid, terror regime. You seems to be very detached from reality.

  527. Sassan says:

    James Canning: No, but when it extends to not recognizing Israel’s right to exist on sovereign borders then I do. There is a difference between the illegal settlements and the occupation in comparison to the right of Israel to exist. Many on here such as fyi encourage military confrontation with destroying Israel and do not accept Israel’s right to exist and a 2-state solution.

    And I think the reason there is not peace is because of the failed leaders of the Palestinians. The Israelis over the years have been willing to make many concessions including at the Camp David Accords with Bill Clinton. And one cannot expect Israel to make any peace with terrorists such as Hamas. That is a moral equivalency in expecting us to make peace with the likes of Bin Laden.

  528. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    I think chances the US would try to occupy Iranian oilfields in SW Iran are very low.

  529. Sassan says:

    fyi: It appears the real war mongerer is you. We Iranians have no beef against Israel. In fact, we see the Palestinian extremist Muslims as not only the impediment to peace; but the extremists who rape money out of the Iranian treasury. You are the one who is advocating war based on your anti-Semitism. So please, ask yourself: who is the “real war mongerer”. You simply stand on the side of Islamic imperialism.

  530. James Canning says:

    US Official got bribes to urge removal of MKO from terror list”:


  531. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Having just looked at the Russia Today piece, it, too, does NOT clearly state, although it implies, via a Russian diplomat third party, that Clinton suggested a US strike. However there is no proof of that. More likely is that she was warning about an Israeli strike. RT is known to engage in hyperbole as much as Press TV, so I wouldn’t take the piece TOO seriously.

    Bottom line: Clinton would never admit to Russia in advance that the US intends to attack Iran within a given time table.

    A US attack on Iran will either be a complete surprise attack by air and sea or will be prepared for publicly in advance a la Iraq by major military ground movements which can not be concealed. I don’t anticipate the latter at all. It will be an air and sea attack only involving ground attack later in order to open the Strait and possibly to seize Khuzestan province at some point still later.

  532. James Canning says:


    Many Iranian religious leaders backed the Anglo-American overthrow of Mossadegh, partly because they feared socialism. And Reza Khan had become Reza Shah because Iranian religious leaders insisted on it. They did not want a secular republic along the lines of Turkey.

  533. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Eric: “According to the article, Clinton urged Lavrov to encourage Iran to make a deal during the planned P5+1 talks, or else the US will bomb Iran within a few months.”

    First, the article is merely repeating a report in the Soviet press. Not really an excuse for Haaretz, but par for the course for media.

    Second, Clinton is reported to have predicted “a strike” within months. What is not clear is if the strike she was talking about is by the US or Israel. Subsequent paragraphs mention Russian UN diplomats saying the strike is by Israel. So my guess is she was warning Russia that Israel will attack within months – which is reasonable given Netanyahu’s statement also quoted in the piece.

    I agree that Clinton would never deliberately tell the Russians that the UNITED STATES was going to attack within months. That makes no sense on any level.

    So I wouldn’t be too harsh on Haaretz. It’s merely reporting what everyone already knows.

  534. James Canning says:


    Do you regard criticism of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians as “racist”? Or, “anti-Semitic”?

  535. ToivoS says:

    Question for Kooshy or one of the Iranian regime supporters that post here. To put a few obvious points up front, let me say that I am most definitely opposed to war against Iran by either the US or Israel. I realize the current Islamic regime is here to stay, at least for some time. I would love to see it disappear in the pages of time because it is a reactionary intolerant religious political movement that will hold Iran down as long as it rules.

    Anyway, background to my question. In my reading of the coup that led to the downfall of Mossadegh it was pretty obvious that the CIA and MI6 were working behind the scenes to make it happen and were directly involved in bringing the Shah back. However, what was also happening was widespread disturbances in the streets and the Shah was welcomed because he restored order. I understand that it was the religious fundamentalists that were leading the street demonstrations. The were attacking Mossadegh because he was leading a secular political movement. These were the precursors to the political Shia that rule today and continue to repress secular political movements.

    If this is so, why do the Iranians continually complain about Western intervention, when it was Islamist forces that created the crises that killed that early experiment in democracy?

  536. Sassan says:

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    “I guess the Leverett’s have no problem with racist comments on their propaganda site not to mention the anti-semitic comments that are rampant here. They must be so proud.”

    Bingo! This site has become one big anti-Semitic orgy and racist love-fest. They must indeed be proud of their supporters. Let’s not forget, they even have self-proclaimed Basijis on here.

  537. Sassan says:

    david says:
    March 14, 2012 at 9:45 am

    “Sassan is a KURD, a zionist pawn. Don’t engange with this traitor.”

    lololol now I am a “Kurd”. I have been called about 4-5 different ethnic identities, religions, nationalities on here. While I have GREAT respect for the great Kurdish people, I am not a Kurd. And if I was, what’s wrong with that? Kurds are Iranians. What a racist and despicable comment.

  538. Karl says:


    She doesnt need to consult with anyone, she takes orders from the US/Israel.

  539. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Arnold: “Vali Nasr implies that the US now will accept enrichment to less than 5%. I’d like to see who his sources, “officials in Washington”, are.”

    My guess is they aren’t anyone actually involved with the negotiations.

    Even more likely he’s “wish-fulfilling” whatever they told him.

    I’d like to see the US formally agree to allow domestic enrichment to LEU levels but I just don’t see it happening.

    At this point, I also doubt that Iran will give up the 20%, despite Ahmadinejad’s earlier offer. I would do it in exchange for a formal recognition of LEU domestic enrichment, but since Iran now has the program in operation, they might want more – they might demand a lifting of the oil export sanctions. Which I doubt the US will do if they want to weaken Iran. Even under your theory of “slo-mo regime change”, let alone my theory of war, the US won’t do that.

    So I still assume the negotiations will go no where.

    There’s even the possibility now that negotiations are irrelevant. Whatever deal Obama decides to make is likely to be cover for an agreement to allow Israel to attack Iran. If Obama wants to distance himself from responsibility for an Iran war, this is the ideal way to do it – make a mostly symbolic deal with Iran to gain some credibility in the elections while at the same time green lighting Israel to attack Iran. Obama gets re-elected on his “peace initiative” and gets to claim he wanted to stay out of the war, but Iran goes ahead and targets US assets after Israel attacks, so he gets “dragged in” anyway. So Obama gets re-elected and claims he’s blameless – but the US gets the war it really wants and Netanyahu gets the war he wants (albeit Israel gets blamed for it, which Netanyahu wanted to avoid but Obama forced his hand.)

  540. James Canning says:


    From the recordd it seems clear Obama actually thought he was “reaching out” to Iran, in good faith. His effort was compromised by some of his advisers who were concerned about domestic political damage caused by the effort to reach out.

  541. Jay says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    The “media war” certainly is important, but do bear in mind, when reading a statement like that by John Pilger (or anyone else) that all of the governments involved know the truth, and so are not terribly impressed by some fourth-hand media interpretation (or outright guess) of what was said by top-level representatives of those governments. There’s almost no question that Hillary Clinton delivers “tough” messages to Iran, through the Russian FM and probably through other governments who are in contact with Tehran. That’s standard operating procedure. What’s not standard operating procedure is the delivery of a “we’ll bomb you in a few months if you don’t reach an agreement we like really soon” ultimatum. It’s possible, of course, that the US will do just that (though I doubt it), but it’s highly unlikely it would state it in an ultimatum.

    There are many problems with ultimata in diplomacy, which is why they’re rarely used (not never — just rarely). Most obvious, the government delivering the ultimatum loses credibility if it doesn’t follow through. Since few governments like to look foolish, it follows that a government boxes itself in by delivering an ultimatum. This, in turn, may make the government look foolish for an entirely different reason: boxing oneself in precludes one from re-assessing the situation if some important but unforeseeable change occurs before the time comes to act on the ultimatum (for example, China invades Taiwan, or Martians land in New Mexico, or Obama takes up Zen Buddhism — any one of which events might make the State Department regret having made a solemn vow to attack Iran a few months from now).

    There are times, of course, when an ultimatum can nonetheless be useful — especially if the country delivering the ultimatum is dead serious about carrying it out and is either (1) certain that nothing will happen that could change its mind or (2) is close to certain that the party to whom the ultimatum is delivered will “blink.” I don’t see either of those conditions anywhere close to being satisfied here, which is why I’m confident this “ultimatum” was not delivered.

  542. James Canning says:

    The Times of London reported last week that Iraq is now pumping 3 million barrels of oil per day, and that oil exports will go up 15% in the near future. India likely to take much of the increase, as replacement for Iranian crude.

  543. James Canning says:


    Idiot warmongering American supporters of Israel right or wrong, looked at possibility of an American attack on Iran in 2003. Israel, in fact, urged that Iran be attacked instead of Iraq.

  544. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Double standards…

    Israel’s Atom Bomb Factory in 3D

    Estimated to produce enough plutonium per year to create ten new nuclear weapons PER YEAR. Which makes the 400 nukes estimate more credible than the official US estimate of 80 or so over the last forty years…

  545. James Canning says:


    Lady Ashton was speaking for the Six Parties, so obviously she needs to consult with those parties. Israel, of course, is not one of them.

  546. A-B says:
    March 14, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    I certainly understand (and I’m sure the Iranian government understands) that “games” are being played with “facts.” One advantage the Iranian government has over us, of course, is that it knows for certain whether Hillary Clinton really delivered an ultimatum (through the Russian FM) that Iran must reach an agreement satisfactory to the P5+1 at the upcoming talks or else the US will bomb Iran within the next few months. Nonetheless, given the absurdity of such a claim, I doubt that Iran’s actual knowledge counts for much more than my recognition of that absurdity. Either basis gets one to the same conclusion: no such ultimatum was delivered.

    This is not to say that the situation is not tense, or that Hillary Clinton asked Lavrov to pass on a tough message to Iran. I have no doubt she did — just not an ultimatum. Tough statements are pretty standard fare these days, so much so that the Iranian government would probably be more surprised if Lavrov did NOT pass one on from Hillary.

  547. k_w says:


    I would add that the Stooge’s statements completely lack quantifiers. He is not able to reflect on his or her own comments, delivers a statement how ridiculous it may be and disappears into the bushes as we say in German. This is not only a fake identity but a very hollow one.

  548. Karl says:

    Iran again offers nuclear talks with world powers


    Iran have offered many times to engage in diplomacy, once again today, but the puppet leader in the EU Ashton, cant do anything, since she must get approval to accept talks by the US/Israel. And US/Israel delay their answer… At the same time Obama say time is running out, that the diplomacy course have been exhausted, that Obama have done everything to get a diplomatic solution but that the evil iranians only delay, stall, lie to us so they must get bombed…

  549. A-B says:

    fyi, Eric: Totally agree!!

    My point was that it IS a game where “facts” (manufactured or not) are played with like a ball by all sides. Iran had to learn the game the hard way and the “dripping “has hopefully made her alert to put up her defenses.

  550. A-B says:
    March 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    The fact that a Russian newspaper might also take this claim seriously may make Haaretz’s credulity more understandable (though not quite excusable even so). The almost-certain fact nevertheless remains: the chance that Hillary Clinton actually conveyed such an ultimatum to Iran through the Russian foreign minister (“the US will attack Iran within a few months if Iran doesn’t reach an agreement acceptable to the P5+1 in the upcoming talks”) is very close to zero. An ultimatum such as that is just not “how it’s done” in the diplomacy business — setting aside what an absurd position it would be for the US to take on the merits, even if that were “how it’s done.”

  551. kooshy says:

    This guy, Rob Sobhani is completely out of touch with today’s Iran, it seems to me he is still living in Shah’s Iran of 1970’s, how stupid could it be to mention Eisenhower to the Iranians as a symbol of US friendship to Iran during a supposed new year greetings by the US president, that’s what he is recommending for the US president to say.

    Can one imagine that Rob Sobhani, is advising Mr. Obama in his coming New Year message to Iranians to remind them that once a major street in Tehran was named after Eisenhower who instructed the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran’s premier Dr. Mossadegh this equate if I profess to name a street after Benladen in DC.

    “A New Year’s Message for Iran”
    “A suggested draft for President Obama as he prepares his greeting for Nowruz, which falls on March 20.”

    “I understand that a main artery in Tehran was once named after American President Dwight Eisenhower. I hope to visit a free Iran someday soon, and when I do it is my hope that you name another major avenue in Tehran in recognition of our long friendship. As you go tomorrow to visit family and friends and do your Eid-deedanee, know that should you seek economic partnerships, we are ready to cooperate. Should you demand America’s support in any way, we will be with you. Should you rise against your government, this time, we will stand with you.”


  552. fyi says:

    A-B says: March 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    This is another empty journalistic threat.

    Americans looked at invading Iran back in 2003 and realized that they do not have that many soldiers.

    If this is meant to frighten Iranian leaders, it won’t.

    They have been planning and preparing for war since 2002 if not earlier.

  553. A-B says:

    To Eric, Karl, Jay, ..
    Re. Haaretz article (Karl March 14, 2012 at 6:59 am)

    Though this comment is not to dispute your stand on this piece of news, but the Haaretz article refers to the RUSSIAN newspaper Kommersant. Russia Today refers also to the same article (:http://rt.com/news/iran-last-chance-war-517/). Don’t know the political leanings of the Kommersant, but perhaps this piece of news serves the Russians (proving again how Clinton & Co. want to force their will on the Russians) as well as the Israeli/Western warmongers.

    Dripping [water] may eventually erode the defense in some (in the West), but it might as well motivate to reinforce the defense in others (in the East).

    ******** Quote from http://rt.com/news/iran-last-chance-war-517/

    The US wants Russia to deliver a message to Iran: Tehran has one last chance for talks. If it is wasted, an attack will happen in a matter of months, according to Russian diplomatic sources.

    The threat was voiced by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a meeting with her Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in New York on Monday, a diplomatic insider told Kommersant daily.

    “The invasion will happen before year’s end. The Israelis are de facto blackmailing Obama. They’ve put him in this interesting position – either he supports the war or looses the support of the Jewish lobby,” the diplomat told the Russian newspaper.

  554. Karl says:

    Obama threats Iran again. Its pretty evident that Obama will never reject the warmongering lobby nor congress, he will buy in to that. Obama will not pursue any diplomacy, he even got the nerve to say that a diplomatic solution is “shrinking” thats absurd since he have never engaged in any diplomatic efforts with Iran.

    “Tehran must understand that it cannot escape or evade the choice before it. Meet your international obligations or face the consequences.”


  555. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Arabs are powerless to do anything about Palestine.

    Iranian leaders have accepted the possibility of war and declared their readiness for it.

    Smashing Iran will have a huge cost to the Axis Powers; they are not shy about war. That they have not done so was not due to the goodness of their collective hearts (if any). It has had to do with the harm to them that such a war against Iran would cause.

    Axis Powers and Arabs cannot end the war in Palestine.

  556. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Humanist says:
    March 14, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    1. No doubt they are big numbers, but the point is that they would be nearly as big if I was not here. In that case, we would see Sassan engaging in his usual mode of operations of copy/pasting largly irrelevant links, making absurd assertions not based on fact, and insulting those he disagrees with.

    2. The point of the name I am using is to draw attention to the fact that “Sassan” is a fake identity and a fraud who cannot engage in any kind of debate. The whole point of this is to illustrate the ways in which he usually responds and conducts himself. He also seems to consider this blog to be a personal platform that allows him to promote his views without challenge. Sure, most here understand that, but those who visit here may not, and I have chosen to illuminate this in a way that I find amusing.

    3. Note that the language I have used is inconsequential compared to the kind of “debate” you routinely find on “mainstream” sites such as youtube, CNN, Yahoo, USAToday, and so on. If you want to find truly offensive, racist, illogical commentary you only need to look at those sites.

    4. The reason I give the Identity more attention than others on this site is simply the fact that he is so active here, and the fact he is so consistently offensive and unwilling to engage in serious debate. Now of course he will briefly amend his behavior if he is called out on it, but than he simply returns to the old pattern in a few days.

    5. I think it is clear that the Identity is the one here who constantly brings up irrelevant issues and tries to forcibly divert the discussion into the areas he wants this blog to cover, while belittling those who disagree with him. If I was not here, he would still be doing this.

    6. The point of presenting facts or data is also largly irrelevant to “Sassan” since he simply ignores them when they are presented, and than he repeats his assertions, either in the same thread or in a subsequent thread, while refusing to respond to questions or facts that disprove his assertions. Indeed, he often refuses to respond in any kind of logical or rational way, preferring to substitute his own pre conceived ideas and refusing to respond to debate. Most of what I have done so far is illustrates the contradictions and hypocrisy in his own argument. However, in future I will present facts as necessary, and they will no doubt be ignored by “Sassan” as they have been in the past.

  557. kooshy says:

    Being back and observing US’s image from outside of her continued propaganda umbrella, which is made to shield the interior opinions from the outside world, one can’t escape to think how out of touch with reality this country’s leaders are. The headline bellow is an example that not many in the world except the Americans and their British lapdogs will be willing to share.

    Obama: US Making ‘Very Real Progress’ in Afghanistan


  558. Humanist says:


    I used Search to find out how many times the word ‘Sassan’ apperas in this thread. Answer was 307. Your pseudo-name appears 84 times. These are big big numbers.

    I think you, Sassan and individuals like anonymous, intentionally or otherwise, are here to sabotage this extremely valuable site.

    In my view this site should be used only for sincere heartfelt comments (or preferably intelligent analyses) on current political issues about Iran or on the subjects such as Iran/US relations, complex plots to start a war with Iran etc. This site is in no way a place for name-calling or trashy comments.

    You and Sassan are abusing the civil spirit of providing space fore everyone without censors. In case you are not a co-conspirator to ruin this great site I ask you to think about the following points.

    1- Leveetts have determined sworn enemies. I could imagine the degree of the rage of psychopathic warmongers whenever Leveretts publish an article or appear on TV. I could see why the warmongers must be determined to reduce the influence of ideas expressed by Leveretts. It is not hard to imagine they will use any possible medium available to discredit them or neutralize the effectiveness of RFI.

    2- Under such a background you have to realize why in every RFI thread so many comments under the name of Sassan are published. If you are not his partner think about how you have fallen into one of his traps to lower the quality of RFI.

    3- From some valuable articles published on the Net about Iran I get the impression this site is visited by quite a few influential analysts who have written those pieces. Hence if this site becomes the battleground between Sassan and SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge then, ostensibly, the chance of visiting RFI by influential analysts is somewhat reduced and that is exactly what the warmongers want.

    4- Most of us here have a good Idea who Sassan can be and why he is here or he is sent here. If you are interested in arguments of warmongers against Iran there are more articulate pro Israel and anti-Iran commentators around. Why you are fixated with Sassan who is not the top advocate of the warmongers.

    5- Think about why most of us here ignore Sassan.

    6- Just in case you MUST debunk any of Sassan’s assertions, instead of name-calling present your idea with facts, with solid convincing evidence or with indisputable data.

    We all here deeply value this site. You too try to make it better by interesting intelligent contributions. Please avoid posting any comment that in one way or anther degrades the quality of this site. If you are really what you claim to be then respecting this site is your DUTY…….and please change your unreasonable pseudo-name.

  559. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    And since you immediately resort to childish insults that PROVES that you are not a child. Thanks for illustrating the strength of your argument. Playtime is now over.

  560. anonymous says:


    OK whatever. I’m not going to argue with a child. Does your mommy know you’re using her computer?

  561. James Canning says:


    That Americans are sufficiently ignorant so as to believe, by a substantial majority, that Iran already has nukes, shows the effectiveness of “drip-feeding” distortions, lies, etc etc etc in US newspapers, TV news, etc.

  562. Jay says:

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    From directing your remarks at SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge it is clear that you find his postings objectionable.

    What other posts do you find objectionable? Clearly Sassan’s. Right? Anybody else?

  563. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    And missed the point again. Keep going, you continue to amuse me.

  564. Jay says:


    John Pilger wrote a piece earlier this month. It opens with the following paragraph (quoted below).

    The story of “Hillary Clinton tried to pressure Sergei Lavrov by threatening US attack on Iran” is an example of what Pilger calls the “drip-effect”. Under Mr. Obama, the “War by media” doctrine has become a more significant tool in the conduct of US policy. The planting of these stories is simply “contingency planning”.

    “War by media, says current military doctrine, is as important as the battlefield. This is because the real enemy is the public at home, whose manipulation and deception are essential for starting an unpopular colonial war. Like the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks on Iran and Syria require a steady drip-effect on readers’ and viewers’ consciousness. This is the essence of a propaganda that rarely speaks its name.”

  565. James Canning says:


    China very recently made it clear beyond any question that China does not want Iran to build nukes.

    China does not import 80% of Iran’s oil exports. This must be a typo.

  566. anonymous says:


    I didn’t miss your point I just ignored it because it was just the typical immature bile I would expect from you. Seriously grow up.

  567. James Canning says:


    All Arab countries have agreed to accept Israel within “pre-1967” borders. Were it not for overweening power of Aipac and other extremist Israel lobby groups, peace could have been achieved by now.

    You appear to think Iran should get itself smashed, in order to show it will not knuckle under to hegemonic powers.

  568. Jay says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 14, 2012 at 11:51 am

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I second Eric’s remarks.

    I skip unsubstantiated and wildly accusatory posts myself.

    One practice I find irritating is the posting of articles “wholesale” from another site – excerpts are okay. I think “wholesale” copy-paste should be discouraged – then again, we could do this as a community without strict censorship.

  569. James Canning says:


    Perhaps you could provide an example of the sort of comment you regard as “anti-semitic”?

  570. James Canning says:


    I share your intense scepticism regarding claim in Haaretz that Hillary Clinton tried to pressure Sergei Lavrov by threatening US attack on Iran.

  571. Kathleen says:

    Israel’s Atom Bomb Factory in 3D

    Posted on 03/14/2012 by Juan

    An Israeli news magazine report in 3D animation on Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility, which produces enough plutonium every year to make another 10 nuclear weapons (Israel is thought to have 400 atom bombs, among the biggest stockpiles in the world). The report is based on the information given by nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, treated by Israel rather as Bradley Manning has been treated by the US.
    link to juancole.com

    US Public to Israel’s Likud: On Iran, Negotiate or you are on Your Own
    link to juancole.com

    Shalom, Beijing
    Israel and China just celebrated 20 years of friendship. But will this new special relationship come to the breaking point over Tehran?
    BY OREN KESSLER | MARCH 13, 2012
    “As Chinese-Israeli cooperation deepens and expands, one issue is becoming harder to avoid: Iran. China is Iran’s largest destination for exports — it buys 80 percent of Iran’s oil — and its second-largest source of imports (barely edged out by the trade hub of Dubai). Chinese trade with Iran is valued at over $30 billion — at least three times larger than Chinese trade with Israel — and is projected to reach $50 billion by 2015. And with sanctions edging Western companies out of Iran, China has rushed in to fill the void: At least 100 state-run companies now operate in the Islamic Republic, many heavily invested in its fuel and infrastructure industries.

    The Chinese officially support a peaceful Iranian nuclear program, but have dragged their feet in condemning Tehran’s move toward weapons-grade uranium enrichment. They grudgingly voted in favor of all U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Iran, but each time expressed reservations over the imposition of sanctions and urged more time be given for negotiations.

    “China only agreed to sanctions that don’t apply real pressure on Iran — namely, those that don’t touch its financial or energy sectors,” says Yoram Evron of the University of Haifa and the Institute for National Security Studies. “China’s participation might have given the sanctions legitimacy, but it has effectively weakened international pressure.”

    link to foreignpolicy.com

  572. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: March 14, 2012 at 11:34 am

    I agree.

    Almost certainly a planted story by some any number of the “ususal suspects”.

    Iranians were going to go to war, what else do these people think?

  573. anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    “I guess the Leveretts have no problem with racist comments on their propaganda site not to mention the anti-semitic comments that are rampant here. They must be so proud.”

    I certainly can’t speak for the Leveretts, but I’ll venture a confident guess: They don’t like racist or anti-Semitic comments on this website. Such comments certainly do appear here from time to time — that I recognize, and I wish they didn’t. I also wish a lot of baseless anti-Iran and anti-Arab comments didn’t appear on this website, but they do too.

    If this site were heavily censored, far fewer objectionable comments would appear — though that would depend, of course, on who was doing the censoring (an unavoidable drawback of censorship). If you were doing the censoring, for example, I’d expect to see fewer anti-Semitic remarks, and that would be a good thing. Whether we could also count on you to weed out anti-Iran and anti-Arab remarks is a bit less clear to me.

    Maybe the Leveretts could set up a system with a whole team of censors — one representing every religion, nationality, political party or point of view. And then perhaps they could personally make a second pass, to be sure no comments made it through that disagreed with their viewpoint. That would probably do the trick. In the meantime, though, I’ll just have to stick with the system I use now: read the comments, ignore the objectionable ones, and pay attention to the ones I don’t find objectionable.

    I’ve seen many other sites where anti-Semitic and racist remarks go way too far, and I simply avoid those sites. If the anti-Semitism and racism here were anywhere near that level, I’d agree with you entirely and I’d avoid this site too. But I don’t think what you complain about is anywhere near a level that an educated adult can’t wend his way through, just as I do. I think we’re all better off — you included — with a lightly censored site.

  574. Karl says:
    March 14, 2012 at 6:59 am

    Thank you for the link to the Haaretz article, which reports an alleged conversation between Hillary Clinton and the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. According to the article, Clinton urged Lavrov to encourage Iran to make a deal during the planned P5+1 talks, or else the US will bomb Iran within a few months.

    With all due respect to Haaretz, I find it all but entirely unbelievable that Clinton relayed such an ultimatum to Lavrov — so unbelievable that one must wonder whether the Haaretz editor responsible for approving publication of this article was on vacation that day and forgot to appoint a substitute to cover during his absence.

  575. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Thanks for completely missing the point of my previous post. Internet treasures like you provide quite a bit of unintentional amusement for people like me. Please continue. And by the way, since you, like many others need to be educated on this, opposition to Zionism does not equal “anti semitism” in any way.

  576. anonymous says:


    I was referring to racist comment made by “David” about Kurds and the constant anti-semitic drivel from posters such as yourself. You need to grow up.

  577. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    anonymous says:
    March 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Yep, “Sassan” is both racist and anti semitic. Thanks for pointing that out.

  578. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    By the way Identity, I noticed you seem to be unable to respond to the numerous questions and statements that disproved your absurd assertions. Any response, since your trademarked solution of “repeat previous posts and make unproven assertions” failed?

  579. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 4:15 am

    Oh dear. So a building in an ammunition factory is protected from possible blast damage. YEP, MUST BE A NUCLEAR BOMB FACTORY. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. The pathetic Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  580. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 14, 2012 at 4:26 am

    So now the Identity is openly dumping Zionist propaganda on this site without shame. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  581. anonymous says:

    I guess the Leverett’s have no problem with racist comments on their propaganda site not to mention the anti-semitic comments that are rampant here. They must be so proud.

  582. Rehmat says:

    The slection of former US secretary-general Kofi Annan as the UN-Arab League joint special envoy on Syria – is another Zionist ploy to tighten screw on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime for the benefit of Israel. To build his unbaised credentials, Kofi’s first action was a meeting with Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi in Geneva. During the meeting Kofi sought help from Salehi in his coming meeting with Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem.

    During his visit to Syria, Kofi Annan held talks both with Bashar al-Assad, government officials and the leaders of the western-supported opposition groups. It’s reported in Syrian press that he urged both sides to cease military confrontation to let his reproachment mission succeed. However, cease fire and a compromise between the government and opposition factions is not in the interests of USrael which wants to establish a pro-Israel regime in Damascus by all means.

    Yesterday, Zionist mouthpiece, CNN, announced that President Assad had declined Annan’s settlement plan. However, as usual, CNN did not mention the details of the “settlement plan”.

    It’s no secret that western imperial powers have used United Nations to wage wars for greed and Israel. Kofi Annan, himself has family connection to Zionist Jewry. His Swedish wife, Nane Annan has Jewish ancestry. Her mother Nina Logergren was a sister to the acclaimed Swedish diplomat from the industrialist and banking clan. Raoul Wallenberg, a man hailed in the Zionist Press for his actions in Hungary during the Second World War when he was supposed to have helped tens of thousands of Jews escaping the Nazis.

    So, don’t expect any unbaised reporting on Syrian unrests from Kofi Annan.


  583. fyi says:

    Dr. Nasr observed: “Since November, the administration’s policy of applying pressure to compel Iran to negotiate has rushed instead toward conflict”; i.e. war.

    This was a self-inflicted wound by the Axis Powers; it showed that they could not afford to go to war and destroyed the foundations of their negogiating position – “War is Cheap…”.

    Now the Axis Powers are under the gun to reach an agreement with the Iranians.

    I am not sure what that agreement could be but the Iranians are now in a stronger negogiating position than last November.

    One wonders if these Axis Powers statesemen, planners, strategists, politicans ever reconsidered their esclation path back in 2007.

  584. david says:

    Sassan is a KURD, a zionist pawn. Don’t engange with this traitor.

  585. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 13, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    Iran can only be smashed by the United States.

    To do that, US will have to gather almost all her air assets from all over the world.

    Since Iranian power is not contained within the borders of Iran, the war will go on for several years.

    Iranians will have to smash water, power, and oil installations in Saudi Arabai, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait.

    This much has already been communicated to the Souther Persian Gulf states by the Iranians.

    US can smash Iran at the cost of smashing what is left of her global influence – in the Middle East as well as elsewhere.

    In regards to Palestine, the war have been going on for 60 years, there is no reason to think it will end anytime soon.

    The occupied territories in Egypt and in Lebanon were liberated through war.

    I cannot tell you how these future wars will start or will be waged.

    But they will.

  586. Arnold Evans says:

    Vali Nasr implies that the US now will accept enrichment to less than 5%.

    Officials in Washington would like Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium to the 20 percent level and to hand over its stockpiles of 20 percent enriched uranium. Instead, Iran would buy the fuel rods it needs for medical isotopes from abroad. In exchange, Iran’s right to enrich uranium up to 3 percent to 5 percent should be formally recognized — that would be sufficient for a civilian nuclear-power program, but not for bomb making. Iran should also agree to intrusive international inspections and implement the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, giving the U.S. and its allies a measure of confidence that Iran isn’t working its centrifuges overtime to create weapons-grade fuel.

    I’d like to see who his sources, “officials in Washington”, are.

  587. Sassan says:

    Watch Israeli-Islamic Republic debate via CNN between Israel’s Naftali Bennett, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Iranian writer and former adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hooman Majd:


  588. Karl says:


    David albright doing a Colin Powell (“we have satelitte imagery showing nuclear weapons production”).

    David albright is self-delclared detective that are looking for a fame he sought to get in Iraq as a weapons inspector.

    David Albright Questioned on Credentials, Iran Weapons Claims, Record on Israeli Nuclear Weapons

  589. Karl says:

    Clinton on behalf of the goal of netanyahu/lobby want Russia to threat Iran.


    Clinton’s love for destruction and misery is evident, she want to experience 1 war before she leave office next term.

  590. Sassan says:

    UN: Iran executes anti-Islam citizens
    03/14/2012 00:47
    Many who die for drug offenses were originally arrested for resisting the regime.

    BERLIN – Iran executed 670 people in 2011, including more than 20 for offenses against Islam, a UN investigator said in Geneva on Monday.

    The vast majority of people Iran executed in 2011 were convicted of drug offenses that do not merit capital punishment under international law, former Maldives foreign minister and current UN investigator Ahmed Shaheed said.

    He also reported a wide range of violations by Iran of UN human rights accords, from abuse of minorities to persecution of homosexuals and labor unions.

    Shaheed was delivering his first report to the UN’s 47- nation Human Rights Council on the rights situation in the country since being appointed last year. Tehran dismissed it as a “compilation of baseless allegations.”

    “It is with great concern that I report the significant increase in the rate of executions in Iran from 200 in mid-September 2011 to over 600 executions by the end of the year,” Shaheed told the council.

    By December 31, 421 executions had been announced and 249 secret ones had been reported to him by sources inside and outside the country.

    Iran’s persecution of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, who has been sentenced to death for creating a home-based church and questioning compulsory Islamic education for his children, surfaced in Shaheed’s statements.

    In a report on the website of the Washington-based American Center for Law & Justice, Tiffany Barrans, the group’s international legal director, who is in Geneva, wrote while Shaheed did not mention the pastor’s case in his new report, he had urged Iran’s authorities to consider the release of “Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani who has been sentenced to death for apostasy….”

    Ben Cohen, who has written about Nadarkhani’s case in the US media, wrote in an email to The Jerusalem Post, “It’s certainly encouraging that there’s a growing international awareness of Pastor Nadarkhani’s case, as well as a growing consensus among democratic nations that his immediate release is essential.”

    Cohen, who jump-started a media project on the plight of Christians in the Middle East, wrote, “The Iranian regime wants to prove that it can be responsive to outside concerns, they should heed these calls. Sadly, Tehran’s record up to now is hardly cause for confidence.”

    Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist and expert on Christians in the Muslim world, wrote the Post by email, “After North Korea, Iran is the global leader in Christians’ persecution. Iran is committing a cultural genocide, a tabula rasa of anything is non-Islamic. But more shameful is the silence of the Western democracies, the NGOs and the institutionalized churches about the extinction of Christianity in the Middle East.”

    Meotti, who is a journalist with Il Foglio and is working on a book on Israel and the Vatican, said, “The West should organize a campaign of political pressure with all the means it has. But I fear that Eastern Christians, along with the State of Israel, have been chosen as the sacrificial lamb of Western greed.”

    The UN Human Rights Council established Shaheed’s office and mandate last year, in a narrow vote, when Western and Latin American countries, with some African support, cooperated to create a special investigation on Iran. Cuba, Russia, China and others opposed the resolution.

    Iran has refused to allow him into the country. In the council on Monday it described him as “incompetent.”

    Shaheed, a veteran diplomat and founder of a human rights institute in the Maldives, said he had received videotaped testimony from witnesses to torture by Iranian security police and from relatives of young people who had been held in jail.

    He told a news conference that were strong indications that many Iranians officially executed for drug offenses had originally been arrested for resisting the regime or similar offenses and had the narcotics charges added later.

    A table in his report showed executions, a sentence that can also be handed down in Iran for homosexual relationships, had soared steadily to near 700 from just under 100 in 2003. In 2010, there were around 550 executions. Iran’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community has been decimated by the regime.

    Shaheed told journalists he hoped the council would vote to extend his mandate, originally set for one year, next week at the end of its month-long session. Diplomats say the outcome of a vote is likely to be close.

    “One of the most important aspects of this mandate is its capacity to give voice to those that believe themselves to be silenced by fear and lack of recourse,” he said.

    Kenneth Sikorski, a Helsinki-based writer who has written about the repression of Christians in Muslim-majority countries on his website Tundra Tabloids, wrote the Post, “In light of the Finnish newspaper, the Helsingin Sanomat’s main article on Sunday, promoting the Tehran regime’s propaganda that religious minorities in Iran live in relative peace, I would call on the EU and the US to submit a joint motion before the UNGA/UNSC for a vote for sanctions against Tehran, with the sole intention of bringing to the international media’s attention of this man’s plight.”

    Reuters contributed to this report.


  591. Sassan says:

    U.S. nuclear expert finds Iran explosive site in imagery

    By Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters March 13, 2012

    WASHINGTON — A U.S. non-proliferation expert said on Tuesday he has identified a building at the Parchin military site in Iran suspected of containing, currently or previously, a high-explosive test chamber the United Nations nuclear watchdog wants to visit.

    David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he studied commercial satellite imagery and found a building located on a relatively small and isolated compound at Parchin that fit a description in the November 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report.

    The building has its own perimeter security wall or fencing and there is a berm between the building and a neighbouring building, Albright said in a report.

    The compound is located more than four kilometres away from high-explosive related facilities at Parchin which the IAEA visited in 2005, Albright’s report said.

    Iran refused access to Parchin, southeast of Tehran, during two rounds of talks with IAEA inspectors. Western diplomats say Iran may be delaying access to give it time to sanitize the facility of any incriminating evidence of explosive tests that would indicate efforts to design nuclear weapons.

    “We have information that some activity is ongoing there,” IAEA director general Yukiya Amano said recently, referring to Parchin.

    The IAEA has evidence that the test chamber was placed at Parchin in 2000 and that a building was subsequently constructed around it, Albright’s report said.

    The information was that a large explosive test chamber was used to conduct experiments possibly related to the development of nuclear weapons in the early years after 2000, Albright said.

    He was not able to gauge the level of activity at this particular site without comparing it to multiple images over a short period of time.

    The ISIS report and satellite imagery can be found here.


  592. masoud says:

    With apologies to Sassan,
    Read below for the Egyptian parliament’s statement on Israel. It sounds like it could have been ghost written by Ahmadinejad. I expect much more of the same from Egypt and all other arab countries in the coming months. I always used to despair about the liberation of Palestine. I didn’t see how it could be done as long as Egypt was in the state it was in. Now, I fail to see how Palestine can fail to be liberated within the decade.


  593. Rehmat says:

    Fiorangela – James Canning needs to read the history of US-Israel relation from some object source. It’s the White House which gets dictation from the Zionist regime and not the other way around.


  594. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning at 6:07 pm linked to an article by Feffer in Huffington post.

    Feffer wrote this:

    “Israel, as I have argued elsewhere, is to the United States what North Korea is to China. These client states take everything from their putative benefactors except advice. Indifferent to international law, armed to the teeth, and isolated in their respective regions, Israel and North Korea dance to their own tune, however discordant it might be for everybody else.”

    David Frum, are you listening? We have a new “Axis of Evil” — Israel and N Korea.

  595. Karl says:

    Americans will back U.S. military action if Iran seeks nuclear arms, poll shows

    Doesnt say much really more than the indoctrination by war/israel lobby is having an impact. How quickly we forget 2 10+ years uncessary wars huh and now they supporting a third. The education and school have really failed in america.

  596. Karl says:


    I didnt necessary say arab states would do it but the violent resistance will live on, get stronger (more advanced weapons etc) no doubt. Facts on the ground show that Israel stealing more and more land while refusing palestinians a state.

  597. James Canning says:


    All Arab countries agree there will be no Arab attack on Israel.

    Are you forgetting that Ahmadinejad said the future failure of Israel as a Jewish state will not come about through military attack from outside?

  598. Karl says:


    “There will be no Palestinian state without future wars against Israel.”

    Mos def. true. Norman Finkelstein once said that Israel will only make concession when they have encountered a huge loss.

  599. James Canning says:


    Many haters of Iran say Iran needs to be smashed so Israel can make a deal with the Palestinians. Your comments lend credence to the warmongers’ contention.

  600. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 13, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    And I think you are quite wrong that the Palestinian state could be brought forth through any sort of negogiations with Israel.

    Israel has US and EU in her pocket.

    There will be no Palestinian state without future wars against Israel.

  601. James Canning says:


    Where else on earth do i8llegal settlers try to claim the land on which they illegally build houses and flats, becomes part of another country? Preposterous on its face. Primary need is to get all Israeli military etc out.

  602. fyi says:

    Nasser says: March 13, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    I heard it through the grape vine.

  603. Karl says:

    Nasser, maybe he thinks of…

    Not a connection to IDF though.

  604. James Canning says:


    I in turn think you are quite wrong. There is no alternative to an independent Palestine. Palestine can flourish, with or without hundreds of thousands of Jews.

  605. James Canning says:

    The Tunisian PM has warned the German Chancellor against any military intervention in Syria.

  606. Nasser says:


    You have repeated a number of times your belief that Mr. Rabin was assassinated by the IDF. Why makes you think this?

  607. Humanist says:


    I browsed through a small part of “Just War and the Iran Crisis”.

    The “Philosophical discussions” in the article might appeal to persons who, for centuries, have been drenched in a deformed ‘culture’ of war. In just scanning the beginning of the paragraphs I read:

    “The remaining four conditions deserve careful attention: comparative justice, competent authority, last resort, and probability of success. Comparative justice means that the nation initiating the war must be significantly less guilty in the relevant respects than is the prospective enemy….”

    I stopped browsing since by referring to title of the article, I found the premise of the discussion somewhat irrelevant.

    In this age of spectacular scientific accomplishments, many branches of science can convincingly prove any invasion by a [powerful] nation on a [weaker] country is a supreme crime since .there always exists at least one peaceful solution to resolve any imaginable dispute.

    It is like in a lawless primitive community a 250 pound mindless bully breaks the jaw of young kid who disobeys him. That is a crime from any angel you look at it. Simple as that, we don’t need sophisticated empty jargon, orated by a philosopher to tell the bully it is not nice or ‘just’ to injure or maim this revolting kid!

    Among all the endeavors of human beings nothing is a more vivid manifestation of extreme barbarism and foolishness than WAR which is still so persistently glorified in countries who have practiced hegemony.

    It is so difficult to escape the ill effects of subtle generational indoctrination. We all are its victim.

  608. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    You just do not seem to be able to accept the following facts:

    “Israel does not want a Palestinian state.”

    [IDF murdered the late PM Rabin to prevent it.]

    The two-state-for-two-people is a dead letter.

    The Saudi Peace Vision is a dead letter.

    Even the HAMAS Hudna offer is probably on its last breath.

    Only war will liberate Palestine.

    US, EU, the Quartet, the Arab League, Saudi Arabia cannot end this war in terms that could be acceptable to all.

    One side has to loose and has to loose permanently.

  609. fyi says:

    Karl says: March 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    The Book of Esther – a roamnce – has as much to do with Modern Iran as Shakespear’s Julius Ceaser with Modern Italy.

  610. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    They are rich but occupied.

    The Iranian people, in 1979, opted for national power.

    Different countries make different choices.

  611. James Canning says:


    General Shlomo fails to see that the border need not change merely because there are many illegal immigrants. Real problem is getting Israeli troops, police, etc out of the West Bank.

  612. James Canning says:


    Yes, the Palestinians went a very long way to accomodate Israel, and allow retention of most of the largest illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.

    It may be fairer, and simpler, just to keep the 1949 Armistice line. Jews could live in Palestine, but would be obliged to adhere to laws of Palestine.

  613. Karl says:


    Palestinians even offered that Israel could keep some 55-60% (or even more, cant remeber the correct percentage) of illegal settlements according to Palestine Papers. It could be seen as a sellout by Palestinian Authority at the same time it proved palestinians have offered alot and have only got rejected by Israel.

  614. Rehmat says:

    Farakhan knows how to anger Israel Lobby

    On March 10, 2012 – the Nation of Islam leader, Minister Louis Farakhan spoke to a packed auditorium of nearly 700 people at University of California Berkeley. The event was organized by the Black Student Union.

    As expected, local and national pro-Israel Jewish groups tried their best to get the event cancelled. The Anti-Defamation Leaguge’s associate director Nancy Appel urged the UC Chancellor Robert Birgeneau to follow the example of UC President Mark G. Yudof, a kosher Jew (Jewish Journal, July 1, 2008) and ‘condemn the merchants of hatred when they come into our community’. She claimed that “granting Farakhan this privilege is a slap in the face of all members of the diverse UC Berkeley community who strive to make their campus as inclusive and welcoming as for everyone“…..


  615. Kathleen says:

    Tiny breakthroughs. Barghouti on an MSM outlet. A close to realistic map being actually shown on the MSM. Rula talking about ILLEGAL settlements. General Shlomo saying that the settlements leave little to no room for a two state solution. Even though he then says that a deal should be made based on leaving illegal settlements in place. Absurd

    Will go back and listen to the program once again another day to comments about Iran

    This is an amazing piece

  616. James Canning says:


    Michael Oren is sensitive about the fact virtually all leaders of the various Christian groups in the West Bank say the Israeli occupation has been a catastrophe for their communities. He writes opinion pieces trying to cloud the matter by calling attention to trouble caused by Hamas in the West Bank. But the real reason for the steady erosion of the various Christian communities is the continuing Israeli occupation.

  617. Fiorangela says:

    Karl says:
    March 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Any discerning reader of the Book of Esther must notice that it puts Jews in a very harsh light.
    The authentic Persian queen Vashti, alone, displays character and nobility; she preferred to surrender wealth and privilege rather than comply with the prideful and possibly lascivious demands of the king. Esther, on the other hand, subverted her own identity and spent a year remaking herself to please someone whom she otherwise loathed, all in order to gain wealth and power.

    Haman’s crimes are alleged and perhaps exaggerated; no evidence substantiates them. Mordecai, on the other hand, assumed false identities; spied on Persian and other persons who consulted with the king; refused to grant the basic duty of a citizen in the Persian empire; and snitched on those whose trust he had first gained.

    Mordecai and Esther planned to and succeeded in deceiving the king in order to gain their own evil purposes. The Persian king may have been guilty of besotted stupidity — ruled by his passion for Esther/AIPAC rather than loyalty and devotion to his own prime minister, sons, and countrymen — Obama, are you listening? — but he did not treat Jews badly, did he? No, he did not.

    So how stupid is Netanyahu in thinking the story of Esther reflects badly on Persians?

    And why are Americans so stupid that they allow themselves to be seduced by such a stupid fool as the Lithuanian maniac from Tel Aviv?

  618. Kathleen says:

    Most honest piece so far about the most recent massacre in Afghanistan

    Another civilian massacre and the savagery of our soldiers

    by Nima Shirazi on March 13, 2012

    Nearly eight years ago, on April 1, 2004, former speech writer and Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, Peggy Noonan wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, where she was a contributing editor. It began like this (emphasis in original):

    The world is used to bad news and always has been, but now and then there occurs something so brutal, so outside the normal limits of what used to be called man’s inhumanity to man, that you have to look away. Then you force yourself to look and see and only one thought is possible: This must stop now. You wonder, how can we do it? And your mind says, immediately: Whatever it takes.

    The brutal, inhuman event she was referring to was the killing in the Iraqi city of Fallujah of four American civilian contractors, whose SUV was ambushed by rocket-propelled grenades the day before. The four men, all employees of the infamous mercenary outfit Blackwater, were shot, their bodies burned, mutilated, and dragged through the streets in celebration. The charred corpses of two of those killed that day were strung up on a bridge over the Euphrates River. The news, and accompanying photographs, sent shockwaves of horror and disgust through the United States and prompted endless editorialsfrom coast to coast.

    Noonan described “the brutalization of their corpses” as “savage, primitive, unacceptable” and decried that the “terrible glee of the young men in the crowds, and the sadism they evinced, reminds us of the special power of the ignorant to impede the good.” She wrote that the Iraqis responsible for such gruesome actions “take pleasure in evil, and they were not shy to show it. They are arrogant. They think barbarity is their right.”

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan condemned the killings as “despicable, horrific attacks” and “cowardly, hateful acts,” saying, “it was inexcusable the way those individuals were treated.” He called those responsible for the deaths “terrorists” and “a collection of killers” and vowed that “America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins.”


  619. James Canning says:


    Robert Kagan is a propagandist for promoters of endless war in the Middle East, to “protect” Israel. No matter how many trillions of dollars this costs the American taxpayer. Kagan gives cover to a US Congress acting against the best interests of the American people.

  620. James Canning says:


    Japan and South Korea are two of the richest countries on the planet. Both would like to get even richer.

  621. James Canning says:

    George Parker, writing in the Financial Times today: “David Cameron… has distanced himself from US policy towards Israel, with the UK being far more critical than the US over Israel’s expansion of West Bank settlements.”

  622. k_w says:

    @Humanist: If you take a look at recent articles in DER TAGESSPIEGEL(.de), you’ll find op-eds beating the war drum louder than any of the Arutz Sheva/JPost articles on the topic. Germany must stand by its ally, militarily if necessary etc.

  623. Karl says:

    Apparently Netanyahu gave Obama “The book of esther”, why? To get the know the iranians.

    Netanyahu gave Obama Book of Esther as ‘background reading’


    Thats like giving a copy of “Protocols of zion” to someone saying it represent the jews.

  624. Fiorangela says:

    Dueling new books — Robert Kagan has a new book out that argues that the US created the world we live in today and that the world is better for it. Based on his conversation with Brian Lamb about the book (I have not read the book), Kagan’s argument seems to be that US came into its own post-World War II and has been spreading the ideas of that post-WWII era ever since — democracy for all, capitalism, American exceptionalism.

    Some problems with Kagan’s book:
    1. We have not yet been permitted to fully explore US, allied, and Jewish/zionist behavior in World War II OR World War I.

    First, Americans have not yet confronted the reality that they deliberately starved, then incinerated hundreds of thousands of German civilians in the course of the two world wars. Riding on the triumphalism of having gotten away with those crimes against humanity, Americans and zionists are repeating the crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

    Second, Americans are largely clueless that American betrayals of the promises made to Arabs (and Italians, I might add) in those wars are the radical source for the turmoil that embroils the Middle East today.

    Third, those betrayals — as indeed the wars themselves– were the direct result of zionist influence and manipulation of US leaders. The denials of “self determination” endured by the states of the former Ottoman empire from 1918 until today were the trade-off for the “zionist triumph”.

    Fourth, As long as ‘holocaust denial’ is criminalized in some nations, censored in almost all nations, and as long as the holocaust narrative as devised by Jewish people is enforced as doctrine in US taxpayer-supported classrooms, a full and robust discussion of the topic has not been engaged. To construct a plan for the future on such a house of sand is a fool’s errand and doomed to fail. (see Gilad Atzmon, :http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/revisionism-is-the-true-meaning-of-history-gilad-atzmon-in-m.html#entry15394568 )

    2. If it is the United States that is the subject of discussion, then the foundation documents of the USA and NOT the outcome of the second world war in Europe are the proper basis for analysis of USAmerica’s progress and status in the world.

    a. To properly assess USAmerica’s foundation, it must be recognized first, that the foundation of the USA was not laid on religious lines although it was influenced by religious traditions;

    b. Two conflicting visions of those religious traditions pertained then and prevail today; neither one of those traditions incorporated the Esther story from the Hebrew scriptures. One of those visions, that of Roger Williams and consequently Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Benjamin Rush among others, were students of Francis Bacon and rejected most if not all of the connection of Christianity with Hebrew scriptures as pertained to establishing a code of values for the United States of America.

    Andrew Bacevich edited a book that was released March 9, 2012, The Short American Century .
    He explains his work far better than I could; I urge you to spend the minutes listening to him.

    Harvard University Press published the book and posts this information about the series of essays Bacevich collected:

    Writing in Life magazine in February 1941, Henry Luce memorably announced the arrival of the “The American Century.” The phrase caught on, as did the belief that America’s moment was at hand. Yet as Andrew J. Bacevich makes clear, that century has now ended, the victim of strategic miscalculation, military misadventures, and economic decline. To take stock of the short American Century and place it in historical perspective, Bacevich has assembled a richly provocative range of perspectives.
    What did this age of reputed American preeminence signify? What caused its premature demise? What legacy remains in its wake? Distinguished historians Jeffry Frieden, Akira Iriye, David Kennedy, Walter LaFeber, Jackson Lears, Eugene McCarraher, Emily Rosenberg, and Nikhil Pal Singh offer illuminating answers to these questions. Achievement and failure, wisdom and folly, calculation and confusion all make their appearance in essays that touch on topics as varied as internationalism and empire, race and religion, consumerism and globalization.
    As the United States grapples with protracted wars, daunting economic uncertainty, and pressing questions about exactly what role it should play in a rapidly changing world, understanding where the nation has been and how it got where it is today is critical. What did the forging of the American Century—with its considerable achievements but also its ample disappointments and missed opportunities—ultimately yield? That is the question this important volume answers.
    • 1. Life at the Dawn of the American Century / Andrew J. Bacevich
    • 2. The Origins and Uses of American Hyperpower / David M. Kennedy
    • 3. Consuming the American Century / Emily S. Rosenberg
    • 4. The Problem of Color and Democracy / Nikhil Pal Singh
    • 5. Pragmatic Realism versus the American Century / T.J. Jackson Lears
    • 6. Toward Transnationalism / Akira Iriye
    • 7. From the American Century to Globalization / Jeffry A. Frieden
    • 8. Illusions of an American Century / Walter LaFeber
    • 9. The Heavenly City of Business / Eugene McCarraher
    • 10. Not So Different After All / Andrew J. Bacevich
    • Notes
    • Acknowledgments
    • Contributors
    • Index
    • 1. Life at the Dawn of the American Century / Andrew J. Bacevich
    • 2. The Origins and Uses of American Hyperpower / David M. Kennedy
    • 3. Consuming the American Century / Emily S. Rosenberg
    • 4. The Problem of Color and Democracy / Nikhil Pal Singh
    • 5. Pragmatic Realism versus the American Century / T.J. Jackson Lears
    • 6. Toward Transnationalism / Akira Iriye
    • 7. From the American Century to Globalization / Jeffry A. Frieden
    • 8. Illusions of an American Century / Walter LaFeber
    • 9. The Heavenly City of Business / Eugene McCarraher
    • 10. Not So Different After All / Andrew J. Bacevich

  625. Photi says:

    But Fior, “What is Israel supposed to do?”

    Mizrahi has zero registry that Israel started this latest round of violence in Gaza. Why are disingenuous people like her allowed to distort reality so freely and without critique? Fiorangela, i am with you on the cynical take of the Chris Hayes 2-hour re-education program. The emperor is changing his clothes.

    From Richard Silverstein’s blog:

    “Despite a successful Gaza ceasefire, Israel assassinated several Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committee leaders to violate it. This, in turn begat the latest round of Palestinian rocket fire against Israel. Now 25 Gazans have been killed, many civilians, including a 14 year-old boy walking to school with four friends and a 65 year-old man and his daughter tending their farm. The IDF lied once again claiming they were used as “human shields” by militants:”


  626. fyi says:

    Kathleen says: March 13, 2012 at 11:39 am

    We shall see; I no longer trust what I read in regards to Iran oil sanctions.

    Japan and Korea are occupied countries; they are semi-sovereign.

    They will absorb certain amount of pain per the US Diktat.

    They have no other choice.

    India’s public statements are lies; they will also cut oil import from Iran to please US.

    A virgin girl is persuaded to part with her virginity at a certain price.

    She agrees, thinking that at some point she can recover her position in the community.

    Next, after the consummation of the deal, she realizes that her previous position cannot be recovered.

    Thus she sinks more and more into the morass that she herself helped create; loosing more and more.

    Americans diplomaacy is that capable.

  627. Humanist says:

    As expected the deceptive hype of Netanyahu / Barak on WAR with Iran is backfiring. (At least among those who are not gullible)

    German media is finding the hype crazy angering the Israeli embassador.

    In US free thinkers are also getting more antagonistic.

    If you know Sheldon Richman listen to the following 20 minute antiwar radio show.


    He is trashing AIPAC, Israel ……..he also assaults Obama.

  628. Libya reportedly has 200,000 well-armed militia members still running around, in a country with 6,000,000 people total (the equivalent would be 10,000,000 militia members in the US). This is a great concern, of course, to the Transitional National Council, which calls upon these militia members to lay down their arms and join the regular military.

    That effort should get a real boost by Libya’s newly adopted electoral law. It flatly prohibits soldiers from voting in any election.

    But not militia members.

    Even well-armed militia members.

  629. Fiorangela says:

    Kathleen, I wrote a transcript of the entire program.
    Granted, I have never tuned in to Chris Hayes before — I don’t listen to MSM, I get news from C Span (increasingly a mouthpiece for MSM), particularist websites — not general.

    Maybe what Hayes did WAS a major breakthrough; if so, I repeat, we’re in more trouble than I thought.

    I’ve done a bit of academic work in analysing media and almost everything I saw on that Chris Hayes program was calculated to perpetuate the demonization of Iran. Nothing in MSM programming is accidental. Look at subtle things, for example — Mizrahi’s bold red dress next to Jebreal’s white jacket & black sweater — Jebreal is a non-entity (black hole) waving the white flag. She was weak and ineffective.
    Hilal had extraordinary insights (relative to the rest of the panel), but was soft-voiced and unassertive — a knife to a gun fight. Hayes basically ignored her and her arguments.

    I fail to see how the concept “sarcasm” applies to Hayes’ recitation of the Esther story; in fact, I completely reject it. Where did he get the information that Netanyahu said “They’ve been trying to kill us forever —” and why did Hayes feel it contributed to his argument? Phil Weiss claimed the Esther reference referred to Israelis’ irrational fears, but study what Hayes said: he drew a false dilemma in which Iran is to be perceived as either scheming to annihilate Jews or as “rational actors” with whom peace is possible — “crazy as that may seem.” (This commentor on MondoW echoed some of my reaction — :http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/msm-jailbreak-chris-hayes-devotes-2-hours-to-conflict-with-panel-of-2-zionists-and-2-palestinians.html/comment-page-1#comment-432958)

    My children are Hayes’ age; I understand a bit about their use of sarcasm — my youngest is a master of the genre, as am I. In my household we used to warn each other that sarcasm is the equivalent of watering the flowers with acid. Sarcasm is destructive. When the topic is the threatened starvation vs bombing of 73 million people, sarcasm is NOT an appropriate rhetorical device to communicate with XX million otherwise badly informed viewers.

    Perhaps my view is jaundiced by an IP photo montage I saw the other day. http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Israeli-settlers-celebrate-Purim-in-Hebron/6390/?spt=rcc&or=sn There are 17 photos in the series, each one has a two-sentence caption under it. The first sentence describes that particular photo; the second sentence says:

    “The festival of Purim commemorates the rescue of Jews from genocide in ancient Persia as told in the book of Esther. UPI/Debbie Hill”

    So seventeen times Ms Debbie Hill reinforces a message that says, “Jews were threatened with genocide in ancient Persia.”

    Barghouthi’s extended comments were the most rational, most informative, and most biting of the entire program, but they were at the end of the 2-hour program, he spoke rapidly to get too-much information into the one shot he had to communicate with an important public, and if you noticed, the volume on his segment was lower than, for example, Mizrahi, who appeared alongside and interspersed with Barghouthi, and who was given the opportunity to refute and override Barghouti’s comments.

  630. Kathleen says:

    Link to the Siegel/Micheal Oren propaganda piece

    Israeli Ambassador Weighs In On Netanyahu Visit
    [4 min 32 sec

  631. Kathleen says:

    Photi on Walts latest and a topic that the Leveretts have focused on. How the MSM has fueled and set the stage for an attack on Iran

    Soon after the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq Cheney, Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bush, Kristol, Bolton, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Gaffney, etc etc were pivoted and started repeating unsubstantiated and inflammatory remarks about Iran. Cheney was on Tim Russerts Meet the Press in I believe late 2003 and hammered away on Iran. Russert did not challenge Cheney once when he repeated unproven claims about Iran. I think Russert said something like “what should we do”
    Reuel marc Gerecht was on the Diane Rehm show numerous times repeating the endlessly repeated false claims about Iran, Bolton on Talk of the Nation, Kristol on the Daily show, (no Jon Stewart did not challenge to question these false claims about Iran. During the 2008 election cycle, McCain, Clinton and yes Obama referred to Irans Nuclear weapons program. As if there were documented proof that such a program existed. MSM host after MSM host allowed these claims to be repeated. Helping set the stage for an attack on Iran. One of the worst offenders has been NPR’s Fresh air host Terri Gross who has not only allowed guest to repeat the unsubstantiated claims Terri has repeated them herself. Often. And how many of these same outlets refuse to have experts on their programs like Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett. Hell so far we can not even get Chris Hayes new Up program to have the Leveretts on. Wondering if there is some roadblock up keeping these experts off these programs. We are not talking about some commie pinkos. Leveretts were both in 43’s administration for heavens sake.

    I was pleased to read in that latest Walt piece that he focused a bit on NPR’s interview with Micheal Oren. I had heard this Siegel/Oren interview propoganda on my drive back from the Occupy Aipac conference and protest. I posted this here at Race for Iran how Siegel had once again helped set the stage for an attack by allowing Oren to repeat lies about Iran.

    The link to Robert Siegel allowing Micheal Oren to repeat lies about Iran
    Middle East
    link to npr.org
    Israeli Ambassador Weighs In On Netanyahu Visit
    [4 min 32 sec]

    Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama at the White House. The number one topic on their agenda was Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Obama appealed to the Israeli leader to allow more time to pass for sanctions against Tehran to work rather than resort to military action soon. But Netanyahu insisted that his country remain master of its own fate. And here to talk with us about what all this means is Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Good to see you again.

    MICHAEL OREN: Always good to be with you, Robert.

    Can you imagine hearing the Levertts saying to NPR’s Robert Siegel as Micheal Oren said at the end of that interview (Iran war drumming) “As always thank you Robert” How many times has Siegel had Micheal Oren on his program selling a war with Iran and lying about the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

  632. Photi says:

    kathleen, my guess is the problems you were experiencing with posting links is of a technical nature.

  633. Kathleen says:

    Photi your welcome. Tried to put it up three times last night. Not sure why it was not making it up

  634. Kathleen says:

    “Indians will cut oil shipments from Iran, so will US satrapies Japan and Korea.”

    Japan to win exemption from Iran sanctions by U.S.: report

  635. Photi says:

    Kathleen says:
    March 13, 2012 at 11:07 am

    thanks for the link Kathleen. Walt’s piece is a great place to start for all the MSM war peddlers to attempt to reclaim their self-respect. Rationality without regard to the facts is a joke, the MSM are a joke.

  636. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Azerbaijan Says Iran Strikes ‘Impossible’ From Its Territory

  637. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Israeli planning for Iran operation goes back years: Long-range flights and ‘bunker busters’


    Israel has a total of 300 warplanes, but about 100 front-line planes would participate in the mission, officials suggest. They would include attack aircraft as well as others used to escort, target enemy warplanes and anti-aircraft batteries and provide support like communications and search and rescue.

    The most powerful is the squadron of 24 F15i warplanes, American-made aircraft capable of carrying heavy payloads that could include 5,000-pound (2,200 kilogram), laser-guided GBU-28 bombs purchased from the U.S. These “bunker-busting” bombs would be at the heart of any operation.

    In addition, Israel has four squadrons, or about 100, F-16i warplanes. These planes are more nimble in the air, capable of attacking ground targets but also ideal for escorting the heavier attacking aircraft. The air force also has developed long-range unmanned drones that can provide intelligence, communications and other support in any mission.

    Experts believe that some of the Israeli warplanes, even F16s with upgraded fuel tanks, could not make the round trip without refueling in flight — depending on the route as well as the weight of their payload. Israel, which has eight tanker planes, can refuel an airplane in flight in a matter of minutes, though it’s unclear where the task would take place since much of the airspace in the region is hostile.

    The Israeli air force has carried out a series of long-distance training runs that could serve as models for striking Iran. In 2008, 100 jets participated in a drill in Greece. The air force has carried out similar drills more recently with both Greece and Italy, officials say.

    Probable targets in Iran, including the Natanz and Fordo enrichment facilities south of Tehran, lie some 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from Israel.

    Shafir, the former air force officer, said planners would need to choose among three likely flight paths, all of which carry grave risks.

    The shortest, most direct flight would be to cross over neighboring Jordan and through Iraq.

    Neither country has the capability to stop an Israeli warplanes from crossing through its airspace. But this would deeply embarrass them.

    Such an operation would raise the likelihood of a diplomatic spat with Jordan, Israel’s closest ally in the Arab world, and potentially Jordan it to Iranian retaliation. Jordanian officials refused to comment on how the government would react if Israel uses its airspace.

    A second route would be to fly south and through Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have no relations with Israel, and while they feel deeply threatened by a nuclear Iran, any signs of cooperation with the Jewish state would unleash fierce criticism throughout the Arab world. The Saudis would also be an easy target for an Iranian counter-strike.

    The last possibility would be crossing through Turkey, as Israel illicitly did in the 2007 airstrike in Syria. But Turkey is believed to have upgraded its radar systems since then, and Israel’s relations with Turkey, once a close ally, have deteriorated.

    A Turkish official said it was “out of the question” for Israel to use Turkish airspace. He said the jets would be “brought down” if Israel attempted to use the airspace without permission. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.

    End Quotes

  638. Kathleen says:

    Hope folks will listen to the program on Iran that Scott Simon clearly decided to air on his Saturday news program. Basically based on the assumption that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. Another way to help set the stage for an attack on Iran. This has been Scott Simons strategy in regard to promoting myths about Iran. Have you heard him have the Leverets on his Saturday program? Why not?
    Experts: A Strike On Iran Poses Many Challenges(173) (15)
    Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, addresses a meeting in Tehran on Thursday. Khamenei is a staunch defender of Iran’s nuclear program.

    March 10, 2012 There’s been considerable debate about bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, but little talk about the logistics involved. Military experts say Israel would likely need U.S. help, and a bombing campaign would probably take weeks, not days.

  639. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Americans for Permanent War: Target Syria


    Others have taken up the cry. For example, Matthew Brodsky of the Jewish Policy Center urged military intervention in order to bring about “an end to the violence, the fall of the Assad regime and the creation of conditions for a stable democratic system.” Roger Cohen of the New York Times called for arming the Syrian opposition and establishing “a rough equality of forces.” Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations endorsed military action so as not to leave “Syrians to their fate.” Former Obama aide Anne-Marie Slaughter suggested protecting “civilians through buffer zones and humanitarian cordons around specific cities, perhaps accompanied by airstrikes against Syrian army tanks moving against those cities.”

    End Quote

  640. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Just War and the Iran Crisis

    Philosophical discussion on what constitutes a “just war” and does Iran qualify (hint: no.)

  641. Richard Steven Hack says:

    A bit off-topic but Syria is related to Iran. An article on the narcissism of liberal interventionists.

    Bomb Syria so that I can sleep at night

  642. fyi says:

    Karl says: March 13, 2012 at 4:49 am


    Indians will cut oil shipments from Iran, so will US satrapies Japan and Korea.

    Iran’s relation with India will be transactional; there can never be a strategic understanding with that country again.

    If I were an Iranian planner, I would work on forging a fture strategic alliance with Pakistan. Basically, Iran has to buy Pakistan.

  643. Karl says:


    Ridiculous, palestinians just responded to the assassinations of a leader of a palestinian group last week. Media gets it wrong again blaming the palestinians for the renewed fighting.

  644. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Photos of ‘Cleanup’ at Iran’s Parchin Site Lack Credibility


    But the story is suspect, in part because it is based on evidence that could only be ambiguous, at best. The claim does not reflect U.S. intelligence, and a prominent think tank that has published satellite photography related to past controversies surrounding Iran’s nuclear program has not found any photographs supporting it.

    The original Parchin cleanup story by Associated Press correspondent George Jahn, published March 7, reported that two unnamed diplomats from an unidentified country or countries — it was not made clear how many were involved — told him that satellite photos “appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles” at the site.

    The two diplomats said they suspected Iran “may be trying to erase evidence” of tests of a “neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion” because “some of the vehicles at the scene appeared to be hauling trucks and other equipment suited to carting off potentially contaminated soil from the site.”

    However, a third diplomat told Jahn he “could not confirm that,” and Jahn was shown no photographs to back up the description offered by his two anonymous sources. Three other diplomats with whom Jahn spoke were apparently unaware of such photographs.

    The satellite photographs described to Jahn did not come from U.S. intelligence. Former CIA counterterrorism official Phil Giraldi told IPS that a U.S. intelligence official had confirmed to him that the officials in question were not talking about intelligence provided by U.S. intelligence.

    End Quote

  645. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Netanyahu’s conspiracy to drag the U.S. to war
    ‘Sometime between early June and mid-August, just before the Republican nominating convention, will be the ideal moment to drag the United States into war, the planners believe.’

  646. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iranian hand seen in Gaza escalation
    By Victor Kotsev


    The low casualty rate among Israelis – no deaths so far – is even more striking, given that over 200 rockets were fired at Israeli population centers in four days, a quarter of them Grad Katyshas with extended ranges of about 40 kilometers. At least 56 rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome system, whose radar can map where a rocket will fall and whose operators can selectively shoot down only those headed for densely populated areas. (The accuracy rate of the rockets is far from perfect.)

    There is every indication that Hamas was the one being punished, as much as Israel was being provoked with the missile salvos. In the last couple of weeks, though really ever since the Syrian uprising against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad took off, Hamas’s relationship with its former patrons Iran and Syria have gone from bad to worse.

    The punishment, it seems, came swiftly: at a period when Hamas is in flux, changing bases and supply lines and still responsible for the wellbeing of Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants, Iran and Syria apparently unleashed the other proxies they had cultivated in the strip. In so doing, they capitalized on Hamas’s lack of interest and readiness to fight, and sought to either draw the movement into a war that was bound to damage it badly or to weaken it domestically by portraying it as a collaborator with the Israelis.

    End Quote

    I’m not particularly buying this notion than Iran stimulated the Palestinian attacks by other radical groups than Hamas to punish Hamas, although it’s not impossible. I prefer Ramzy Baroud’s theory that it was in response to Israaeli provocation directly against those other radical groups which in turn was intended to support Netanyahu’s line.

  647. Kathleen says:

    Have posted a link 3 times to Stephen Walts latest over at Foreign Policy. Has never made it up. Is there a feud going on between the Leveretts and Walt

    Top ten media failures in the Iran war debate
    Posted By Stephen M. Walt Sunday, March 11, 2012

  648. Kathleen says:

    Fio whether you recognize this or not that program was a breakthrough for MSNBC. Hayes brought up the Esther story in a sarcastic way. Now granted Chris did not really challenge when totally unsubstantiated claims were repeated. But it is a breakthrough. Did you watch and listen to the whole program?

  649. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran’s legal right to attack Israel
    By Kaveh L Afrasiabi


    After years of living in the shadow of an Israeli military strike, Iran is now openly contemplating the idea of pre-emptive strike, in light of Israel’s preparedness for imminent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Citing a right to anticipatory self-defense, the Iranian argument is that instead of waiting for its Zionist adversary to make a move, Iran should take the offensive and cripple Israel’s ability to deliver on its threatened assault.

    Iran’s plan to initiate a pre-emptive strike on Israel is perfectly legal under customary international law, according to several Tehran political analysts specializing on Iran’s foreign affairs. “Under the UN Charter, Iran has the inherent right of self-defense that in this case translates into the right to respond to the clear and present danger of imminent attack by the state of Israel in clear violation of international law,” says a Tehran University political scientist who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity.

    In a nutshell, Tehran’s legal argument in defense of a pre-emptive strike on Israel centers on several inter-related elements.

    First, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has the right to strike Israel because Israel has already engaged in overt hostile acts including the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists, sabotage, and life-threatening cyber-warfare, not to mention Israeli political and military leaders’ open declarations of intent to attack Iran in the immediate future.

    Second, these illegal acts combined with the declarations of intent constitute an imminent national security threat to Iran, defined under customary international law in terms of “outward hostile acts” of one state against another.

    Third, Iran has already exhausted all the diplomatic means for deterring an Israeli strike, such as by repeatedly complaining to the UN Security Council, to no avail as the Security Council has turned a blind eye.

    Fourth, Israel’s stated intention to attack Iran violates international law for a number of other reasons:

    Iran has never threatened to use its nuclear capability to attack Israel.

    There is a legal bar against any attack on Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities, in light of the Resolution 533 of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which prohibits any such attack and deems it a violation of international law.

    Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its leadership has formally renounced nuclear weapons, there is an absence of any treaty constraint barring Iran’s possession of a nuclear fuel cycle, and to this date after extensive inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities, the IAEA has never detected any diversion of nuclear material to military purposes.

    Evidence, including reports in Washington Post citing the opinion of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, suggests Israel is well beyond the “preparatory stages” of an attack on Iran and is gearing up to implement this plan within the next several months.

    End Quote

    I gotta say, I think that would be a REALLY bad idea for Iran. And I don’t think anyone in the senior leadership is crazy enough to consider it.

  650. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Bibi stirs trouble with attack on Gaza

    Ramzy Baroud says this is directly related to Iran.

  651. Richard Steven Hack says:

    92 killed across Syria as opposition says military intervention may be only solution


    The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama opened the door slightly Tuesday to international military assistance for Syria’s rebels, with officials saying new tactics may have to be explored if President Bashar Assad continues to defy pressure to halt a brutal crackdown on dissenters that has raged for 11 months and killed thousands.

    The White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration’s previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.

    The opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) said it was coming to the view that military intervention was the only solution to the crisis.

    “We are really close to seeing this military intervention as the only solution. There are two evils, military intervention or protracted civil war,” Basma Kodmani, a senior SNC official, told a press conference in Paris.

    End Quote

  652. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Arnold: “Does it need a name?”


    “What do you call an diamond ring with no diamonds? ”

    It is a ring. It it was designed and intended to hold a diamond, it is a diamond ring without a diamond. If you put a ruby in it it becomes a ruby ring.

    You clearly don’t have the first clue about how concepts are constructed.

    A device which is engineered to produce a nuclear explosion is a nuclear explosive device, with or without nuclear material present at any given time.

    This is so obvious it’s pointless to discuss it with you.

    You can’t deal with this, so you veer off into semantic never-never land.


  653. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    The most constructive thing EU could do is to bow out.

    She is just another enemy of Iran.

    The principle fight is between the United States and the Islamic Republic.

    A more neutral intermediary is needed – Switzerland, South Africa, Turkey, or Brazil.

    The principle EU states are truly suffering from a misjudgement of Iranian power as well as being burdened by White-man’s arrogance.

  654. fyi says:

    Nasser says: March 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    I referring to a story told about the first Omavid Khalif, Ma’awiyeh.

    That he was reported to have stated something to the effect that if there were a thread between him and his adversaries that was lax, he would pull on it and if they pulled on it, he would relax it.

  655. Arnold Evans says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    March 13, 2012 at 6:35 am

    However, you never answered my question: what is a nuclear explosive device without fissile material to be called?

    Does it need a name? How often is there a reason to talk about devices that would be nuclear explosive devices if they had fissile material?

    What do you call an diamond ring with no diamonds? If you were in the ring-making business, I guess you’d have a name for it, but if you’re not, “diamond ring without the diamond” is fine.

    But if a country signs a treaty prohibiting diamond rings, it doesn’t violate that treaty by making a diamond ring without the diamond.

  656. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    And just to follow up, its good that you can excuse terrorism as long the terrorists oppose a government you oppose. Of course, its different for the entirely peaceful struggle of the Bahraini people for their freedom from a brutal totalitarian regime. Their its fine to murder peaceful protesters. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  657. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 13, 2012 at 2:15 am

    The people I will call terrorists are the raving Salafist fanatics who savagely murdered Alawites and Christians with swords, desecrated their bodies and left them unburied, and than lied about their deaths in a failed attempt to demonize the Syrian government just before the latest nonsensical UNSC meeting. Just to be clear, the terrorists in question are the ones that you support.

  658. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    By the way, its great that an “atheist” knows so much about what an extremist Christian like Santorum believes. Yep, you just keep reinforcing your credibility here. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  659. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 13, 2012 at 2:13 am

    So you are now reduced to defending a Christian totalitarian extremist. Yep, just like any “atheist” would. More like a pathological Zionist stooge would who hates Muslims and wants to portray all Muslims as extreme (except for the extremist terrorists in Syria of course) and who finds religious extremism perfectly acceptable from someone as long as they support their views. Do you realize what a laughingstock and an absurdity you have proven yourself to be?

  660. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Eric: This statement from Arnold…

    “Here is your definition of nuclear weapon: A nuclear explosive device is a device which is INTENDED and DESIGNED to cause a nuclear explosion IF AND WHEN appropriate fissile material is introduced into it. The problem with your definition is that now you have to measure what was “INTENDED”, which is inherently unknowable, but can and will be applied discriminatorily. Against countries like Iran.”

    I didn’t respond to that because it’s farcical.

    ANY nuclear weapons engineer can look at such a device and immediately see what it is intended to do. There is no mystery here. There is no need to “measure intent”. The DESIGN tells you what the INTENT is! If you build a device that, once inserted with fissile material, can initiate a nuclear explosion, you have a nuclear explosion device. Period. There is no other possible discussion. That is the DEFINITION of a nuclear explosive device in EVERY treaty and legal document outside the NPT as I cited.

    It has nothing to do with whether it is intended as a nuclear demolition pack or a nuclear weapon, whether it is used to dig a canal or blow up Washington. It has to do with what it was ENGINEERED to do: initiate a nuclear explosion. ANYTHING which has been engineered to initiate a nuclear explosion is clearly forbidden under the NPT.

    He can’t even figure that.

    I’m not discussing this any more with either of you because it’s become a pointless argument which is utterly irrelevant to anything with is going on with Iran.

  661. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Arnold: I’m no longer discussing the issue of what the NPT allows.

    Absent a definition of “weapon” or “nuclear explosive device” or “manufactured” or “acquired” or whether any of that is “assembled or disassembled” as other treaties state, it’s all speculation.

    However, you never answered my question: what is a nuclear explosive device without fissile material to be called?

    A gun without bullets is called a gun. That is quite clear.

    A nuclear explosive device with no fissile material is still a nuclear explosive device.

    Ask anyone if they found a device which had every component necessary to initiate a nuclear explosion except actual fissile material whether that would be considered a nuclear explosive device and you will get one answer.

    Email the IAEA and ask them. That should clarify it for you. Email Robert Kelley. Email Hans Blix. Email anyone you want. You’ll get one answer.

    I’m not saying anything more.

    This conversation is a waste of time. Eric has his axe to grind, you have yours (and an acute inability to understand the nature of concepts), I have mine. That’s it.

  662. Karl says:

    On Iran/India relations

    Is India defying Western sanctions on Iran?

  663. delia ruhe says:

    The US, along with its vassal states, has really screwed up the possibilities for Western energy security with its dysfunctional foreign policy in the Middle East.

    There are at least 5 pipeline proposals that can’t go forward because they’re all configured to go around Iran instead of through it — which means they’ll all have to pass through war zones, and all of them horrendously expensive. Meanwhile, pipelines to China are happily multiplying.

    What did the US get by way of oil as a result of its $3 trillion war against Iraq? Next to nothing. What is the US accomplishing in Afghanistan? Making more Muslim enemies. China simply offers the resource nations and the transit nations generous help with their development — without sending even one soldier — and it easily signs long-term contracts for billions of cubic metres of gas and millions of gallons of oil. Happily, China doesn’t have much in the way of a formidable army, so it has to negotiate for what it needs.

    Well, the US and the petrodollar are in for a shock if Iran goes through with its plans to abandon it and accept any and all of its customers’ currencies — including gold. There’s no sign that Iran is going to back down from this legitimate resistance to illegitimate sanctions.

  664. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    The election season has once again shown just how firmly Zionists are in control of the US political system.

    It’s time the Leveretts, Baer, Zakaria, the Pauls and others who advocate acceptance of the Islamic Republic and establishing relations with it, form a proper political group and seriously get in the game on this issue. If this issue is so vital for US national interests as is suggested, running a website, writing books and articles and doing interviews is just not enough.

    Also the Iranian-Americans who are sympathetic should support them. This site and what you have been doing in the last couple years is good but it’s time to take it up a notch.

  665. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    1. Happy to see you are responding to your Hebrew name, (but you would be used to responding to it when your commanding officer yells at you to copy-paste another post on this site).

    2. The correct transliteration of ‘madar-jende’ is with a ‘j’ not a ‘g’- you seem to have a problem with ‘g’ and ‘j’ (see the infamous “sanjak” incident).

    3. I’ll accept ‘avazi’, ‘qoltaq’, ‘heyvan’ even ‘pedar-sag’, but damn you for insulting an innocent chaste women! (cue false outrage).

    4. If Israel ass-lickers and Zionist balls-suckers like you are allowed to post here, so are basijis. Get used to it.

    5. As mentioned you require intensive therapy because you are in denial about reality. The Islamic Republic and its continued existence and success are reality, your masturbations on this site are delusions and phantasy. The sooner you accept reality the better for you. We’re all praying for your mental health. Ameen.

  666. Sassan says:

    Please, call these kids and people on this video “terrorists”. They are the one’s being slaughtered by Assad’s thugs whom have been funded, supported, and trained by the Islamic Republic hooligans..: http://youtu.be/Du5jeYbudPc

  667. Sassan says:

    Key difference: Rick Santorum opposes gay marriage. The Mullahs kill all gays. Rick Santorum is not “totalitarian”. He is too religious for my liking but for anyone to claim he is “totalitarian” is both disingenuous and naive.

  668. Pirouz says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    March 12, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    lol. It’s my guess this person is fourteen years old, and if not I’m embarrassed for him. But then, these folks have been a never ending source of embarrassment starting in 1979.

    But I’ve taken a softer line on the older ones in recent years. My Iranian dad passed away 12 years ago (he was non-diaspora). So when I see folks his age and older at the public library, I go out of my way to be nice. Many of them barely speak english. I try to make them comfortable, and I’m a good listener. They know they’re never going home, and besides, that home has itself left them behind decades ago.

    Most of the young ones here in northern California are thoroughly Americanized and apolitical when it comes to Iran. Some are not but most are.

    By accident today, I caught part of the TV show Shahs of Sunset. Whenever I see shows like these, I have to think that parents in Iran thank their lucky stars they’re not trying to raise kids in LA.

  669. k_w says:


    They will never accept the occupation of Jerusalem, and the Zionists will never let it slip out of their greedy fingers.

  670. k_w says:


    Then why don’t you quote from their articles 9 and 10? Why do you leave them out although it is them that define aims and objectives?

  671. Dan Cooper says:

    It is imperative that the future american presidents understand the international politics and the new world order.

    If the Americans want to get out of this quagmire, they should elect people like; Flynt Leverett as the president and Hillary Mann Leverett as Secretary of State.

  672. Dan Cooper says:


    Rick Santorum is just another stooge of Israel.

  673. Arnold Evans says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    March 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    Before we got to enforcement, we have to have some idea of what obligations are to be enforced. We agree NPT signatories have an obligation not to make a weapon. But what does that mean?

    I say a weapon is clearly defined, and that the safeguards agreement is brilliantly designed so that a country that complies with the procedures they demand cannot make a weapon. So far it has worked and the people who designed the treaty were well enough versed with the physical requirements of weapon-making that I expect it to work indefinitely.

    You say weapon is not clearly defined. NPT signatories have an obligation that you are not even willing to type out, despite being asked directly many times over the last two days.

    What is a weapon?
    What ratified text supports your definition of weapon?

    This obligation now can ebb and flow depending on your mood, and what countries you trust, and what regions you think are strategic, and what “neighborhoods” you think are “tough”, and what you think most other people think is reasonable.

    So far, I haven’t been able to pin you down, despite what I consider a valiant effort. :-)

    Before we talk about enforcement, this undefined obligation you want to impose is unacceptable completely independent of whether or not or how it could be enforced.

    There is a very good reason the NPT framers would not have left an obligation that you would be able to decide willy nilly decades after the document was ratified. They knew that any definition that depends on trust or intention could be misused to discriminate against signatories. Which is what we see, but not what the words of the treaty support.

    I can see absolutely no benefit the framers might have perceived in having this undefined and unenforceable obligation. Nor do I think the framers were stupid or sloppy so that they didn’t define the additional obligation you want to impose.

    But once you actually write down a definition, if you were to do so, you would eventually have to admit that nothing most NPT states have ratified demands they use your definition rather than mine. Then we get to the enforcement problem.

    Your definition probably, almost certainly, has already been violated by countries that are in good standing with respect to the NPT.

    Mine definition has credibly and verifiably not been violated and as far as we know cannot be without visibly breaking the safeguards agreement.

    That’s when we’d see you say you trust some countries to build or research weapons (without fissile material) more than you trust others. And you’re going to call that reasonable, and say you’d apply the same standard to Israel, if only Israel had ratified the NPT.

    But no country has ratified whatever definition you would provide any more than Israel has ratified the NPT. Oh well. As long as you’re being fair.

    Once we move away from a clear definition of weapon, a clear definition of what an NPT signatory’s obligations actually are, then you are just making it up as you go along. That violently opposes the intent and the spirit of the NPT. What they worked very hard to prevent is for a US citizen to be on-the-fly deciding what obligations are reasonable and which breeches should be or should not be enforced based on his sense of trust.

    Your trying to undo their effort puts you in a league with Bolton, Netanyahu and Obama.

  674. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    And let’s get this straight once and for all. The Iranian government, unlike the Israeli government and the terrorists you support in Syira is not, and never has been “terrorist.” In fact, unlike you, it consistently opposes terrorism around the world.

  675. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    So, totalitarian religious extremism is fine with the “atheist” if it supports his views. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  676. Sassan says:

    Rick Santorum has always been a friend of the Iranian people. While I would not vote for him because he is too religious for my liking; he is someone who is a good man and has been an advocate for the Iranian people. And time and time again he has always distinguished the peaceful and secular Iranian people to the terrorist regime of the IRI.

  677. Dan Cooper says:

    An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind. – Buddha

    America’s relations with Israel has always been explained by politicians on both sides as ‘friendship’. Today, more than any other time in the course of their ‘friendship’, this relationship brings to mind the story of “Blockhead and the Judge”.

    According to English folklore, Blockhead complained to the Judge of being annoyed with flies. The Judge granted Blockhead permission to strike them wherever he saw them. Observing a big fly on the judge’s nose, Blockhead delivered a powerful blow with his fist, smashing the fly – and the Judge’s nose.

    Israel, annoyed at Iran’s refusal to abrogate its rights granted under international law and treaties, and for resisting injustice, has demanded that the United States not only impose crippling sanctions on Iran, but place an embargo on Iran’s crude oil.

    America’s compliance with such irrational and harsh demands has in turn raised the prospect of retaliation which could halt the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz, depriving the world of an estimated 35% of its total oil needs.

    As Ted Koppel wrote rather candidly in the New York Times (February 24, 2006) “Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been the bedrock of American foreign policy for more than half a century.”[i]

    In complying with Israel’s wishes, not only has America acted contrary to its long-standing foreign policy, violated international treaties, but it has also inflicted harm on its national interest by creating a shortage which has sent gas prices skyrocketing setting back the economy.

    A March, 2012 Gallup Poll is indicative of the dire effects of this decision on the US economy.

    The poll shows that 85% of Americans want the President and Congress to “take immediate actions to try to control the rising price of gas.” Ironically, it is the President and Congress, hedged on by Israel and its lobbies in the U.S. that have caused the gas price increase.

    A simple equation determines the price of oil: supply and demand (granted, at times other variables factor in such as speculators, specifically at times of political crisis, and oil refinery related issues, bearing in mind that much of the oil refineries in America and elsewhere are Israeli owned – see footnote[1]).

    There is ample empirical evidence pointing to price increases whenever oil supplies are disrupted.

    The Iranian revolution and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war is estimated to have cost the US a total of $355 billion in higher oil prices (T. Stauffer, 2003)[ii].

    The oil strikes leading up to the 1978-79 Iranian revolution reduced Iranian oil production by 3.8 million barrels per day for 3 months. Although outside production increased by 1.8 million barrels to make up for the loss, the net loss to the world was 150 million barrels of oil, this fact alone had a compounding result which resulted in a net loss to U.S. economy of an estimated billions of dollars in 1979 and 1980 (Deese & Nye 1981)[iii].

    It is crucial to note that in this period China was a net exporter oil and became a net importer in 1993.

    Ignoring such statistics, they have placed an oil embargo which without a doubt will have far graver repercussions than those periods.

    This dire situation is of no concern to the Israelis – thanks to America having “their back”.

    The burden is America’s due to the renewable 1975 15-year Memorandum of Understanding

    it signed with Israel which costs American taxpayers billions of dollars a year in oil subsidies.

    Point (b) of Annex to the MoU stipulates:

    “If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the [iv]United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula, as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel’s essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.”

    The 85% Americans who demand “immediate action” from Congress and the President, should remind the government of the 2008 research developed by economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer which makes a clear case for the United States to lift sanctions on Iran, arguing that the this would drop the world price of oil by 10 percent, translating into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States.

    As Americans are being crushed under the weight of sanctions and oil embargo, in demanding action from the government, they should bear in mind that Israel is no friend, and Iran is no fly.

    Israel-US Relations: Blockhead And The Judge?

    By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich


  678. Arnold Evans says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    lol. I think most people on here would agree that the real troll is you. Not me. And the only person supporting terrorist suicide bombings is one who supports terror organizations such as Hamas.

    I guarantee you’d be embarrassed if you put this to a vote.

  679. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    So the Identity claims to be an “atheist” and posts a link to a raving totalitarian Christian extremist. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  680. Dan Cooper says:


    Israel is a terrorist state and the biggest threat to world peace.

  681. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    So a raving Christian extremist who wants to deny people their basic rights is someone you think has an opinion worth listening to. Yep, you just keep proving you are an idiot.

  682. Sassan says:

    Rick Santorum: Give Iran Back to the Persians: http://youtu.be/b2D2x8JvTN8

  683. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    No Identity, I do not think anyone would agree with that. And once again, just because you deny it does not change the fact that the terrorists you support in Syria have committed suicide bombings. Thus, you support terrorists who commit suicide bombings. Yet another stupid lie disproved. Got any more?

  684. Sassan says:

    lol. I think most people on here would agree that the real troll is you. Not me. And the only person supporting terrorist suicide bombings is one who supports terror organizations such as Hamas.

  685. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    And by the way, just reproducing a previous post where you made a claim is not a response to a previous poster who called that claim into question.

  686. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    So on one hand the Sassan Identity reproduces unproven claims about Iran, and on the other he copy pastes propaganda from a real brutal totalitarian dictatorship that actually oppresses its people in the way that he claims that Iran does. The Sassan Identity, ladies and gentlemen.

  687. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    So you just reproduced news produced by a brutal totalitarian dictatorship and expect to be taken seriously? You just completely destroyed your own position of opposition to dictatorship and terrorism by citing propaganda produced by a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that uses terror to savage its peaceful opponents.

  688. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    No moron, I don’t. My only previous reference to a mistranslation was when you engaged in an obvious mistranslation of a common Hebrew phrase into English which proved you were a Zionist stooge. And just to be clear, the “context” I was refering to was the one in which the previous poster called your claim about Hamas into question by providing information that disproved your claim. You than dodged having a discussion about the information that poster presented and than respond hours later by simply repeating your original, debunked assertion by reproducing your initial post verbatim (By the way, when you do that it is called spam, and is often grounds for being banned on other blogs).

  689. Fiorangela says:

    Kathleen says: March 12, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    If Chris Hayes is supposed to be the great hope for honest media, then we’re in more trouble than I thought.

    A few minutes into the program Hayes admitted that he “knows little about the subject; he’s not ’embedded’ in it.”
    About 8 minutes later he retold how Netanyahu told the Esther story, about how “Persians killed Jews,” and repeated some gossip that Netanyahu said to Obama — “The Persians have been trying to kill us since the beginning.”

    Hayes registered a minor level of embarrassment at the statement, but excused it by saying, “That’s what Netanyahu said to Obama.”

    Hayes provided no context for the Hebrew myth; did not observe that in fact, in the story, Jews kill 75,000 Persians AND the king’s ten sons AND the prime minister AND Esther becomes the Queen AND Esther gets half of the treasure of the kingdom AND her uncle becomes prime minister.

    Hayes the journalist failed to read the Hebrew narrative. His ignorance of the narrative as it is written in the Hebrew scriptures did not prevent him from relaying to an international audience a propagandized retelling of it.

    Further, he failed to perform the simple act of checking the Hebrew narrative against the known history of the era, also available in the Hebrew scripture as well as in the history of the Jewish people and the history of the Persian people.

    That history reveals that IT F&%*ING NEVER HAPPENED!! Jews were NOT threatened with genocide by Persians. Period. Full stop. And if it DID happen Mr. Journo Hayes, then it was Persians who ended up dead and dispossessed, one more instance of collective punishment of 75,000 people to sate greed and sense of entitlement and powermadness.

    If Netanyahu can tell a whopper like that and get away with it, what other lies has he been telling to himself, to Israelis, to the world, to the US Congress, to the American people?

    Zbigniew Brzezinski has said that the greatest danger Americans confront is their own ignorance. When a known liar like Benjamin Netanyahu can get away with using a hateful and counterfactual fictional story from Hebrew writings to demonize a people who have been the only people on this earth in whose land Jews have dwelt in security and prosperity since 537 BC to this very day, and US media repeat it mindlessly, then we are doomed.

    Hayes is an idiot.

    “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” – James Madison, 1822

    “The final speaker, Ms. Ashraf Girgis, an Iranian woman who studied in the United States, and is currently a Stress Management Consultant and Therapist with a Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine, spoke of the role of the U.S. media in demonizing the people and the government of Iran while knowing next to nothing about the real history, culture and people and their way of life in the Iranian society. Ms. Girgis was baffled at why the United States demonstrates so much hatred and irrationality towards her homeland, when it has in fact been the U.S. policies toward Iran, particularly with regard to the 8 year war with Iraq that resulted in the death of over one million Iranians and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.”

  690. Arnold,

    I understand why you reach the conclusions you reach.

    A fundamental shortcoming of the NPT is what I call its “enforcement gap.” Except for Article III, which requires non-nuclear weapon signatories to sign Safeguards Agreements with the IAEA, and describes what those Safeguards Agreements are to cover (“source and special fissionable material”), the NPT is utterly silent as to how and by whom it is to be enforced. Nor does any other document fill this “enforcement gap.” As a result, no body at all has authority to enforce the NPT – other than the IAEA, and its authority is limited to enforcement of Safeguards Agreements, which cover only a portion of a country’s obligations under the NPT (those that relate to “source or special fissionable material”).

    Apart from our recent narrow disagreement, the most important implication of this “enforcement gap” is that, contrary to almost universal belief, even the UN Security Council has no authority to enforce the NPT. While this may be a highly controversial statement, that is so only for those who have not taken the time to look into it.

    To be sure, if a non-nuclear weapon signatory’s failure to comply with the NPT results in a “breach of the peace, threat to the peace, or act of aggression” (a “Peace Threat”), the UN Security Council has ample authority to act – but under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, not under the NPT or the country’s Safeguards Agreement. The Security Council will have exactly the same authority under Chapter VII (only) regardless of whether the IAEA has “referred” Iran to the Security Council or the Security Council acts entirely on its own initiative (as it has done several times). Though the opposite is almost universally understood to be the case, there is no such thing as a “referral” process under the NPT or a Safeguards Agreement. The IAEA is permitted, and in some circumstances required, to “report” certain matters to the Security Council, but such a report from the IAEA does not bestow on the Security Council any authority that the Security Council would not otherwise have.

    In short, regardless of how the matter lands on the Security Council’s desk, its authority is based solely on Chapter VII of the UN Charter (which requires that the Security Council first determine that a Peace Threat exists), and not under the NPT or any Safeguards Agreement. Under no circumstances does the Security Council acquire any authority under the NPT or a Safeguards Agreement, nor any right to require that the IAEA take any particular action. Though the UN and the IAEA cooperate pursuant to various agreements and statutes, they are and always have been entirely separate organizations, and neither has authority to exercise power granted to the other body, even if the other body asks for help. However often this may be overlooked, it takes surprisingly little research to establish that this is not disputable.

    Understandably, very many people have tried over the years to fill this NPT “enforcement gap.” I doubt you recognize that your narrow interpretation of the Article II prohibition against the manufacture of nuclear weapons represents such an effort, but I believe it does. You recognize that the NPT is silent on enforcement, other than in Article III, which describes the NPT’s one and only enforcement provision: Safeguards Agreements. From that, you conclude that a country’s compliance with its Safeguards Agreement amounts to the country’s compliance with the NPT in general.

    I will acknowledge there is language in NPT Article III that arguably supports this interpretation:

    Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards… for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

    I assume you interpret “its obligations” to mean “all of its obligations,” and that, as a result, you interpret the quoted passage to mean that whatever NPT obligations can be “verified” under a country’s Safeguards Agreement are all of the obligations the country has under the NPT. As I am confident I’ve made clear by now, I believe that NPT obligations stated under its other Articles exist, as written, regardless of whether those obligations are adequately enforced under a country’s Safeguards Agreement. Indeed, I’ve made clear that those obligations often can be violated by a country even if it is in full compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.

    I agree that Article III could and should have been drafted more clearly. I am nonetheless confident that the drafters did not intend that an obligation under other NPT Articles would cease to exist merely because a country could find a way to violate that obligation while managing to comply with its Safeguards Agreement. We could debate our respective interpretations of this language until the cows come home, but I don’t think it will be fruitful for either of us to do so. I understand your position, you understand mine (I hope), and we can just agree to disagree.

    If you are interested more generally in what I call this NPT “enforcement gap,” you might find it interesting to read the following passage in my 2010 piece about the Iran nuclear dispute, in which I describe strained interpretations of the NPT born out of various analysts’ frustration with this “enforcement gap.”


    One naturally assumes that something is written, somewhere, authorizing the Security Council to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. Perhaps in the UN Charter, or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), or the Safeguards Agreement between Iran and the IAEA, or the statute that established the IAEA (the IAEA Statute), or the several IAEA/UN cooperation agreements (the IAEA/UN Cooperation Agreements). If not in one of these documents, certainly somewhere else.

    In fact, no document grants the Security Council any authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. Nothing but baseless assumptions, wishes and imagination support this belief. There is no such thing as a “referral” process under which the Security Council has authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, under any circumstances. Iran is just as mistaken as its adversaries to believe there is.[1] The two sides are not alone.[2] Nearly all commentators focus on whether the IAEA’s “referral” of Iran to the Security Council was warranted, or the conditions on which Iran’s “file” or “dossier” ought to be “returned” to the IAEA.[3] Very few recognize that it never left, that the IAEA will always remain the only body with authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.

    Several documents do authorize[4] – sometimes even require[5] – the IAEA to “report” certain matters to the Security Council. There is an important purpose for those reports, but it is not to enable the Security Council to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. The purpose is to notify the Security Council that reasons exist (in the IAEA’s view) to consider whether Iran’s nuclear program is a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” under Article 39 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter (a Peace Threat).

    If the Security Council determines that a Peace Threat exists, it may take many measures against Iran under Articles 40 and 41 – possibly even military action under Article 42. It may decide, for example, that imposing restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will help to “maintain or restore international peace and security.” If so, it will not matter whether those restrictions are authorized by Iran’s Safeguards Agreement or go beyond it, since the Security Council will be acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, not under Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. On the other hand, if the Security Council has not determined that Iran’s nuclear program is a Peace Threat (which it has not – see Part 2 of this article), it has no authority to take any action under Chapter VII.

    Because a Security Council resolution adopted after it has considered an IAEA report is likely to involve matters also covered by Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, it is understandable that many people mistakenly believe the Security Council has authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. The distinction between the Security Council’s authority under Chapter VII (very substantial, if it determines that a Peace Threat exists) and under Iran’s Safeguards Agreement independent of Chapter VII (none) becomes clear only when the Security Council has no authority to act under Chapter VII. To highlight the distinction, suppose that the Security Council reviews an IAEA report on Iran, agrees that Iran is not complying with its Safeguards Agreement, but determines that no Peace Threat exists and so concludes (as it must) that the Security Council has no authority to act under Chapter VII. This properly narrows the question: Setting aside its authority under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, does the Security Council have authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement? Indisputably the answer is “no” – no matter what Iran may have done or not done.

    Even commentators who acknowledge that the UN Charter is the sole basis for Security Council authority often devote considerable attention to a question that does not matter: whether the IAEA’s “referral” was warranted under Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.[6] The IAEA may report more or less whatever it likes to the Security Council, at any time.[7] Rarely do commentators address the important question that must be answered under UN Charter Article 39 to determine whether the Security Council has authority to act: Is Iran’s nuclear program a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression?”[8]

    Some may believe that a Peace Threat determination is implied by the IAEA’s mere act of “reporting” that it cannot determine whether a country has “diverted” nuclear material, or that the country is in non-compliance with its Safeguards Agreement. If so, they are mistaken. Apart from the IAEA’s obvious lack of authority to make a Peace Threat determination on behalf of the Security Council, IAEA reports of non-compliance do not always result in Chapter VII action. When the IAEA reported North Korea’s non-compliance in 1993, the Security Council made no Peace Threat determination and its response (Resolution 825) was not based on Chapter VII. After the IAEA reported Romania’s non-compliance in 1992, the Security Council adopted no responsive resolution at all. The same was true for Libya in 2004.[9] When the IAEA reported Iran’s non-compliance in 2006, the Security Council’s likely reaction was far from certain – especially since the IAEA’s finding was based expressly on disclosure violations that had ended years earlier and had had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.[10]

    Conversely, nothing in Chapter VII requires an IAEA report before the Security Council may act, and it has adopted several nuclear-related Chapter VII resolutions without any recent IAEA report having been made.[11] In short, though the IAEA’s expert views deserve and receive careful attention, it is the job of the Security Council, not the IAEA, to determine whether a Peace Threat exists and to take appropriate action if one does. It is the job of the IAEA, not the Security Council, to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.

    Despite this clear separation of authority, there is almost no disagreement among commentators that the Security Council may enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, their only disagreement being whether its exercise of that authority has been warranted. Where do they claim to find such authority? Most cite no basis at all. They may assume that the UN Security Council has implied authority to intervene in any international dispute that interests it, and that it has sufficiently declared its interest here by “reaffirming its commitment to the [NPT]” in the preamble to each Iran Resolution. From those who understand that the Security Council has no such implied authority, the most common answer is that Article 19 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement grants the Security Council authority to enforce the Agreement. Article 19 provides:

    If the … [IAEA finds it] is not able to verify that there has been no diversion of nuclear material required to be safeguarded under this Agreement, to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, it may make the reports provided for in … [Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute.]

    Article XII.C plainly authorizes the IAEA to report such a finding to the Security Council. Just as plainly, Article XII.C does not grant the Security Council authority to take any action under Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. Nor does any other provision of that Agreement or any other document. The Security Council may act under Chapter VII in appropriate circumstances, but only the IAEA has authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement. It is not a subsidiary or other affiliate of the United Nations. Though the two bodies cooperate in many ways,[12] they are entirely separate and neither has a right to exercise any authority granted to the other – even if the other body asks for help. If Iran breaches its Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA may terminate assistance, or demand the return of materials and equipment, being provided to Iran under the IAEA Statute. If its violations persist, Iran may even be expelled from membership in the IAEA. These are the remedies available for Iran’s violation of its Safeguards Agreement, and only the IAEA may enforce them.

    There is at least one more argument, different but no stronger, under which the Security Council is said to have authority to enforce Iran’s Safeguards Agreement – or at least the NPT. An Iran analyst insists that:

    The general understanding was and is that the UN Security Council is responsible for enforcement [of the NPT], and this was reaffirmed in 1992 when the president of the Council declared that proliferation was a threat to international peace and security.[13]

    He cites no authority, with good reason. The negotiations leading to the NPT’s adoption do not suggest that such an “understanding” – “general” or otherwise – was reached or even discussed.[14] Nor can any hint of it be found in the UN resolution memorializing the adoption of the NPT[15] – nor in the NPT itself, Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA Statute, the IAEA/UN Cooperation Agreements, the UN Charter or any other document. This leaves only the unofficial 1992 remark by the Security Council’s president, which the commentator characterizes as a universal Peace Threat determination with no expiration date, eliminating the Chapter VII requirement that the Security Council consider an actual situation and determine whether it amounts to a Peace Threat.

    This analyst noticed that the NPT is missing not only an enforcer, but remedies as well. He fills this void too – this time by concluding that NPT Article II (which essentially prohibits a non-nuclear weapons country from manufacturing, acquiring or seeking nuclear weapons) authorizes the Security Council to take away a country’s enrichment rights on certain conditions that, not surprisingly, he finds Iran has satisfied:

    Because Iran has been found noncompliant with its [Safeguards Agreement] obligations and has not enabled the IAEA to verify its compliance with the core Article II obligation that conditions all rights to nuclear energy, Iran has lost, at least temporarily, the full enjoyment of its original nuclear rights.

    In other words, once the IAEA finds a country is in “non-compliance” – even if the non-compliance was a disclosure violation that ended several years ago and had nothing to do with nuclear weapons development or any other prohibited activity[16] – the country loses its enrichment rights unless and until the IAEA verifies that it is not manufacturing, acquiring or seeking nuclear weapons. He cites no authority for this guilty-until-proven-innocent presumption, much less for the IAEA’s authority to decide whether the imaginary presumption has been rebutted.[17] The NPT provides no such thing – nor that the IAEA has authority to enforce the NPT even if it did include such a provision. Iran’s Safeguards Agreement and the IAEA Statute specify several remedies for non-compliance, but those remedies do not include a suspension of enrichment rights.[18]

    In short, this analyst concluded that the NPT and Iran’s Safeguards Agreement lack adequate remedies, and so he deemed it necessary to invent some more – and to authorize the Security Council and IAEA to enforce them. Many other writers have done the same.[19] But if these remedies are insufficient, they nevertheless are what they are, not what these writers wish they were or imagine them to be. Nor is Iran to blame for any insufficiency.


  691. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    No “Sassan” you who support the vicious repression of the Palestinian people for 65 years, support brutal dictatorships, and suicide bombings against those who you disagree with resemble the “face of evil” far more than anyone here.

  692. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    No, wrong again, I am not Reza. Your record of being 100% wrong continues. To be clear however, I am not “stalking” but exercising my right as a commentator on this board to correct your lies and hateful statements which you indiscriminately dump on this board at the slightest opportunity. You also relentlessly spam the board with reptitive posts, and greet responses that disprove your claims with insults and often the very same posts again and again. Often you post the same information, unmodified, in the same thread you posted in a previous thread, that was disproven in that thread. You have done this several times already in this thread alone. You also respond to reasonable arguments with unprovable assertions for which you never present any evidence. You also constantly refuse to answer questions when you are challenged. Thus, I am responding to your nonsense, and I am going to continue to respond whenever I desire to.

  693. Sassan says:

    Statements by Hamas members and clerics:

    In 2008 Imam Yousif al-Zahar of Hamas said in his sermon at the Katib Wilayat mosque in Gaza that “Jews are a people who cannot be trusted. They have been traitors to all agreements. Go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing.”.[64][219] In an interview on the same year, Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh stated that “[220] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the faith that every Jew harbors in his heart”.[221]

    Another Hamas legislator and imam, Sheik Yunus al-Astal, discussed a Koranic verse suggesting that “suffering by fire is the Jews’ destiny in this world and the next”. He concluded “Therefore we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews”.[64][219]

    According to MEMRI, in September 1996 the Hamas monthly Falastin Al-Muslima had published a series of articles by Shaykh Ibrahim Al-‘Ali, on how Allah punished the Jews of Iliya, transforming them into animals, a punishment that left a mark on Jews – “their opinions, their feelings, and their ways of thought – which are reflected in face and external appearance – became like their nature and like the appearance of apes and pigs”. Al-‘Ali explained that the Jews later invented the theory of evolution, to prove that the entire human race was descended from apes, to cover their own shame of being “the brothers of apes and pigs”. Sunni tradition also holds that Shi’ites suffered the same fate “because the Jews invented the Shi’a (Shia religion)…and is pervaded by [the Jews’] beliefs.”[222]

  694. Sassan says:

    lololololol @ the “context” of killing Jews. When you idiots are presented with the stark facts of evil madmen, you always claim a “mistranslation” or “context” problem. Really quite comical.

  695. Sassan says:

    James Canning: Do you happen to have a link to that article?

  696. Kathleen says:

    thanks Flynt

  697. James Canning says:

    The cover story of Spectator this week is by Jeffrey Goldberg: “Israel Isn’t Bluffing”.

    Goldberg claims to be the leading expert on the matter.

  698. Arnold Evans says:


    I guess you hadn’t read my response to you when you responded to what I wrote to Richard.

    I assume that the procedures spelled out in the safeguards agreement to give timely warning of diversion include agreements on the forms Iran’s uranium takes, and that the IAEA has not agreed and does not have to agree to safeguard the introduction of uranium into machines that will mill that uranium into weapons cores.

    The safeguards agreement clearly would allow such provisions, and Iran has already ratified its intention to abide by such provisions when it ratified the safeguards agreement.

    That’s why I draw a line there, because I assume (I’m certain safely) that the procedures described and whose details are not in the safeguards agreement itself would not allow that.

    I’ve talked a lot about where and why I draw lines. You’ve done that not at all.

    Two questions you will not be able to answer:

    1) What is the line for you that establishes a weapon?
    2) What ratified text do you think supports the line you draw?

  699. Persian Gulf says:


    if only Mousavi could understood what he actually did.

    متاسفانه خیلی از این اصلاح طلبها اصلا نمی فهمند چه سوتی بزرگی دادند.این مخالفین خارج نشین و کسانی مثل هاشمی (و حتی کروبی) چرا، ولی اکثریت بدنه اصلاح طلبی از عمق فاجعه ای که بعد از انتخابات 1388 بوجود آورد بی خبره.

  700. James Canning says:

    “The “Existential Threat” to Israel is Israel”, by John Tirman:


  701. Karl says:


    Hamas accept two state solution. Even if they didnt its not spectacular taking in regard how Israel was created. That is – on palestinian land, with ethnic cleansing.

  702. James Canning says:


    I think Obama truly wants to avoid war. I think he would possibly accept Iranian control of fuel cycle for nuclear power plants.

    What do you think the EU should be doing, to help resolve the problem?

  703. Arnold Evans says:


    According to the NPT, the Treaty obligations, not just the Article 3 obligation, are to be verified by the non-diversion of fissile material.

    You say there can be a “nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device” that does not have fissile material, according to the NPT. I say there can not. That really is our disagreement. If we are not arguing that point, then as far as I can tell we’re not even meaningfully communicating.

    I support my position with the following points:

    1) The fact that this is all the NPT provides to verify
    2) The fact that verifying this is enough to effectively prevent the destruction of a city by a device such as destroyed Hiroshima
    3) The fact that this provides a non-discriminatory, close to objective and difficult to manipulate standard that avoids problems of trust or intent between potentially hostile parties.

    I have not seen any support for your position. I have not seen you try to support your position, except most people think you’re right, which means nothing given the tiny proportion of people who’ve read or understand the treaty itself.

    In fact other than that I don’t draw the line correctly, I don’t even know your position.

    Where is your line?

    (Also what supports where you put your line?)

    Those, by the way, are the questions I’ve said a few times that you’ll never answer because you cannot.

    Oh, Iran should trust you to be fair as you invent new obligations beyond not making a device that is a potentially nuclear explosive one because it has fissile material.

    The safeguards agreement clearly verifies something. The NPT says it verifies something. It verifies that Iran is meeting an obligation. The obligation not to have a “nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device” that is actually nuclear and explosive is met if Iran implements the safeguards agreement.

    Is there another obligation? Is there an obligation, that the NPT framers either unknowingly or deliberately left unverified and unenforceable, that a signatory not have any device that would be a nuclear explosive device if it did have fissile material?

    I don’t see where that obligation comes from. You’ve been asked many times over the last couple of days where that obligation comes from. You can’t answer.

    You may say that the NPT framers unknowingly left these obligations you want to invent unverified and unenforceable. I’m not going to go with you there. These are smart people who worked hard to whom you’re showing a disappointing amount of disdain.

    If they wanted to ban devices that could be nuclear and explosive if only they had fissile material, they could have done so as effectively as they did actual nuclear explosive devices. Maybe in exchange they would have demanded the weapons states disarm by a certain date. Somehow or another the agreement you would have wanted was not the agreement they reached.

    Just because it doesn’t fulfill your dreams of only your country and its allies having any capabilities even in theory of making nuclear weapons, the actual treaty does a very good thing. The actual treaty means that right now Japan cannot detonate a device 600 meters above Seoul and kill large numbers of people. Because of the NPT, that fact is verifiable and credible. For that I thank the NPT framers.

    You want more. You want to know what’s on Japanese tables that could get fissile materials in some bizarre hypothetical world you’ve invented? I don’t care. Nobody in Japan cares. If you want more, let’s get this good faith negotiations for full disarmament from the country whose elections you vote in.

  704. Nasser says:


    “Saudis follow Ma’awiya – as long as a thread is between me and you, I will not break it.”

    – What do you mean?

  705. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    That was the political reality all along; both in terms of OPEC and in terms of bilateral Saudi-Iran relations.

    Saudis follow Ma’awiya – as long as a thread is between me and you, I will not break it.

    It was another one of Axis Powers delusions to think otherwise.

  706. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    EU can buy her oil from others, so what?

    And so they are an economic powers, so what?

    Iran’s relationship with Europe, even in the best of times, cannot be anything but transactional.

    Iran is on her own; as the only Muslim state with strategic independence since the demise of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.

    Until another Muslim state with strategic autonomy emerges, I am afraid, Muslims have to support Iran if they want to have any say in the affairs of this planet.

    Else they would join the illustrious ranks of the Nig-Nogs, Mockies, Pakis, Towel Heads, Sand Niggers, Fakirs etc.

    Those who have read the details of the EU offer to Iran know what I mean here – trade goods to the savages.

    I mean, why did EU have to insult Iran and Iranians?

    Is it not sufficient for them to be the Number-one-World-Economy?]

  707. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 12, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romeny have demonstrated to the world the irresponsibility of US leaders – war is cheap and can be managed, the hell with the rest of the world.

    Mr. Obama demonstrated that by his concerted effort in pressurizing Iran starting last Novemnber.

    Mr. Rommey has demonstrated that a potential replacement of Mr. Obama is even worse; truly a deranged man.

    [And I am not even going to comment on the Mad PM of Israel.]

    The fact is, it is clear to people of discernment in the world, that it is not the “Mullahs” that are mad; it is American leaders.

    This has been fantastically helpful in propaganda effort arena to Iran.

  708. James Canning says:


    I will say it again: many close observers of the Israel/Palestine problem think Hamas will accept Israel WITHIN ITS PRE-1967 BORDERS. Meaning, GET OUT OF THE WEST BANK.

  709. James Canning says:

    Jon Thompson’s new book, “No Debate: The Israel Lobby and Free Speech”, documents the effort of the Israel lobby in both the US and Canada, to suppress free speech and help Israel continue its oppression of the Palestinians.

  710. Arnold Evans says:

    Eric, why would you respond to the comment addressed to Richard, but not to the one addressed to you?

    Arnold Evans says:
    March 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm


    It has two questions: What line do you draw to determine what is a weapon?

    What ratified text do you think supports the line you draw?

  711. Arnold Evans says:
    March 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    You’re either missing or ignoring my point.

    You cite an iAEA publication that explains the purpose of safeguards agreements. We agree on what that purpose is: to monitor “source and special fissionable material,” just as described in Article III of the NPT.

    My point is that the NPT has ten other articles, not just Article III, and those ten other Articles state obligations in addition to those stated in Article III — most important, the Article II obligation not to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

    Article III does NOT say: “If a country can manage to manufacture nuclear weapons without violating its disclosure obligations under its safeguards agreement, that’s OK; Article II’s prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons won’t apply in that event.”

    You’re arguing that “nuclear weapon” in Article II must be interpreted to require “source or special fissionable material,” even though Article II doesn’t say this at all, simply because a different Article — Article III, which describes the coverage of safeguards agreement — requires disclosures only about “source or special fissionable material.”

    My point is simply that, even though the ENFORCEMENT scheme of the NPT is limited to “source or special fissionable material,” the NPT nevertheless includes other obligations which are no less obligations merely because the NPT’s enforcement scheme isn’t capable of detecting every violation of those obligations. They’re still obligations.

    You should recognize that even you don’t really mean what you claim to mean. You concede that machining bomb-grade uranium into a shape that will fit into an explosive core would violate the NPT. Why? No “nuclear explosive device” can exist unless “fissile material” has actually been inserted. And yet you say this is not necessary.


  712. James Canning says:


    EU buys a lot of oil and has a great deal of economic power.

  713. James Canning says:


    To clarify, would you welcome a defeat of Obama by Mitt Romney? Or, are you saying Romney is helping Obama and Iran to avoid war, by being flakey?

  714. James Canning says:

    An unnamed Saudi oil official said March 12th: “We don’t want to replace Iranian oil [in the market] and we never said we wanted to.”


  715. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 12, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    EU states can serve as surrogates for US.

    By themselves, they have nothing to offer.

  716. fyi says:

    Karl says: March 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    I do not.

    And neither should the Iranian leaders, that is a dangerous delusion.

  717. fyi says:

    James Canning says: March 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm


    He is in fact making it better for Iranians.

  718. James Canning says:

    Mitt Romney “is making the [Iran] siutation worse”, said Ephraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad. Clearly an accurate statement.

  719. Arnold replied to Richard:

    “Here is your definition of nuclear weapon: A nuclear explosive device is a device which is INTENDED and DESIGNED to cause a nuclear explosion IF AND WHEN appropriate fissile material is introduced into it. The problem with your definition is that now you have to measure what was “INTENDED”, which is inherently unknowable, but can and will be applied discriminatorily. Against countries like Iran.”


    I haven’t studied any of Richard’s posts on this subject, and that context might change my reaction to what you wrote to him. I’ll nonetheless respond to what I think you mean.

    Let’s start again with an extreme hypothetical: Assume that IAEA inspectors in Iran have stumbled upon 100 “fuel-free nuclear weapons” with 100 empty nose cones, and enough 99.99% uranium to fuel 100 bombs, all in metallic form suitable for machining into explosive cores, and 100 specialized machine tools capable of doing that (and nothing else) – all of this located at a missile site that has 100 missiles (minus nose cones) waiting on the launch pad, one of them aimed at your house.

    No NPT violation there, you say.

    But you reach precisely the opposite conclusion if we add just one more assumption: Suppose Iran has already machined that uranium metal into a shape that fits into the “explosive core” of one of those “fuel-free nuclear weapons,” but hasn’t actually inserted that machined uranium into the fuel-free nuclear weapon. As you’ve pointed out, the fuel-free nuclear weapon won’t be a “nuclear explosive device” yet, since it can’t explode unless and until bomb-grade uranium has been inserted. Nonetheless, in an earlier post, you said that that act of machining would violate NPT Article II.

    Why? The NPT does not say anything like this, and you don’t claim it does. Why would this additional step tip the scales for you? Couldn’t Iran insist even then that it has no improper intentions, that unless and until it actually inserts the bomb fuel into the nose cone – and perhaps even then, until it mounts the fueled nuclear weapon onto a missile, or indeed, until it actually fires the missile at someone and it explodes when it gets there – that it can’t fairly be held to have manufactured a “nuclear weapon?”

    What caused you to draw the line where you did? Was it because Iran’s machining of that uranium metal strikes you as sufficient proof of its bomb-making intentions? What if others told you that what Iran had done prior to that machining strikes them as sufficient proof of Iran’s bomb-making intentions? Would you tell them they’re being unreasonable, and insist that the NPT prohibits them from taking any of that into account? What part of the NPT would you point to?

  720. Karl says:


    I belive in international law. That is, Iran have the right to enrich to atleast 20%, that you or western hegemonic powers just cant accept that (and trying to legimitize a war of aggression) is not Iran’s problem.

  721. James Canning says:

    “Europeans take lead on Iran nuclear negotiations” at spiegel.de today:

    “There have been negotiations in the past, but they all failed due to Iran’s intransigence.”

  722. James Canning says:


    A lot of close observers of the Israel/Palestine problem think Hamas will accept the Saudi peace plan, meaning accepting Israeli annexation and clear title to what was occupied by 1949 armistice.

  723. James Canning says:


    Thanks for the clarification. You believe it is better for Iran to enrich uranium as it pleases, and likely plunge into war, rather than act reasonably on the issue of enriching to 20 percent.

  724. James Canning says:


    Virtually every Muslim country agrees to accept Israel (within pre-1967 borders).

  725. James Canning says:


    What countries neighboring Nazi Germany refused to recognise the government of Germany? Object is to clarify your comment.

  726. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    So your “response” is to simply ignore what is actually contained in the Hamas charter and make an assertion for which you have no proof. Yep, the Zionist stupid contest continues.

  727. Sassan says:

    k_w: It has nothing to do with occupation for the Hamas terrorists. It has to do with radical Islam.

    I suggest reading a very good book which will help you learn about this situation with more depth. IT is entitled “Son of Hamas” and it was written by Mosab Hassan Yousef – son of Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef..:


  728. k_w says:

    @Sassan: Again: What do they define as their aims and objectives? Why don’t you answer questions?

    Secondly, on December 14, 1987, Hamas published the first communiqué:

    “The intifada of our vigilant people in the Occupied Territories comes as a resounding rejection of the occupation and its pressures, land confiscation and the planting of settle-ments, and the policy of subjugation by the Zionists. . . . Let the reckless settlers beware. Our people know the way of sacrifice and martyrdom and are generous in this regard. . . . Let them understand that violence breeds nothing but violence and death bestows but death.”

    It’s about invaders, about occupation, about settlers.

  729. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    The vast majority of countries have recognized Palestine as a legitimate, sovereign state.

  730. Karl says:


    Take Nazi Germany, their neighbours didnt recognize the legitimacy, just like South Africa apartheid regimes neighbour didnt recognize the brute regime of the whites in South Africa.

  731. k_w says:

    @Sassan: The only democratic country?

    “Kamal Zgheir, a fifty-seven-year-old wheelchair-bound man who was shot and run over
    by a tank on a major road outside the camp on April 10, even though he had a white flag attached to his wheelchair.” (Human Rights Watch, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, pp. 2–3.)

    “On 6 April 2002, 33-year-old Jamal al-Sabbagh was shot by the IDF after he had been taken into their custody […] he was unarmed and had posed no threat to the soldiers who had detained him.” (Amnesty International, Shielded from Scrutiny: IDF Violations in Jenin and Nablus, pp. 16–17.)

    “More than 30 Palestinian children were killed in the first two weeks of Operation Days of Penitence in the Gaza Strip. It’s no wonder that many people term such wholesale killing of children ‘terror’.” (Gideon Levy, Killing Children is no Longer a Big Deal, Haaretz, 2004/10/17.)

    People like you might be satisfied with the 6 months of social work for Nahum Korman, who had killed an 11-year-old Palestinian. Or with the 67 days imprisonment for killing an 95-year old Palestinian women. Or with Kortzky’s 6 months in prison for shooting a 16-year-old boy. If a mentally disordered Palestinian juvenile injures a Jewish Israeli settler with a knife, he is sent to prison for six and a half years in jail. Democratic, indeed. Very democratic.

  732. Sassan says:

    Karl, recognition refers to the fact that it is “legitimate and a sovereign state”.

  733. M. Ali says:


    “What I gathered was that in the main the people are highly suspicious of the West, loathsome toward Israeli madness, disgusted by the likes of the Mujahedin and their plants (like the one we have here), healthily skeptical of the government, and generally waking up to the value of the likes of Ahmadinejad.”

    In general, I get the same impression. Obviously, in general, because in a highly opinionated population of 70 million, “in general”, is the best I can commit too.

  734. Karl says:


    I didnt spoke of recognition I spoke of what alot of people perceive as a illegitimate regime.

  735. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Your obsession with defending the Zionist, terrorist state of Israel is the only unhealthy thing here, along with your defense of terrorist suicide bombers in Syria. Also your obsession with repeating the same lies over and over again as if that can make them true. And just to be clear idiot, I have never made a post that supported terrorism in any way. Try again.

  736. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    The vast majority of the nations of the world, representing the vast majority of the world’s population, recognize the right of Palestinians to be free from Israeli oppression and to have their own state without Israeli preconditions. Funny how you cannot stop defending Israel. Almost as if you are being given talking points that you just keep on reciting, while ignoring those posts which have proven every one of them to be lies.

  737. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    And as already stated here many times, you support the terrorist state of Israel and support suicide bombing terrorists in Syria. Thus, you do not have the right to accuse anyone else of being a terrorist.

  738. Sassan says:

    Karl, your facts are not facts. The free world and nearly all democracies in the world recognize Israel’s sovereignty and right to exist as a sovereign state.

  739. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    When 30% of responses in Iranian polls indicated they supported opposition candidates that completely disproves your nonsensical claim that their is a “fear factor” involved in Iranian polling, which is also a claim for which you have presented absolutely no evidence. Note that when you make a claim, you have to actually present evidence that supports it. Simply making an unproven assertion for which you have no evidence and than claiming that assertion supports your argument is not a legitimate method of debate or argument. Of course, since you constantly repeat disproven statements even after they have been disproven, you already know this.

  740. Karl says:


    I just tell you the facts. If you dont want to accept it, fine.

  741. Sassan says:

    Sorry Karl, the entire free world recognizes the state of Israel and this is non-negotiable. Terror states like the Islamic Republic are rogue regimes and are the exception. The free world is unambiguous on this.

  742. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    No other state in the region imprisons 1.5 million people in an open air concentration camp like the Zionist state of Israel does, subjects them to collective punishment, extra judicially executes them, and imprisons them without trial. Thus, it is by definition worse than all those other states (with the possible exception of the Zionist supporting state of Saudi Arabia). And I also love how the Zionist just cannot resist responding to every criticism of Israel that is made. Yep, that sure does not prove that you are a false constructed Zionist Identity.

  743. Karl says:


    No one thinks that nazi germany was a legit regime, nor the apartheid regime. Nor does alot of states dont recognize the zionist regime. Thats not something you must think yourself, however thats the reality.

    Two state solution have been dead for atleast a decade.

  744. Sassan says:

    To call Israel a Nazi state is despicable and shameful of you. Israel is the only democratic country in a region of despots and fascists. Shame on you. The reason there has not been a 2-state solution is because of people with mindsets like you who do not realize that the only solution to peace is a 2-state solution in which the Palestinians and Israelis can live side-by-side in peace.

  745. Arnold Evans says:


    Here is your definition of nuclear weapon:

    A nuclear explosive device is a device which is INTENDED and DESIGNED to cause a nuclear explosion IF AND WHEN appropriate fissile material is introduced into it.

    The problem with your definition is that now you have to measure what was “INTENDED”, which is inherently unknowable, but can and will be applied discriminatorily. Against countries like Iran.

    Language like that was very cleverly left out of the NPT itself. The NPT does not address either intentions or conditions of fissile material hypothetically later being added to some device.

    That’s your definition. I’m sure it seems obvious to you. With Eric’s table, a country can say, “we never intended to put fissile material into it”. Beyond that, since fissile material is safeguarded, with Eric’s table, a country really could not have put fissile material into it unless it later broke the NPT by breaking the safeguards agreement or the country legally gave notice and put the material into it after 90 days when it had no obligation not to do so.

    Measuring intentions, like your definition requires, invites the exact kind of discrimination the NPT was careful to prohibit.

    The NPT calls a nuclear weapon part of the larger prohibited class of nuclear explosive devices. An explosive device is a device that can explode, like a red hat is a hat that has a red color. A device that cannot explode is not an explosive device, like a red hat that is entirely dyed black is not a red hat and a paper airplane with no paper is not a paper airplane.

    We agree that as a practical matter, what the NPT prohibits is diversion of fissile material. We disagree on whether this is by design or because the framers of the NPT couldn’t figure out what you and Eric have figured out, which is that a device can have no nuclear material, not be able to explode, and still be a nuclear explosive device.

    I claim it is by design and by a very clever design. I claim it has the express purpose of preventing you, Eric, John Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama from deciding tomorrow that some research that you’ll ignore in Japan’s case constitutes an NPT violation for Iran.

    Again, no fissile material, no explosion above a city killing large numbers of people. That is a great thing, and it can be accomplished relatively objectively without you trusting Iran or Iran trusting you. Just by the straight-forward question – is there enough fissile material unaccounted for to make a nuclear explosive device?

    The NPT was a brilliantly designed treaty. No side of any dispute has to assess, or claim to assess any other side’s intention. Your definition of weapon throws that away. And your definition of weapon has no support of any kind in the NPT itself.

  746. Karl says:


    They call for a 1 state solution for jews, christians, muslims.
    They are against the zionist state, nothing spectactular about that. The allied were against the nazi state, the blacks were against the apartheid state in South Africa.

  747. Sassan says:

    k_w says: Their preamble and their leaders call for the destruction of Israel – not a 2-state solution.

  748. Sassan says:

    America is a free and democratic country. Polls done in America under proper control conditions are scientifically valid and reliable. There is no “fear factor” in comparison to polls taken place in fascist societies.


    NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Feb. 29-March 3, 2012. N=approx. 400 adults nationwide. RV = registered voters

    “If Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon, do you believe that the United States should or should not initiate military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons?”

    Should: 52%

    Should Not: 40%

    Unsure: 8%

  749. SassanisAnIdioticZionistStooge says:

    Sassan says:
    March 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    It is the moral imperative of Iran to stop the barbaric, terrorist state of Israel and its brutal, totalitarian oppression of the Palestinian people by any means necessary.

  750. Karl says:


    Thats the old view, that those barbaric negroes, muslims must be tamed with force and “higher” moral.

  751. Sassan says:

    Karl says:
    March 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm


    Correct its not up to western hegemonic powers to decide.”

    In contrary, it is the moral imperative of the free world to stop it.

  752. k_w says:


    I agree on everything you’ve written in your comment. I think from the IAEA’s point of view, deliberately diverting declared nuclear material would be a breach of the treaty (as opposed to “missing” uranium due to false measurement by the agency itself). As long as this has not happened, Iran does not violate the NPT. I’m not quite sure if she is obliged to declare each and every uranium (ore) she possesses. No idea.

  753. k_w says:

    @Sassan: Why don’t you cite the most important articles of the Hamas Charter, namely their aims and objectives?

  754. Karl says:


    Correct its not up to western hegemonic powers to decide.

  755. James Canning says:


    Your reasoning is the focus of my comment. You say time and again it is no business of “the West” how much uranium Iran enriches to 20 percent.

    I think Iran’s stockpiling is dangerous, and ill-advised. You encourage it.

  756. Arnold Evans says:



    Article 28

    The objective of the safeguards procedures set forth in this part of the Agreement is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other nuclear explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection.

    While the specific procedures are not spelled out in the Safeguards agreement, Iran is committed to not putting fissile material next to your table. That is a commitment Iran has ratified, and it is connected by Article 3 to the NPT itself, which Iran has ratified.

    Without seeing the detailed country-specific arrangements Iran and the IAEA have made and committed to by ratifying the safeguards agreement, I’m certain they also would not allow Iran shaping weapons usable uranium or other fissile material into a fissile core for a weapon.

    So that’s the text that supports the line I draw.

    What line do you draw?

    Where is the ratified text that supports the line you draw?

    Do you see the questions above? These are the same questions I said yesterday that you’d never answer because you cannot.

    I draw a line that effectively prevents a country that commits to it, as Iran has, from putting a device 600 meters above a city, detonating and and causing massive loss of life.

    You don’t draw a line so effectively you retain for yourself (and also for John Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama) the ability to concoct obligations for Iran and any NPT signatories you want to discriminate against.

    We’re at the point of just repeating what we’ve written in longer and longer, more and more evasive forms.

    I’m sure that at least one of South Korea, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Germany and Netherlands have built devices that are close to the table you describe. I also do not believe any of those countries have built weapons or is in violation of the NPT.

    If you think they’ve violated the NPT because they’ve built a device you consider a weapon, or done research you consider weapons research, I’m sure they don’t care. They aren’t supposed to care. What you consider a weapon, beyond what signatories have ratified, matters only to you.

    But, I’ll repeat, John Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama all have the same ability to be creative about what Iran is obligated not to do as you are. I don’t think Iran or any non-nuclear weapons state should trust any of you four to be fair in evaluating its obligations.

    What Iran has ratified is that it will not divert fissile material to nuclear explosive devices or to purposes unknown, thereby verifying that it will not have a “nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device”.

  757. Karl says:


    You could “take” whatever you want, this projection is another way of your insincere way of reasoing.

  758. James Canning says:

    A majority of Republicans in Mississippi think Obama is a Muslim. Amazing. Or should be.

  759. James Canning says:


    Do you like Ahmadinejad? Did you think he acted correctly last September when he tried to forestall a new round of sanctions against Iran?

  760. James Canning says:

    I recommend Gideon Rachman’s comments March 11th: “Do Israelis support an attack on Iran?”


    58% of Israelis oppose an Israeli go-it-alone attack on Iran.

  761. James Canning says:


    I take your comment of March 11th, 2:29pm, to mean that in your opnion, Iran should stockpile whatever amounts of 20 percent enriched uranium suits its fancy, and this stockpiling is no proper concern of the UK, the US, France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi
    Arabia, the UAE, etc etc etc.

    Your viewpoint also includes believing Iran should ignore adverse public opinion created in “the West” due to apparent stockpiling of 20 percent uranium.

  762. Neo says:

    M. Ali,

    The last time I was in Iran, which was about 2 months ago, I had many chats with taxi drivers, business people, relatives, friends and strangers. Generally, people are trying to earn a living, feeling the pressure, like in most countries. Interestingly, the younger generation was far less stressed and unhappy than the rest. They are polite, business like, forward looking and quite intrigued by how the outside world views Iran.

    I tried to have honest discussions and to gauge what the real message was beneath the standard taarof and politeness as well as suspicions. What I gathered was that in the main the people are highl