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

The Race for Iran

THE “IRAQIZATION” OF AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE: MOHAMMAD JAVAD LARIJANI AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Mohammad Javad Larijani’s visit to New York earlier this week for meetings at the United Nations coincides with a striking upturn in anti-Iranian media coverage and commentary in the West.  To address some of the issues raised in the media, Larijani met with several media personalities and a range of Iran “observers” at policy organizations in New York.  His media appearances this past week not only provide a window into how the Islamic Republic sees its present situation and future prospects; they also provide a window into current trends in American elite thinking and discourse about Iran.  And those trends are, to put it gently, disturbing. 

Before we unpack that, it is interesting to note some points about Larijani’s background, for those who might not be familiar with him.  From a Western frame of reference, one might describe him as a “Renaissance man”, but that strikes us as too limited a label for him.  He is, of course, one of the Larijani brothers (who also include the current parliament speaker, the head of the judiciary, and the chancellor of Iran’s most prestigious medical school).  Son of one of the most honored grand ayatollahs of the 20th century, Mohammad Javad Larijani studied both in the Qom hawza (seminary) and in the electrical engineering faculty at Sharif University of Technology (Iran’s MIT).  He then pursued doctoral studies in mathematics at Berkeley, before returning to Iran at the time of the revolution. 

Since the Islamic Republic’s founding, Larijani has had a distinguished political career, as a member of parliament and deputy Foreign Minister; he currently serves as secretary general of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, as an adviser to the head of the judiciary, and as an adviser to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.  He also directs the Islamic Republic’s leading research institute for mathematics and theoretical physics. 

As one might surmise from this background, Larijani is thoroughly grounded in modern science as well as Islamic theology and law.  He is also well-schooled in Western philosophy and political theory; while talking about the Islamic Republic’s ongoing project to construct a democratic system grounded not in Western liberalism but in “Islamic rationality”, he can make very astute references to David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and other prominent Western liberal thinkers.  And, of course, he can offer uniquely informed observations about Iranian politics and foreign policy.  In short, it is a bracing intellectual experience (and a lot of fun) to talk with him. 

These qualities come across in an hour-long interview that Larijani gave to Charlie Rose, see here.  We ourselves have appeared on Charlie Rose, and admire his program.  While we would not agree with all of Charlie’s interpretations of events in the contemporary Middle East, he strikes us as genuinely interested in using the interview to present Larijani’s ideas to his viewers, not to push his own political or policy agenda.  Consequently, the interview offers a rich bounty of insights into high-level Iranian thinking about the nuclear issue, the Arab spring, and Iranian domestic politics. 

If, however, one wants to learn more about the cultural and intellectual pathologies currently afflicting America’s Iran debate, it is hard to do better than the interview Larijani gave on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, see here.  The chief interviewer is Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski (daughter of Zbigniew); she is aided by regular MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, and author-journalist Jon Meacham. 

The interview is itself troubling—Larijani holds up fine, and is worth watching, but Brzezinski, Barnicle, Haass, and Meacham are clearly not out to offer viewers the chance to understand a well-informed Iranian perspective on important issues of the day.  Their agenda is embarrassingly evident:  to ratify the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report as “proof” that Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons, to portray the Islamic Republic as ideologically hell-bent on Israel’s destruction, and to underscore how “isolated” Iran is becoming, regionally and internationally.  The interviewers are out to affirm all of these claims as social “facts”—in a manner strikingly reminiscent of the affirmation of various social “facts” about Saddam Husayn’s WMD programs, ties to Al-Qa’ida, and other issues in the run-up to America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

As bad as all this is, the segment immediately following the interview, after Larijani had left the set (which starts at 16:28 in the previous link) is even more troubling.  Brzezinski—who said she was “disturbed” by the interview—opens by comparing it with a breakfast meeting she attended with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where he “sat around making a mockery of the entire situation”; she “just saw that all over again” during the conversation with Larijani.  Then, in a remarkable display of intellectual fatuousness, Brzezinksi, Barnicle, Haass, and Meacham collectively determine that Larijiani’s “confident” demeanor (their description, during the interview itself) is evidence that the Islamic Republic is the antithesis of a “rational actor” (sic; one really has to see it to believe it). 

Haass, though, delivers the real punch line; in his view, the interview suggests that, for

“whoever is the next occupant of the White House, be it Barack Obama or one of the Republicans, this could well be National Security Issue #1.  If we can’t, through some combination of sanctions, covert action, what have you, either change the government of Iran or so slow their nuclear program, the next President is going to be faced with a binary choice.  Either we’re going to have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear program, with all that would potentially mean for Middle Eastern instability (imagine what a crisis would look like between Israel and Iran, over Lebanon, with both countries with nuclear weapons, or what it would mean potentially for an Iranian hand-off of nuclear stuff to a group like HAMAS or Hizballah).  Or, Israel and the United States will have to seriously consider using military force against the Iranian nuclear program, which could buy you a couple of years…You’ve got to hope for regime change in Iran, which unfortunately doesn’t look like it’s happening.  Can you ratchet up sanctions?  Can you go after the Iranian export of oil?  Now, that’s really going to the edge of economic warfare.  But might that not be preferable to going to the edge of warfare warfare.”

Richard’s point about the United States coordinating with Israel over the use of military force against Iran resurfaced on Morning Joe the next day, see here, when Mika Brzezinski and company had on Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman—whom Richard is advising—to discuss his campaign.  Although current polls suggest that Huntsman’s chances of winning the Republic nomination are not high, he would be an attractive candidate for Secretary of States in any incoming Republican administration.  When the discussion turned to Iran, Huntsman had this to say:

“Iran will be the transcendent issue of the decade…They’re moving inexorably towards weaponization, and we’ll, at some point over the next couple of years, have a serious conversation with Israel about what to do.  And then it will be, can you live with a nuclear Iran?  And, if the answer is yes, you’re going to have proliferation problems in the region…and that would be disastrous…Internally, within the mullah leadership in Tehran, they’ve decided to go nuclear.  I think they want the prestige that carries…The United States should sit down with Israel and have a conversation about what we’re willing to do in a region that, with Iran occupying a nuclear weapon could so change the dynamic that it would provide long-term instability.  And, then say, in that case, all options are on the table.”    

Haass’s role in this is especially galling.  Although, after the fact, Richard wants everyone to believe that he was all along opposed to the Iraq invasion, as Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff he helped oversee the preparation of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, see here, which was critical to “selling” the idea of a U.S.-led invasion.  Now, from his platform as President of the Council on Foreign Relations, he is doing exactly the same thing with respect to Iran—adducing false “facts” and bad analysis to lay the ground, intellectually and politically speaking, for another U.S.-initiated war in the Middle East.  And the mainstream media are falling in line to help him do it—just as, a decade ago, they helped Ken Pollack and many others disseminate utterly bogus claims and arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq. 

Make no mistake:  American elites are gearing up for military confrontation with the Islamic Republic—and, in the process, displaying all of the cultural, intellectual, and political pathologies that produced the 2003 Iraq war.  We do not believe that the United States is likely to initiate such a confrontation before the next presidential election in November 2012.  But Richard’s timetable—that is, during either an Obama second term or the first term of his Republican successor—seems on point.  It will take a lot to head this one off.  For those who, like us, believe that another U.S.-initiated war would be a strategic disaster—first of all, for the United States—the next 18 months will likely be the period in which either there is enough of an intellectual pushback to stop the folly, or the United States puts itself on an inexorable path toward attacking Iran. 

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Share
 

783 Responses to “THE “IRAQIZATION” OF AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE: MOHAMMAD JAVAD LARIJANI AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA”

  1. Raad says:

    James Canning: “Saudis want Israel out of West Bank and Golan Heights”.

    Am afraid they do not. Since the assassination of Kind Faisal by CIA no regent of KSA has genuinely attempted a solution for the Israel-Palestine issue, what they hae done is windowdressing for their masses. At their moment of maximum leverage on US – when funding the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and taking the bottom out of the oil price in late 1980s to bankrupt USSR – KSA did not push the US on this issue.

    Now is another time if they want to push the issue: the Eurozone has been begging the Chinese for money into the bail-out fund; sourcing money from from GCC has been curiously absent from these discussions. My suspicion is that the money is indeed committed but the price is further strangulation of Iran rather than solution of I-P conflict.

    There ARE reasons why KSA and GCC are so despised by anyone who observes them for any period of time.

  2. Arnold Evans says:

    James:

    Saudi leaders have made clear they do not see Israel’s nukes as grounds for SA to build own nukes. Full stop.

    No, not full stop. We need an explanation for it because it does not make sense. What is your explanation for that. “Full stop.” Is not an explanation. It is evading an explanation.

    Other than Saudi Arabia not pursuing a local strategic objectives, but instead following orders like a colony, how do you explain that the Saudis say they do not see Israel’s nukes as grounds to reply in any way, but also echo the Western deceptive line that Iran enriching to 20% poses some problem?

    It cannot be explained as the behavior of an independent country.

    Colonialism is as colonialism does.

  3. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    I think one need to do no more than study the faces of Persian people to conclude they indeed are Aryan.

  4. Fiorangela says:

    fyi says:
    November 28, 2011 at 9:46 am

    fyi, unfortunately, linguistically, I am not Iranian. Afraid I don’t know what was being said on the link you posted.

    If Iranians are not heirs of ancient Aryans, who are Iran’s racial and genetic forebears?

    If ancient Aryans are not perpetuated in present-day Persians (and Indians), then where are Aryans? Did they die out?

    (nb. Ancient Aryans I am discussing have very little to do with the notions of Aryanism developed by Harvard boys, according to Edwin Black, in Teddy Roosevelt’s era, who transmitted their views of Anglo-Teutonic supremacy to Western Europe. Note, however, that when someone of Edwin Black’s frame of mind poses an argument, he almost always fails to include reference to the very same policies being carried on in Israel, from its establishment as a Jewish colony in the 1880s until today.)

  5. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    If Iran’s foreign policy is based on “unity among Islam”, why has Iran not openly supported the 2002 Saudi peace plan? All Arab countries endorsed that proposal.

  6. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Would you distinguish between Azeris and Persians, on racial grounds? Persians are indeed “Aryans”.

  7. James Canning says:

    hans,

    There is next to no support for “western” military intervention in Syria at this time, on the part of “western” leaders.

  8. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    The way forward is to force Israel to get rid of its nukes.

  9. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    I am well aware that 20% U cannot be used to build nukes. Unless it is further enriched to 95%.

    Are you encouraging Iran to enrich to 20% to make it easier for a “fast-track” further enrichment, should the gov’t of Iran decide to build nukes? Or do you take please in the fear that Iran’s enriching to 20% generates in the Gulf?

  10. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Saudi leaders have made clear they do not see Israel’s nukes as grounds for SA to build own nukes. Full stop.

    Do you see any threat to Saudi Arabia, coming from Israel?

    Saudis want Israel out of West Bank and Golan Heights. Do you?

  11. Arnold Evans says:

    James:

    EU sanctions against Iran, I continue to see the primary issue as Iranian enriching to 20%, and fears that the Saudis will want nukes if Iran builds them. And there is the element of a possible insane Israeli attack.

    Again. No fear that the Saudis would want nukes after Israel deployed hundreds of them. That is unexplainable – as we can see by your refusal to offer an explanation after being asked for one multiple times – in terms of an independent country pursuing local interests, sensibilities or strategic perceptions.

    That is easily explained in that Saudi Arabia is a Western colony.

    Now, again 20% is low enriched uranium, it is not a weapon. I’m writing this not for the Saudis’ sake but for yours.

    Israel’s strategists want a region where only Israel has nuclear technology and legal nuclear weapons capabilities.

    http://www.raceforiran.com/israel-and-irans-nuclear-weapons-program

    You (not the Saudis) have been fooled by this campaign to demonize Iran’s nuclear program on Israel’s behalf.

    You (not the Saudis) are really concerned with Iran’s 20% enrichment. You’ve been successfully lied to. The Saudis are saying what the Americans tell them to do. They are a colony, not independent. They don’t have to believe what the Americans say to repeat it.

  12. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 27, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    Racially and genetically, Iranians are not Aryans.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/science/2011/11/111113_l42_vid_ir_genetic.shtml

  13. Rehmat says:

    hans – I guess by that time you would have received your US passport to escape Israel.

  14. hans says:

    JPM shares @ $28
    Silver @ $32

    Attack is coming, first Syria and Lebanon then Iran. I predict around after 11 Dec. 2011.

  15. Rehmat says:

    BiBiJon – Talking about US-Iran “cultural values”. How can you expect “cultural values”, based on Roman Paganism and Monotheism of Islam to get narrowed-down? The immoral cutural values in the US, Canada and the rest of Europe are ‘defined’ by the Judeo-Christian Masonic elites – based on the “everything is kosher in love and war” principle.

    Iran’s foreign policy toward the West is not based on religion or cultural domination. It’s based on Iran’s national interests, its total independence with national dignity and justice – followed by the unity among the Muslim nation-states.

    America’s foreign policy is fueled on Islamophobia, imperialism and what’s good for Israel.

    Once the US occupation forces are forced to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan – Islamic Republic will emerge as the only regional power – whether ZOG America like it or not.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/islamic-iran-is-destined-to-become-a-world-power/

  16. BiBiJon says:

    “The laws of the natural order, the reflection of the divine order, and millenia of Aryan “alignment of the bones,” make it impossible for him to lie. ”

    Fiorangela, and Humanist:

    Thank you for the illuminating conversation you guys had. In one word, ‘ontology’, explains the dysfunction that passes for a US-Iran relationship, not realpolitik, nor religious bigotry, etc. It is ‘identity’ politics, and will last until US or Iran fundamentally change their cultural values.

    http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_and_US_The_Excuse_and_the_Main_Concern.htm

  17. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: Did you follow the Strauss-Kahn matter? It looks more and more that he was set up as part of a conspiracy to damage his reputation and block his route to the presidency (in France). (False accusations of rape, in New York hotel room.)

    That reminds me, did you follow the Fox-Werritty-Gould affair?

  18. Sassan says:

    “The laws of the natural order, the reflection of the divine order, and millenia of Aryan “alignment of the bones,” make it impossible for him to lie. ”

    lol @ Fiorangela.

    The concept of Taqiyya in Shiite Islam makes it perfectly acceptable to lie in the benefit of your religion. In fact, this is what the animal Khomeini did in taking power by promising to simply be a “spiritual adviser sitting in qom” to what this regime has been doing for the past 30+ years: lie lie lie.

    And Persian/Islamic culture are completely separated from each other. The regime represents Islamicism; the people represent Persian culture.

  19. More on Syria:

    Will French Intelligence Agents Be Training Syrian Deserters?
    :http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/lussato251111.html

    “”But it’s the French and the British who made the initial contacts with the rebels.”
    According to the weekly, it’s a “limited intervention prepared by the NATO” that is being planned. “Support for the civilian and military rebellion, presentation of a resolution to the UN General Assembly, the smuggling of weapons across Syrian borders, necessary contacts with Washington via the NATO . . . such are the issues under discussion among Paris, London, and Ankara,” Le Canard points out.”

    And Homs is not what you’ve been told:

    Syriana Unshrouded
    :http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278931

    The West plan to overthrow Syria is in full swing – and you won’t know it until the bombs start dropping, within months is my guess. Just like Libya, despite all the denials – denials just like Libya.

  20. Canning: “RE:The so-called “plot” (to kill Saudi ambassador) was the work of the DEA and the FBI. Not the work of CIA or other western countries.”

    Wrong. The case was nothing until the CIA, i.e., Petraeus, backstopped the concept by supporting the notion that it was being funded by Iranian officials. The case was STARTED by the FBI/DEA as a typical “drug entrapment” case, but when the CIA got involved it was escalated to an “assassination plot” probably on direct orders of Petraeus and Obama.

    The FBI may have contributed to the escalation since the FBI would benefit from that, but the CIA alleged “intel” was integral to making the case “plausible” for public consumption.

  21. Mr. Canning: “I continue to see the primary issue as Iranian enriching to 20%, and fears that the Saudis will want nukes if Iran builds them. And there is the element of a possible insane Israeli attack.”

    While the EU may not be happy about the latter, the former two are bullshit, and the EU knows it, just as the US knows it. In any event, the EU – especially Britain and France – will follow the US like lapdogs and the US will follow Israel like a lapdog, despite your fantasies that Britain is somehow “morally superior” to the US. The conspiracy with Israel recently revealed, not to mention Britain’s total history, makes that utter nonsense.

    In any event, now that Iran is allegedly self-sufficient in 20% enrichment, that question is off the table as far as Iran is concerned. While Iran may continue to offer suspending 20% enrichment as a bargaining chip to get sanctions reduced, it knows that the only valid bargaining chip is recognition of Iran’s right to enrich to LEU levels – which the US will never acknowledge.

    If the EU was serious about negotiating – which it is not – it would recognize Iran’s right to enrich in advance and trade sanction elimination for improved IAEA monitoring. Since it does not, it proves that the EU is in lockstep with the US and Israel.

    Your obsession with the 20% issue is complete nonsense.

  22. Arnold: “Israel is frightened by the idea of it losing its regional monopoly on nuclear capability.”

    No, it isn’t. To be more precise, while it would not like to lose its regional monopoly on nuclear weapons, it knows full well that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, just as the US knows this, and therefore is not concerned about it. Israel also knows that even if Iran developed and manufactured several nuclear weapons, it would have no problem eliminating those weapons via its own nuclear arsenal and deterring any Iranian attack with its own second-strike capability.

    What Israel IS concerned about is losing its HEGEMONY in the Middle East, due to Iran and its proxies in the region such as Hizballah having geopolitical influence, which hinders Israel from continued encroachment on the countries surrounding it.

    This is why the Israeli game plan is to weaken Syria, then weaken Hizballah, then get the US to attack Iran. Weakening all three countries would benefit the expansionist plans of Israel considerably – or at least so its rulers believe. In reality, the end result is likely to be the destruction of Israel with its own nukes.

    I think it’s safe to predict that Israel will not exist in its current form by the year 2050. It will either be a bi-national state, or an ethnically cleansed state, or a glowing hole in the ground.

  23. Rehmat says:

    James Canning – Your ‘American Conservative’ is White supremacist Zionist front. It deleted my comment on Eric Margolis’ article ‘Looking Back on Road to Folly’, which I later posted on Erick’s blog.

    http://www.ericmargolis.com/

  24. Rehmat says:

    Pakistan: ‘Army will retaliate against NATO’

    Iran’s outgoing ambassador in Islamabad, Mashallah Shakri, in his farewell speech at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) headed by Senator Khurshid Ahmed PhD (member of Jamaat-e-Islami) said that Tehran will cooperate with Pakistan in development and security. He was categorical that Iran wants to see Pakistan stand on her own feet but these foreign loans and aid does not let Pakistan strive for a better, prosperous and independent Pakistan…..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/pakistan-army-will-retaliate-against-nato/

  25. James Canning says:

    I recommend Gary Kamiya’s “The boys who cry ‘Holocaust’”

    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_boys_who_cry_holocaust/?source=newsletter

    The warmongers who scr*wed the American people with illegal Iraq War want another worse war, with Iran. To “protect” Israel. These vicious sh*ts are usually connected to Aipac and they usually are neocons.

  26. Fiorangela says:

    adding to the response to Humanist –

    In contrast to Armstrong’s explanation of the profound commitment to truth, and that the telling of a lie is a grave evil in Aryan culture, consider this passage, from “The Jewish Century,” by Yuri Slezkine.

    “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century. Modernization is about everyone becoming urban, mobile, literate, articulate, intellectually intricate, physically fastidious, and occupationally flexible. It is about learning how to cultivate people and symbols, not fields or herds. It is about pursuing wealth for the sake of learning, learning for the sake of wealth, and both wealth and learning for their own sake. It is about transforming peasants and princes into merchant and priests, replacing inherited privilege with acquired prestige, and dismantling social estates for the benefit of individuals, nuclear families, and book-reading tribes (nations). Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish. . . .[p. 1]

    “Chapter 1. Mercury’s Sandals: The Jews and other Nomads

    “Let Ares doze, that other war
    Is instantly declared once more
    ‘Twixt those who follow
    Precocious Hermes all the way
    And those who without qualms ovey
    Pompous Apollo.
    – W H Auden, “Inder Which Lyre”

    “There was nothing particularly unusual about the social and economic position of the Jews in medieval and early modern Europe. Many agrarian and pastoral societies contained groups of permanent strangers who performed tasks that the natives were unable or unwilling to perform. Death, trade, magic, wilderness, money, disease, and internal violence were often handled by people who claimed — or were assigned to — different gods, tongues, and origins. . . .They might have been allowed or forced to specialize in certain jobs because they were ethnic strangers, or they might have become ethnic strangers because they specialized in certain jobs–either way, they combined renewable ethnicity with a dangerous occupation. . . .[p. 4]

    “Most itinerant occupations were accompanied by exchange, and some “stranger” minorities became professional merchants. . . .

    “Outcast-to-capitalist careers were not uncommon elsewhere in Africa and in much of Eurasia. Jewish, Armenian, and Nestorian (Assyrian) entrepreneurs parlayed their transgressor expertise into successful commercial activities even as the majority of their service-oriented kinsmen continued to ply traditional low-status trades as peddlars, cobblers, barbers, btchers, porters, blacksmiths, and moneylenders. Most of the world’s long-distance trade was dominated by politically and militarily-sponsored diasporas — Hellene, Phoenician, Muslim, Venetian, Genoese, Portuguese, Dutch and British among others — but there was always room for unprotected and presumably neutral strangers. . . .The Jewish entrepreneur could cross the Christian-Muslim divide, serve as an army contractor, or engage in tabooed but much-needed “usury.” . . .

    “Internally, too, strangeness could be an asset. By not intermarrying, fraternizing, or fighting with their hosts, outcast communities were the symbolic equivalents of eunuchs, monks, and celibate or hereditary priests insofar as they remained outside the traditional web of kinship obligations, blood friendships, and family feuds. . . .

    “The rise of European colonialism created more and better-specialized strangers as mercantile capitalism encroached on previously unmonetized regional exchange systems and peasant economies. . . . [p.5- 6]

    “All these groups were nonprimary producers specializing in the delivery of goods and services to the surrounding agricultural or pastoral populations. Their principal resource base was human, not natural, and their expertise was in “foreign” affairs. They were the descendants — or predecessors — of Hermes (Mercury), the god of all those who did not herd animals, till the soil, or live by the sword; the patron of rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens; the protector of people who lived by their wit, craft, and art.

    “Most traditional pantheons had trickster gods analogous to Hermes, and most societies had members (guilds or tribes) who looked to them for sanctions and assistance. Their realm was enormous but internally coherent, for it lay entirely on the margins. . . .Hermes’ proteges communicated with spirits and strangers as magicians, morticians, merchants, messengers, sacrificers, healers, seers, minstrels, craftsmen, interpreters, and guides — all closely related activities . . .They were admired by also feared and despised by their food-producing and food-plundering (aristocratic) hosts . . .

    “One could choose to emphasize heroism, dexterity, deviousness, or foreignness, but what all of Hermes’ followers had in common was their mercuriality, or impermanence. In the case of nations, it meant that they were all transients and wanderers. . . .Their origin myths and symbolic destinations were always different from those of their clients — and so were their dwellings, which were either mobile or temporary. A Jewish house in Ukraine did not resemble the peasant hut next door, not because it was Jewish in architecture (there was no such thing) but because it was never painted, mended, or decorated. It did not belong to the landscape; it was a dry husk that contained the real treasure — the children of Israel and their memory. All nomads defined themselves in genealogical terms; most “service nomads” persisted in doing so in the midst of dominant agrarian societies that sacralized space. They were people wedded to time, not land; people seen as both homeless and historic, rootless and “ancient.”

    “Whatever the sources of difference, it was the fact of difference that mattered the most. Because only strangers could do certain dangerous, marvelous, and distasteful things, the survival of people specializing in such things depended on their success at being strangers. . . .

    “[Among the Mon people of Thailand] Everyone involved agreed that it was impossible to engage in commerce without being crooked; being crooked meant acting in ways that farmers considered unbecoming a fellow villager. In fact, a trader who was subject to the traditional social obligations and constraints would find it very difficult to run a viable business . . .It would be difficult to refuse credit, and it would not be possible to collect debts.” [p. 9]

    There are many gaping holes in Slezkine’s thesis.

    But the core contrast is this: Where Aryans perceive the absolute necessity not to tell a lie as the basis of living in community and engaging in commerce, Slezkine sees the necessity of groups like Jews who DO tell lies, and are more readily enabled to do so to the extent that they remain as strangers among other groups. Slezkine argues that only “Hermes” — the thief –can carry on the transactions that the larger society requires but “cannot perform.” Jews carry out these Hermes functions, and in a modern world, “we are all Jews, but no group more successful Jewish than Jews.” [pp 1-2]

  27. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Was Saudi Arabia a “colony” of the US in 1945 when Franklin Roosevelt heard Ibn Saud say that if the Jews were to be compensated for the outrages perpetrated against them, then it should be the perpetrators who carried the cost? Feb. 15, 1945. FDR sent Saud his written guarantee the US would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs in Palestine.

    http://www.ibnsaud.info/main/3661.htm

  28. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Very few experts on Saudi Arabia think a “democracy” would result if the monarchy is overthrown.

    Is Saudi Arabia is a “colony” of the US, as you claim, why did the US allow the Saudis to force Aramco to be bought out by SA?

  29. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    You think that Saudi leaders voicing serious concern about Iran’s enriching U to 20% are just playing a deadly game?

    Do you think Obama should have responded to Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U?

    I don’t think the Saudis worry about an Israeli attack on SA, especially an attack using nukes. But they want all nukes out of Middle East. As does Iran, of course.

  30. Fiorangela says:

    Humanist says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Thank you for extremely important discussion of the differences between western mental set and Persian/Islamic way of thinking. I agree wholeheartedly with this paragraph especially:

    “There is an Iranian proverb implying “a thief believes everyone is a thief”. Since any intelligent Israeli or Westerner logically concludes that, for a wide range of reasons, if he/she was in place of Iranian rulers he/she would’ve definitely acquired the atomic bomb. These astute individuals assume the Iranian mind works the same as the Westerners .There is one thing they just can’t fathom, that is, a mix of old Persian culture with Shia ideology(which harshly discriminates between the amiable oppressed and the ruthless oppressor) has made the present day Iranian culture slightly different from that of the West.”

    A thousand times, Yes.

    At the risk of appearing tiresome, permit me to relate how the germ of that realization occurred to me as I visited Iran, then tried to process what I had experienced, then found validation for my conclusions in various books.

    The first great ‘inspiration’ I had in Iran was that Iranians are different somehow; it occurred to me that Iranians are NOT Christian and were not heavily evangelized to adopt Christian ways. I wasn’t sure what that meant, but I knew it was so.

    I took photos of hundreds of windows in Iran — those wooden, fret-work windows of complex and precise designs. I wanted to understand why people went to the trouble of making such intricate patterns. I recalled a phrase ascribed to Galileo that was printed on the flyleaf of my high school algebra text– “Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe.” And I recalled that algebra was conceived by Persians, and means, “the arrangement of the bones.”

    “The bones,” — the framework of nature — must be precisely arranged in accord with the laws of the natural universe. That precision touches, or replicates, the divine. To create a window whose parts are imprecise would misalign the ‘bones’ and produce a sloppy piece of work, not a reflection of the divine. Why would a carpenter or anybody deliberately set out to produce a fretwork window that was not precise, whose bones were misaligned, that did not reflect the truth?

    In “The Great Transformation,” Karen Armstrong discussed the Aryan gods, who were NOT omnipotent over the cosmos like the gods of Judaism and Christianity, but rather must “submit to the sacred order that held the universe together.”** Armstrong continues:

    “This order the Avestan Aryans called asha. . . .It made life possible, keeping everything in its proper place and defining what was true and correct.

    “Human society also depended upon this sacred order. People had to make firm, binding agreements about grazing rights, the herding of cattle, marriage, and the exchange of goods. Translated into social terms, asha meant loyalty, truth, and respect, the ideals embodied by Varuna, the guardian of order, and Mithra, his assistant. . . .The Aryans took the spoken word very seriously. Like all other phenomena, speech was a god. . . [The Aryans] found that the act of listening brought them close to the sacred. Quite apart from its meaning, the very sound of a chant was holy. . . Similarly, a vow, once uttered, was eternally binding, and a lie was absolutely evil because it perverted the holy power inherent in the spoken word. The Aryans would never lose this passion for absolute truthfulness.” [pp. 4-5]

    Perhaps I’m guilty of confirmatory bias. I thought I perceived in Dr. Larijani’s body language a kind of shrinking back, a repulsion, when Charlie Rose attempted to twist words and snare Larijani into conceding points that he did not at all concede, for example, that Larijani said that Iran DID want nuclear weapons, after Larijani had just explained why Iran seeks nuclear KNOWLEDGE. Larijani not only didn’t lie when he said Iran does not seek weapons, he couldn’t lie. The laws of the natural order, the reflection of the divine order, and millenia of Aryan “alignment of the bones,” make it impossible for him to lie.

    As you said in the paragraph quoted above, Humanist, Rose thinks that Larijani thinks the way he thinks, and in his way of thinking, or at least and without a doubt in Israel’s and zionism’s way of thinking, nuclear weapons ARE eminently desirable, and it IS appropriate, even mandatory, to lie, cheat, and steal to obtain nuclear weapons — as Israel has done.

    **(Francis Bacon reflected Eastern thinking in his argument that truth must be found by observing nature, rather than by basing the beginning point of truth on the ordained Word of a hierarchical authority.)

  31. Arnold Evans says:

    James Canning says:
    November 27, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Arnold,

    So, you think Iran should frighten the Saudis by enriching U to 20% even if Iran already has sufficient 20% U to fuel TRR for at least ten years?

    No! What’s wrong with you?

    The Saudis aren’t really frightened by Iran enriching uranium to 20% – when they aren’t frightened by Israel deploying hundreds of nuclear weapons.

    None of the Arab populations that have been polled have ever demonstrated fright at Iran’s nuclear program that does not build actual nuclear weapons.

    Israel is frightened by the idea of it losing its regional monopoly on nuclear capability.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65692/ariel-ilan-roth/the-root-of-all-fears?page=show

    For this reason the West holds Iran to a double standard that while nuclear capability is legal, Iran must not be able to achieve it.

    The Saudi government, if it really told Hague it is concerned with 20% enrichment, much less scared of it, said that because it is a colony and the Americans have instructed them to adopt that line. A democratic government there would not be saying this. It would almost certainly have its own domestic nuclear program.

    What is your explanation for why the Saudis are not only adopting the Western line on Iran’s nuclear program, but do not have a domestic nuclear program of their own? I don’t think you can present an explanation more consistent with what we know about the Saudi and the strategic environment the country is in than “the Americans told them what to do and they do it.”

    Colonialism is as colonialism does.

  32. kooshy says:

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/212489.html

    “A senior Iranian lawmaker has announced that Iran has become self-sufficient in providing 20 percent enriched uranium for its Tehran Research Reactor that produces radio-medicine.”

  33. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Re: EU sanctions against Iran, I continue to see the primary issue as Iranian enriching to 20%, and fears that the Saudis will want nukes if Iran builds them. And there is the element of a possible insane Israeli attack.

  34. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Another factor in the so-called “plot” is budget-oriented. Various Federal agencies compete for funding, and want to show they are doing the stuff, etc. For years, the US had a “war on drugs” simply because a war was needed to justify spending so much money. After 9/11, “war on drugs” no so important. To justify spending huge sums.

  35. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    As more details emerge about the so-called “plot”, it will indeed be interesting to learn who was behind the scheme. Neocon warmongers, we can be sure. Question is who the arramgements were made.

    Did you follow the Strauss-Kahn matter? It looks more and more that he was set up as part of a conspiracy to damage his reputation and block his route to the presidency (in France). (False accusations of rape, in New York hotel room.)

    I think the concerns of many countries, about nuclear proliferation, are sound. I also think any development of nukes by Saudi Arabia would be highly dangerous.

  36. kooshy says:

    James, FYI I may add that I have British clients that they still call the US “the colonies” I may add that it firmly offends me

  37. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE:The so-called “plot” (to kill Saudi ambassador) was the work of the DEA and the FBI. Not the work of CIA or other western countries.

    In effect, which of the followings are you suggesting:

    A. That was the work of rogue elements without any consent from the above or regards for the law of the land.

    B. Although the conduct was against the law, the culprits were rewarded by having high-ranking officials to openly and publicly approving it.

    C. Although the US officials approved (post hoc, of course) of an illegal act, the UK and EU countries consented to making policy changes hostile to Iran.

    D. US-UK-EU don’t really know what the heck they are doing and their decisions are usually a crapshoot.

    E. All of the above.

  38. Humanist says:

    James and all

    Javad Zarif’s opposition to invasion of Iraq (see video in this thread) is one of the many examples where the Western analysts fail to understand the subtle yet very important differences between the two cultures.

    In Google Search I typed “iran menace”. It reported 10,600,000 sources. I am sure the vast majority of these items might not be really in the ‘anti-Iran’ category, yet I am sure the number of negative publications on Iran far outweigh the ones written with impartial or objective intentions.

    This goes back to ancient times. The main source of Western conception on early Persia is the writings of Herodotus who doesn’t hide his distaste for anything Persian. Despite all that, a skeptical reader can easily find lots of contradictions in his writings, such as why Alexander ordered all of his top generals or officials marry the Persians.

    The most striking contradiction is the Cyrus Cylinder which is the first charter of Human Rights in the world (A replicate of it is on display in one of the United Nations buildings). Cyrus, aside from his high historical authority is buried in a very modest structure. This in itself is also telling when his mausoleum is compared to many others built in the course of history.(In Google type mausoleum and click on Images to get an impression of Cyrus’s modesty).

    I have to rush to say that I believe, all human beings, when examined over a long course of time, are practically the same and no tribe can claim any type of superiority over any other ethnic group. Also based on Darwin’s Natural Selection hypothesis and experiments carried out in recent decades, we are all born as destructive, self-centered hypocritical liars. Only our rational mind can create inhibiting circuits in our brains in order to make us less destructive.

    With having such a mental background, while watching a documentary on Iran I enjoyed listening to a curator of the British Museum who criticized (castigated) Hordetus’ allegations on Iran and branded old Persia as a peaceful civilization. I enjoyed it since probably the British are among the top three who have articulately (and consistently) demonized Iran (Persia). I also enjoyed it since it confirmed my conviction that decent objective souls can be found over the whole spectrum of our humanity and as I said above we are all made from the same fabric of an astounding essence dominating our natural world…

    Watch (the first half of) this video where Hillary Mann Leverett is interviewed by Amy Goodman. In it Hillary asserts that during Iran-Iraq war where Iranians were subjected to Iraqi Chemical Weapons decided not to retaliate with same WMD:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anQmSq6Kz_U )

    Integrate your thoughts from Zarif’s interview with any impression you get from watching the above video. Then you might get convinced why Iran will NEVER build any chemical, biological or atomic bomb.

    There is an Iranian proverb implying “a thief believes everyone is a thief”. Since any intelligent Israeli or Westerner logically concludes that, for a wide range of reasons, if he/she was in place of Iranian rulers he/she would’ve definitely acquired the atomic bomb. These astute individuals assume the Iranian mind works the same as the Westerners .There is one thing they just can’t fathom, that is, a mix of old Persian culture with Shia ideology (which harshly discriminates between the amiable oppressed and the ruthless oppressor) has made the present day Iranian culture slightly different from that of the West.

    That also might explain why, apart from the Islamic factor, Iran which is not an Arab country is among the top defenders of the Palestinians.

    As a non-Persian who has a deep sense of gratification to Iranian Culture I hope all of those involved, knowledgeable, objective and impartial analysts attempt to explore the above important subject further since that could contribute to the clarification of the present time explosive atmosphere…… no matter if the determined Israeli Likudniks wont rest until their illusive enemy the Amalek is annihilated.

    This is a crazy world where psychopathic warmongers are hard at work to spill blood of thousands or millions….for no convincing reason….this is happening in the age where science proves for any international dispute there exists at least one peaceful solution that could be beneficial for both sides……..crazy world indeed….one wonders how Kafka would’ve characterized it if he was alive…

  39. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    “I knew a number of British people who refused to travel to Germany, decades after the war. Still bitter.”

    James I can guarantee that Iranians are not like or think like British with regard to relations with their brotherly neighbors

    Today the biggest destination for Iranian tourist is Iraq who fought with Iran longer than Germans ever fought the British

  40. Empty says:

    Kooshy,

    lol…maybe they need a splinter!

  41. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    Yes, you’re correct about those statements and the fact that the who’s who of the UK regime regularly make such statements. Those statements are an absolutely necessary ingredient for the whole deception thing. I know it’s really difficult for you to believe those angels but the disconnect between their statements and actual deeds (overt and covert) sticks out of their ropes like a rooster’s tail.

  42. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Many Iranians live in UAE, especially Dubai.

    I knew a number of Britsh people who refused to travel to Germany, decades after the war. Still bitter.

    Iran should seek the best possible relations with other Gulf countries.

  43. James Canning says:

    Interesting and important comments by Philip Giraldi (“Something Brewing in Pakistan”).

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/

    I agree with Philip that “US media attention span runs to about thirty seconds”.

  44. kooshy says:

    Empty says:
    November 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Here is the list of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries that includes Saudi Arabia:

    Empty Jon

    این سعودی عربیاـ نان الاینمنتشه که منو کشته

    Saudi Arabia’s non –alignment’s is what is killing me

  45. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    All that means is that Iran can have correct diplomatic and commercial relationships with EU, US, and Southern Persian Gulf states.

    But at the popular level, the story is quite different.

  46. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    Yes. It is not surprising that the Guardian “reported” something like that. Who was the source, by the way?

    Ah, the paradox of self-referencing systems……….

  47. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Unless you accept the spiritual authority of a person or a grpoup of such persons, you can interpret Islam any which way you want.

    In Sunni Islam, that Spiritual Authority does not exist.

    That is why anyone can declare Jihad against US or UK, or this or that group.

    Sort of like the way Germanic Tribes or American Indian tribes worked.

    If you are a Shia Muslim, your position is constrained by the Marja’iyat – the collection of Muslim Scholars that can opine on this or that matter and their opinion is binding.

    [This is still not at the level of the authority of the Bishop of Rome and lacks its coherence.]

    All of this to get to this point:

    The Wahabis are extremist – from the point of view of Shia – and 33 years of Islamic Governance in Iran has further elucidated the difference between them.

  48. Empty says:

    Material point: Saudi Arabia’s revenue from Haj pilgrimage is more than $30 billion dollars a year. Pilgrims are the single largest revenue generator for KSA after oil. Hajj is the top destination for Iranians and the share of revenue to KSA from Iranian pilgrims is more than 20% (that’s $6 billion a year).

  49. kooshy says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 27, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    “If the conflict over Zionism was resolved then the United States could get everything it gets from the Saudi dictatorship from a representative accountable Republic of Arabia. Does that mean the US would push for that? No, but the US now is working as hard as it can to prevent that. Those efforts would probably stop, not because the public demands it, but because they would be unnecessary expenditures of effort on the part of the US.”

    Arnold

    Thanks for the reply, now I do agree with this above conclusion, I have been fallowing your blog and I may add that your last topic to my opinion is the best, I noticed a comments made by Laysander (who I think is Egyptian and I highly value his/her comments) on a previous topic of your blog, as well as a comment by Ledia on the new topic, which I think are closer to my overall view, which is, that the interests of the Zionists coincides with overall capitalistic interests of US in regard to oil and the Israel project.

    With yours Lidia’s and laysender’s permission I like to repost these comment here, I do recommend to everyone interested to read the new topic on your blog.

    Capitalism, imperialism and Zionism
    http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/capitalism-imperialism-and-zionism.html#disqus_thread

    Lysander

    “I would add that the numbers re: Iran are quite impressive since so much Arab media is Saudi owned or influenced and is quite anti-Iranian, as was Egyptian state media under Mubarak. It coincides with discussions I’ve had with Egyptians. The anti-Iranian media campaign has not born fruit.

    As for oil vs Israel, the two are not entirely unrelated. To say that the US is invading Iraq or Libya “because of oil” implies that the US intends to simply take the oil by force, which is not really the case. More accurately, it wants the oil controlled by regional satraps and not in the hands of any independent actor. So, to ask if the US is involved in the middle east because of Israel OR because of oil, implies that the two possible answers are mutually exclusive when in fact they are closely related. The same is true in regards to weakening the Muslim world or protecting their global dominance.

    My point being that those who answered something other than “protecting Israel” are not necessarily mistaken about the root causes. If there had been a follow up question such as “Do you think the US wants to control oil or weaken Islam in order to benefit Israel?” my guess is a vast majority would have answered “yes.”

    Lidia
    “Interesting questions. My 2 cents

    1) Zionism is my sore point. But I always see Zionism (i.e. Jewish state on Palestine land) as a part of boarder picture of colonialism. Rhodesia is a good example.

    2) Imperialism generally means toppling not-obedient rulers and putting puppet ones in their stead. Brazil was a victim of USA imperialism’s backed coup.

    3) Just now USA is escalating their pressing on China. Some of USA meddling in the ME (imperialism) is tied not only to defense of “Jewish state” but also to curbing ambitions of China (and Russia) – for ex, in Iran.

    4) I agree that the case of USA/Israel is more complex than, say, USA and aparteid SA. But USA supported aparteid SA as well.

    In short, imperialism(capitalism) is not only for short-term financial gain. A lot of people argued before 1914 that the war is impossible because it would be very bad for profits. Not only different capitalists (or different capitalist states) could win while other lost
    in the same war, but sometimes some loss is needed to prevent much greater loss. And, after all, imperialists could simply miscalculate :)

    I sure agree that USA support for “Jewish state” costs are great. But who is paying for them? Big oil? They still seem not to go broke. Average Americans? Do they have a say in USA politics anyway?

    Of course, the role of the Zionist lobby is very out of usual. But it could not be so without some basis in USA politics that, as I see it, predated Zionism.”

  50. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I look at the Iraq-Iran War as a regrettable and avoidable catastrophe. But Iran does well to put it behind itself and move on toward better relations with other Gulf countries.

    Ahamdinejad has said a number of times the events of 1953 are water under the bridge and no obstacle to better relations between Iran and “the west”.

  51. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    The Guardian reported June 29, 2011 that Prince Tuki al-Faisal had warned Nato defence chiefs that Saudi Arabia would build nukes if Iran does.

    http://mostlymiddleeastandamerica.com/?p=1216

  52. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    There was no such blanket opposition to Dr. Mossadeq by Muslim Scholars.

    But an influential section opposed him.

    Part of it had to do with the late Dr. Mossadeq’s shortcomings as a political leader – he was too individualistic – like very many Iranians.

    But in the popular imagination, that faction also bears responsibility for the demise of the government of late Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq.

    The Islamic Government has tried to white-wash the whole thing but has not been entirely successful.

    The Fall of Mossadeq has become a Myth that is no longer subject to dispaasionate and rational analysis.

    Perhaps it was in 1953 that the West lost Iran.

    Just like the Iran-Iraq War cut-off Iran from the Persian Gulf Arab states (excepting Iraq nad Syria).

  53. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Was Ibn Saud “informed by Islam” when he took control of Mecca and Medina and overturned the way the Hashemites had run those places? In a zealous crusade for Wahabi Sunni Islam.

  54. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    And yes, the Saudis openly have attacked Israel for possessing nukes. With good reason, of course.

  55. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    It matters not that EU buys oil from Iran; oil if ungible.

    In regards to ibn Saud; not doubt his entire being was informed by Islam.

    The trouble with him was that he was ignorant of what was transpiring in the rests of the world; he was a Medieval Muslim Ruler living in an age created by the Europeans.

  56. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    William Hague has said a number of times the UK is not the enemy of Iran, and Iran is not the enemy of the UK. And that the UK welcomes a prominent position in the Middle East occupied by Iran. And UK opposes regime change. These statements offend you?

  57. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    The so-called “plot” (to kill Saudi ambassador) was the work of the DEA and the FBI. Not the work of CIA or other western countries.

  58. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Saudis do support Iran’s right to generate nuclear power and to enrich U to 3.5% to obtain fuel for future power plants at Bushehr.

  59. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Re Mossadeq. “The Iranian clergy supported the coup against Mossadeq because they were concerned with his socialistic leanings.” David E. Price, in “Islamic political culture”.

  60. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    1. Here is the list of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries that includes Saudi Arabia:
    http://www.nam.gov.za/background/members.htm ….Here is the link to the full text of the NAM statement formally submitted to IAEA director on Nov. 19, 2011, in which full support for Iran’s right under NPT for R&D and enrichment, without discrimination, is clearly stated: ;http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/11868. Saudi Arabia, too, was a signatory to the statement.

    2. Over the years, KSA officials have expressed support to Iran’s nuclear program for peaceful purposes and have publicly and openly criticized Israel for actually having nuclear weapons.

    3. If the UK has had a proven history of deception and deceit that have spanned over decades with clear strategy of “divide and rule”, do you think it is logical for anyone in the Middle East to believe a single word those lying sacs of manure say?

    4. If the hostility of K.S.A. toward Iran is in fact so noteworthy, why did the western regimes felt compelled to concoct a hollywood plot to try to drive a wedge and in the process embarrass themselves and for it to back fire on them?

  61. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Are you advocating a Saudi programme to build nuclear power plants?

  62. James Canning says:

    hans,

    The Iranians themselves used Werrity as an intermediary with British defence minister.
    Of course they knew what he was up to.

  63. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    So, you think Iran should frighten the Saudis by enriching U to 20% even if Iran already has sufficient 20% U to fuel TRR for at least ten years?

  64. Arnold Evans says:

    Also James,

    20% enriched uranium is not a nuclear weapon, and is perfectly consistent with a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

    The West, for Israel’s sake, deliberately conflates those two concepts to hold Iran to a double-standard. Saudi Arabia told William Hague that it is on the West’s side of this deliberate deception.

    How do you explain that?

    Colonialism is was colonialism does.

  65. hans says:

    What is Iran’s position regarding Werriry and his frequent visits to the opposition groups in Iran. I have heard no statement regarding this. Were the Iranian intelligence aware of his frequent visits and activities, if no then they failed in their job to protect Iran.

  66. Arnold Evans says:

    James:

    Oh, so you think Saudi Arabia has responded to Israel’s hundreds of deployed nuclear weapons by going to that conference in Vienna.

    How did the Saudis tell Hague that they would respond to Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%? Another conference?

    Do you think this is how a popularly accountable government would respond to Israel’s provocation? Not by building its own nuclear capabilities, that Iran has said it would encourage and even assist?

    I’m still waiting for your explanation of the difference between how Saudi Arabia acts and how a popularly accountable government of the same country would act. I don’t think you believe Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the West is the same as it would be if the government depended on a popular vote.

    Colonialism is as colonialism does.

  67. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    When Ibn Saud conquered the Hejaz, and thereby gained control of Mecca and Medina, was this action “informed by Islam” in your view?

  68. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    If EU is bent on harming Iran, as you claim, why is EU buying almost 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil each day?

  69. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Delusions have consequences.

    For 100 years, Muslim lands have been playground of delusional Christian powers.

    Per the late Mr. Khomeini – this must forst be stopped and then rolled back.

    There is no other way.

    As you can see cearly, the US-EU Axis, being the riches and mightiest alliance on Earth, offers nothing but more war and more bloodshed to the Land of Islam.

  70. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Try to understand how this looks from the position of men like Mr. Khamenei or late Mr. Khomeini.

    They saw the failure of non-Islamic political movements:

    Constitutional Revolution in Iran,
    overthrow of the government of late Dr. Mossadeq,
    the loss of Muslims lands as well as the Al Haram Al Sharif by bombastic leaders of the Arab National Socialism movement,
    the suppression of religion in Turkey, in Iraq,
    the multiple failures of secular Muslim leaders in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, inIndonesia, and elsewhere,
    the murder of Islamic Prime Minister in Turkey by the military,
    the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,
    the Iraq invasion of Iran,
    the US invasion of Iraq,
    US-EU Siege Warfare Against Iran.

    Men such as Mr. Khamenei have ample reasons to be suspicious and dispargin of the non-Islamic political movements and leaders that are neither informed by Islam nor influenced by it.

  71. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Are you not aware that there was a conference in Vienna last week, on ways and means of getting nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. This effort was led by the Arab countries. Why would you suggest the Saudis do not want a Middle East free of nukes?

  72. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    American delusions about Southeast Asia were just that: delusions. In fact, unified Vietnam under the Communists posed no serious threat to American interests.

    I do hope Obama pulls all US troops out of Iraq, and stops squandering billions of dollars on this idiotic military adventure.

    Afghanistan was of course a disastrous blunder by Obama. Thank you, Hillary Clinton, General Petraeus and Robert Gates. You made it happen.

    Obama simply is not allowed to act intelligently toward Iran. Obviously he should have responded to the Iranian offer to cease production of 20% U. Israel lobby blocked it. Israel lobby is scr*wing the ignorant and rather stupid people of the US.

  73. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Let us hope so.

    Oil producers, including Russia, Iraq, Angola, Saudi Arabia can use an extra $20.00 a barrrel increase in oil proces.

  74. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Surely you are aware that most Iranian leaders were not pleased to have the US/UK invade Iraq in 2003.

    Iranian fears of sectarian conflict in resulting civil war were clearly well-founded.

    The moron in the White House declined to accept Iran’s offer to help assess whatever threat might be posed by Saddam Hussein.

  75. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 27, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    US planners have come to the realization that US has to extricate herself from the Middle East.

    This is due to yet another quixotic pursuit, this time the building of a system of alliance against rising China based on India, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Korea.

    So the last thing the US planners want is yet another war in the Middle East, over Syria or with Iran over its nuclear program. [At one time, 40% of US armored-mechanized assets were in Iraq – a country of 23 million.]

    US planners are also in a bad situation with respect to war in Afghanistan (a stalemate) and the disintegration of their position in Pakistan.

    By 2014 US will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And just like Southeast Asia 2 generations earlier, she leaves without having realized her strategic aims.

    And just like Viet Nam in Southeast Asia, rapprochement with Iran lies a decade in the future, say in 2024.

    But because of the commitment to Jewish fantasies in Palestine, and the religious nature of the war there, rapprochement with Iran is probably out of the question even at 2024 – there is no political space for it.

    So, just like Southeast Asia, US will leave Iran under siege – just like the case of unified Viet Nam.

    What distinguishes the current situation from that of Southeast Asia is the oil & gas resources, the Arab ferment, and alienation of the Iran (and the Shia) from the regional politics. This alienation, is not sustainable and will break down.

    What is lacking is a vision of peace interest.

  76. Arnold Evans says:

    Also the 1970′s oil strike was literally the least Saudi Arabia could do after the US so dramatically and decisively intervened to defeat armies from all parts of the Arab world to sustain Zionism.

    Surely you admit that a democratic Republic of Arabia that controls the resources Saudi Arabia controls could and would have done a lot more before, then and after, including now to punish the US for its policies in their region.

    How do you explain that Saudi Arabia’s opposition to the US’ wildly and severely unpopular and destructive policies has been so weak and restrained throughout its history?

    Colonialism is as colonialism does.

  77. James Canning says:

    Currently, the largest buyer of Iranian crude is China, closely followed by the EU, then Japan and India.

    Fantatical Jews are trying to force EU countries to stop buying Iranian crude. This effort probably keeps oil prices $20 per barrel higher than otherwise would obtain.

  78. James Canning says:

    Dan Cooper,

    Regrettably, Obama feels he cannot engage with Iran in good faith because the Jewish lobby would punish Democrats in the Senate and House that are seeking re-election in 2012.

    To me, it is crucially important for the people of the EU to comprehend the extent of control of US foreign and “defence” policy, that Jewish groups and very rich individuals have achieved.

  79. Arnold Evans says:

    James:

    You give a lot more credence both to this William Hague person and to what he claims the Saudis said than I do.

    Did they explain to Hague what about Iran’s 20% enrichment bothers them when they have not responded to Israel’s hundreds of deployed nuclear weapons?

    How do you explain that?

    As I said, colonialism is as colonialism does.

  80. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    The Saudis made clear to William Hague during Hague’s visit to SA several months ago, that their primary concern about Iran was Iran’s enriching U to 20%.

    This is fact. You can argue that the Saudis should not be ccncerned about Iranian enrichment to 20%, but you should provide reasons that you think support your contention.

  81. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Did the US control Saudi Arabia when the Saudis imposed the oil embargo to punish US for its support of Israel during the 1973 Arab-Israel war?

    I have never suggested Iran would attack Saudi Arabia. I regard such an attack as highly unlikely.

    I agree with you Iran has little offensive force projection capability. For good reasons.

  82. Arnold Evans says:

    Pirouz_2:

    We agree that US policy is unusually intense in the Middle East and disagree if Zionism is a cause or effect of that. My basic argument is that Zionism makes other goals more difficult, not less difficult to reach for the US. I make that argument in a longer form on my blog.

    http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/capitalism-imperialism-and-zionism.html

    I very much welcome your thoughts.

    Kooshy:

    A simple exercise to better understand my insertion is to assume that the Israeli Palestinian dispute is fully resolved whether by dissolving the state of Israel or a two, three state solution or any other way, in that case do you think that the majority of Americans will still support their government’s colonization of the middle eastern countries for an economic value at home, my hunch is they will, and if true then the current public support for Israel is not due to a moral value they have for that state, or on the other side for the ill treatment of Palestinians.

    If the conflict over Zionism was resolved then the United States could get everything it gets from the Saudi dictatorship from a representative accountable Republic of Arabia. Does that mean the US would push for that? No, but the US now is working as hard as it can to prevent that. Those efforts would probably stop, not because the public demands it, but because they would be unnecessary expenditures of effort on the part of the US.

    The same way the US would not need the dictatorship in Jordan or even Egypt. The only thing those dictatorships provide the US is that they shield Israel from their populations.

    I may edit the post on my blog about capitalism and Zionism to make the above point more clearly now that you’ve brought it up.

    James Canning:

    Colonialism is as colonialism does.

    It is unlikely that any country forcibly occupy Saudi Arabia’s oil fields. But as unlikely as it is for anybody, the US is far more likely than Iran to attempt to do that. Iran, unlike the US does not have force projection abilities at the range that would be required.

    A poll of people of the Arab world was just published. Saudi Arabia was not sampled, but the people of neighboring countries consider Israel and the US to be threats to their countries ahead of Iran by a three or four to one margin. The people of Saudi Arabia likely share that assessment that, as I argue in the above paragraph, is correct.

    Saudi Arabia stands against Iran not because of domestic strategic considerations and not because of local values. Saudi Arabia stands against Iran because it is in a subordinate relationship with the United States. That subordinate relationship is in practical terms, not different from relationships that even you accept are colonial.

    Maybe you honestly don’t see that, or maybe you advocate that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states should be in subordinate, colonial relationships with Western states.

  83. Rd. says:

    Pirouz says:

    “Our mainstream media is kind’a funny.”
    ———————————–

    Turkish Today’s Zaman had the same headlines.. Ironic, just under the headlines were pictures of Turkish citizens demonstrating against the planned deployment of missiles in eastern Turkey.

    http://www.todayszaman.com/news-264026-iran-threatens-to-hit-turkey-if-us-israel-attack.html

  84. Dan Cooper says:

    The Zionist-US-Israeli troika are mutually masturbating in a closet.

    Iran is not Libya: it has the military power, geographic proximity and economic resources to demolish the weak and vulnerable ‘peripheral’ US client states.

    Israel can start a US war against the Islamic world – but it cannot win it.

    Netanyahu’s losses in the UN cannot be explained away as 193 “anti-semitic” countries.

    The Zionist-US-Israeli troika are mutually masturbating in a closet.

    They can rant and rave and even precipitate an apocalyptic war, but Obama and Netanyahu are increasingly on the margin of world changes.

    Their policies are impotent reactions to popular movements envisioning historical transformations, which have even, began to enter into the center of empires: Wall Street and Tel Aviv.

    Ultimately the “Obama doctrine” is doomed to failure as it is incapable of recognizing that the problem of decline is not simply a problem of ‘tactics’ but a basic systemic breakdown of empire building: the cracks and fissures abroad have ignited revolts at home.

    As Obama submits to greater subservience to Israel’s political arm in the US, the 52 “Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations”, and prepares a joint military attack on Iran, even NATO, refuses to follow suite.

    The great danger of the “Obama doctrine”is that it looks at short term ‘local’ consequences.Air and sea power can successfully bomb Iranian nuclear and military facilities, please the head of the Israeli ruling junta and guarantee American Zionist financial backing for Obama’s re-election campaign. What is overlooked is the military capacity of Iran to close the world’s most important waterway(the Strait of Hormuz) shipping oil to Europe, Asia and the US.

    Obama’s air war successes in Iran would be overwhelmed by Iranian ground and missile attacks of US forces throughout the Gulf. All US petrol allies in the region would be vulnerable to attack. Long range Iranian missiles would send millions of Israeli’s scurrying for bomb shelters, even before Obama’s Zionist advisers uncork their champagne to celebrate their “air victory” over Teheran.

    The ‘Obama doctrine’ of extra territorial air wars with impunity turned against Iran would provoke a catastrophic conflagration, which would far surpass the disastrous outcome of the land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1879

  85. Rehmat says:

    Under pressure from Jewish organizations, Berlin radio station Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (RBB) has fired its Berlin disc jokey, Ken Jebsen 45, reported by Spiegel Online magazine on November 25, 2011.

    Ken Jebsen’s crime was that he believes Holocaust was a Jewish PR to counter criticism of Israel and Jews. Ken also claimed that 9/11 is an inside job.

    The anti-Ken Jewish campaign began when Ken recently e-mailed to one of his listeners who was offended by his statement and passed it on to Jewish blogger and journalist Henryk Broder, a columnist for Die Welt.

    Jebsen wrote, “The Holocaust is used as PR”. The statement has been interpreted as Holocaust denial, which is illegal in Germany.

    Berlin Jewish Community president Lala Suesskind in a statement said: “It’s not a question of whether Mr. Jebsen is an anti-Semite or not. The question is whether one can just get back to normal after such statements have been made. Because the whole process has triggered a series of anti-Semitic comments, particularly on the Internet”.

    Berlin Jewish leaders had called for tougher measures against Jebsen last week, noting Christian Dior’s firing of fashion guru British designer John Galliano last spring for anti-Semitic comments.

    Jebsen, who also wrote in his controversial e-mail that he has Jewish and Iranian roots, says he and his listeners were “shocked by the extent of personal attacks” he had received.

    http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/berlin-jewish-iranian-dj-fired-for-calling-holocaust-pr/

  86. Rehmat says:

    fyi – is that what that anti-Christ Abe Foxman (ADL) told you? I guess the idiot doesn’t know that Islamic Republic is the only regime in the Middle East which supports openly to a 100% Sunni Hamas.

  87. fyi says:

    Rehmat says: November 27, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Yes, rehmat but that US invasion advanced the cause of Shia and Iran.

    So, the moral is that Iran does not mind US to reshape Middle East, as long as it either helps Iran or leaves her alone.

  88. Voice of Tehran says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:37 am

    “”-Allegations about an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US
    -Allegations about attempts to stage attacks in Bahrain and
    - Allegations about[attempts to ]orchestrate protests in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia “”

    Fiorangela , you must be a ‘Halalzadeh’

    Fresh on PressTV from the Supreme Leader:

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/212425.html

    “The Islamic Republic is currently the focal point of the awakening movement of nations and this reality is what has upset the enemies,” said the Leader.

    Ayatollah Khamenei said hegemonic powers use intimidation of nations and the heads of states as their main approach, adding the Iranian nation showed the people of the world the false awe of bullying powers and that they can be defeated, and this is the main reason Iran has infuriated domineering powers.

    The Leader dismissed Western propaganda about Iranian involvement in the uprising of nations and said, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has no need for such things (meddling) because the continuation, resistance and honesty of the Islamic establishment is in itself a source of inspiration and guide for nations.”

  89. Rehmat says:

    Jonathan Cook in his book, ‘Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East’ has discussed in details how the Zionist entity persuaded the Bush administration to invade Iraq, as part of a plan to remake the Muslim East, and their joint determination to isolate Iran and prevent it from acquire nuclear weapons that might rival Israel’s own…..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/lobby-civilian-government-in-egypt-is-bad-for-israel/

  90. Fiorangela says:

    kooshy at 9:19 pm –

    Dr Marwan Kabalan is trying to satisfy some voracious appetites with very thin gruel.

    The main premise of his argument is:

    “Many ***speculate*** that Iran would take advantage of the power vacuum ensuing and try to establish itself as the dominant power not only in Iraq but in the entire Gulf region.”

    He intensifies the “speculation” by opining that “Iran is not making any efforts to mitigate the fears,” (which is another way of saying, Iran fails to prove a negative). In support of that conclusion/opinion, he provides this — and only this — evidence:

    -Allegations about an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US
    -Allegations about attempts to stage attacks in Bahrain and
    - Allegations about[attempts to ]orchestrate protests in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia

    The professor from Damascus supports his claim that Iran seeks to fill the power vacuum left after US withdrawal from Iraq with a conclusion based on “speculation” and “allegations.” It should be noted that, as Dr. Larijani stated in the interview with Charlie Rose, Iran asked the US to provide details of the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, but the US has not done so.

    Yesterday my book group met and discussed the works of Francis Bacon, who changed the way the West thinks by demanding that conclusions be based on observations of nature (ie. reality-based evidence) rather than on the authority or diktat of some religious power — in Bacon’s situation, the Roman church hierarchy. One of the participants in the book group exclaimed, “We learned that in sixth grade!”

    What do they teach sixth graders in Damascus, Professor Kabalan?

  91. Unknown Unknowns says:

    When a society has lost its soul, when it *has* no spirit, no sacred immortal core to guard, it cannot be expected to understand guardianship, let alone Guardianship of the Jurisconsult.

  92. Pirouz says:

    Our mainstream media is kind’a funny.

    When a few days ago the Russians stated they potentially could target the missile shield in Europe, headlines offered in the MSM ran along these lines:

    “Russia May Target U.S. Missile Defense Sites”

    But when Iran echoed that statement in relation to the missile shield sites in Anatolia, this is how the headlines depicted it:

    “Iran threatens to hit Turkey if US, Israel attack”

    Why in the Russian example does the headline not read: “Russia threatens to hit Romania if US, NATO attack”?

    Or conversely:

    “Iran May Target U.S. Missile Defense Sites”

  93. Voice of Tehran says:

    “”Iran’s Majlis (parliament) has approved the general outlines of a bill aimed at downgrading the Islamic Republic’s relations with Britain.”"

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/212364.html

  94. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty says, “Relevance? Absolutely none whatsoever.”

    The ayatoller begs to differ. Trying to get Uncle Weasel to change its foreign policy stance toward Iran (the purpose of the site) is like banging one’s head against a wall. And the parrot in the video obviously was a head-banger in an earlier life. QED.

  95. kooshy says:

    Another good analysis regarding Iran/ Arab relations

    Patrick Cockburn: Iran is not the monster it’s made out to be – yet

    Patrick Cockburn

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-iran-is-not-the-monster-its-made-out-to-be–yet-6268525.html

  96. Raad says:

    Anonymous Lurker….just to add a bit of colour on UK’s Chancellor – George Osborne – severing Iran from the City of London: George Osborne was receiving ca $800,000 pa when Shadow Chancellor from the Rothschilds. The decision he made was nothing other than expected.

    The pattern in the UK is coming to sharper focus:
    - The Fox-Werrity-Gould (UK’s jewish ambassador to Israel) axis is already exposed as a conspiratorial unit running an alternative foreign policy to the Foreign Office, getting funded by zionist Americans/British – the charity cover of their vehicle Atlantic Bridge was just revoked
    - David Cameron is a prime arse-kisser of Israel – just go to the Conservative Friends of Israel website. Sickening.

  97. pirouz_2 says:

    Arnold;
    Shortly after I posted that message, I didn’t like it and sort of regretted that I had posted it. The reason, however, was not because resistance to occupation is peculiar to middle eastern values; it is as I said before a human value. The reason was that as you rightly explained, in the context of your argument human value of resistance was not quite the relevant point, but rather its being also a middle eastern value was relevant in that context.

    Another problem with my message was that it left the unintended impression as if you had a condescending tone (which is NEVER your tone, be it in that message or in any other comment by you).

    However, I am happy that I wrote that message because it brought us to discussing an important point: our difference of opinion.

    Our main difference is neither that either one of us is undemocrat (we are both democrat), nor is it about our different approach to islamism and Muslim Brotherhood.
    Our main difference as you again very rightly put, is our understanding and as a result our position vis a vis Capital and Capitalism.

    Although you are not capitalist (I mean it in the adjective form of the word and not as the owner of a capital), you do not see capitalism as the core issue shaping the state of affairs in the world in general and in the middle east in particular and I do.

    As such, you explain the state of affairs in Middle East by Israel; I, on the other hand explain Israel with capitalism and its absolute necesseties. You explain US obssession with a viable Israel with a powerful lobby and the sense of self-identification of a wealthy, well educated and powerful ethnic/religious group in USA with Israel.

    I on the other hand see Israel (and the colonial relationship between USA and Arab countries) as a necessity for the expansion and accumulation of capital. In fact I try to explain that powerful lobby and the wide sense of self-identification of jewish Americans with Israel with the necessities of capital, its expansion and its accumulation.

    From my point of view, Israel and the US foreign policies in Middle East are not unique in their nature but rather come close to being unique in terms of its severity. I see a significant parallel between US middle east policies and US policies in the rest of the globe (eg. the disintegration of Yugoslavia, numerous coloured revolutions in eastern europe and former soviet republics, US policies and coups in Venezuela, Honduras, etc.).

    What differes when we move to middle east is not the nature of the American foreign policy but rather its intensity. This difference I explain in terms of the unique strategic importance of this region.

  98. kooshy says:

    For those who wonder why the Turkish posture toward Iran is changed this a good analysis of new regional realities

    It’s Not About Freedom, It’s All About Iran

    Syria’s foes have seized the opportunity provided by the crisis to try to change regional balance of power in their favour

    By Marwan Al Kabalan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29810.htm

  99. kooshy says:

    Sassan

    Do you think if the Turkish military bases or Turkish air space is used for attacking Iran, Iran has the right to defend herself by retaliating, or do you believe if Iran is attacked by Israel, Iran has the right to hit a few places in Israel like Dimona with her missiles arsenal?

    Will love to hear your position on this questions.

  100. kooshy says:

    Arnold

    About my last post addressed to you, the reason that sometimes I bring up this question, which the question is, (if the minority of Americans who are fighting against the Israel project are fighting for a moral value that they attach to inhuman treatment of Palestinians or is it really to reduce a foreign influence that they feel is against their countries long term interest?) is, that I really don’t believe if this fight is solely based on moral value for inhuman treatment of Palestinians will get far, since what I have so far experienced moral values will not supersede American’s economic values therefore will not get much needed support. In other hand I believe if in in a meaning way Americans are informed that they are paying a high economic price for their government’s Israel project they will be more willing to participate for reduction such influence on their national affairs.

    A simple exercise to better understand my insertion is to assume that the Israeli Palestinian dispute is fully resolved whether by dissolving the state of Israel or a two, three state solution or any other way, in that case do you think that the majority of Americans will still support their government’s colonization of the middle eastern countries for an economic value at home, my hunch is they will, and if true then the current public support for Israel is not due to a moral value they have for that state, or on the other side for the ill treatment of Palestinians.

    In the ganged up interrogation of Mr. Lurijani in the MSNBC’s morning Joe program what was most interesting for me was at the very end when a free time was granted to Mr. Hass to make up for the blunder he had made, if you watch, there he tries to scare the American public by stating that if Israel is not supported “if you think the situation in Europe is an economic shock this would possibly be the other economic shock” therefore that leads me to think that the Israeli firsters community is already trying to counter an American awakening with regard to economic cost of Israel project.

    For the Iranians who are fighting the US hegemony to preserve their sovereign independence, there exist a real moral value to fight Israel atrocities against the Muslims in the region, on the other hand perhaps Israel has at least two strategic and no economic values for Iran, which are 1- Iran is using the Israel project
    to make US accept her sovereign independence 2- To elevate her Shieh insecure position in her immediate Sunni Arab street population that sounds the Shieh communities.

    I suspect where the Leverrets view coincides with the Iranian regional posture is correctly based on previous cost benefit experience between China and US where US for many years refused to recognize the sovereign independent rights and interests of nuclear china until when she (due to her Vietnam blunder) had no other choice but to pay the higher price.

    For US government to accept an independent Iran US citizens most become informed that Israel is economically too costly for them to maintain.

  101. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    Opinion piece International Herald Tribune Sept. 29, 2011, by Ali Vaez, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying: “If you [US & EU] give us uranium grade 20 percent now, we will stop production [of it].”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-edvaez30.html

  102. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    It remains unclear that Iran will be able to fabricate the plates to operate the TRR. I assume this will happen. Best info I have seen from nuclear engineers following this matter is that Iran has enough 20% U on hand to make the plates to operate TRR for at least ten years. If I find new info I will mention it.

  103. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    Is it fair to say that Obama’s advisers feel it is better to risk further escalation in tensions in the Gulf, and not to respond to Iran’s offer to cease production of 20% U. because Obama needs to grovel in front of Aipac and other extremist elements of Israel lobby? So Democrats do not get hurt in 2012 elections.

  104. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    I think the Obama administration has made clear Iran has a legitimate right to operate the TRR.

    Obama’s advisers, I agree, will not want Obama to see that he blundered in blocking the proposed deal (and Obama blundered by not supporting Iranis IAEA application to re-fuel the TRR).

  105. James Canning says:

    Humanist,

    Philip II of Spain squandered vast sums on foolish effort to conquer England (to re-establish Catholic Church), and on fighting the Protestants in what became The Netherlands. By contrast, he gave little help to Venice in its wars with the Ottoman Empire.

  106. James Canning says:

    Humanist,

    Bravo (re: reservations on part of some Iranian officials as to merits of an invasion of Iraq). Iran saw that an overthrow of Saddam would work in its favor, but opposed the invasion on moral grounds (fearing civil war).

  107. pirouz_2 says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    Arnold;
    Unfortunately ever since my last message I have become quite busy. I will reply back in a couple of days.

  108. Humanist says:

    Pirouz_2

    In my view in Charlie Rose interview couple of Larijani’s assertions were if not unacceptable and were at least questionable. The most important of them for me was his sole condition of acceptability of new ‘Arab Spring’ governments being their adherence to the Islamic rules.

    And as you mention the hypocrisy on Libyan regime change.

    Other than the above and a few minor weak argument, overall, he was way better than Khazei (Iran’s UN embassador) who years ago on Rose Show performed badly..

    I think among Rose’s interviews with Iranian officials .Javad Zarif stands out. To see how he could see the dangerous complications of invading Iraq watch this one taped shortly BEFORE the Iraqi invasion.

    http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/2139

    Zarif in the interview, among other direct and factual observations indirectly proves how moronic is the Israeli assertions on the fanatical nature of Iranian rulers….my guess is most impartial observers will question “..who is the real irrational side?….Iran who consistently proves it is not making the bomb or Israel who, as Sy Hersh said in his recent interview on Democracy Now, consistently in the last 20 years is claiming Iran will get the bomb in the next six months or so?”.

  109. Sassan says:

    It was just a few months back when Erdogan and Turkey were “buddy-buddy” with the Islamic regime. Since then, Turkey and Erdogan has demonstrated their great character. It started with forcing an Islamic Republic plane to land (their fighter jets forced it to land) in which there were caches and loads of weapons and cash for terrorist organizations. Turkey reported this to the U.N. In addition, Turkey has since taken the right steps in demonstrating that they are really an independent minded nation and will not be heading towards the Islamic side. In addition, they have agreed and are assisting in the missile shield program on their soil. And Erdogan has stood up firmly to the brutal terrorist Assad despite the belligerent threats of the terrorist regime occupying Iran.

    Now, what does this belligerent regime do? Just yesterday a top cleric had the nerve to tell the Saudi Royal family to step down in allowing the “will of the people to prevail”. And following that were the chants of death for the Saudi monarch. Now, this regime threatens Turkey…:

    “Iran threatens to hit Turkey if US, Israel attack”: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-threatens-hit-turkey-us-israel-attack-153655802.html

  110. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: November 26, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    See this:

    http://scisec.net/?p=149

  111. Mr. Larijani surprised Charlie Rose in this interview by assuring him that Iran would gladly assist Saudi Arabia in its nuclear program.

    Maybe the US could also use some help from Iran:

    “Loan Request by Uranium-Enrichment Firm Upends Politics as Usual”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/business/loan-request-by-uranium-enrichment-concern-shakes-up-political-sides.html?src=recg

    “The only American-owned company capable of enriching uranium is asking for government help to modernize its plant and remain in business.… Modern nuclear programs, from France to Russia to Iran, now use centrifuges because they consume about 95 percent less electricity per unit of sorting work.”

  112. fyi says:

    Humanist says: November 26, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    You are reading too much into late Dr. Zinn’s book.

    Much of that book can only be understood from a (moral) perspective that expects US to be a better country or a better polity (in the moral sense) than other countries.

    When it is discovered that is not the case, then moral disappointemnt or outrage would set in.

    Another expression of American Exceptionalism, City on the Hill etc.

    I doubt that a book like that could be written anywhere else in the world – not even in Denmark.

  113. Humanist says:

    Apparently copyright holders of “A People’s History of United States’ by Howard Zinn have donated the great book to the general public. It is now available on the Internet for free downloading.

    As I was browsing it the following paragraph made me pause:

    “For all the gold and silver stolen and shipped to Spain did not make the Spanish people richer. It gave their kings an edge in the balance of power for a time, a chance to hire more mercenary soldiers for their wars. They ended up losing those wars anyway, and all that was left was a deadly inflation, a starving population, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and a ruined peasant class.”

    Among other things I was thinking ” is the state of humanity, in a fundamental way, any different from what it was centuries ago?”

    I believe since then, if not fundamentally, from the perspective of culture our humanity has changed noticeably no matter if some like Israeli rulers, American or ex-colonial European politicians have the same mentality as the above mentioned Spaniards (if not worse)

    Some of the good news are:

    – The cultural evolution of the Vikings who, in early 20th century, by adapting socialistic principles created societies that today stand out as far as, equitable distribution of wealth is concerned. This equality is indeed the basic component of structure of any civilized society and without it ever-increasing decay is in the social structures is inevitable. This is especially true for great majority of the countries at present time.

    Some of the Scandinavian countries allowed taxing the rich up to 99%. The same countries have now the highest standard of living in the world as well as the lowest crime rate. Too bad the corruption of the mind due to lucrative life style (while many are starving), the influx of foreign immigrants and few other factors are swaying the public opinions in Scandinavia towards the ‘right’. Some fear this could cause the decay of the foundations of their advanced societies moving them back instead of carrying them forwards.

    – No possibility of war among the European anymore. The creation of EU is a phenomenally outstanding event of 20th century. After WWII Germans and French realized the folly and barbarity of their perpetual wars and found a way to stop it forever by adapting peaceful and rational measures. This certainly is bound to expand in the future making the world a more livable place, not for a few, but for all.

    – Astounding advancement of science is maybe the best of all good news for humanity. The warmongering voodoo worshipers and blood thirsty ‘holy book’ swingers are constantly losing grounds to the side of cool-headed empathic rational thinkers.

    (There are other good news. Listing them all is beyond the scope of this comment)

    Now a bit about the BAD news:

    In my view, comparing today with centuries ago there is only one bad news that eclipses all others. That is the unprecedented extreme power in the hands of a few who, beyond any doubt can never pass the recent fMRI tests of mental health. Some of them are obsessed with tribal superiority yet, collectively all are crazed with more inexhaustible wealth and with more and more power.

    The delusional expansionist take of the first group with their weaker imagined enemies is mind boggling. Reading Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival” one might conclude “No bad news can be worse than how the few power-hungry sickos are pulling t he strings”……truly bad news…since these morons are endangering all forms of life on earth….including one of their own

  114. In the Arab Opinion poll (see link in my preceding post), it’s important but not always easy to spot a certain bias in the questions asked.

    Consider this one, for example:

    “Looking at the international reaction to the events in the Arab World in the past few months, which TWO countries do you believe played the most constructive role?”

    The choices, and the order (best to worst) in which they finished in the poll, were Turkey, France, US, China, Britain, Germany, Russia and Japan.

    Suppose the question had instead been formulated by changing just one word: changing “constructive” to “non-destructive?”

    Might Japan, which ranked at the very bottom in responses to the actual question, have fared a bit better with this wording? Might it, in other words, have been given some credit for simply having minded its own business? Might Germany, Russia and China have also ranked a bit higher, for the very same reason?

    As actually worded, the question made it difficult for a responder to credit any country that had simply minded its own business.

    Suppose a similar question were asked about the world’s response to the Iranian nuclear program – something like this:

    “Looking at the international reaction to Iran’s nuclear program, which TWO countries do you believe have played the most constructive role?”

    Undoubtedly, many responders would disagree with US policy toward Iran and might vote accordingly for another choice (Turkey, for example, or perhaps Russia or China). But is there any question that the US would outpoll Japan, for the simple reason that Japan has played, essentially, no role at all, “constructive” or otherwise? And if that indeed were the outcome of such a poll question, would the US not be in a position to argue that the world supports its position on the Iran nuclear issue more than it supports the “do nothing” Japan position?

    Once again, if such a question were instead worded so that a responder could give a country credit for minding its own business, Japan might find itself at the top of the list.

  115. Voice of Tehran says:

    fyi says:
    November 26, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Off-Topic , regarding the Al-Aqsa Mosque
    “”FOr it gave Jews the control of Al Haram Al Sharif “”

    Just one point regarding the historic deception by the MSM and Zionist propaganda machinery ( even non-western sources are trapped in this deception )

    There are *2* mosques on the temple mount in Jerusalem , the Al-Sakhrah Mosque and the Al-Aqsa Mosque ( The First Qiblah of Muslims ).

    The ‘preferred’ picture presented in the world media is the mosque with the golden dome ( which is the Al-Sakhra Mosque ) and ‘sold’ to the audience as the Al-Aqsa mosque , which is in an absolute miserable condition , due to the endless digging , excavations , tunnel systems etc. by the Zionists .
    It is well documented , what the Zionist are planning for the Al-Asqa Mosque , they want to destroy it and fullfill their sick fantasies.

    Here you can see the pictures quite impressivley:

    http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=115

    and

    //http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2VvbBRw-AQk/Sp4pTPXNmeI/AAAAAAAAADI/xg_awgY5i90/s400/Al-Aqsa%2Bn%2BDome%2Bof%2Bthe%2BRock1.JPG&imgrefurl=http://alaqsa-mosque.blogspot.com/&h=395&w=400&sz=67&tbnid=eNuLh0su3BJlYM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=93&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dal%2Baqsa%2Bmosque%2Breal%2Bpicture%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=al+aqsa+mosque+real+picture&docid=Abd9WHyf0EfRNM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0UXRToC-LuuWmQXl1LzLDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQ9QEwBA&dur=8951

    What a sick world !

  116. James Canning says:
    November 26, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    You say Obama mishandled the Brazil-Turkey-Iran fuel swap. I’ll venture that his advisers are telling him just the opposite — that he emerged from that dispute smelling like a rose. His only arguable blunder, his advisers probably assure him now (at least those few advisers who don’t mind risking their jobs by raising unpleasant matters with their boss), was in writing his letter to Brazil’s president (Lula) suggesting that Obama favored a fuel swap. That letter, Obama’s advisers might explain, could and should have been worded more carefully — just encouraging enough to induce Lula to press ahead with his fuel swap efforts, so that the US couldn’t be blamed for interfering with a peaceful solution to the problem — but not so encouraging that Obama would later find it impossible to insist he’d opposed Lula’s version of the fuel swap all along.

    Setting aside that arguable blunder, the Brazil-Turkey-Iran fuel swap (or lack thereof) appears to have worked out quite well for Obama, thank you very much. Had a fuel-swap gone through (a “real” version of it, at least — not just some absurd arrangement under which Iran would ship a quantity of LEU to some other country in exchange for a vague promise to return some 20% uranium at some unspecified time in the future, provided that Iran by then had satisfied several additional conditions that undoubtedly would have been dreamed up in the meantime), the US would find itself in the unenviable position of having blessed the production by France and Russia of nuclear fuel for Iranian reactors — which fuel undoubtedly would have been closely tracked by the world and found to be used for exactly what Iran always claimed: peaceful purposes, such as saving or prolonging the lives of seriously ill patients.

    The very last thing the US government would have wanted was clear evidence that Iran was using uranium for such peaceful purposes – not to mention being assisted in that noble undertaking by France and Russia.

    Fortunately for the US government, that didn’t happen. The US government presently finds itself able (not to mention willing and eager) to complain that Iran, all by itself — without the cooperation of any other country (all of whom, the US government assures us at every opportunity, are just as upset about all this as the US government is) — is producing large quantities of (what the US calls) “highly enriched” uranium, far more pure than is needed for “peaceful” nuclear energy plants and far in excess of what Iran really needs to run its Tehran Research Reactor.

    What could be a better outcome for the US government?

    I might add, James, that the success of Obama’s stumble-to-sunlight policy on the Brazil-Turkey-Iran fuel swap issue has been made possible, in my view, by the willingness of many well-informed Iran watchers to accept a key premise of the US’ conclusion about Iran’s production of 20% uranium: that Iran indeed is making much more 20% uranium than it possibly needs to run its Tehran Research Reactor presently and in the foreseeable future.

    To me, it is extremely important to know whether this is correct or not. If it is, those who complain about Iran’s production of 20% uranium may have a persuasive rhetorical question: “If Iran doesn’t really need this stuff to run a power plant or its Tehran Research Reactor, why is it making so much of it?”

    If, on the other hand, Iran is merely making enough 20% uranium to run its Tehran Research Reactor presently and in the foreseeable future — and bearing in mind that the stubborn resistance of the West on this “20% uranium” issue justifies Iran in providing for its TRR fuel needs quite far down the road — the suspicion of Iran’s intentions appears to have a shaky basis indeed.

    I’ve asked you before what makes you so sure that Iran is making much more 20% uranium than it needs. Unless I’ve missed one of your responses, they haven’t really satisfied me, to be frank. You typically write that “nobody disputes” this, or words to that effect. Whether outsiders have a basis for their suspicion of Iran on this issue is what interests me.

    Early in this “20% uranium” dispute, several Iran critics expressed suspicion of Iran’s intentions by arguing that Iran really wasn’t about to run out of 20% fuel from the batch it had bought from Argentina years earlier. At the same time, other critics of Iran conceded that Iran indeed was about to run out. All I took away from these widely varying assessments of Iran’s 20% uranium supply was that outsiders probably had no clue how much 20% uranium Iran had left, and, therefore, probably also had no clue about how much Iran might need in the future. Nor, it seemed to me, was the West in a position to fault Iran for stockpiling larger reserves of 20% uranium than the West might consider “necessary.” Iran, it seemed to me (and still does) had every reason to think it would run into the very same problem the next time its 20% uranium stockpile ran low, and so it was prudent to set aside very ample reserves.

    Despite all these good reasons to question how sound the bases are for Western criticism of Iran’s 20% uranium stockpiling, many other observers – such as you – seem to accept them on faith. Or am I being unfair here? Have I missed your response in which you explain exactly why you find so credible these claims that Iran is producing “too much” 20% uranium?

  117. James Canning says:

    And Romney today is every bit as ignorant of world history, the Middle East, and Iran, as Obama was in late 2007.

  118. James Canning says:

    What a spectacle current American politics offer the world! Mitt Romney has unabashed neocon warmonger advising him on Israel/Palestine and Iran! A neocon warmonger who helped set up illegal invasion of Iraq on knowingly false pretenses! And who is trying to repeat his gross criminal conspiracy to set up war with Iran!

  119. James Canning says:

    I recommend “Israeli newspaper owner says Obama can’t stop settlers’ ‘apartheid regime’ because of ‘Jewish lobby’”

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/israeli-newspaper-owner-says-jewish-lobby-in-u-s-prevents-obama-from-acting-against-settlers-apartheid-regime.html

  120. James Canning says:

    ethnic cleansing, in East Jerusalem (story linked below).

  121. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    That was good account by Jonathan Cook you linked (re: Werrity, Israel, influence peddling).

  122. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    Arnold is the person claiming Jordan was a British protectorate. In fact, the British were in charge of the Mandate for Transjordan issued by the League of Nations.

    Are you referring to the 1947 UN partition of Palestine? At that time, Britain was in chage of the Mandate for Palestine, issued by the League of Nations.

    What do you think should have been done with the West Bank in 1949?

  123. James Canning says:

    Those interested in the life of George Kennan and his efforts to restrain foolish American military interventionists should read Frank Costigliola’s review of the new Kennan biography by J L Gaddis, in the New York Review of Books (“Is This George Kennan?”, Dec. 8, 2011).

    Kennan thought Reagan’s obsession with “Star Wars” missile defence was idiotic and dangerous. And dishonest. Kennan thought Reagan administration was “ignorant, unintelligent, complacent and arrogant; worse still is the fact that it is frivolous and reckless.”

  124. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Thnaks. Yes, a disastrous miscalculation by King Hussein. And gross dishonesty by Nasser to bring it about.

  125. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 26, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Yes, it was a miscalculation by the late King Hussein of Jordan with evil consequences.

    FOr it gave Jews the control of Al Haram Al Sharif and thus changed the dynamics of the war in Palestine from a war between Israelis and Arabs to what it is today: A War between Judaism and Islam (and with assorted Protestant Christian sects adding their support to Jews.)

  126. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    In effect you claim that Britain forced Jordan to fight Israel in 1967. In fact, Nasser coerced King Hussein into joining the war. And Nasser concealed from the king the fact Israel had already destroyed entire Egyptian air force on the ground by surprise attack.

  127. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    I think Steve Walt may have things about right when he writes: “I won’t give [Obama administration] high marks for imaginative diplomacy [with Iran], but at least they haven’t done great harm.” However, the obvious blunder in opposing the Turkish-Brazilian nuclear “fuel swap” qualifies that assessment on my part.

  128. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Are you aware that Ibn Saud tried to block Britain from creating a Hashemite monarchy in Transjordan? Saud was Sultan of Nejd at the time.

    Saud conquered the Hejaz, which at the time was a British-supported monarchy with a Hashemite king.

    Britain controlled the foreign policy of its protectorates. Britain obviously did not work to subvert its own objects in Transjordan, or in the Hejaz.

  129. When Afghanistan-based US warplanes bomb Pakistan, in response to attacks by US enemies operating from Pakistan, how does the Associated Press feel about that?

    “American officials have repeatedly accused Pakistani forces of supporting — or turning a blind eye — to militants using its territory for cross-border attacks.”

    But what if Iran warns that it would retaliate against US military bases in Turkey if the US ever attacks Iran – how does the Associated Press feel about that?

    “Iran threatens to hit Turkey if US, Israel attack”

  130. fyi says:

    All:

    “Iran is not about to collapse”

    http://www.payvand.com/news/11/nov/1240.html

  131. “NATO Strikes Kill Pakistani Forces, Raising Tensions”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/world/asia/pakistan-says-nato-helicopters-kill-dozens-of-soldiers.html?_r=1&hp

    It may be risky for a country to develop nuclear weapons, but there can be no question that it’s worth the risk. At least the country need not worry about a US attack.

  132. kooshy says:

    Arnold thanks for clearing your position, I agree with overall concept of your thought , but driving from this sentence of your reply which I totally agree with “A value calculation that involved maintaining colonialism” one would question what is that “Value Calculation” that makes the US or any country fell the need to maintain colonies, or shortly what is the value of Israel for US, I don’t think any empire ever tried to maintain a colony other than for having an economic gain or to maintain security for a form of economic gain in some other way or place.

    In essence creating and maintaining Israel may have some moral value for all Jews including the American Jewish community and some Christian Zionist, but it’s hard to believe for a pure cost benefit based capitalist country like US the expense of maintaining Israel for moral values is acceptable.

    So it’s easy to think that economically US will gain more by dumping her Israel policy and side with the majority of the region’s values, but why US is not doing that is it her moral values, that doesn’t fair well with her principal capitalist values which is the essence of her existence , so one would come to conclude with one of this two reasons, either she has to elevate the moral value of a minority community, or there are some “hidden” capitalistic cost benefit values that will guarantee return from some other enterprise. Now if this perceived policy can eventually maintain both the moral value of the minority as well as economic gain expected from the capitalist system that is what Iranians call “Nur-e-Alanur” which means the light of all lights.

    However I suspect for many westerner’s the fight against the Israel policies is for the first reason I mentioned above, which in pure capitalistic thinking the moral value part is reducing the potential added benefits. Never less as long as it last I value their efforts specially yours.

  133. macaquerman says:

    Iran has two years or less to avoid a war with the western world over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

  134. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: November 26, 2011 at 11:28 am

    The Americans’ “imaginative diplomacy” was today’s deliberate attack on Pakistan.

    Just 2 days after telling Pakistan to scrap Iran-Pakistan gas deal (which alreay is powering Gawdar) and futher to make nice with India as well.

  135. Rehmat says:

    The influential French Israel-Firster Jew, Bernard-Henri Levy is running a vicious anti-Bashar campaign and putting pressure on the Crypto-Jew French President Nicolas Sarkosy to eliminate Assad like Qaddafi earlier. Levi ran a similar anti-Muslim campaign against Pakistan in 1971 which resulted in the dismemberment of the country and creation of Bangladesh. Levi is one of the founders of the Libyan rebel National Transitional Council (NTC). Levi had convinced Sarkozy to become the first head of state to recognize NTC in exile. Later, Levi met Israeli Prime Minister Benji Netanyahu and informed him that NTC leaders had promised to recognize Israel. On July 2011 – Bernard-Henri Levi organized a conference of Syrian rebel groups which was attended by Israeli officials and a member of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/the-israeli-puppets-against-syria/

  136. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 25, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    People can always make money in the periphery of the Capitalist System by providing finance.

    There is nothing wrong with that.

    Some of these popel were Jews, some were not.

  137. BiBiJon says:

    Additional thoughts on the new definition of ‘charitable’
    ==============================

    Parsing Prof. Walt’s blog entry a little closer, it struck me that a tenured professor is avoiding specificity by NOT giving “high marks for imaginative diplomacy.” Well, a broad range, A- to F falls within ‘not high marks.’

    And, then that pathology that seems to be shared whether from the left or the right: resorting to “but at least they haven’t done great harm.” The right’s version of the same pathology is notions such as: ‘the only thing worse than bombing Iran, is Iran with a bomb.’

    I believe it is this recourse to imagined worst case scenarios that is blinding the policy establishment to plain realities on the ground.

    So, I urge the good Professor to take the plunge, and tell us what mark the Obama admin. actually deserve in the context of here and today, not some imagined worst case future maybe context.

  138. Arnold Evans says:

    Kooshy,

    The United States is not primarily pursuing interests in the Middle East, but values. The people of the Middle East would have solidly supported Christian United States over the militant Atheist Soviet Union throughout the Cold War if not for Israel.

    The Middle East has always been more difficult to manage for the United States than it would have been if not for Israel, but the United States carried that burden. The US was able to carry that burden because it began after WWII in a uniquely strong position. The US was willing to carry that burden because the US political system decided that it was the right thing to do. A value calculation rather than an interest calculation.

    A value calculation that involved maintaining colonialism – which means a value calculation that contradicts what the US claims is its founding values and ideals – but a value calculation nonetheless.

    Barack Obama, for example, describes the bond as “solemn” or “unbreakable”. This is not a strategic description. So on the US side it is an issue of values.

  139. Voice of Tehran says:

    Correction :

    Not “secretary of states” , but “secretary of state” = Billary

  140. Voice of Tehran says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Yes Forangela , correct in all points.
    Saddam wanted to trade his oil in currencies , other than the USD and Ghaddafi wanted to introduce the Gold-Dinar , also replacing the USD in oil and gas trades.
    Saddam was pulled out from a mousehole and Ghaddafi was butchered live on TV to the utmost enjoyment of the secretary of states.
    Ignoring Iran to continue her oil and gas sales in other currencies than the USD , thus challenging the USD as the world’s ‘sole’ currency , would eventually crash the Ponzi Scheme of the Federal Reserve , resulting in unpredictable consequences.
    Not that the eilitits fear too much the decline of their own wealth , which is in the hundred trillion $ range ( and well invested throughout the globus ) , but in my opinion they probably fear the resulting revolts of a collapse of the Fed in the US ( OWS being only a ‘child play ‘ ) and “still” have no effective measures to counter such a mass revolt.( They are working on it , I guess )
    I feel a bit uneasy to mention Ron Paul as the only ‘saviour’ ; what the US needs, are hundreds and thousands of Ron Pauls , Inshallah. ( and valuable people like you , who can spread the truth )

  141. kooshy says:

    Sorry Arnold there was a typo on my earlier question that I had posted, but anyhow I was wondering why you prefer to use “value” instead of “interest” for what it seems to be a tangible goal that ultimately has financial value to both side of this equation. Do you believe that US policies in ME has any other purpose other than ultimately safeguard a form of martial gain for the US?

  142. Fiorangela says:

    Voice of Tehran, When the alleged problem that the “west” has with Iran is its nuclear ambitions, and the means to resolve that problem are to cripple Iran’s central bank, how much imagination is required to conclude that the real goal of Israel, working through stupid and bought US flunkies, is to take over Iran’s economic and financial systems?

    The goal in taking over Libya was the same — former US ambassador to Morocco Mark Ginsberg said so in almost precise terms — “the World Bank and IMF stand ready to make loans to the people of Libya to help them modernize their economy.” Yeah, right. And to corral the educated population and make them credit slaves to a bank system that is beyond their power to control.

    What is Stuart Levey doing right this minute?

  143. BiBiJon says:

    A new definition of ‘charitable’
    ==============================

    From the muddled, deleterious at every level, and cock-eyed Iran policy that has managed to make ignominious the concept and practice of ‘engagement’, ‘confrontation’, ‘propaganda’, and ‘covert action’, Stephen Walt charitably finds something to praise:

    “I’m also grateful that there’s been no war with Iran. Whatever the Obama administration’s other shortcomings might have been, those at the top seem to have understood the folly and futility of unleashing major military action against Iran. I won’t give them high marks for imaginative diplomacy, but at least they haven’t done great harm.”

    walt.foreignpolicy[dot]com/posts/2011/11/23/giving_thanks_but_for_how_long

  144. BiBiJon says:

    test

  145. Voice of Tehran says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    Fiorangela , I took the first google hits to make it short :

    //http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes/rothschild

    “”The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”"

    The history of the Rothschilds : (It all started in the “Judengasse” in Frankfurt )

    http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommentary.php?storyid=121

    …”1811: The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States runs out and Congress votes against its renewal. At the time Andrew Jackson (who would become the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837) says, “If Congress has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild is not amused and he stated, “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”

    Andrew Jackson’s response to this is to say, “You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s reply to that being, “Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status.”

    1812: Backed by Rothschild money, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschilds plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned Bank of the United States to be renewed….

    General aspects:

    //http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/quotes-about-the-federal-reserve-and-central-banking

    …”The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
    -Abraham Lincoln

    “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”
    -Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

  146. kooshy says:

    Arnold why not use intreats instead of value ?

  147. Arnold Evans says:

    Pirouz:

    What I mean by native values is that Egyptians care more about Palestinians than South Koreans, and have an entirely reversed conception from most Americans on the issue of Palestinians relative to Israelis. And they have a government that acts in line with American values, not Egyptian values.

    Interestingly, all men are equal is a professed American value, but Jewish concerns are more important than Arab concerns is an actual effective American value. Endorsed in action and even pretty much in words by Barack Obama.

    I’m saying the opposite of foreign or imposed values that guide a government. “Local values” may not have the condescending connotations of native values and I do not mean to condescend.

    But Saudi Arabia is guided by American values, not by local values – which are different, I think.

    I think our disagreement is on capitalism. I’m not really a capitalist, but I’m more a democrat than an anti-capitalist, at least until democracy has prevailed. Which is to say I have no problem with the people of Egypt voting for capitalist policies, as long as they retain the ability to vote it back and rebalance in later elections.

    But our disagreement may be over Islamism, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood that may be working with the US and Egyptian government to continue to deny political power to the Egyptian people. All I can say is that I’m happy to see progress in Egypt and compared to this time last year Egypt is in a better better than I would have hoped for now. So far the MB has not committed, that I’ve seen, to denying rights to the Egyptians and I don’t want to criticize until the MB has pulled the trigger on that. It may be naive, but I don’t want to worry about a problem that may not appear.

    My allegiance is to people’s right to be governed as they choose. If the MB interferes or stands against that, I will be just as angry at them as I ever was at Mubarak. I don’t claim that the MB can’t go to the wrong side of the issue, but so far I have not seen that happen in a committed way.

  148. Fiorangela says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    not that impressed with Friedman, tho he usually seems quite impressed with himself.

    Larijani made the point — that Rose’s mind was firewalled from comprehending– that “the West is not the entire world.” Friedman seems to think Russia and Hitler are the entire frame of reference. How does he deal with the fact that Israel is a socialist economy that centrally owns much of the land in the state and that is highly dependent on plunder and foreign aid? How does he explain that Rothschilds made their vast wealth precisely by dealing almost exclusively with states, a low-risk proposition where payment was guaranteed by the state’s power to tax? Name an industry that a Rothschild began that is the equivalent of Ford Motors or Carnegie steel. How many people did Rothschilds drag out of poverty? How many wars did Rothschilds finance? Is Friedman going to argue that wars “unleash productive activity”?

  149. fyi says:

    pirouz_2 says: November 25, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    I have been always a steadfast supporter of the martyred President Doctor Salvador Allende and an equally steadfast enemy of Gen. Pinochet – may God curse him and punish him in Hell.

    As for the late General Franco, you are talking as a myth-informed person.

    The damn Catalans started the Civil War through multiple acts of prvocations against Spanish Officers. Assasinations of general rank officers that went un-punished by the Republic.

    When the Spanish state began disntegrating under the internal struggles of all these factions that were ruthlessly seeking political power – and in case of Catalans separation from Spain – the late General Franco rose up against the enemies of Spain and assorted other fools.

    Every positive things built in Spain today goes back to the time of his rule.

    No doubt, there were atrocities by the Spanish Army.

    But there were atrocities by the other sides too – the socialists, the communists, the Catalans, the Anarchists and assorted other fools that were hiding behind the creation of Utopia to settle personal and political socres.

    [Lorce was a victime of this.]

    I support the Islamic Republic of Iran because it is duely and legitimately created govermnet of Iran – democratically created and supported.

    I do not support fools, nor do I support people who are pharisees – and for that I have the Authority of Jesus, the Blessed Son of Mary – the Perfect Man.

  150. Castellio says:

    Perhaps someone has already pointed in this direction, but for those of you interested in the true nature of British political life and the role of William Hague, the following is useful:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/25/is-britain-plotting-with-israel-to-attack-iran/

  151. pirouz_2 says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 25, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    Arnold,
    I agree with you about most of your ideas (with the exception of one which perhaps is important). I just wish you would quit calling it “the native values of middle easterns”. It is a common human value to resist occupation and dispossession of the land be it in 16th-17th-18th century England, or in 18th, 19th centuray North America or in the 20th-21st century middle east.

  152. pirouz_2 says:

    FYI;

    “Robots in Korea
    This is what I have been saying – Robots to enforce Islamic orthodoxy”

    Excellent idea…the only problem is that it has been invented for the prisons of a capitalist society…. LOL…. Shall we say that they will be there to enforce the Capitalistic orthoxy??? :D

    By the way, who was the dude in your previous message? Looked like Milton Friedman (I never looked at too many pictures of that creature), the economic advisor to Augusto Pinoche? :) Interesting, how we defend the likes of Augusto Pinochet and General Franco (in the name of democracy against the brutal Islamic dictatorship!!) just to protect our “friends’” interests in the capital Market, isn’t it?
    If that is Milton Friedman then good luck to you and your ideas of “democracy”!!! :)

  153. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 25, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    You take oil money an d put it in a state-run business, returning 3.5%.

    Global rate of return on capital in 5.0%.

    So you are wasting your country’s respurces, while over-employing people in this or that state enterprise.

    Meanwhile your tour guide and my relation ( a young engineer) or I cannot find access to capital to start a business.

    And the fat-cats of Iran, with their piety signs of mohr on their foreheads are milking the state, producing nothing.

    Islamic economics, what rubbish.

  154. fyi says:

    All:

    Robots in Korea

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15893772

    This is what I have been saying – Robots to enforce Islamic orthodoxy

    Excellent opportunity for bigotted, pharisee Muslims to purchase such robots from South Korea and program them with their rigid Muslim Orthodoxy- thus turning every Muslim society into a Godly Prison.

  155. Arnold Evans says:

    James Canning says:
    November 25, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    The simple answers are yes and yes. Jordan was not more independent than the princely states of the Raj in 1948 or 1967.

    The Saud state never being a British protectorate is just historically factually wrong.

    (Farouk’s kingdom that Nasser replaced was, as you of course should know, no more independent than Raj princedoms, Jordan or Saudi Arabia)

    An independent state ruled in line with native values with Saudi Arabia’s location and population would have been allies with Nasser and today would be allies with Iran.

    Instead we have a state ruled in line, in matters of practical foreign policy, with the values of Washington DC and Tel Aviv.

    Independence is as independence does. No state in the region that has deep US involvement in its decision-making, that manages to align itself against every adversary of Zionism and that willingly assumes a defense and strategic posture subordinate to a poorer, smaller Zionist state is independent.

    First you look at a state’s behavior to determine its degree of independence. No honest look at the behavior of Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt or Kuwait or UAE or some othere can lead to another conclusion than that these are 1800s-style Western colonies.

  156. Unknown Unknowns says:

    The Shi’a of Qatif out in large numbers. God help them, as we know surely that Team Weasel won’t, and they are up against brutes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZDWqpLluQE&feature=player_embedded

  157. Fiorangela says:

    Empty, thank you for explanations about how voting groups are formed. Especially interested in the insight that ‘once representatives get to Tehran, they forget about their constituents, so Basiji take care of locals.” Sounds a lot like US, except we have no Basiji.
    ______________

    Empty says:
    November 25, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    “What we have in Iran is Capitalism. If you want to complain, complain about the results of WB/IMF recepies which have been followed by the Iranian governments since the time of Rafsanjani.”

    One of our Iranian tour guides, an Armenian, complained that it’s very difficult to obtain credit/investment capital to start businesses in Iran. He said the government needs to open up credit market and entrepreneurship will soar. He claims that Armenians, alone, could straighten out Iran’s economy (!)

    Empty wrote:

    “Not to mention Pres. Ahmadinejad who ran on the promise of reforming things and his administration has now become more catholic than pope.”

    heh. A few days ago I read a zionist website that complained that the Catholic pope is forming positive relationship with Iran. Apparently that’s bad news from a zionist perspective.

  158. Rehmat says:

    James Canning – Kingdom of Jordan was not a British protectorate when UK-Russia-US gave 52% of Palestine to European Jews to solve Europe’s centuries-old “Jewish Problem”. However, King Hussein did collaborated with Israeli terrorist groups to make sure Palestinian don’t have an independent state on the rest of 48% Palestine which was divided among Israel and Trans-jordan in 1949.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/israel-islamists-to-takeover-jordan-too/

  159. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    The British did not want Ibn Saud to attack British protectorates in the Gulf. They supplied him with arms and hoped he would attack the Ottoman Empire (during First World War).

  160. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Was Jordan a British “Protectorate” when it went to war with Israel in 1948? In 1967?

    Saudi Arabia was never a British Protectorate.

  161. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    the arrogance and unbridled greed of Sandy Weill brought financial catastrophe to the people of the US. And id a great deal to damage the people of the EU too.

  162. James Canning says:

    “Zionists subjugating Britain’s culture”

    http://presstv.com/detail/212062.html

    Powerful Jews do their best to suppress free speech in the UK, in matters relating to Israel, Zionism, Jewry, etc.

  163. James Canning says:

    Wise words from George Kennan in 1999: “This whole tendency to see ourselves as the center of the political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as unthought-through, vainglorious, and undesirable.”

    Kennan, nearly 100 years old in the fall of 2002, condemned G W Bush’s rush toward war with Iraq.

    Too bad Kennan is not alive today to comment on idiotic US attitude toward Iran.

  164. Fiorangela says:

    “Did Bill Gates stole his wealth?
    Is he not entitled to what he has earned?”

    iirc, Gates had very little to do with developing the idea and “creating” that which brought him such vast wealth; he just figured out a way to market it. He used some predatory tactics along the way.

    Did the founder of Facebook steal his billions? Yes. Even more devastating is Zuckerberg’s motivation for stealing creating FAcebook: WASP envy.

    Sandy Weill, who brought CITIBANK to the point of Too Big to Fail banking and beyond by buying congressmen who would then strike down Glass Steagal, was motivated by the same simmering resentment as Zuckerberg, according to Weill’s biographer, Monica Langley :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/170772-1 Both were cases of not just greed gone amok, with now recognition of Adam Smith capitalism, but of the amassing of wealth with the primary intent of destroying the competition, out of a perceived sense of ethnic entitlement and redress of ethnic grievance (real or fantasized).

  165. Empty says:

    Not sure if this was posted earlier….Iran’s response to IAEA

    http://www.youtube.com/user/PressTVGlobalNews#p/u/2/n_pgvMg9I5Y

  166. Fiorangela says:

    regarding Dr. Larijani’s interview with Charlie Rose:

    sometime between 20 min and 27 minutes, Charlie Rose insists that Arab Spring revolutions are “not about the US or Israel, or Iran, but about the Arab people seeking ‘dignity and freedom.’ ”

    Larijani makes two points in response: 1. that among the first acts of the Egyptian protesters was shutting down the Israeli embassy and demanding change of the gas contract betw. Egypt & Israel. And 2., that it is impossible to separate the revolutions from the Israeli humiliation of Palestinians and US support for Israel.

    Rose repeats his bullet points: “no no you misunderstand; the revolutions are not about Israel, and Egyptians do NOT want to be like Iran; the Revolutions put Iran in a worse position because the Arab spring states do not want to be like Iran.”

    Larijani replies, [paraphrase] “No they will not be like Iran; we don’t want them to be, we want them to create democracies consistent with their own heritage and cultures; but the WILL be Islamic. The Arab Spring has signaled a social awakening of Islam.”

    _____________

    Just to drive home the [counter-]factual that “the Arab revolutions are NOT about Israel,” video of protesters in Tahrir Square say: ‘They brought snipers to finish us off. As if we are Palestine and they are Israel.’ At the time Jihan Hafiz, Cairo correspondent for The Real News Network, reported this from Cairo, a volunteer doctor she interviewed stated that “four had been declared dead” in his clinic, “three had suffocated to death” and the fourth was beaten to death.

    Several days ago, Tahrir activists again displayed tear gas canisters painted in Israel’s colors & style, and bearing the label, “Made in America.” They are produced in Jamestown, Pennsylvania, at Combined Tactical Systems, a small plant in rural Pennsylvania about 70 miles NE of Kent State University in Ohio. The plant flies Israel’s flag alongside the Stars and Stripes.

  167. Empty says:

    What we have in Iran is Capitalism. If you want to complain, complain about the results of WB/IMF recepies which have been followed by the Iranian governments since the time of Rafsanjani.

    Not to mention Pres. Ahmadinejad who ran on the promise of reforming things and his administration has now become more catholic than pope.

  168. Arnold Evans says:

    James:

    You can believe that if you want but Saudi Arabia is no more or less independent from the US today than it was from Great Britain when it was British protectorate. And no protectorate of the US, now or during Nasser’s time, could be considered a bitter enemy of Israel.

    I wonder how much your sympathy with British colonialism fuels your animosity against Nasser.

  169. pirouz_2 says:

    fyi;

    “What I have experienced is that regulations, taxes, and out right confiscation of personal and private property from their rightful owners – largely small defenseless producers, shop-keepers, etc. under teh guise of Public Good.”

    This is a very general and abstract statement. Which specific country are you referring to? Genrally speaking in the West, the tax system was a measure of “relief” for the middle and lower classes (to bring a sense of social security in the country) and can be attributed to Keynesian ideas. Keynes -in my opinion- never addressed the root of the problem (the system of ‘profit making’) and was a measure to stabilize the system on the assumption of very high post-war growth rates.
    However, the rates of growth and profit (as Marx predicted) have been steadily declining, and as a result the capitalist system (starting from the 70′s) could no longer “afford” social security and general welfare for everyone.
    As a result the neo-liberalism started to manifest and eversince 70′s the tax system has become more and more unfair, up to a point that even Warren Buffet is saying that a system where he pays less taxes than his secretary makes no sense.
    So if it is the “unfairness” of the tax system that you are complaining about, if you are saying that the wealthy are not paying a fair share of tax then I agree with you.
    But if you are some how defending the unregulated “laissez faire” economy, and subscribe to the ultra-conservative ideas that have been governing the global economy since 1970′s then I 100% DISAGREE with you. The current dismal situation of the global economy is the direct result of those policies.
    If the “defenceless” home owners are thrown out of their homes into streets when government rushes and pays hundreds of billions of dollars in “bail outs” to the fat cats in Wall Street so that they can pay some more hefty bonuses to their CEO’s that is the direct result of those policies that some times you seem to support so whole heartedly.

    “And not all large entities are thieves and cheats.”

    ummmm….well actually….yes they pretty much all ARE. Look there can be no argument that Capitalism CANNOT happen on large scale without thivery and plunder at least at the begining. Just one look at history is enough to testify against that.
    It does however, become a matter of debate that once the capitalism has taken off and matured whether it will need day-light robbery or not. IT IS A VERY LONG ARGUMENT and I dont want to go into its detail right now. I will however, say that I firmly believe that thievery is encrypted in the DNA of capitalism and no matter how much it matures it stays with it. One look at the robbery of the Wall Street and the fat cats in Europe and the dire situation of people in Greece (soon to be followed by Italy, Spain and all the rest of the gang) is a direct testimony to that.

    “Did Bill Gates stole his wealth?
    Is he not entitled to what he has earned?”

    It is not a matter of entitlement. Obviously under the current laws of USA B. Gates is not a thief and is entitled to his wealth. Under the laws of 19th century USA the Cotton farmers of USA were entitled to their slaves! But that is not the issue here. The issue is the “instability”, “stupidity” and “inefficiency” of the current system. It is the fact that the system is working against the benefits of the vast majority of the population in the interest of a very small elite.

    “Some of my friends have done quite well in capital markets and they are now comfortably retired.
    What is wrong with that?”

    Well good for your friends. However the VAST majority of the population is doing really bad. The world does not consist of your friends you know?!?!
    By the way I know a lot of people who in their naivety thought that they had been “confortablly” retired until the economic cirsis destroyed all of their pension funds!! So tell your friend not to relax too much!!

    “What I see in Iran and elsewhere is general misery supported under the name of Social Justice – elsewhere than Iran it is called Socialism.”
    What we have in Iran is Capitalism. If you want to complain, complain about the results of WB/IMF recepies which have been followed by the Iranian governments since the time of Rafsanjani.

  170. Empty says:

    Pirouz_2,

    Just to give you a bit of details from the “mummification” example to expand on what I mean (Please note that I no longer have that particular book I suggested and I am going from my memory. I think if you get either the book or pieces of it and essays, you’ll find it far more detailed and interesting than my very cursory summary)….

    Because the Egyptians at the time believed there was some sort of connection between the physical body and the soul after death, those who could afford it, would get their dead mummified. Mummification was a process that required extremely high level of expertise in chemistry, surgery, and physiology among others. It wasn’t surprising that those who mummified the dead were also physicians and would actually treat patients, do surgeries during the wars, etc.

    Mummification required the physicians to drain the entire blood and body fluids immediately after the person died and inject re-inject some “chemicals” to replace. Then, they would cut out the stomach and the gut and empty the content and refill with some other specific “chemicals” and then sew everything back into place and make the scars “disappear.” Only the physicians knew the secret of the “mix/chemical” and it was usually passed on from one generation to another. In some instances, some physicians actually would receive precious coins (if enough) in exchange for giving out some of the secrets. Because mummification was quite expensive, only gods and rich families could afford it. Sometimes a poor family would collect a lot of coins to have a parent mummified. It was simply a luxury the poor could not afford.

    That “mummification” skills were commodified and fetched a lot of precious coins are recorded. In the courts, there were people (intermediaries/واسطه) with “connections” who, for a “negotiated percent” of future income and/or special mummification jobs for rich folks or gods about to die, would recommend particular physicians.

    So, one such physicians was this fellow, Sinuhe, for example, secured a jot at a hospital through one of these mediators for a percentage of his salary. During his free time, he would see poor patients at his house. He had a servant who, in addition to housekeeping, cooking, etc., acted as a secretary/bookkeeper. The servant would still coins from his master. He would extract either coins, free labor, specific product, or even sex from females of the poor, in exchange for putting their name on the list for “free” doctor visit, or bumping their names up, and so on. So, the exchange is such that it appears these were not unusual transactions. Rather, they were quite rampant. There is a part when the servant, for example, claims that “he was not charging any more than other bookkeepers.

    Because of occupational hazards (just as a side note, I was fascinated to read, for example, how the symptoms these physicians developed after a while such as skin problems, blindness, etc. are in fact some of the health effects of exposure to chemical preservatives such as formaldehyde), and political reason, this physician gets kicked out and becomes penniless. Then, his servant who has saved quite a lot, actually lends him money till he finds another good paying job. Meanwhile, he continues to book patients and get money and favors.

    In any case, at the time I was reading the book, I was fascinated by the health/symptoms/disease and occupational exposure aspects of things. I think it would be fascinating to explore those writings (there were multitude of examples) from contemporary economic theories perspective.

    There is another part where this other guy suggests to his friend/colleague (?) for them to travel to another land (current day Libya or Syria or Lebanon, not sure) and buy in bulk a specific item (cannot remember exactly what it was) because the god of that place is going to get into a war with the god their current location and he has inside information that the god of gods has determined that god number 1 is going to lose to god number 2 (the names of all these gods are actually used and unfortunately I don’t remember the exact names.) The item, produced in the land of “losing” god, he speculates, is going to sell well in the land of the “winning” god and they will be making a fortune as a consequence.

    After this, I think I myself am interested in getting the collections. I got myself excited about looking into it again.

  171. Rehmat says:

    Violence Against Women rally in Tel Aviv

    Yesterday, the Women’s International Zionist Organisation (WIZO), marked the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women by holding a protest in Tel Aviv.

    The protesters were carrying life-sized black coffins each adorned with a single red rose.

    A study done by the WIZO shows a 20 percent rise in the number of women killed by family members in Israel.

    “Every seventh woman (in Israel) has been beaten, at least once in her life, by her partner,” the study said, adding that every year, around 200,000 women are abused by their partners, in acts of violence which are witnessed by some 600,000 children……

    http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/violence-against-women-rally-in-tel-aviv/

  172. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I of course agree with you about the nature of so-called “socialism”. Cuba is about to drop one million “workers” from gov’t payrolls. And finally, people are being allowed to own their own house or flat.

  173. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Saudi Arabia was a bitter adversary of Israel, and Nasser was stupid enough to be the enemy of SA anyway. Nasser was an idiot.

  174. James Canning says:

    When Mitt Romney made the fatuous claim that Obama had “thrown Israel under a buss”, this preposterous rubbish had been fed him by Eric Edelman. How many warmongeering Jewish neocons are embedded as foreign policy advisers to idiot Republicans seeking the nomination for president?

  175. Arnold Evans says:

    James,

    Somehow all of Israel’s adversaries become bitter enemies of Saudi Arabia. I doubt this would be the case of the relationship between the state and its people was more like modern day Brazil’s or even China’s than it is like one of the nominally independent princely states of the British Raj 100 years ago.

  176. James Canning says:

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/366017/romney-adviser-iran-edelman/

    Edelman was energetic promoter of idiotic and illegal invasion of Iraq, to “protect” Israel.

  177. James Canning says:

    More warnings of danger to American national security if neocon warmonger, Eric Edelman, gets into the White House with Mitt Romney:

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/10/366017/romeny-adviser-iran-edelman/

    Edelman, we should bear in mind, replaced the warmonger idiot neocon, Douglas Feith, in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. The group that conspired with Dick Cheney’s gang to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq. And Edelman was a member of Dick Cheney’s gang.

  178. fyi says:

    pirouz_2 says: November 25, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    What I have experienced is that regulations, taxes, and out right confiscation of personal and private property from their rightful owners – largely small defenseless producers, shop-keepers, etc. under teh guise of Public Good.

    And not all large entities are thieves and cheats.

    Did Bill Gates stole his wealth?

    Is he not entitled to what he has earned?

    Some of my friends have done quite well in capital markets and they are now comfortably retired.

    What is wrong with that?

    What I see in Iran and elsewhere is general misery supported under the name of Social Justice – elsewhere than Iran it is called Socialism.

    And its supporters are always people who work for the Government & the state.

  179. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Does it make a difference, if a company that builds roads and bridges in the Middle East is owned or based in China? As opposed to Russia? (Regarding issue of what is “capitalist” as opposed to “socialist”.) Is it better if the workers are brought in from China, so that local labor is not “exploited”?

  180. James Canning says:

    Arnold,

    Yes, Egypt was a bitter enemy of Saudi Arabia, thanks to stupidity of Nasser. Saudi Arabia was an enemy of Oman.

  181. pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 25, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    James;
    I am not sure how you came up with that idea. And it is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

  182. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    What is best way forward in Syria? Arab League push for observers seems to make sense. I agree any military intervention from outside Syria is bad idea, as things stand today.

  183. James Canning says:

    Irshad,

    The Queen of England is head of state. Thus on “state” visits, dinner with the Queen is normal. This is an area where US system is much less effective, because the head of state, Obama, does not like to do “state” dinners.

  184. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Are you suggesting tailors should by their own labor make the suits they sell, and also sit in the market to sell those suits?

  185. pirouz_2 says:

    FYI;
    “For thousands of years small producers produced for local markets; this was a minority population however.”

    Now you are getting closer to the point. So as you can see producing good and delivering them to market is not necessarily capitalism!

  186. pirouz_2 says:

    Empty says:
    November 25, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Empty;
    The actual main subject of exchange between fyi and I was about the definition of “capital” and “capitalism”. FYI defined it as:

    “Capitalism is a very simple idea.
    You produce or deliver services for an abstraction called “market”.”

    Which is completely off the mark. This comes close to the definition of commodity production (at best) and not the definition of capital and capitalism.

    Now in your own readings, you may have come across occassions where very small scale “capitalist” ventures may have existed even before 15th century. But personally I do not know of any such occurence (but of course my knowledge is quite limitted on the subject). To the best of my limited knowledge the history of “capitalism” starts from around 500 years ago. But I am open to the idea that an occasional small scale capitalist venture may have existed some where even before 15th century.

    HOWEVER, The main point of the argument however is not that. The main point is that our friend FYI has completely confused the idea of “commodity production” with the idea of “capitalism”.

    These two are closely related but they are definitely NOT the same. Capital starts to exist when there is buying for the purpose of selling with a profit (the source of which is not your own labour). You may be a tailor and make a living by buying fabric and sewing coats and then “delivering it to the market”. You are a commodity producer, but that does not make you a capitalist, nor is your venture a capitalistic venture. You become a “capitalist” when you buy fabric, and sewing machines and pay some labour to sew it for you into coats and then deliver those coats to market. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN.

    I agree with you 100% when you say very rightfully that “modes of production” do not develop over night! And no I am not a Lamarckian. (By the way I am not sure what gave you the impression that I thought “capitalism” has come into existance over night? What I said was that the first traces of capitalism dates back 15th century and it has been developing ever since. It took a good 3 centuries for the capitalism to mature enough and permeate enough to start to “dominate”. And it is still developing.)”Modes of production” take a very long time to develop and develop and permeate and dominate a society (which is why I talked about the first “traces of capitalism”). In fact that is why I find it very unrealistic when people expect for an alternative to Capitalism to develop and reach its full maturity over night.

    By the way, I am not quite sure how you see highly skilled labour of mummification as an evidence of the existence of small-scale capitalist systems in the ancient Egypt? At any rate if you know of any ancient “capitalist systems” I would be very much interested to learn about them (although that is not quite relevant to the topic at hand).

  187. Voice of Tehran says:

    kooshy says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:40 am

    kooshy I am currently trying to understand the events , which lead to WW1 and then to Federal Reserve Act and the more I read the more I am shocked about the role of the cabal elitists in the last 200 years to present.
    Among many issues which will be too lenghty to mention , may be one statement , which drew my attention.

    “”One night in 1890, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying: “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
    There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
    The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
    We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.””

    If a prominent journalist said this around 120 years ago , you can imagine in what a mess we are in today.
    In this aspect it would be good to study the history of Reuters , AP , AFP from the past to our present time , it most disturbing.

  188. kooshy says:

    VOT- thank you for the link to VT, this was my favorite part, but then I personally have a lot respect for Bill Moyer, since his early days working in PBS, unfortuintly his views are no longer tolerated in that supposedly public media

    Here’s the OWS anthem ~

    I am not just a Consumer. I am a Citizen.

    I will no longer be labeled Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, Demopublican or Republocrat.

    I will no longer follow Puppets labeled Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, Demopublican or Republocrat.

    I am the People. And I am coming for the Puppet masters.

    I am part of the 99 Percent. And I demand the following:

    1. End Fed Reserve secrecy and monetary manipulation

    2. Reverse Citizens United.

    3. Repeal PATRIOT Act.

    4. Expose 9/11 Truth.

    5. End Profit Wars.

    6. Refund Taxpayer Trillions.

    7. Imprison the Kleptocrats.

    8. Single Term Limits.

    Or, if these demands are not addressed promptly: Regime Change.

    Bill Moyers agrees that Democracy only works when we claim it as our own as he slams the rule by the Plutocracy or 1% in this three minute video “

  189. Fiorangela says:

    Tel Aviv’s first Fashion Week

    Lisa Armstrong: ‘Who knows, fashion could turn out to be a better ambassador than the country’s politicians.’

    In other news, A cleaning lady from Siberia modeling rags turns out to be a better ambassador for Israel than the country’s politicians.

  190. Photi says:

    kooshy says:
    November 25, 2011 at 3:31 am

    kooshy, that was hilarious. i am inclined to believe though that the friendly flier was aimed at her co-workers. if not, happy thanksgiving Barack, please pardon this one as well!

  191. fyi says:

    pirouz_2 says: November 25, 2011 at 1:13 am

    No Mr. Pirouz.

    For thousands of years small producers produced for local markets; this was a minority population however.

    Later, after 1500 in Europe, production for the “market” became the doiminant form of economic activity.

  192. Empty says:

    Rd,

    re; occupy Iran….

    That is pretty good!

  193. Empty says:

    Pirouz_2,

    RE: Capitalism and its first traces does not go back for more than 500 years.

    You appear to be “Larmarckian” (I borrow the term from Biology) in your view about capitalism. Human social concepts (including economic systems and including capitalism) do not get spontaneously generated in one period. They keep on evolving over time till they find the right environment to expand. A severe limitation/gap in essays and textbooks written about capitalism is that they all look at it from a western historical perspective with very little, if any, reference to ancient texts. A very intriguing and original work would be, for example, to use Marx’s concepts on “capital” and explore Egyptian texts such as “the tale of Sinuhe” in its original form which includes rich and detailed tales of various aspects of labor and labor “forms” (from slavery to highly skilled and specialized labor form such as mummification). There are others as well.

    Then, you might develop a perception that in fact the “traces” of capitalism may be found much before 500 years ago. Furthermore, using the very same current theories about capitalism, you might even find solid evidence of attempts to fuse specific “government structures” and “surplus capital” and, in effect, create small-scale “capitalist systems” many centuries prior to 500 years ago. This system has been a work in progress for millennia. It just has found a suitable environment to be “fruitful and multiply” (again to borrow an evolutionary biology term) in the past few hundred years.

    This is just a thought….I don’t know if you’re majoring in economics or you’re exploring as a side interest. In any case, I enjoy reading your exchange.

  194. Rd. says:

    –BRICS blocks the US on Middle East

    In brief;

    1. no excuse for foreign intervention
    2. Any external interference in Syria’s affairs, not in accordance with the UN Charter, should be excluded
    3. rejected the threat of force against Iran and called for continued dialogue and negotiations.
    4. lauded the GCC initiative on Yemen as an example.
    5. Called for a review of the actions in Libya with participation of the African Union.

  195. Fiorangela says:

    paul says:
    November 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    “Possibly Obama is well-educated. To me he seems more polished than educated, but perhaps he differs from Saddam and Gaddafi there.”

    In Italian, there are dozens of words for “education.”

    The sense that most Americans understand, ie. “education” is what happens when one attends a school; the higher the brand recognition of the school, the greater the perceived outcome of the education.

    But in Italian, the primary meaning of educazione is “upbringing;” ie. the development of character that happens in your family.

    istruzione is used when the subject is going to school and learning from books.

    erudizione and cultura refer to scholarship or advanced learning, culture

    http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-italian/education

  196. Castellio says:

    Pirouz_2 writes: People have produced and delivered to “market” for thousands of years. Capitalism and its first traces does not go back for more than 500 years.

    So true, and so little understood. Many university students think that there was no market prior to capitalism, which just proves they don’t actually understand what capitalism is. Maybe their professors are to blame… I don’t know. Or an ahistorical culture.

  197. Fiorangela says:

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/24/60966368.html

    “The latest multipurpose nuclear aircraft-carrier The George Bush of the US Navy has been redeployed from the Persian Gulf to the Syrian shores. The ship is capable of carrying up to 70 aircraft, including 48 attack jets. The aircraft-carrier is escorted by a group of vessels which contains a destroyer.”

  198. Rehmat says:

    Irshad – Turkey, as the oldest Muslim friend of Israel – should establish the “safe zone” between Syria and Israel. You know, the Jewish terrorists don’t want Muslim terrorists to demand share in the Israeli loot….

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/us-israel-ankara-has-been-fooled/

  199. Rehmat says:

    Lobby: ‘Boycott Halal turkey on Thanksgiving’

    The Norway mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, had mentioned in his 1500-page bible two prominent American pro-Israel ‘Islamophobes’ – Pamela Geller of ‘Atlas Shrugs’ and Robert Spencer of ‘Jihad Watch’ – who inspired him hating Muslims. A few days ago, Pamela has appealed to her fellow Judeo-Christians to boycott buying Butterbal turkey because it’s slaughtered according to Islamic rituals (Halal)….

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/lobby-boycott-halal-turkey-on-thanksgiving/

  200. Irshad says:

    According to Robert Fisk, the Turks will create a 3 mile “safe zone” in Northern Syria and Abdullah of Jordan will do the same from the south – in effect Iraqizising Syria.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-exile-dreams-of-a-bloodless-return-after-a-life-spent-opposing-assad-regime-6267702.html

    Anyone seen the state visit of President Gul of Turkey to UK? He met the queen and a banquet was held in his honour. When I read that, I thought, they (UK) must want you to do something really badly to let you meet the Queen and have dinner with her! A case of massaging an orientals ego so he does white mans bidding (in this case Syria)

    Does anyone know how the Syria militray would fare if it was attacked? Could they put up a defense of their border and make it bloody enough for any agressor to move back?

  201. Karl says:

    James:

    Hard to say (about Syria) really. While the fighting from both sides must stop in Syria I dont support the EU, US, Arableague, Turkey tactics, namely that threats, sanctions and isolation help the situation, because obviously it dont if you look how the situation in Syria evolves.
    Like Libya the pressuring parties (the ones mentioned above) are just out to either weaken Syria enourmously or bring regime change. So there is a vital problem right away. Such tactics rarely works and just escalate the conflict.

    I think if the pressuring parties, if they were sincere would push both sides in the conflict to end violence. But just like in Libya, I dont see that, I only hear that one side must end violence while the other could keep using it. Its not realistic.

    How do you think it should be solved?

  202. Voice of Tehran says:

    Following my comment to kooshy.

    “”The global elite see themselves as the deciders and a militarized fascist police force protecting their interests but never underestimate the power of the people, armed with the truth, demanding the change that was never delivered and willing to shut down the machinery of government in the process.”"

    by Allen L Roland

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/21/ows-meets-police-state-the-revolution-has-begun/

    ..The more the Occupy Wall Street movement grows , the more apparent becomes the police state that has emerged from the Patriot Act ~ and the more obvious becomes the real reason for its formation ~ to protect the global elite from the people armed with the truth..

  203. kooshy says:

    Sounds like the Russian / US relation’s button is finally ready to be pushed for a “reset”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8909336/Russian-newsreader-Tatyana-Limanova-makes-insulting-gesture-at-Obama.html

  204. hans says:

    Congratulations to the Iranian Scientists who have won the prestigious award of UNESCO major contributors to science.

    The awards were won in disciplines where sanctions were meant to hit Iran the hardest.

  205. pirouz_2 says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2011 at 12:46 am

    “Capitalism is a very simple idea.
    You produce or deliver services for an abstraction called “market”.”

    FYI, you are so much off the mark that I don’t know where to begin. People have produced and delivered to “market” for thousands of years. Capitalism and its first traces does not go back for more than 500 years.

    Look, I got nothing against you, on the contrary I am very sure that you are a rational man. So don’t you think that at least we should first have a clear understanding about concepts such as capitalism and socialism before talking about them?

  206. fyi says:

    pirouz_2 says: November 25, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Capitalism is a very simple idea.

    You produce or deliver services for an abstraction called “market”.

    And about Greece:

    They joined the Euro-zone and both the state and the people went on a borrowing bing/spree.

    They borrowed – the people and the state – much much more than they could repay.

    They spent the loans on artifically raising their standard of living.

    Their real GDP is closer to $15,000 per year – before the economic collapse it was $31,000.

    They lived beyond their means on cheap loans supplied by hard-working Germans and even the French.

  207. pirouz_2 says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2011 at 12:16 am

    “I have understood you to be against “capitalism”.”

    You got that part right! :)

    “And I do not think China is a capitalist system – it is some sort of mixed economy with the state capitalizing many industries – China does not have developed capital markets.”

    Never mind socialism, I am afraid you don’t even know what capitalism is. Can you at least tell us what capitalism means?

    “No, I do not know socialism is; all I have seen where socialism has been put into practice has been a stifling of the small businessman or woman who wants to make a living while, at the same time, giving the lazy and the unscrupulous a way to steal other people’s gains through the sweat of their brow.”

    LOL…you mean like the way like the way the fat cats in wall street get the gains of the sweat of the brow of the Americans?
    You mean the way the teachers, workers, nurses and all other working people in Greece have been robbed so that the fat bankers in Germany, France and USA get a bit fatter?
    I really didn’t know that USA and Greece were socialist countries!!! :)

    “Just go to Spain and see how every year more and more people who own a hole in the wall shutter their businesses.”

    Right….and Spain is of course a socialist country!! :D

  208. fyi says:

    Pirouz_2 says: November 24, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    I have understood you to be against “capitalism”.

    And I do not think China is a capitalist system – it is some sort of mixed economy with the state capitalizing many industries – China does not have developed capital markets.

    No, I do not know socialism is; all I have seen where socialism has been put into practice has been a stifling of the small businessman or woman who wants to make a living while, at the same time, giving the lazy and the unscrupulous a way to steal other people’s gains through the sweat of their brow.

    Just go to Spain and see how every year more and more people who own a hole in the wall shutter their businesses.

  209. fyi says:

    Arnold Evans says: November 24, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Yes, you are absolutely correct to point this out.

    Nothing is permanent in international relations; except, perhaps, impermanence.

    Yes, until their governments change.

  210. Arnold Evans says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    It was Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan.

    These are permanent enemies of Iran and must be so dealt with.

    Huh?

    In 1970 a list of permanent enemies of Egypt might have read: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iran, and Jordan.

    By permanent I can only assume you mean permanent unless or until they develop independent governments. Egyptians are dying almost as we speak to create an Egypt ruled in line with Egyptian values instead of by a government accountable to the US, which issues orders to its regional colonies as part of its commitment to Israel.

    I found your use of the word permanent to be too strong.

  211. Fara says:

    Things seem heating up in SA. I am sure the crackdown on protesters will be a lot more brutal in SA than any other Arab countries. I am also sure there will be no UN resolution to stop the bloodshed.

    Saudi snipers target protesters
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211946.html

  212. Pirouz_2 says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    “Rubbish!”

    fyi, which part of that message was rubbish? That message contained only one word: “Capitalism!”. If you mean to say that capitalism is rubbish then we agree!! :)

    Any way joking aside, James was asking me what I called the economic system in China and I said it was capitalism. So does your saying “Rubbish” mean that you disagree?

    “Our problem in Iran is that we do not have enough capitalism.”
    Hmmm….so we should have more capitalism….like where? Like Greece? Italy perhaps? Irland? Mexico? Brazil? no…hold on….maybe you are referring to USA?? :)

    “Iran would have been better off if for a hundred years its thinkers – both religious and non-religious – had not been so persuaded by the crazy socialistic dreams of the European thinkers.”
    fyi,
    Seriously mate…do you even know what socialism means?

  213. Pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    James;
    No there is no such country.

  214. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    No. It was meant to highlight a very sad (for American people) state of affairs.

    As of September 30, 2011 Obama’s re-election campaign had taken in $86.2 million. The combined amount accrued by leading eight GOP candidates is $80.9 million. (reported by ABC News on Nov. 11th)

  215. Rehmat says:

    Rep. Ron Paul is a ‘vicious anti-Semite’!

    America’s leading Muslim-basher, Israel-Firster David Horowitz, had accused Rep. Ron Paul of being “a crackpot” and “vicious anti-Semite“. Horowitz claimed that Ron Paul is an ‘anti-Semite’ because of Paul’s proposal to end USAID to the Zionist entity (watch a video below). Ron Paul had said that the US is under huge debt and cannot afford to send money to other countries. Israel is a rich parasite which has sucked more than $3 trillion from American taxpayers since 1970s……..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/rep-ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite/

  216. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Your confidence in re-election of Obama is meant to be comforting?

  217. James Canning says:

    “Israel in Hot Seat at Middle East Nuclear Ban Conference”

    http://www/envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=11643

  218. Unknown Unknowns says:

    kooshy says:
    November 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    Exactly. On a similar note, I remember my uncle (and many of his generation) used to say, “Hitler ye paash tu beheshteh”. LOL

  219. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    You put too much credibility and weight into these campaign soap operas. The decision has been made for Obama to be re-elected. Having no credibility left and very little to show from his current term and nothing to offer for the next term, those in the far right and Ron Paul on the other side of the spectrum are allowed to rant and rave so that Obama would look like a “middle-of-the-road” candidate, who is not, and a more “sound” choice, which is not. In manipulating “group think” using principles of social influence, it’s called “contrast principle.”

  220. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Mr. Canning, the fact remains that Israel was not supporting Iraq in her war against Iran to the hilt.

    It was Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan.

    These are permanent enemies of Iran and must be so dealt with.

    The Iranian position on Israel is an expression of the general war of Judasim and Islam in and over Palestine.

    It is not specific to Iran.

    Mr. Degan must have been told as much when – according to Internet sources – he visited Iran recently.

  221. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Is there any country where “communism” actually is the governing programme? Cuba? For a few more years?

  222. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    What is your recommendation for Turkish policy toward Syria at this time?

  223. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    ISRAEL LOBBY does its best to ensure American politicians conceal from the American public the real costs of insane US policies toward Israel.

  224. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I am glad for the people of Iran you are not in charge of Iranian relations with Saudi Arabia.

    You seem keen to help Israel convince the Saudis to give Israel a free pass in its insane Greater Israel programme, because the “threat” comes from Iran. Amazing.

  225. James Canning says:

    Mitt Romney appears determined to prove he is every bit the moron about foreign policy as Cain or Perry. Quote: “President Obama says that we have people throughout the world with common iterests. I just don’t agree with him.” Need one be an idiot to seek the Republican nomination for president?

  226. fyi says:

    pirouz_2 says: November 24, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Rubbish!

    Our problem in Iran is that we do not have enough capitalism.

    What we have a state that doles out money depending who has the upper hand.

    And thus you have a part of the populace that is always nagging the state for more hand-outs, another portion that wants to overthrow the state to live its para-European fantasy, and another that tries to live the best it can.

    Iran would have been better off if for a hundred years its thinkers – both religious and non-religious – had not been so persuaded by the crazy socialistic dreams of the European thinkers.

    What a waste.

  227. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    If I were an Iranian leader, I would consider Saudi Arabai as the permanent enemy of Iran and the Shia and the overthrow of the monarchy a strategic necessity for Iran and Shia Muslims (including those in Pakistan).

  228. fyi says:

    Rd. says: November 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    The recent success in Libya, the increase in sanctions and propaganda against Iran, and the effort at regime change in Syria are all indicative that the US planners are qilling and able to sustain more costs.

    They know now – I am certain – that they cannot bring about surrender of Iran (de-nuclearization of Iran, removal of sovereign rights from Iran, regime changes etc.) at acceptable costs to US and to EU.

    They are pushing to reduce the potential costs of the siege warfare against Iran.

    US already has paid and is continuing the costs of being Champion of Israel; just look at the random bodily searches in US airports.

    But US leaders and planners are unwilling to acknowledge these things as costs.

  229. Karl says:

    Rd.

    Turkey have such hubris, I dont know what their aim is in the region, pretty much acting belligerent to everybody lately.

    Interesting that the harsh condemnation of Syria from Turkey obviously just are rhetoric since they stop short of any intervention and now even call it a ‘syrian internal problem’.

    Turkey have lost some credibility lately in my opinion.

  230. Rd. says:

    Is Turkey still evaluating its Syrian policy?? From an analysis on Turkish Daily Zaman;

    ;http://www.todayszaman.com/news-263835-the-world-according-to-bashar-al-assad-by-ziya-meral*.html

    To the statement by Turkish deputy prime minister, ““We won’t send soldiers [to Syria], won’t intervene and won’t allow and create conditions for others to intervene,” Bülent Arınç,”

    http://www.todayszaman.com/news-263858-turkey-says-unrest-is-syrias-internal-affair-wont-allow-any-intervention.html

  231. pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    “…the Communist Party still running the show.”

    James;

    A prostitute’s name may be “Virginia”, that doesn’t mean that she is a pure virgin!!
    Communist party of China is as communist as “virginia” is a virgin!! :)

  232. James Canning says:

    Humanist,

    Chomsky piece you just linked important for underlining the scam aspect of the “missile defence” system the armaments manufacturers keep trying to put into Eastern Europe no matter how much this damages US-Russia relations. Subrata Ghoshroy has helped to expose the fraud commected to the programme.

  233. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Yes, it is ironic to have such robust capitalism driving the Chinese economy forward, with the Communist Party still running the show.

  234. James Canning says:

    Those unsure of Eric Edelman’s role in American disasters in the Middle East should recall that Edelman was one of Dick Cheney’s gang who conspired to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  235. pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Capitalism!!

  236. Humanist says:

    Chomsky’s piece written on October 4, 2008:

    Majority of the world supports Iran

    http://www.canadiansagainstwar.org/middle-east/iran/202-chomsky-qthe-majority-of-the-world-supports-iranq-

    Has it still some valid arguments?

  237. James Canning says:

    Letter to Hillary Clinton from Eric Edelman, July 2007: “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the US will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

    What utter rubbish! Iraq Study Group openly called for getting all US troops out of Iraq asap, after making deals with Iran and Syria. Moron in White House rejected this excellent advice.

  238. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    There indeed are problems in Libya but one can hope civil war will be avoided and that the people can get on with their lives in peace.

  239. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Saudi Arabia indeed does not have good relations with the gov’t of Iraq. This is an issue of sorts between Saudis and Iran, but the 20% U issue is more important. That Iraq’s gov’t is friendly toward Iran poses no threat to Saudi security. Saudis are sensitive about what they see as unfair treatment of Sunnis by Iraqi gov’t.

  240. Rd. says:

    fyi

    What US planners have in mind for Saudi Arabia is difficult for me to fathom; excepting guarding such oil installations such as Ras Al Tanur I cannot imagine US militarily intervening in the Middle of that desert kingdom.

    Isn’t that good enough a reason for US to be wary? The tribal nature of Libya seems to have fallen apart. Despite differences between SA and Libya, the ultimate question for US planners has to be, what if? One has to surmise the implications are rather significant.

    The eternal optimist in me likes to think the IRI planners hold the golden key. Knowing US has limited options while time is of essence. Whilst China/Russia are cashing in on their own game. US has to play nicety nicety with China/Russia, as they are the ultimate prize. Iran is the means to that end. However, IRI along with various events have made that means expensive to acquire. How much longer US is to continue on this path and at what price? We know the Iraq and Afghan price, and we know the US position in 2000 vs 2011.

    As Dr. Marandi had suggested long ago, the center can not hold. Hence the potential for some alterations can exist, despite the rhetoric. So ultimately, is/can IRI be balancing the US/EU vs China/Russia, given the status quo?

    As Kooshy has suggested in the past, when dealing with the Bazari (Merchant) mind set, you best hold on to your shirts, pants and all in between.

  241. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Rubbish!

    The crucial time was Fall of 2007.

    US, EU, China, and Russia had the political cover to de-escalate after the US National Intelligence on Iran was leaked in August of 2007.

    US-EU wanted to roll-back the Iranian power.

    China and Russia were more than obliging in helping US-EU enter an idefinite confronation with Iran.

    And both Russia and China are very jealous of their status as nuclear-weapons states.

    I appreciate that you, like most commentators on this site, desirous of resolving this conflict.

    However, I cannot agree with you when you enter the realm of fantasy.

  242. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    I agree with you Iran offered the US a way to save face, when it offered to cease production of 20% U. Iran, after all, has supplies sufficient for many years. And, who knows? Maybe “escrow” some of it?

  243. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Russia wants Israel out of West Bank. Bad relations between US and Iran make this goal much more difficult to achieve. Russia has tried for years to improve US relations with Iran. For very good reasons.

  244. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I think you are absolutely dead wrong to think it is in Russia’s interest for US to squander gigantic sums of taxpayer funds in the Middle East. Full stop.

  245. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Eric Edelman advocates squandering hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars to “protect” Israel. A warmongering idiot who thinks the US should not have gotten out of Vietnam! And that the US “abandoned its allies” in Lebanon! And in Somalia! He is a idiot who helped to convince the moron in the White House not to accept advice of Iraq Study Group and get out of Iraq in 2006-07.

  246. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I do not see any reason for why Russia and China to help US-EU extricate themselves from a broad front of confrontation with Iran.

    The entanglement of US-EU in the Middle East is beneficial to Russia.

    For both states, an independent Iran which is slugging it out with US-EU is an acceptable outcome.

    For China the only caveat is that oil should continue to flow.

    So they will find all sorts of execuses to delay a UNSC decision.

    They will help US for the right price at some point.

  247. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    Where do you get the idea it would be an “uphill struggle” for US to achieve reduction in UNSC sanctions against Iran? It would be virtually automatic.

  248. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    Surely you are aware that China and Russia do not like the sanctions against Iran, and that they both predicted sanctions would not cause Iran to cease production of 3.5% U.

  249. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I very much agree with your assessment that the governming structure in Saudi Arabia will be in place come 20 years from now.

  250. Voice of Tehran says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    “”Nevertheless, I do not expect them to fail in this generation (20 years).”"

    I agree with you , minus a Zero.

  251. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Eric Edelman is a warmonger, and a fervent “supporter” of Israel right or wrong. Will Obama scr*w the American people by letting fanatical “supporters” of Israel to dictate American policy toward Iran?

  252. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Excellent advice from Anne-Marie Slaughter. Thanks for the link. I thought Obama blundered badly by failing to follow up on the original Brazil-Turkey iniative. Let’s hope warmongers who “support” Israel right or wrong do not prevent the diplomatic solution Slaughter calls for.

  253. fyi says:

    All:

    http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/diplomacy-least-damaging-option-iran

    Let us see if US-EU will move on this proposal.

    The current approach is the “Double-Down” approach of Pollack and Takyeh.

  254. fyi says:

    Rd. says: November 24, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    The leaders of Saudi Arabia have ample money to spend.

    Moreover, the tribal nature of Saudi Arabia, just like Libya’s (and Yemen’s and many others) will make it moreo or less easier to manipulate and control the country than a state like Syria or Iran.

    What US planners have in mind for Saudi Arabia is difficult for me to fathom; excepting guarding such oil installations such as Ras Al Tanur I cannot imagine US militarily intervening in the Middle of that desert kingdom.

    I mean, I cannot imagine any state – Mulsim or Christian or Hindu or whatever – to be bombing targets in Median and in Mecca.

    The Saudi leaders have the burden of articulating to their subjects why Saudi Arabia cannot be more like Kuwait which has had free elections since 1961 with both male and female franchise (similar but not identical situation obtains for Iranian leaders in regards to Turkey.]

    Nevertheless, I do not expect them to fail in this generation (20 years).

  255. Rd. says:

    fyi

    Even when US planners have altered their strategic calculus, it would be an uphill struggle for US to change the UNSC sanctions against Iran or to rescind her own sanctions against Iran. You think China and Russia will be helping US in that case, so that she might “Pivot onto the Pacific”?

    But why should they?

    Considering the premise;

    Assad may not fall
    Egypt revolution continues
    Financial state of US/EU
    Bahrain turmoil continues

    Is there no potential for a SA turmoil? If there was any, what would be the impact on US/EU? Do you believe the US planners would be so oblivious to these potentials till it hits them in the face? How well can US manage any turmoil in SA and potential oil price impact? Just curious, can SA continue despite continued arab spring and in-spite of counter revolutionary or arab winter?

  256. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: November 24, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    You are correct that 5+1 need to find a face-saving way to backout of their dead-end policy on Iran; if they ever so desired.

    But why should they?

    Russia & China have US-EU tied up in a form of siege warfare against Iran in the Persian Gulf. US has tied herself into knots in Palestine while incurring the wrath of Muslim masses. These 2 states have US and, by implication, EU in an excellent trap.

    UK and France do not have very many remaining stakes in Iran, they beleieve that Arabs can compensate their loss if Iranian markets and political influence. They could sell more to Arabs any way.

    That leaves Germany as the only state that might remotely be interested in an Iranian stellement that would entail something different than the paramteres of the 2003 “Teach-Iranians-How-to-Shovel-Their-Excrement” deal.

    Germany is powerless to do anything about it.

    Unless and until the US planners accept the irreveraible facts of the Iran/Shia power, this confronation will continue.

    Even when US planners have altered their strategic calculus, it would be an uphill struggle for US to change the UNSC sanctions against Iran or to rescind her own sanctions against Iran. You think China and Russia will be helping US in that case, so that she might “Pivot onto the Pacific”?

  257. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    US-EU leaders wish to assert control over Western Asia.

    The existence of independent Iranian power – be it Islamic or non-Islaic, Democratic, Socialist, Natiobnalist, Pan-Iranist etc. – is making that assertion of power impossible to maintain.

    When US destroyed Ba’athist Iraq, she caused the growth of Iranian and Shia power. The 2 are intertwined can cannot be separated.

    The millenial Shia project for political power in Mesopotamia was realized and the Shia Vatican (the Qum-Najaf Axis) claimed the strategic and religious spoils.

    The US blunder has now necessitated the elimination of this (still nascent) Shia-Iranian power.

    Thus the siege warfare against Iran and the ultimate destruction of independent Iranian power becoming the goal of US-EU policy makers.

    Israel and Saudi Arabia and 20% enrichment are, at most, side shows to this calculus. You could see this is the deafening silence of the US-EU axis when Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to revieve the 20% suspension. You could see this in the latest IAEA resolution against Iran which torpedoed Iran-Russian Step-by-Step approach.

    Right now, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and possibly Turkey are out to destroy the Alawite state in Syria. This is could be a very serious threat to Iranian national security and is part and parcel of the siege warfare against Iran.

    Once again, in span of less than a generation, Saudi Arabia has interposed herself as an enemy of Iran. Iranian leaders, no doubt, have also made similar calculations and are taking counter measures.

    May be Saudis will be luckier this time than the last time when they supported the late Mr. Hussein’s war against Iran.

  258. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    “Powerful Jewish interests in the US will coerce Obama into further sanctions against Iran. Iran’s key mistake is to continue to enrich U to 20% when Iran already has enough 20% U on hand to create needed fuel for TRR and other purposes, for many years to come.”

    Dear James, or may I call you 20%-James,

    If your 20%-phobia is genuinely shared by opinion/policy makers in the west, then possibly Iran has hit on a valuable bargaining chip not to be “surrendered” for nothing.

    Ultimately, Obama, Cameron, Merkel and co. will have to show something for reaching an accord with Iran. Obama proudly announcing that as part of ‘the package’ Iran has agreed to halt further production of 20% LEU, and has agreed to escrow excess 20%LEU in Turkey might sound impressive accomplishment to a skittish American public. Think of it this way: Iran is giving the US a face-saving way out of the morass.

  259. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Russia has been trying hard to convince Iran to back the proposed phased reductions in sanctions programme. This is of crucial significance.

  260. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    All of the Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to have agreed the way forward is to pledge to be stooges of the Israel lobby and the armaments manufacturers.

  261. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    The Saudis and other Gulf contries have received what in effect is a pledge from Britain to seek more sanctions against Iran if Iran continues to enrich U to 20%, far beyond its needs over next five or ten years.

    If UK had not agreed to back France in interventing in Libya, France almost surely would not have gone forward. US would not have intervened in Libya, had not UK and France done so first.

    Your dismissing imporance of UK in emerging strategy is serious error.

    Fact Libya was hollow shell is of no significance in the strategic thinking. Unless you mean UK would not attack Iran on its own, which of course would be absurd.

  262. Rd. says:

    US Republican candidates pick foreign policy advisers

    http://www.voltairenet.org/US-Republican-candidates-pick

  263. Empty says:

    Pirouz_2,

    Your overall assessment was/is certainly correct. I agree with them. Even with Japan and S. Korea, it is still a question of degree (how slow/how fast they get to the degradation your statements implied). Not to mention the impacts of unanticipated disasters like the Japanese nuclear plants. I don’t believe that other countries approached the issues you raised as thoughtfully as Japan did back in 1970s (and onward).

  264. Karl says:

    Yeah the “missile collab.” (Russia and Iran) is just a hypothesis of course with obstacles as pointed out. But it would be good for Russia and Iran.
    I think its time Russia building stronger relationship with Iran, if not they will loose their influence in the region, especially if they loose their connection (fleet) in Syria.

  265. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    I personally cannot attribute the significance you attach either to CBI sanctions or to UK.

    Libya was a hollow shell; as one judge from the photographs of anti-air missiles gathering duest in a weapons depot.

    Future would tell.

  266. pirouz_2 says:

    Empty says:
    November 24, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Empty;
    I am not a good writer, so some times I don’t express myself very well and leave an unintended impression. Perhaps this is one of those cases. My main point was not the similarities/dissimilarities between S. Korea and Japan or for that matter between those two and other countries (although there are similarities in both cases in terms of the Wests help in providing capital to these countries).
    My main point was to bring attention to a general rule that one person’s extreme wealth both requires and also results in 10s maybe 100s of people living in misery. Therefore, apart from the fact that limited nature of environmental resources and the ecological foot print make this a physical impossibility, it is socially impossible to elevate all the globes population to a level comparable to the life standards in Japan and S. Korea. (ie. for every one person you bring to that level you have to immiserate 10s of people)

  267. Empty says:

    Karl,

    Given the history of Iran-Russia relations and a lot of distrust that developed with Russians playing underhandedly with respect to the Bushehr nuclear plant, the Caspian sea plan, and the S-300 agreement, I think that would be an extremely difficult sell to Iran, even if Iran gets attacked. Iran distrusts (for very good reasons) Russia just as much as it does the US if not more.

  268. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Yes, that is my sense of it as well looking at open news sources.

    But I thought perhaps Mr. Hibbs knows something that we have do not.

    In regards to your question about Iranian strategic alliance with Russia; I cannot see it as a possibility. It burdens Russia and Iranian people would not favorably look on it. Likewise the Iranian leaders.

    Iranian leaders were willing to go to war with US in 2006 – relying solely on their own resources.

    And contrary to US-EU leaders, many of them have first-hand knwoledge of war.

  269. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: Saudi Arabia is selling how many millions of barrels of oil each day? Is it ten million? Do the math. Ten million barrels at $100 per barrel, and result is $1 billion per day.

    And the relevance of this to UK’s independent foreign policy (with respect to wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and sanctions against Iran) being what?

  270. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    UK taking lead in sanctioning Iran’s central bank clears way for Obama to follow.

  271. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    “Other matters” largely relates to IAEA inspections, from what I understand at this time.

    UK stance is of enormous importance. Huge. Crucial. Remember what happened with Libya.

  272. James Canning says:

    paul,

    Once the west intervened militarily, it was much more difficult to achieve a negotiated resolution of the matter because the rebels refused to agree to it.
    Gaddafi, sadly, was too much a fool to listen to sound advice. His ego did himself in.

  273. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Sanctions by UK are pin-pricks.

    I expect that by now, total trade volume between Iran and UK to be less than 100 million pounds.

    UK is not important to Iran.

    Please explain what you mean “agreed to other matters”

    [UNSC resolutions forbid Iran from enriching uranium, building heavy water reactors, and building ballistic missiles; all sovereign rights]

  274. James Canning says:

    paul,

    Gaddafi’s crucial blunder was to keep running his mouth in face of warnings from Western diplomats that this course was disastrous and would result in military intervention by UK and France.

    Saddam could have blocked the warmongers, easily. He was too proud or stupid to get the job done (or to allow Tariq Assiz to do if for him).

  275. Karl says:

    Empty:

    It would probably be both russians and iranians in such a case.

  276. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Hibbs does a service by underlining the importance Russia and China attach to the recent IAEA resolution regarding Iran’s right to enrich U for domestic nuclear power programme. Fanatical “supporters” of Israel right or wrong in the US have been trying to argue that Iran does not have that right because it somehow was “forfeited”.

  277. paul says:

    As you know, Canning, both Saddam and Gaddafi tried to negotiate their way out of trouble, but it was clear that the US had no interest in any outcome other than war/regime change. Blaming the victim is a well-worn strategy of course.

    Btw, while you are on the hunt for moral turpitude in leaders, you might look at one Barack Obama. Crafty? Check. Cunning? Check. Devious? Check. Murderous? Check. Possibly Obama is well-educated. To me he seems more polished than educated, but perhaps he differs from Saddam and Gaddafi there.

  278. Karl says:

    fyi:

    “Is this an indication that the US planners have finally realized that their siege warfare against Iran will not result in Iranian surrender, while, at the same time, it serves to pin US in a dangerous confronation across the Middle East?

    Or is it Mr. Hibbs’ wishful thinking

    Wishful thinking indeed. Just take a look back how US have refused every reasonable solution. Even blocking their own proposals (Brazil, Iran, Turkey – deal).

    US goal is regime change, they wont ‘surrender’ now. They crossed the Rubicon years ago.

  279. Empty says:

    fyi,

    Thank your for the link. If the author’s analysis & interpretation are correct, it appears that the US is reverting back to an old approach (at least 15 years old from the Clinton era) to obtain consensus but at a much higher cost to itself.

  280. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    As I stated before, there is siege warfare against Iran.

    Nuclear case is an excuse – if it were not, the US-EU would have taken a different tack in 2007.

    As is, US-EU are stuck, toegther with Iran, in an endless confrontation across the Middle East.

    The case of Libya demostrates that US-EU intentions.

    I am not sure what you mean by references to the late Mr. Qaddafi: Iranian leaders and Iran are very different. And they have prepared for war with US.

  281. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    As you are well aware, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were crafty, devious, cunning, murderous, badly-educated. Both rejected sound advice that could have saved themselves and their countries from calamity.

  282. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    You seem to be deliberately ignoring the terrorist attacks against the leaders of the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran by Mujahedeen Khlaq Iran, Hujatiyeh, and others.

    The President of the Republic, The Prime Ministers, 72 Members of the Majlis were assassinated in less than 6 months.

    And then there were assassinations of various mullahs, prayer leaders and others.

    This was the same Middle Eastern political culture that 2 generations earlier had destroyed the Constitutional Movement – assassinations, autocratic & individualistic illegal uprisings against the duly and legally formed government of Iran after the 1905 Revolution- e.g. Colonel Pesian or the Sar-be-daran fools coming from US to start an uprising against yet another duly and legally formed government of Iran, this after the 1979 Revolution.

  283. James Canning says:

    kooshy,

    Blair likes to present himself as the great friend of America. In fact, his delusional quasi-religious beliefs helped bring diaaster to the people of the US. And Blair gets millions of dollars per year, in part for helping to cover up the conspiracy that set up the illegal invasion of Iraq on knowingly false pretenses.

  284. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I do wish you would make clear what you mean by an Iranian “surrender”. Surely, if Iran has enough 20% U to fuel TRR for next 15 years (assuming plates can be produced), does it consitute “surrender” to cease production of 20% U?

    Think of the catastrophe Gaddafi brought down on his own head because he thought he could run his mouth as he pleased, when he pleased.

  285. kooshy says:

    Empty says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Empty Jan in my opinion even ridiculing these to criminal AHs is not desirable, this two truly belong and deserve to be in the dust (garbage) bin of history, I don’t think their images should be normed by making them in to a stupidity funny caricatures. Their own image as well as the people they represented should be characterized in the same way as Hitler and Germany was, which is two sober and well informed persons, who knew what they were doing and did a deliberate genocide of Iraqi people, don’t fall for any attempt to re make their image by watering it down even in a ridiculing funny form.

  286. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Thanks for link. Mark Hibbs is spot on. And UK would not be going forward with the additional unilateral sanctions against Iran, if Iran ceased producting 20% U and agreed to other matters.

  287. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    The US a dictatorship in 2003? Of course not.

  288. fyi says:

    All:

    Mr. Mark Hibbs on Iranian nculear case

    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2011/11/22/waiting-for-russia-s-next-move-on-iran/7nzl

    The interesting part is the following:

    “In collaboration with other states on the IAEA board and the Security Council, Russia may suggest a roadmap where Iran would need to commit itself to limit uranium enrichment to the low level needed for producing fuel for civilian power reactors and confine the work to perhaps one or two locations in Iran. Tehran would probably have to implement the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, giving the IAEA far greater access to sites and personnel in the country to make a judgment whether all of Iran’s nuclear activities are for peaceful use.

    … Based on what Russia proposes, the United States could be willing to negotiate a package that would be acceptable to the Security Council’s permanent members, Germany, and Iran.”

    I do not know what this indicates.

    Is this an indication that the US planners have finally realized that their siege warfare against Iran will not result in Iranian surrender, while, at the same time, it serves to pin US in a dangerous confronation across the Middle East?

    Or is it Mr. Hibbs’ wishful thinking.

  289. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Do you have a good idea of the wealth that obtains in the Gulf? Fabulous riches. Is it possible you do not comprehend my ability to assess what results fabulous wealth can obtain?

    Saudi Arabia is selling how many millions of barrels of oil each day? Is it ten million? Do the math. Ten million barrels at $100 per barrel, and result is $1 billion per day.

  290. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    Similarly, do you believe the US was a dictatorship in 2003?

  291. Sassan says:

    “RE: So, how are Iranian voting units bounded? Is it possible that Iranian elections are actually more representative and fair than are elections in the US?”

    Are you being serious? In Iran under the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic, those deemed not “Islamic and Hizbolli enough” are dismissed by the Guardian Council from eligibility in running for any office. You have to be terrorist enough to even run for office. In addition, the Supreme Animal Khamenei holds all the powers. It is a system of terror and oppression and is not representative in any way of the Iranian people.

  292. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    In 2003, do you believe UK to have been a dictatorship?

  293. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    I have said more than once that I thought the Iraq War would not have commenced when it did, if Tony Blair had refused to back the attack.

    Blair and Bush both suffered from delusional quasi-religious belief.

    Blair, sadly, was a whore of liar warmongers who conspired to set up an illegal invasion of Iraq. And Blair has been rewarded handsomely for the massive damage he inflicted on the people of the US.

  294. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    What makes you think I forget the role the UK played in Iraq?

  295. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Powerful Jewish interests in the US will coerce Obama into further sanctions against Iran. Iran’s key mistake is to continue to enrich U to 20% when Iran already has enough 20% U on hand to create needed fuel for TRR and other purposes, for many years to come.

    Sadly, Iran is playing into the hands of powerful Jewish interests that want to harm Iran, not because Iran poses a threat to the US or the UK, but because Iran is seen as making it impossible for Israel to deal with the Palestinians as Israel wants to deal with them. Namely, f*ck them good and hard even more.

  296. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    You seem to somehow keep on forgetting the role Britain has played in Iraq. I know. I know. The British government is a peace-loving altruist in all these world affairs and wants everyone to just get along.

  297. Empty says:

    Karl,

    With what you had in mind, where would 1) the interceptor launch site be actually located? Not on the Iranian soil? 2) the radar systems? 3) who would control them, Russians or Iranians; 4) should it need repair/maintenance, etc., who would be in charge, Russians or Iranians?

  298. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Why not ask why Obama literally conspires to conceal the cost of the Iraq War from the American people? Ongoing conspiracy by Obama administration.

  299. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    What term would you employ to describe the economic system in place in China? In Hong Kong? Macau? The people who obtain land, and bank loans, and then build flats and houses, obviously want to sell the flats and houses for more than the cost of the land, labor, materials, interest on bank loans, etc.

  300. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE: With “allies” like Israel, the US is in deep trouble.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jDJDJhVF5g

  301. Karl says:

    Empty:

    Ok, but this isnt a military base.

  302. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Iraq War was set up with 2002 NIE on Iraq, which neocon warmongers conspired to create using knowingly false intelligence. 2011 NIE on Iran is still in place. Warmongering neocons, other rabid partisans of Israel right or wrong, etc., are trying to discredit the 2011 NIE on Iran, and to discredit the 2007 NIE on Iran.

    US attack on Iran would be illegal at this time.

  303. Empty says:

    RE: Accepting it after they have been attacked makes no sense to me.

    In the age of servitude, living free is a revolutionary act. Neither East, Nor West.

  304. Empty says:

    Karl,

    According to Article 146 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s constitution, establishment of any foreign military installation of any sort is strictly forbidden. It’s not even a matter of debate.

  305. James Canning says:

    In his Deep Background column in December issue of American Conservative magazine, Philip Giraldi says that Israel has virtually blackmailed Obama into signing a further presidential finding, authorizing even more covert actions against Iran.

    With “allies” like Israel, the US is in deep trouble.

  306. Karl says:

    fyi:

    Why wouldnt Iran agree to such a deal now if it was offered?
    Accepting it after they have been attacked makes no sense to me.

  307. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    The Russians want the US to rely on Russian radar stations, to warn and help defend against any attack from Iran. The Russians obviously are not expecting any such attack.

  308. James Canning says:

    Eric Margolis has excellent insight in December 2011 American Conservative magazine, “Who Won the Iraq War?”

    Quote: “The Bush and now Obama administrations have concealed the war’s cost from Americans by refusing to pay for it through taxes.”

    Margolis also notes: “The Bush administration’s neoconservatives played a leading role in engineering the Iraq conflict. Media acted as megaphones for the war party. Thanks to the drumbeat of lies and insinuations, over 80 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.”

  309. kooshy says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    November 24, 2011 at 11:36 am

    “The better question would have been to ask what forces allowed the political economy of Weimar Germany to give birth to and foster such a movement,”

    You may no longer need to ask this particular question, especially since historic research around this subject is not encouraged, and sometimes even it might be unlawful.

    But on the other hand you may be leaving the experience of the question you are asking, specially if you are living in the US or the western Europe, as consequence of this new coming experience, you may even consider to change your name to Known Known , or even better yet to “ EXperience the EXperienced”

  310. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 24, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Iran will not do any such thing at the moment.

    If she is attacked, then this could be a possibility.

  311. Karl says:

    Taking in regard Russian criticism of nato-missile-shield….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBf0I-rB0m0&feature=channel_video_title

    Russia and Iran could build a strong defense, thus placing a missile shield in Iran. Its time for Russia to step up before they are fully covered by the missile shield and thus weaken their deterrence by great lengths.

  312. kooshy says:

    Anon says:
    November 24, 2011 at 11:10 am
    Israel’s closing window to strike Iran — WINEP:

    This news is almost by now ten years old, it has become boring to everyone on the planet, one wonders why the Israelis and their leash masters in Washington who truly control the entertainment capital of the world, can’t come up with a new more credible at least more entertain threat, for how many years we have to consume exact same rerun shows.

  313. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Pirouz:

    Calling New Atlantis the Axis of Weasels is not name-calling, as you characterize it. It is just a short-hand, factual characterization of one of its core personality trait. It saves me from saying “hypocritical, unprincipled, liar whose spinelessness is so acute as to resemble the spine of a weasel.” It is the rhetorical analogue of those bunker busters your beloved government delivered to spearhead of imperialist aggression in the ME just the other day, in the sense that dropping that name prevents me from having to come back and drop several names in series or succession. And so, contrary to your wishful assertion that it is an ineffective way of getting my point across, I would say that it is its very effectiveness that has gotten you so riled up.

    Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will break my heart. I’ll tell you what: get Uncle Weasel to stop breaking our balls, and I’ll stop breaking your heart. Until then, its on.

    Meanwhile, relax and enjoy “My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama” from the Weasels Ripped My Flesh Album, recorded 1969:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=KH9SfbbSq-4

  314. Fiorangela says:

    Photi says:
    November 24, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Photi, some perspectives on Hitler.
    In my opinion, it is a terrible mistake to have packaged all that is evil and horrible and attached the brand name Hitler to it; what happened in Europe in the 20th century is so important that it should be studied dispassionately. My mantra: If we truly mean Never Again, then we should work to exhaustion to figure out why it happened in the first place. Study Hitler objectively; erase all the layers of hatred that have been heaped on him, Nazism, and Germany, and surround the research with what was going on elsewhere — who else was doing what to whom, that Germany was responding to/defending against/misinterpreting?

    Netanyahu’s identification of Ahmadinejad with Hitler sets up an amazing equivalence: If rational people can observe that Ahmadinejad is clearly NOT Hitler, is NOT threatening Jews with destruction, and Iran is NOT Germany, does NOT have expansionist ambitions, then does/did the same hold true for Hitler and Germany? Was it REALLY the case that Hitler was out to kill Jews?

    I’m reading Eric Larson’s latest money-maker, “In the Garden of Beasts.” Every third paragraph emphasizes that, from the time Hitler came to power in Jan. 1933, “Jews were persecuted.” Larson doesn’t say how, just “viciously persecuted.” Discussing the meeting Dodd had with Felix ?) Warburg before traveling to his new post as ambassador to Germany, Larson writes that Warburg complained to him that Jews were so “persecuted” that many were committing suicide; elderly friends of Warburg had committed suicide. But writing about the arrival of Ambassador Dodd in Berlin in July 1933, Larson writes, “by then, the situation with Jews had calmed down.” Writing of the opening of the first concentration camp, at Dachau, Larson writes, “No Jews were sent there. Yet.” Later again, Larson devotes several paragraphs to the suicide of a young female journalist who discovered she had a Jewish grandmother and would therefore lose her job under new Nazi laws excluding Jews from writing for non-Jewish newspapers; Larson adds the detail that “70 out of every thousand Jews in Germany committed suicide.” That is an astonishing detail! Were the laws that Nazism imposed hateful? Yes, certainly. But who is responsible for a person’s suicide?
    Then, dig a little deeper: so so many times we are told “Jews have been persecuted for 3000 years. Christians persecuted Jews at the time of the Crusades …,” as if the Crusades were all about killing Jews who lived in Europe at the time, rather than about reclaiming the Holy Land that was then in possession of Muslims, then the dominant superpower in the region. But back to the Jews who were killed at the time of the Crusades — it turns out that most of them committed mass suicide. So there’s a lot of detail that is conveniently swept under the rug, but unfortunately used to generate hatred of Christians and Muslims, and a perilous psychological state among Jews.

    Recall the OTHER tale from Herodotus about Croesus: The king of Lydia asked the Delphic oracle to advise him whether he should go to war to destroy Persia. The Oracle’s message was, “If you wage war on Persia, you will destroy a great kingdom.”
    “Kewl,” exclaimed Croesus; “Onward Lydian soldiers; we gonna destroy us some Persia.”
    And so Lydia waged war on Persia.
    And lost the great kingdom of Lydia to Persian forces.

    If you don’t have the proper facts of history, and if you interpret them hubristically, you risk losing everything.

    Which brings me to a second thesis: The fact that Holocaust research is off limits, even criminalized, and only the Accepted Narrative is permitted to be known/taught/repeated, makes me think “the lady doth protest too much.” What is being covered up that is so terrible that research into it is criminalized?

    Furthermore, given that only one narrative on holocaust exists, and only that narrative may be taught in US public schools, and holocaust MUST be taught in US public schools, seems to me to be a state mandate to teach a dogma, and that is unconstitutional.

    sorry, got carried away. ‘scuse the rant.
    hope you were able to save your keyboard from coffeecide; I destroyed a laptop using that WLD, spilt coffee.

  315. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Photi:

    I don’t know enough about the issue to have a definitive position.

    Of course, as usual, I frame the issue a little differently as well. Once you let a situation get to the point where you have to ask the question, “To contain or not to contain?”, then you have mis-managed the situation beyond repair. The better question would have been to ask what forces allowed the political economy of Weimar Germany to give birth to and foster such a movement, what could have prevented it, and what lessons can be learned from that experience. That Uncle Flatfoot and the West generally is incapable of asking those questions and prefers to continue to create demons upon which it then proceeds to wage war is symptomatic of a certain socio-pathology in its psyche.

    “They hate us for our freedoms.” LOL

  316. Fiorangela says:

    Photi says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    thank you for the video link; it’s in the “tomorrow” file.

    What little I know about Islam is from an American understanding/perspective, as presented in a series of lectures by Prof. John Esposito which were produced by The Teaching Company — :http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6102

    Esposito is Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: History and International Affairs in the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.

    I thought his lectures were based on sound scholarship and were equitable in their treatment of all players, based on the facts and evidence. Thus, it’s almost inevitable that Campus Watch dislikes him — “Esposito: Apologist for Militant Islam.” :http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/78
    The Islamophobes really get bent out of shape when facts get in the way of their hate. It’s almost laughworthy.

  317. Anon says:

    Israel’s closing window to strike Iran — WINEP:

    http://washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3426

  318. Photi says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    What would have been a more proper response to Hitler’s infectious fascism? The Nazi state was a particularly virulent form of idol worship if there ever was one.

    One man’s act of war is another man’s act of containment. And in the context of the slaughter that was the Great War, the non-German western powers had many reasons to be concerned about the Hitler ideology.

    As if Germany didn’t have their own agenda up against the American counter-part.

  319. jay says:

    Sassan says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:29 am
    Jay, you’re an idiot…….

    Sassan:

    You have impressed me by your masterful and original use of name calling. However, I suspect this is not the skill you referred to – what you call “the values and ideals of western civilization and culture”?

    Can you use your ideals and values and express a thought or two on your own?

    Not what you have seen on Youtube or heard on the TV – something that you can intellectually defend on your own without resorting to the equivalent of “because I say so or I saw it on TV”.

  320. Empty says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    Just a side note….people are آدم until proven *weasel* (your copyrighted term). Sometimes the best approach is to exercise patience and let some use their own energy to prove their *weaseliocity*. It’s just so much more effective that way.

  321. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sasaan:

    Just cause you are incapable of evaluating Hitler’s speech on its contents, does not make your ad hominem valid. Hitler was a horse’s ass, and the people under him did some pretty nasty things, particularly to Jews. But that does not mean that what he said in that speech was not true. If you cannot judge the facticity of something, you would be well advised to maintain radio silence. Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

  322. Empty says:

    Just to add to the previous post, were it not for a very significant role some Bassij, Emdad committees, and local councils play in distant localities in constructing and bringing resources, those population would have gotten zilch from their so-called representatives.

  323. Empty says:

    Fiorangela,

    My personal assessment is that I believe both structurally and functionally one of the elections (the election into Majlis) is the least representative in favor of Tehran province at the expense of all other provinces. They get more representatives, nearly all representatives move to Tehran after the election and begin to vote/decide in a manner that is favorable to their place of living. Some, quite overtly, ignore their constituents and the very province that elected them. I think this fuels a feeling of resentment and injustice people in other locations feel toward the people in Tehran.

  324. Castellio says:

    FYI writes: “And I am very doubtful that other civilizations would have been able to )re-)discover Rationalistic Empirical sciences if left to themselves.”

    I guess I can only point to one of your blind spots and once again suggest that early Confucianism was there long before the modern west. But perhaps that is what you meant by ‘rediscover’? Or did you mean the Alexandrian Greeks?

    Rational, empirical, non-revelatory cultures seem to come and go, as do the irrational, a priori, revelatory cultures. We just kind of hope this particular transition won’t destroy the whole ecological system of the planet.

  325. Castellio says:

    Sassan, you easily toss about words like scum, abhorrent, disgusting, yet have yet to make one coherent point worth sharing.

  326. Empty says:

    Fiorangela,

    You’re absolutely correct about the province, Khorasan. The mostly Arabic-speaking populations are not inside Mashahd (that you visited) but near it in “Sarakhs” (northeast direction from Mashhad to the border (you had a remarkably good pinpointing with a generic map in the video though :). There are also a couple of other ones in Khorasan Jonoubi (southern Khorasan) in what is called “Arabkhaneh” (literally means “Arab’s home”) near Birjand and a small population in “Zir Kooh” which is somewhere between Mashhad and Birjand.

  327. Empty says:

    Fiorangela,

    RE: So, how are Iranian voting units bounded? Is it possible that Iranian elections are actually more representative and fair than are elections in the US?

    Which elections are you asking about: local councils, provincial elections, Khobregan (assembly of experts) members, Majlis members, or presidential elections, etc.? Some are national, some are provincial, and some are local.

    For national elections (specifically presidential elections and Khobregan elections), a person could vote any where so long as he/she has his/her national identity card with him/her (e.g., if she lives in one place but she is on vacation elsewhere, she could use the card to vote). For Majlis elections, it is “at large” within each specific province and is based on the province and the population (except for the religious minorities who get their own representatives regardless of the size. For example, for all, there is 1 rep. per ~280,000 people, if I am not mistaken about the number. Whereas there is 1 Kalimi (Jewish) representative for appx. 25,000 Kalimi population. Similar for Zoroasterians, Armenians, etc.). Local councils are within what you would say “townships” and are also “at large” within that township/Mahalleh (with the some “towns/locales” having only 15-16 households and some having thousands.)

    Not sure if this answers your question.

  328. Photi says:

    Empty says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    In case it hasn’t been posted before….

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/21/seymour_hersh_propaganda_used_ahead_of

    Empty, thanks for the link.

    From the transcript provided there:

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s turn to the response in Israel to the IAEA report. Yesterday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an interview with CNN the time has come to deal with Iran. When asked specifically whether Israel would attack Iran, this is how he responded.

    DEFENSE MINISTER EHUD BARAK: I don’t think that that’s a subject for public discussion.

    ############################

    Incredible, the Israelis are pondering an overt act of hostility towards Iran (with American weapons mind you), a war that will escalate to God only knows where, and Ehud Barak does not think the subject is open for public discussion.

    Are you kidding me?!?!

  329. Fiorangela says:

    Empty at 7:13 am, Thank you for the video.

    I assume that, on the 2007 map, the small green area where Arabic is still spoken in Iran is in Khorasan province, centered in Mashhad, where the shrine to Imam Reza is a very busy pilgrimage destination?

    On our travels in Iran, we were advised that Mashhad was the strictest of Iranian cities, and that Shiraz was the most liberal. In both places, we enjoyed mingling with Iranian people, who were eager to tell us about their home towns and ask us about ours.

  330. Empty says:

    Pirouz_2,

    I think your examples of S. Korea and Japan (as similar) might be a comparison of of apples and oranges. Due to geographic and natural resource constraints, Japan established (by comparison to any other nation around the globe) the most efficient system of development and energy input/output balance with the most care given to the “quality of life” issues of its population. In that regard, Japan is in a league of its own unmatched by any other nation around the globe. It is not perfect but is a few steps ahead of all other nations. In some other specific fields, Cuba is a model for efficiency.

  331. Fiorangela says:

    Happy Thanksgiving to the Leveretts and to All at RFI.

    ___

    A confession and a question for Eric — The confession: I have not thoroughly read your essay on the 2009 election. The answer to this question might be in it.

    The question popped into my mind when I had to search through boxes in the attic to find the carving set so I could make the ham fit into the oven. Couldn’t find the carving fork, but to keep frustration in check I pondered a conversation a friend and I had just had about how our city council districts are absurdly gerrymandered. In that conversation, I recalled the Bruce bueno de Mesquita commented that, although US Congress has the lowest approval rate of any US institution, congresspersons are consistently re-elected. He explains this by theorizing that “congressmen choose their voters and not the other way around.” This is accomplished by gerrymandering and other tactics.

    So, how are Iranian voting units bounded? Is it possible that Iranian elections are actually more representative and fair than are elections in the US?

  332. Empty says:

    Photi,

    Thank you for sharing your (quite important) exploration into the history. Here is another installment that explores the language of racism through II: Palestine-Israel-Jew-Muslim” lens (continued from an earlier thread) that you might also find useful. After this, I hope to get to the 3rd part (looking through a Quran-interpreted lens).

    Sieving key documented history /interpretive views of history, I think, the mechanics of language development and lineage tracking, could offer an effective way of evaluating the the nature of a narrative in terms of racism much more so than specific historical events. Linguistically speaking (as it has been stated before by others and myself), Hebrew and Arabic are considered sister languages in the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic/Hamito-Semitic family of languages. Their close cousins are Egyptian, Syrian, and Ethiopian languages (among several others), for example. You could take a look at [1] in the reference list below for some useful classification scheme. The following YouTube clip is a short geographic visual of the Arabic language expansion and contraction that is interesting to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-Bn8aNIVU

    Some trace the origin of the word “Israel” to the following passage in Genesis (32:28 – the 2007 translation): “Your name will no longer be Jacob,” the man told him. “From now on you will be called Israel, because you have fought with God and with men and have won.” from several parallel translations in the site [2]. Here is an excerpt from the “Meaning and etymology of the name Israel [3]: “We can not say with certainty what the name Israel is supposed to mean, although it seems to reflect a certain inability of the Almighty God, namely the not being able to defeat a man like Jacob. We can be sure that God doesn’t lack the physical strength to eradicate any human being, so we must conclude that the destruction of Jacob would go against the very nature of God. Perhaps the name Israel denotes God’s continuous effort to keep Jacob going, even though Jacob continues to fight God.” By extending this sort of interpretation of the current text of the Genesis 32:28, the following is also understood from the second text: “Perhaps the name Israel denotes God’s continuous effort to keep Jacob [read Israel] going, even though Jacob [read Israel] continues to fight God and men.” This is based on the statement “because you have fought with God and with men and have won.”

    The significance of “naming/branding” is very well explored. C.Moog, a clinical psychologist, for example, explains: “A name without an emotional, non-verbal association is virtually useless – it will not be retained in the mind of the target audience. There is a symbiotic relationship between a name and its non-verbal correlative. What is evoked emotionally, visually, symbolically, by a particular name? It is on the basis of this cognitive/emotional connection that the most powerful mnemonic device for remembering a person’s name is the deliberate creation of mental pictures relating to it.”[4]

    It would be, therefore, not surprising to observe that if given populations are collectively trained based on a specific narrative (Genesis 32:28), they, at a subconscious level, are quite likely to consent to and/accept, a priori , unleashing of wars (regardless of any rationale) against “men”/all men/humanity as a whole AND accept that there is an ultimate win, without impunity, if by an entity called “Israel.” This theory, this understanding is, by design, deeply rooted in a perception of “omnipotence” and “superiority: the main ingredient of racism.

    Now, an important question to explore is whether “practice” (i.e. historical evidence) match the above “theory”. That means, has an entity branded as “Israel” unleashed wars against “men” with or without reason and has the “win” in those war been considered a foregone conclusion before they even started? A quick look into specifically the “narratives” of the events in the past 60+ years would be quite useful to explore. Some of the events have been very well highlighted by Fiorangela. The one exception that I believe warrants a special mention is the 2000 and 2006 victories in Lebanon by Hizbollah against Israel. For now, the narratives do not match the reality and in fact “Jacob/Isreal wrestled with the party of God and received a defeat.” That every effort will be made to to restore a shattered racist myth is, I believe, unquestionable.

    To be continued….

    =================================================================================

    Sources:

    [1] For information about the classification of Afro-Asiatic Family of languages see: ;http://www.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/semitic.html

    [2] For parallel translations of Genesis 32:28, see: ;http://bible.cc/genesis/32-28.htm

    [3] For the meaning and etymology of the word Israel, see: ;http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Israel.html

    [4] For significance of naming, see: ;http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2008/12/naming-psychology.html

  333. Sassan says:

    Does no one find it quite disgusting and abhorrent that Basiji terrorists have infiltrated this site?

  334. Scott Lucas says:

    Voice of Tehran,

    “[EA WorldView's] utmost well placed sources in Tehran and in the MENA region are unmatched and legendary.”

    Many thanks for the endorsement — good to know you are now following the latest news and analysis.

    S.

  335. Voice of Tehran says:

    Sassan says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:29 am

    “”who doesn’t appreciate the values and ideals of western civilization and culture.”"

    Why don’t you then join the Enduring America Club of Prof. SL ?
    His utmost well placed sources in Tehran and in the MENA region are unmatched and legendary.
    PISS OFF…

  336. Half of US voters say bomb Iran if sanctions fail
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gDf_-rlOuSlAVKKydF9mxTZFCkzw?docId=CNG.50855aec8e808fae1daf90c37622ae58.4a1

    I suppose we can be grateful the other half don’t agree.

    “Some 55 percent of respondents said the United States should not take immediate military action against Iran, with 36 percent in favor.

    The number in favor of using force increases to 50 percent however if sanctions fail, with 38 percent against.”

    And of course, the sanctions WILL fail.

    The “Iraqization” of the Iran debate is complete. The Leveretts might as well go home.

  337. Sassan says:

    Jay, you’re an idiot. You are one of those dolts that in a narcissistic way think you are so bright when in fact it seems to be the contrary; you seem to be nothing but a despotic anti-western scum who doesn’t appreciate the values and ideals of western civilization and culture.

  338. My prediction on Syria may be off by a year…

    Report: U.S. carrier sent to Syrian coast as tensions flare
    :http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/23/report-u-s-carrier-sent-to-syrian-coast-as-tensions-flare/

    And Turkey is mulling invading Syria. Of course, the excuse will be “to protect civilians” – just like Libya. And of course, once Syria resists, the US/EU will be drawn in.

    Turkey confronted with possible Syrian civil war
    :http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/idINIndia-60697420111123

  339. Fara says:

    All,

    The protests in Saudi Arabia is gaining momentum, esp after a few protesters were killed.

    If the KSA turns to something like Egypt, do you think there will be a direct intervention by the US, knowing the fact that if KSA goes, other neighboring countries will quickly follow the same path?

  340. Photi says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    How’s that for non-violence?!

  341. jay says:

    Please be patient with Sassan. Although he is striving for intellect, he is saddled with great disadvantage.

    He comes to this debate from the land of Newspeak media where he has been conditioned to recite the “correct-think” in monotonous chorus.

    Encourage him! It may yet be possible for him to learn to think on his own. He may never become the guardian of fire as his namesakes, but he may learn to know the fire that has burned thousand of innocent lives – from Chile to Tehran, from El Salvador to Afghanistan, From Granada to Iraq, …

  342. pirouz_2 says:

    Photi says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Is ‘prosperity for some, abject poverty for most’ an economic principle?

    Well if you ask the capitalist political economists, they will answer you: “NO! IN FACT IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE” They would argue that as wealth accumulates at the top it will “trickle down” to the bottom and benefit everyone. This way everyone would rise out of poverty (despite that the wealth has been accumulated at the top).
    But I would say that that is a load of nonsense and that “YES! it is an economic ‘law’ ”

    In a capitalist system (ie. in a system where the motive for production is to gain profit) the only way that wealth may ( or may not ) trickle down is if the capital and the scale of production keeps expanding at a compounded rate (ie. exponentially). And even then it may not actually trickle down. But this ‘expansion’ cannot go on indefinitely at a compounded rate. Sooner or later you’ll end up hitting barriers, because you will face a problem of over-production where further investments will bring no profit simplly because there are no markets for the goods that you produce. Of course as I said even if production keeps expanding it doesnt necessarily mean that the wages will rise and the money will trickle down, however, in such a case where the production keeps expanding at least there is a possibility that the money will trickle down. But as I said since production cannot expand indefinitely sooner or later (and in fact sooner rather than later) the compounded rate of growth will stop and that is when the whole hell breaks loose. In order to maintain the rate of profit the business owners have to cut wages (in fact this is what has happened in the West since 70s).

    It is like a pie which is to be shared. If by the laws of the system I take half of the cake and the other half is shared betwenn my 10 employees, then unless the size of pie grows at a compounded rate,in order for my share of pie to continue to grow exponentially I have to cut your share of the pie substantially.

    Would an international climate composed of fully developed economies be able to more effectively mitigate the greed that brings about such mega-imbalances economic power?

    That depends on what you mean by a “fully developed economy”. In the capitalistic society economy develops because of the greed! If you stop the greed you wont have any “economic development”.

    Let me give you another quotation from Gandhi: “there is enough in the world to satisfy everyone’s needs, but not enough to satisfy even one person’s greed.”

    So in my humble opinion, if you want to satisfy everyones needs you have to base the production on addressing social needs rather than individuals’ greed (ie. profit).

  343. Photi says:

    fyi,

    well we’re here now, come what may.

  344. Photi says:

    Fiorangela, Unknown Unknowns, and others,

    For the Islamic perspective on the early history between the Muslims and Jews i am finding the following majlis to be quite enlightening. The Sayed discusses the constitution between the Muslims, Jews, and Christians of Medina with the Prophet Muhammad’s (as) leadership in first year of the hijra.

    Sayed Ammar Nakshawani:

    Reply to BBC Life of Muhammed ‘Jews Massacred’ Fact or Fiction A Detailed Analysis 3 Holy Wars 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6J5sF5dkVQ

  345. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: November 23, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    It would have been better if he had kept queit.

    Mr. Obama could crow about his victories and deflet Republicans’ criticism of his Iran policy.

  346. fyi says:

    Photi says: November 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    I think you are incorrectly conflating Modernity and the application of Rationalistic Empirical Knowledge to solving problems.

    Modernity, a child of the Enlightenment Project is Godless.

    And I am very doubtful that other civilizations would have been able to )re-)discover Rationalistic Empirical sciences if left to themselves.

    I certainly do not believe Hindus would have been able to do so.

    And the anti-intellectualism of Muslim masses clearly over the centuries had not been a fertile soil for free inquiry.

  347. BiBiJon says:

    Vali Nasr says: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-24/making-real-the-obama-iran-victories-that-never-were-vali-nasr.html

    ==============
    In an effort to get new traction in its Iran policy, the Obama administration this week announced a fresh round of sanctions and signaled its readiness to extend them to Iran’s central bank. Without the backing of Russia and China, however, unilateral sanctions by the U.S., Canada and European countries will continue to have an insufficient effect on the Iranian regime.

    To get Russia and China to sign on to meaningful penalties, the U.S. must be more persuasive about Iran’s iniquities. The Obama administration must put an end to doubts about the veracity of the Washington plot. And it must shore up the IAEA report with convincing intelligence of its own proving the Iranians are working on nuclear weapons.
    ====================

    Vali, the day The Obama administration manages to put an end to doubts about the veracity of the Washington plot, and shores up the IAEA report with convincing intelligence of its own proving the Iranians are working on nuclear weapons, will be the day I will eat my boots.

  348. BiBiJon says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    November 23, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Sometimes, the CIA does good work.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

    If you do the rankings based on PPP, Iran comes in at 11th.

  349. Photi says:

    *my apologies for the rough grammar in that last paragraph, i spilt my coffee and was trying to avoid computer meltdown before proofreading. my mouse inverted on me.

  350. Photi says:

    pirouz_2,

    “Look, it is a very long subject. Let me cut it short and give you the gist of my idea. It is a zero sum game. In order for each one person to live in Japanese standards tens or maybe hundreds of people have to live in abject poverty. So just because Japan or S. Korea have prospered, it doesn’t mean that majority of the global population can prosper if they do their economy the “right way”.”

    Why is this so? Is ‘prosperity for some, abject poverty for most’ an economic principle? Would an international climate composed of fully developed economies be able to more effectively mitigate the greed that brings about such mega-imbalances economic power?

    The way i look at it, the West’s power over the last several centuries is merely the by-product of being the civilization to first reach the modern era (in other words, ‘modernity’ was inevitable, the European civilization just happened to get their first). As other societies and civilizations catch up, the playing field will naturally be more level. As the Western power fades into the balance, westerners should at least have the common sense to make the international system into an more equitable system as the hegemonic power fades.

  351. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says: November 23, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    There has to be someone who will do the ground fighting.

    60 percent of Syria’s population lives in 4 cities.

    To overthrow the Ba’athist state there, the insurgents would require close aerial support from helicpter gunships etc.

    It is not going to happen.

  352. fyi says:

    Anon says: November 23, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    The last paragrap which reads:

    “…real policy challenge is how Iran can be retrofitted into the region’s security landscape…”

    should have been the path taken in 2007.

    It is now too late for that and the status quo ante the siege warfar against Iran is no longer reachable.

  353. Fyi: One does not preclude the other. Syria will require more air strikes than Libya did. Having NATO troops in Libya also flanks Egypt to Israel’s benefit. As Escobar points out, the goal is a NATO, i.e., US, presence in Northern Africa.

    The overall plan is a US-Israel-NATO-Saudi-GCC counter to Gaza-Lebanon-Syria-Iran with the ultimate aim of destroying all opponents of the US-Israel-Saudis, especially Iran.

  354. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says: November 23, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    Rubbish!

    There is no chance of NATO attack on Syria from Libya.

    If NATO plans on attacking Syria there are closer airfields: in Crete for example.

  355. Photi says:

    Sassan,

    Piss off.

  356. Sassan says:

    lol. We now have people on here citing Hitler as a source and legitimate voice of reason? Unbelievable..

  357. Photi says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    James,

    You said:

    “William Hague believes the Saudis would build nukes if Iran does. He of course has been talking to them and should know the score.”

    Assuming this to be true, and this hypothetical Saudi nuclear program gets off the ground, how soon before they cave to “international” pressure to halt their nuclear program?

    As Dr. Larijani states, the Saudis are welcomed and encouraged by the Iranians to pursue such science. It is the science that is the most interesting, Iranian leadership clearly states they see little utility in the science’s weaponization.

    Nuclear SCIENCE will lead to many more discoveries down the road, and that is what Iran is interested in so it is only logical they encourage more openness generally in the nuclear science (as i understood Dr. Larijani).

    The Iranians do not have weapon envy, that domain is an American obsession.

  358. Unknown Unknowns says:

    VoT & BiB:

    The Fuhrer tells it like it is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfWe8qVabsE&feature=related

    Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

  359. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sassan says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    ” … foundational”

    Pretty big word for a ten year old.

  360. pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    James;
    Actually 4% is the significantly increased state of the chinese wages! And even right now they are talking about that this level of wages is not sustainable and unless the wages start to stagnate (in china) their trend of growth will slow down. It would be perhaps of interest for you to know that the share of wages from the over all GDP is falling in China! So believe it or not the “chinese miracle” like all other miracles is bogus and the prosperity is only for a small part of the chinese population at the cost of the vast majority of the Chinese.

    Look, it is a very long subject. Let me cut it short and give you the gist of my idea. It is a zero sum game. In order for each one person to live in Japanese standards tens or maybe hundreds of people have to live in abject poverty. So just because Japan or S. Korea have prospered, it doesn’t mean that majority of the global population can prosper if they do their economy the “right way”.

    There is a very famouse quote from Gandhi. A reporter once asked him if he was having economic prosperity and “development” (the British way) for India in his mind, and if that was what he was promising his people. Gandhi’s answer was very interesting, he said “No of course not. It is not our plan to make our people as prosperous as the British. If it took the British -with their tiny population- to rob and plunder half of the globe to “develop” how many globes does India have to rob and plunder to “develop”? ” (By the way I have paraphrased his words, I am too lazy to search the internet for his exact verbatim)

  361. Castellio says:

    Fiorangela, yes!

  362. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 23, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Rubbish.

    There is no human resource in SA.

  363. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    The British think any western troop presence in Libya would be a mistake.

    Excoabar is quite right that some fanatical supporters of Israel see events in Syria as potentially exposing Hezbollah to attack.

    And there are some foolish Americans who would love to obtain a large military base in Libya.

  364. James Canning says:

    William Hague, Nov. 22nd “Britain and Turkey: a new special relationship”:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/8906161/Britain-and-Turkey-a-new-special-relationship.html

  365. Fiorangela says:

    Very impressive presentation by Stephen Kinzer, at a NIAC conference in California last month.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxFmzu1HI58&feature=related
    this link is part 1. Part 2 is even more touching and impressive.
    :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBKlOi_7LOU&feature=related

  366. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Wage scale in China is moving up quickly in areas where factories have been in place for comparatively long time.

    I can remember when a Japanese worker was paid one-tenth what an American worker was paid, for same work. Those days are long gone.

    Does is matter if the employer is a Chinese company, if the workers are Turks? A Chinese company is not likely to pay more for the same work than a company based in Italy, or Russia for that matter.

  367. Pepe Escobar makes clear the game plan for Syria:

    That rocky road to Damascus
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK24Ak01.html

    The critical point: 20,000 NATO troops to be stationed in Libya – which no doubt will include air bases for NATO aircraft to enable an attack on Syria.

    By this time next year, I suspect, the US and EU will be bombing Syria (without UN approval since Russia and China will veto any such resolution), and Israel will invade Lebanon through Syria territory.

    Some time after that, the war with Iran – assuming the wars on Syria and Lebanon don’t turn into full-scale disasters for the US and Israel – which could happen. If it does, that may delay the war with Iran.

  368. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Your viewpoint on Syria is sound.

  369. Fiorangela says:

    Castellio, do you mean Rafeef Ziadah?

  370. pirouz_2 says:

    James;
    I think what government is to rule syria is syrians business (however they settle it down) and not Turks (or Iranians or LEAST OF ALL the Wests) business.
    Personally I prefer that people go to free elections in Syria and “IF” Asad looses, that he would transfer the power to who ever wins the elections gracefully and STAY IN POLITICS for the next round of elections.

  371. pirouz_2 says:

    James;
    The economic structure that I support is fundamentally different from the capitalist economy. I wouldn’t throw my citizens on the global labour market as the “cheap labour” and call it comparative advantage, so that they would be used as the work horse for the global capital so that they would produce goods for the western consumers and create profit for the western (and local) fat cats.
    What’s your problem with that? Are you one of the wealthy 1% in the West? Are you trying to make a multi-billion investment and are looking for DIRT CHEAP labour (Chinas wages are 4% of the US wages) to make hefty profits? Do you want unemployment to rise even further and further in your country so that the jobs would come to middle east’s dirt cheap labour market (at the cost of immiseration of my people) so that the wealthy 1% in your country can prosper some more?

  372. Castellio says:

    Fiorangela, talking about young intellectuals and where the best of the tradition might live, have you seen the video of the young female Palestinian poet who uses the refrain “I was TV massacred”.

    Perhaps someone here has the link and her name?

  373. Fiorangela says:

    ps.

    In his work at Princeton, Wright is apparently not expected to support statements such as “Iran is irrational, suicidal and evil” with actual facts, observation, or consideration of American or even civilizational standards for forming judgments.

  374. Fiorangela says:

    Sassan says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Bloggingheads

    Robert Wright, graduate of and professor at Princeton. writes books about god, dabbles in sociobiology, religion, and rolling his eyes distractedly while ignoring what the other person is saying

    Heather Hurlburt, graduate of Brown, masters from GW. Speechwriter for Bill Clinton. Has taken independent and minority positions against war to which no one paid any attention. Did I mention that she was against the war but nobody of importance noticed?

    America’s future intellectual elite.

    Now I AM scared.

  375. Castellio says:

    Eric, I certainly think public opinion has an important role in any nation’s history. And, with Arnold, I agree that opinions created now will affect attitudes later.

    My comment wasn’t directed there. It was an attempt to minimize faith that the American people determine American military policy.

    You give an example suggesting that the voters in 2004 had forgiven Bush for his mistake of not knowing there were no WMD in Iraq, and that if he had told the truth “we knew they weren’t there but wanted to invade for other reasons” then he wouldn’t have been elected.

    Your argument is of this nature: its true that the American public can be easily manipulated, but its important that they be manipulated for the elite to succeed with their plans. Hence, arguments used to block the manipulation are arguments which can block the plans of the elite.

    But in the example you give, isn’t it worth noting that Bush actually didn’t win the vote in 2004? The fact is that the Supreme Court decided on the President by running contrary to the will of the people of Florida (and the US).

    I am all for arguments that run counter to and obstruct the desires of a financial – political elite whose foreign policy is rooted in racism, I just don’t think that those arguments are improved by over-estimating the democratic reality of America today.

    On the contrary, I think it important that people realize, truly grasp, that the US is not a functioning democracy at the federal level.

  376. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    James Canning, Saudi Arabia DOES want nuclear technology. Full Stop.
    It has nothing to do with Iran. Fool stop.
    It has to do with SA recognition that their petroleum industry will not supply the peninsula forever. Full stop.
    Even tyrants know they have to look to the future of their people and make practical decisions.

    ____________

    Sassan says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    or should I address sasss1 ?
    Before you make your next video, rehearse the script a few times. Sounds like you hired a dyslexic high school sophomore to do the voiceover. Or are YOU that high school sophomore?

  377. Fara says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Well said, Arnold.
    I don’t understand why James gives any credit to this Saudi monarchy as an independent entity. They have huge amount of money and have been building fancy universities under the western universities’ directions. I always wonder how come they haven’t made any considerable achievements. The current stones of Saudi Arabia are not established for technological achievements, or any acomplishments at all. The monarchy would do anything to stay in power. One may wonder why the members of royal family hire foreigners as their bodygaurds.

  378. paul says:

    I know you just forgot to mention it, Canning, but Hague is the british foreign secretary and thus obviously not to be trusted.

    So isn’t it great that Obama is on the verge of yet another war? God, give that man six nobel peace prizes.

  379. Karl says:

    It was a good interview, however it was more or less a rerun of the 2010 interview.

    Iran should try to get more english speaking spokesmen to get their views out in the western world, that will counter israeli-warmongering-lies-threats agenda.

  380. Sassan says:

    “BussedinBasiji”: Any individual who defends this brutal and illegal regime is by nature anti-Iranian. You are nothing but a kesafat who has contributed to the rape and pillage of our homeland. Your empty words mean nothing as it is your kind that is the enemy of all the Iranian people and stands in the way of freedom, democracy, and human rights.

    Here is a video everyone must watch on the Islamic Republic’s foundational history of overseas terror: http://youtu.be/cYFRR7hwQf4

  381. Arnold Evans says:

    James:

    Do you think if it was put to a vote among the population of Saudi Arabia, or if Saudi Arabia’s leaders were elected and accountable to their people, Iran’s nuclear program would demand as much of a response from that country as Israel’s?

    The reason Saudi Arabia has not responded to Israel’s program is the reason Saudi Arabia would not respond to Iran’s program. There is no internal strategic calculus going on. There is just order-taking from the US and, indirectly, Israel.

    Or not. What do you think is the internal strategic calculus, if you think there is some.

  382. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    William Hague believes the Saudis would build nukes if Iran does. He of course has been talking to them and should know the score.

  383. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Saudi Arabia can pay for whatever it wants. Including a nuclear programme even if entire work force is foreign.

  384. James Canning says:

    Speaking in Pakdesht, nr Tehran, Ahmadinejad said: “They [West] tells us, you should prove you don’t have atomic bombs. How can something that does not exist be proved?”

  385. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 23, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Rubbish!

    Only Algeria and Egypt (a distant second) among Arab states have the capacity to do so.

    There will never be tranfer of any nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia or any other Arab state.

  386. James Canning says:

    “Israeli lobbies dragging US into wars”:

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/211743.html

  387. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Saudi Arabia does not want nukes. Full stop. But if Iran were to build nukes, Saudi Arabia would do so also.

  388. Fiorangela says:

    The Charlie Rose-Larijani interview compelled me to listen to an earlier Charlie Rose interview, with Robert Kagan (tomorrow I’ll eat homemade pie and cleanse the palate).

    Kagan’s remarks suggest that there are several concepts about Jewish history, that are different from non-Jewish collective concepts about history as well as different from how non-Jewish people understand Jewish history. As one Jewish historian explained, most non-Jews think Jews came out of Egypt, wandered in the desert, got the Ten Commandments, Jesus was born, then Jews kinda disappeared from history and Christianity took over.

    The ___ concepts I think are important flesh out that Sunday-school notion of the Jewish people.
    First, Jewish history began in Babylon. Even the name “Jew,” derived from Yehud, was placed on the people whom Nebuchadnezzar exiled to Babylon, most likely by Persians, after Cyrus conquered Nebuchadnezzar.
    Second, In Babylon, under Cyrus, Yehud were treated quite well; most Jews did not wish to leave and only 40% returned to Jerusalem, where Cyrus and his successors provided financial support for Yehud for over two centuries. The main concept here is, Yehud, in its new identity as a distinct people, learned to rely on the reigning authority, NOT on the demos. This is critically important and punctuates Jewish being-in-the-world in the various states where Jews dwelt and thrived (as they also thrived in Babylon/Persia, where many gained great wealth, most likely by participation in ‘Silk Road’ trade as well as banking, yes, banking, in the 4th century BCE).
    Jews in the Roman Empire had a special relationship with the Roman authorities, but, as is the nature of Jewish life from the time of Isaiah, kept themselves separate from all other people. Jews always considered themselves a people apart from their point of view and their practice.
    In Europe dominated by the Roman Catholic church after the fall of Rome, Jews relied on various popes to protect them and intercede for them should they find themselves set upon by the demos or other provincial rulers. Counterintuitive but true; Jews relied on the Roman Church; see Cultures of the Jews, ed. by Daniel Biales.
    Jews and Muslims in Andalusia worked together. Jews call their time on the Spanish continent their “Golden Age.”
    Jews migrated to Poland under an agreement with Poland’s then monarch, Boleslaus III in the early eleventh century. Jews acted as middle-men and overlords for the monarchy; they were not close to the people of Poland, but did rely on the governing authority for status and protection. Relations with the hoi poiloi were never a Jewish strong suit.

    These concepts, that Jews ally themselves with the authority of a place, rather than with the people, and that Jews keep themselves apart from the general population, came to mind when Kagan explained to Charlie Rose that, while “the US” handled Iraq very badly and harmed its moral authority, “I still don’t have an easy time saying, I wish Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq.” [at 12:24 here. Maybe Kagan is pleased that Saddam is not in power in Iraq, but 4 or 5 million Iraqis might have a different opinion. But their opinion does not concern Kagan.

    Mitch McConnell and Mark Kirk and Brad Sherman — and, apparently, Wesley Clarke, among a host of others — are eager to “change the regime” in Iran, and they are as willing to cause suffering among the Iranian people to do so (see :https://secure3.convio.net/niac/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=189&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=vvremkf6y2.app331b) as Madeleine Albright was willing to do so among Iraqis: from their point of view, “the price is worth it.” And why wouldn’t it be; from their perspective, the price is Zero.

    What I would like to know, however, is who is envisioned to replace the regime in Iran that folks like Kirk and Sherman are willing to cause suffering among Iranians to bring about? I suspect they haven’t thought about that.

    And that leads to a third generalization about Jewish history: Jewish people have no experience of successfully establishing a state, a government, an independent, self-constructed working economy. None.

  389. fyi says:

    Voice of Tehran says: November 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    2006 was another such occasion, as Mr. Khamenei’s speech indicated at that time.

  390. Fiorangela says:

    Charlie finds it difficult to move away from demanding that Iran “prove a negative.”

    At about 8.30 min Rose insists that “Iran concealed” weapons development. Larijani explains, No, that is not the case; here’s how it happened . . . At about 11.30 Rose drove back to the same point, as if a conclusion and his point has been validated. Cheap.

    In Dec 2009, Richard Silverstein convened a panel to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. Panelists were former AIPAC operativev Keith Weissman; University of Pennsylvania professor of Political Science Ian Lustick; and Muhammad Sahimi, an engineer, who explained how Iran sought permission to proceed with a certain phase of nuclear research, US withheld permission, so Iran crafted a means of conforming to the letter of the law in order to pursue the research. :http://www.edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv

    Rose at 17.00: “If Iran has a nuclear weapon then others in the region will want one. Do you want to see Saudi Arabia get a nuclear weapon?”

    {Implicit in Rose’s question is that there is enmity between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Larijani cuts the legs off of that presumption}:

    Larijani: “A nuclear weapon or nuclear technology?
    Rose: “Technology.”
    Larijani: “Yes, certainly; we would help them.”

    Remember, Larijani has just said, Of course knowledge of nuclear technology can lead to its use as a weapon.” So he must recognize that Saudi Arabia in possession of nuclear technology = Saudi Arabia in possession of knowledge to create a nuclear weapon. And he’s not troubled by the possibility.
    Which is a good thing, and a realistic attitude, since, as Larijani probably knows and Rose certainly should know, Saudi Arabia is committed to acquiring nuclear technology and the United States knows this — or at least Australian historian on US diplomatic history and author Andrew Cooper knows that Saudi Arabia seeks to acquire nuclear technology; Cooper said so in a discussion about his book, “The Oil Kings,” recorded and televised for a C Span audience on Sept 21 2011. (at about 38 min.) :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/andrewcooper

    23 min: Rose, “The Libya rebels clearly asked for the help and were grateful for the help.”

    Yes and no. Bernard Henri Levy played a crucial role. It is important to include that information in the narrative inasmuch as Henri Levy is unwelcome by most in the Middle East — :http://www.bariatwan.com/index.asp?fname=2011%5C07%5C07-10%5C5%20july%202011-11-40-43.htm&storytitle=%20Bernard-Henri%20L%E9vy%20infiltrates%20the%20Syrian%20opposition –> Henri Levy was not welcome in Tunis and is not welcome in Syria:
    QUOTE: “Any person who participates in Lévy’s conference will be accused of being one of those implementing foreign agendas; one who does not wish Syria well and does not wish Arabs and Muslims in eneral well. This figure who considers the Israeli army occupying Arab territories in Palestine, the Golan, and Lebanon the most humane in the world and who fiercely defends the use of white phosphorous to kill Gaza’s children and civilians cannot pretend that the interest of Syria, its people, and its legitimate uprising demanding freedom and dignity tops his agenda.” CLOSE QUOTE

    h/t :http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/bernard-henri-levy-insists-settlements-are-not-colonies-but-minute-implantations.html/comment-page-1#comment-394236

    27 min: Larijani: “Islam is reviving itself; it is coming to the life much more than before. It is revived in the social life.”

    31 min. on the point that Wesley Clarke made in his appearance on C Span Wash Journal Nov 23, 2011, that “Iran’s government should not delude themselves that they could be attacked by US/Israel,” Rose asked Larijani, “Do you believe that Israel will attack Iran?”
    Larijani: “We don’t believe it but we are ready for it.”
    Rose: “What would you do?”
    Larijani: “Oh, we are very strong.”
    Rose: “Would it put America at risk?”
    Larijani: [paraphrase] It’s hard to separate America and Israel. “I cannot swallow that Israel would act without United States’ permission. That would be a great humiliation for the United States. I cannot swallow that, but I don’t know.”

  391. Voice of Tehran says:

    kooshy says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    “”It’s much easier to buy the majority of the US citizens then to convince them with BS, and if there is not enough money to buy them one can always pepper spray them.”"

    There is no money left , not for 320 million people , this casino is closed.
    If one assumes that 9/11 was a giant deception ( which it was !) , then consequently Home Security , TSA ,NSA and many other populace control institutions were planned and created according to an accurate pre-scripted agenda.
    Thus your statement regarding ‘pepper spray’ , of course on a much bigger scale is valid.

  392. kooshy says:

    fyi and others say:

    November 23, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    “My understanding, based on public sources, was that the US National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 was deliberately leaked to destroy the momentum for war with Iran.”

    Quite understandably that what the releasing by leaking the NIE was supposed to do for the domestic consumer’s built-up expectations, and indeed it did, they were convinced that the can be kicked up for now. The technique that usually is used for pressure making propaganda war always includes an antidote for reducing the domestic expectation if a bluff did not persuade the adversary. And I think that was the avenue that was used with leaking the NIE, regardless of who and how it was leaked domestically it safely saved the western governments face in lieu of their own rhetoric to scare Iran.

  393. Voice of Tehran says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    “”My understanding, based on public sources, was that the US National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 was deliberately leaked to destroy the momentum for war with Iran.”"

    fyi , If you recall the live televised debates ( which by the way was the most supidest idea ever in election campaigns ) before the 2009 elections , Ahmadinejad took a very hostile stand towards Moussavi and Karoubi .
    However AN’s debate with Rezaei was quite interesting and the tone was relatively friendly.
    In some segments they even accidentally called themselves by their first names.
    It was regarding a security issue , when Rezaei told AN in a very intimate tone that he should not forget that the country was close to war 3 times in the last couple of years and as the former chief of the IRGC he should know better than anyone else.
    One of those 3 cases could be the war momentum in 2007 , which was ‘spoiled’ by the NIE report.
    Does anyone have an idea regarding the 2 other was scenarios ? I never could find anything concerning this issue.

  394. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    Re: manipulation of “legalities” to set up illegal war. Let’s remember that American newspapers aided and abetted the neocon conspiracy to set up illegal invasion of Iraq. To some degree they were “played”; to some degree they were actual co-conspirators in deceiving the American people.

  395. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Yes, I have been following the banking scandal in Iran.

    And surely it would benefit the people of Iran to have more wealth available for investment in other countries.

  396. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    I agree with you on this – a rare thing indeed.

    It is the fault of Iranian leaders whose pseudo-socialistic economic policies ruined the private sector and created the bloated state sector.

    And now of course you might have heard about the $ 3 billion embezzlement in Iran, no doubt?

    A billion of that could have gone into investments into Turkey; buying influence and making more money.

    Another billion could have gone into Venture Capital Funds to foster innovation and new business ventures.

    Another billion could have been used to capitalize private banks and insurance companies.

    As is, no one is stating where the money is gone.

    This was not EU-EU Axis’s doing; this was the same old pattern of Middle Eastern theft and graft re-asserting itself.

  397. James Canning says:

    Liz,

    I think your warning to foolish Americans who think an attack on Iran would be welcomed by the people of that country, is sound.

  398. James Canning says:

    kooshy,

    American proponents of endless war to benefit Israel certainly did not want to raise taxes to pay for those wars. Instead, they promoted a “feel-good” economy, as you say. Based on unsustainable economic policies. So the wars would go on.

  399. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    Yes, it seems fair to say Gaddafi allowed his over-inflated ego to bring disaster to himself, his family and to Libya. He had plenty of sound advice from Europeans hoping to avoid civil war and western military intervention.

  400. Liz says:

    There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic enjoys popular support and Americans should not underestimate Iranian popular response to aggression.

  401. kooshy says:

    Well, in my opinion if the US regime ever needs to convince the US citizen to take the country to another war, say even with France what is more effective for them to form the US public opinion is not just more propaganda but rather is having Bernanke to print more money and making it easy for people to come and take it in form of easy refinancing, student loans, cheap chines household goods, etc. Didn’t we get something like a 0.25% bank rate from the Feds, for no Duc. 3% Mortgages rates just in the middle of war with Afghanistan and before the start of the Iraq war, the same wars that we still are financing by the Chinese Loans?

    It’s much easier to buy the majority of the US citizens then to convince them with BS, and if there is not enough money to buy them one can always pepper spray them.

  402. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Do you think Turkey should support the Syrian gov’t?

  403. James:

    “Gaddafi virtually dared “the west” to intervene on behalf of the rebels. Huge blunder on his part (and Seif al-Islam’s).”

    I’ve long sensed you agree with my main point here. If Gaddafi had just quietly gone about re-occupying Benghazi, without boasting that he would track down all the rebel “rats” and kill them, he’d still be running the show. He could have promised to listen respectfully to the rebels after things had quieted down (and I think he would have been wise to do so), and he then could have made appropriate changes without giving up power – probably much less than the rebels would have liked but enough to keep NATO or the UN from intervening. That would have been much better for Gaddafi and, more important, much better for the Libyan people.

    It struck me that Gaddafi had been around so long that he’d not noticed, or perhaps had affirmatively chosen to ignore, that some reforms were called for. Most Libyan people probably wanted some reforms, including some or many of those the rebels were pushing for. What they didn’t want, though, was NATO bombing their country, forcing them to accept as leaders a bunch of blood-thirsty rebels who’d been pushed aside in earlier years and now saw their chance to gain the power, and seek the vengeance, they’d so long been denied.

    Unfortunately, that’s what the Libyan people got. And, as you say, Gaddafi could have prevented that by not “daring” NATO to attack him.

  404. LOYAL says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:37 pm
    kooshy says: November 23, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    My understanding, based on public sources, was that the US National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 was deliberately leaked to destroy the momentum for war with Iran.

    ….
    ….

    Leak came from Retired Adm. William Fallon side.

  405. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Sasan
    A pimple on MJ Larijani’s ass is more beneficial to humanity than your entire pathetic life will ever be. Don’t ever forget that ;-)

    Also the only “boy” here is you. When I was a “boy”, God gave us the opportunity to do something for our beautiful and beloved homeland, something which you will never have the balls to do, ever. Most of my friends went but I’m still here dealing with shitty little arrogant assholes like you. God knows you is a real Iranian patriot and who isn’t.

  406. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    You seriously advocate a policy of seeking economic stagnation, lack of opportunity for young Turks, etc etc etc?

  407. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Thanks for linking Seymour Hersh’s excellent comments. They have not received the attention they deserve.

  408. pirouz_2 says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    “Since 90% of direct foreign investment in Turkey comes from EU countries, are you actually suggesting Turkey could benefit itself by being hostile to “the west”?”

    Hmmmm… “hostile” wouldnt be the exact word that I would use, but yes… you came pretty close to what I suggest James.

    In fact I would do everything in my power to get foreign investments out of my country if I were a Turk.

  409. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    In 2002, warmongers arranged (conspired) for a false NIE on Iraq to set up the illegal invasion of that country. In 2007, the 16 US intelligence agencies refused to allow idiot warmongers to do the same thing with Iran.

  410. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Re: getting truth out on Israel/Palestine. Gershon Gorenberg in new bood (“The Unmaking of Israel”) says: “The settlement enterprise was a multipronged assault on the rule of law.” Many American Jews comprehend that foolish American policies toward Israel are undermining the Israeli democracy.

  411. fyi says:

    kooshy says: November 23, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    My understanding, based on public sources, was that the US National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 was deliberately leaked to destroy the momentum for war with Iran.

    I concluded that a minoriy faction in US opposed war with Iran.

    Since they could not directly oppose it, they leaked the intelligence estimate.

    I agree with you that the UNSC aim was to scare and to shame Iranians into surrendering their NPT rights.

    When that did not happen, they had to raise the stakes.

    And in 2006 Mr. Khamenei stated the “..I am ready again to put on fatigues to defend Iran…”

    But us always had teh capacity to wage war during that period.

  412. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    Of course I agree with your comment to Costellion about importance of US public opinion. UK and French public opinion are also important re: ME. Gaddafi virtually dared “the west” to intervene on behalf of the rebels. Huge blunder on his part (and Seif al-Islam’s).

  413. James Canning says:

    kooshy,

    I think you have things backward; the 2007 NIE on Iran blocked the insane attack warmongers like Dick Cheney wished to push forward.

  414. James Canning says:

    Fara,

    The so-called “missile defence” system in Eastern Europe is largely a scam by “defence” contractors, compliant congressmen, etc. But I am glad Russia continues to oppose it. It is inherently a scheme to demonise Iran and scr*w the American taxpayers.

  415. James Canning says:

    pirouz_2,

    Since 90% of direct foreign investment in Turkey comes from EU countries, are you actually suggesting Turkey could benefit itself by being hostile to “the west”?

  416. Fara says:

    Russia will hit US missile sites if no deal

    Quote:

    Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will target US missile defense sites in Europe if Washington goes ahead with the planned shield despite Moscow’s concerns.

    Medvedev said on Wednesday that he will deploy strike systems in the west and south of Russia, and deploy Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region in order to counter the risk posed by the European missile defense system, Russia Today reported.

    “By my order the Defense Ministry will run in a warning system radar station in Kaliningrad without delay,” the Russian president said.

    “In the event of unfavorable developments (in regards to European missile defense), Russia reserves the right to halt further steps in the disarmament sphere and, respectively, weapons control,” Medvedev said.

    He added, “Besides, given the inseparable interconnection between the strategic offensive and defensive weapons, grounds may appear for our country’s withdrawal from the START treaty.”

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211689.html

  417. kooshy says:

    fyi says:

    November 23, 2011 at 10:26 am

    “The Americans could have attacked Iran anytime between 2003 to 2009.”

    In my opinion the high noon to attack Iran should have been right after the 2nd UNSC resolution 1737 which was passed back in December 0f 2006, 1737 like the prior resolution was immediately and entirely rejected by Iran, making a possible opportunity for western alliance to formulate an attack on Iran for failure to comply with two UN resolutions, by spring of 07 which militarily is the best time for military adventures in an ME theater. The timing of the passage of the resolution before spring was to be noticed as a message by the Iranians which as usual they did respond with a military maneuver.

    But by now I am sure that the first two UNSC resolutions were meant to scare the Iranians to concede to western demands, which they didn’t, so to save face for the failure of the UNSC authority, as well as the widely propagated possible consequential military action by the western alliance to enforce the resolution, the US planers come up with the 2007 NIE, which it’s release was deliberately and highly publicized to save face for the failure to enforce the western introduced UNSC resolution with an expected military action to change Iran’s posture since the propagated threat of a consequential military action was not achievable. Basically the NIE was a way to say why Iran is not yet an eminent military threat therefore no hard action is necessary at least not yet.

    Since then all the UNSC resolutions against Iran are just that and statement by bunch of western countries not being happy with Iran’s political posture.

  418. Rehmat says:

    CIA, Mossad and MI6: Behind regime-change in Syria

    Russia has accused the west of exacerbating the already tense situation in Syria. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says calls for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime are nothing but a provocation. The Russian FM reaffirmed Moscow’s stance on Syria: Russia wants to see both sides coming together to discuss peacefully how to lead the country out of crisis. This is not the first time the Russian FM has leveled accusations at the west regarding Syria. When the Arab League made its decision to expel the country, Mr Lavrov suggested the “shadowy hand of western powers” was behind the move.

    ­British Israel-Firster Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Monday the international community would do its best to turn up the heat on Syria.

    Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Bashar al-Assad that his days as Syrian leader were numbered and he cannot remain in power indefinitely with the help of the military force.

    Webster G. Tarpley PhD, one of America’s renowned journalist, author and blogger. In a recent interview he gave to Russian Television RT, he clamed that CIA, Mossad and MI6 were behind the militant insurgency in Syria. Watch video below.

    The West is doing its best to destabilize the situation in Syria, author and journalist Webster Tarpley told RT. According to him, civilians have to deal with death squads and blind terrorism, which is typical of the CIA.

    “What average Syrians of all ethnic groups say about this is that they are being shot at by snipers. People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war – it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it’s a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it’s got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar,” he explained.

    He added that Syrian society is the most tolerant society in the Middle East, the one place where all kinds of people live together in remarkable harmony, Muslims and Christians of all kinds.

    “After Libya becoming a bloodbath with 150.000 dead and now with Egypt showing what it was all along – there was no revolution there, it was a complete failure and now people are beginning to understand that. Still, Hillary Clinton and Ms Rice (sic) continue to push this bankrupt model of the colour revolution, backed up by terrorist troops – people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a growing movement inside the Islamic community, which says ‘We want reconciliation, we want law and order, and we want legality’,” he said.

    http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/cia-mossad-and-mi6-behind-regime-change-in-syria/

  419. pirouz_2 says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Also Arnold, it is in relevance to the subject that a policy of “by doing the US/West’s bidding, we can get them to reward us with more and more regions of influence in this region” has been very popular with many Turkish politicians (across the political spectrum including social democrats and cetre left) for many years (to be precise after 1983). It happened in Caucasus and central Asia (in the 90s), and it also happened during the war in Bosnia. In fact Bulent Ecevit very openly talked about this.
    The only part of the political spectrum which has been rabidly against this policy in Turkey was the radical left which unfortunately has very little support.

  420. Empty says:

    Arnold,

    RE:Which brings up the subject of Turkey. Last year at this time, there seemed to be a lot more tension between Turkey and NATO than had existed during the cold war. Today, Turkey is very vigorously going along with the US’ program to pressure Assad which creates the impression that Turkish concerns with the West have been mollified. I’m not sure by what though. Maybe Saudi Arabia came in an offered a whole lot of money. I honestly don’t have a better theory than that.

    I think Turkey is pursuing a policy of “one hit to the horseshoe, one hit to the nail.” That is, it is trying to play both sides and financially profit from trying to balance the two. For example, it would try to push Syria just enough to ensure money flows in but not so much that Assad will collapse (such collapse would make Turkey’s role on this subject irrelevant). Turkey appears to think it can milk this cow for a while and would do a lot to ensure Assad neither falls nor caves in. That’s what I am guessing about Turkey.

    RE: If that’s true, one can carry that to the conclusion that Iran should focus on building its ability to kill as massive an amount of US troops in retaliation as possible, ensuring that the US military knows of this ability and nobody in Iran need bother say anything.

    Iran believes its deterrent capabilities are in both hard- and software. It will promote both and will not sacrifice one at the expense of the other. That has been the stated goal of Ayatollah Khamenei for the past 20+ years and has vigorously pursued it.

  421. fyi says:

    Liz says: November 23, 2011 at 11:48 am

    There are tens of millions of people that are very unhappy with the way they are governed in Iran.

    There is no doubt in my mind that is the case.

    Had the Iranian authorities tried to dismantle the most egregious aspects of this Islamic Nekbat (Disaster), they would have eliminated substantial sources of dissent in that country.

  422. pirouz_2 says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Arnold while cannot make a definitive argument, I do have some “guesses” as to why:

    1) Turkey wants to increase its regional influence and power (one has to remember that all these arab countries were once under the Ottomans, and MANY Turks still dream about those days). And in such ambitions, it is in a rivalry with Iran. So Turkey may want to take out an ally of Iran and turn it into its own ally. And to help them in their cause they easily collaborate with the western imperialism.

    2) Turkey has a large Alavi poppulation (some 20-25% of its population) which have been brutally oppressed/assimilated for centuries. Mr. Erdogan draws a very big part of his support (in fact “most of his support” may be even a better phrase) from Sunni fanatics who hate Alavis and do not even consider them as “muslims”.

    3) Along the lines of your own suspicion: there was a great deal of monetary support from Saudies to Refah Party (in the 80′s and 90′s). According to some people that relationship still continues between Saudies and AKP.

    4) AKP is very much in favour of full-fledged capitalism in Turkey and its complete integration with the global capital. As such it can never oppose the western imperialism in a meaningful way; on the contrary it quite often collaborates with it.

  423. fyi says:

    Arnold Evans says: November 23, 2011 at 11:40 am

    I think that with the end of Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey gained a lot more space for independent action.

    I think the shortcoming has been with Iran, she is not wealthy enough to finance Turkey’s needs.

    And Iran is not wealthy enough because of these damned anti-capitalist, anti-private-sector fools that set the Iran’s economic policy after the Iranian Revolution; running the state as an Islamic Charity.

  424. Interested says:

    Karl

    Have no doubt. They will be destroyed.

  425. Karl says:

    Liz:

    “What will they do when all the oil and gas wells in the
    Persian Gulf and Central Asia are destroyed, the Strait of Hormuz closed,
    and all oil tankers destroyed?”

    Destroyed? Please, dont overestimate the military power of Iran, they are no match for military powers like Israel, America, UK etc.

    Doesnt seems logical neither destroying the oil business since its where Iran gets its money from.

  426. Arnold Evans says:

    To deter a US attack:

    Eric raises an interesting point: if words can’t deter a US attack, then what’s the point?

    Alan Kuperman last year wrote that the US should attack. The US did not attack.

    I’ve always said that Iran’s real deterrence is military, the ability of Iran to respond to an attack by killing, especially, US uniformed troops.

    If that’s true, one can carry that to the conclusion that Iran should focus on building its ability to kill as massive an amount of US troops in retaliation as possible, ensuring that the US military knows of this ability and nobody in Iran need bother say anything.

    And that raises the question, both for me and for Kuperman, why talk at all.

    I don’t think Barack Obama can be convinced in time to prevent him from attacking. But I think there is a generation of US policymakers forming now that will be in power in future decades and that generation can be more or less hostile to Iran. That generation can be more or less willing to view the Middle East from an Israel-first perspective.

    Barack Obama’s position is not strategically sound or endemic to the United States. It is the result of previous generations being trained in an environment where only advocates for Israel had a voice. I would be embarrassed to be Obama, but I have no intention of persuading him to change sides.

    Preventing Barack Obama from attacking Iran, or the next president can be done only by ensuring that the US will gain little and lose a lot from an attack. And ensuring that US policymakers are aware of this. So far Iran is doing this well.

    Establishing relations with the US in the next generation can be influenced by things that are said today.

    What if Larijani had pressed Rose on legal nuclear weapons capability – asking what exactly makes Iran different from Japan, and then easily shooting down Rose’s answers as incoherent?

    That certainly would have had no impact on Obama. Of course. By no means would legality be a deterrent for Obama. I think that goes without saying. Nothing Larijani said will deter Obama. If deterring Obama was the goal, Larijani wasted a plane ticket flying to New York.

    But Charlie Rose does not want to say Iran should be held to a different standard for Israel’s sake because that is not consistent with the values the US claims to uphold. Somebody at my blog said that would make the US “the bad guy” by US standards, according to the US moral system.

    When Kuperman says Iran is the bad guy and Larijani argues, I think persuasively, that the US is the bad guy, the next generation is being shaped, at the margin, in a less pro-Israel/anti-Iran direction than Kuperman is working for.

    Not deterrence, certainly not deterrence of this generation or of Obama or of Obama’s successor, but if there’s a reason to talk at all, and I think there is, it is for gains further in the future.

  427. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 23, 2011 at 11:32 am

    You are misreading and attributing too much to the Shia-Sunni divide.

    Iranians are holding the Center of a Shia Mountain Fortress.

    But they have wrapped themselves in the flag of Islam and helping Sunnis against the pro-American governments.

    This dynamic has been going for several decades.

    Whether the Sunni Fundamentalist states that will inevitably replace the pro-American ones become virulently anti-Shia or not is still not quite predictable.

    In my opinion, they will not be so – but that is just an opinion.

    Regardless, for Iranians the replacement of US-EU oriented states by more representative states will be sufficient.

    It will reduce harmful pressure on them and reduce or eliminate threats against Iran.

    At any rate, Iranians are not pushing a Shia-only agenda – they are playing for removal US-EU influence etc.

  428. Thanks, Pirouz_2,

    I’m going to have to look back at that portion of the Charlie Rose interview. I certainly agree that Charlie Rose scored a point there, but I recall thinking that it was a point whose premises I strongly disagreed with. My recollection is that Rose’s argument depended on assumptions that NATO’s intervention in Libya was justified because (1) the rebels (aka “the Libyan people”) had asked for NATO’s help; and (2) it had been clear that Gaddafi’s troops were going to slaughter civilians if NATO did not intervene.

    I did not consider the first of those assumptions to be sufficient (since it was far from clear to me, and still is, that the Libyan “people” shared the rebels’ desire that NATO attack their country), and did not consider the second assumption to have been established. As a result, I wasn’t impressed by any argument built on those two shaky premises.

  429. BiBiJon says:

    Déjà vu, there is no such thing!
    ==============================

    Before anything else let me state sincerely that I wish God’s speed for America, and Americans, exactly as I do for all other nations. I pray that Americans succeed economically, politically, scientifically and in every other sense that would lead to genuine and lasting contentment. But, not at anyone else’s expense.

    And, now for the rant:

    Some comments have given “credit, where credit is due” for the US’ “success” in garnering majority votes at the IAEA ‘rebuking’ Iran, and at the UN for the “concocted” assassination plot. Reading the text of these (non-binding) resolutions, it is clear in both cases the resolutions have a sky-is-blue substance/quality to them. Voting for such non-binding resolutions carries no risk — its mildness would ensure Iran won’t get too upset, and there is no point in confronting the US over such wishy-washy resolutions.

    There is no credit due. In fact, imo, the opposite is true. For a great power who has vested so much time/effort/money to censure Iran to a priori realization that a strong anti-Iran resolution would splinter the fair-weather coalition, and wind up self-diluting the wording to what amounts to principles of bleeding obvious — sky is blue — just to avoid exiting the stage in front of a yawning world audience — speaks volumes about the weakness of policies US is pursuing.

    A more charitable reading might be that the Obama administration has not decided whether or not she wishes to burn all bridges to Iran for good. Some harbor hopes of containing the Arab Spring contagion, and even shaping it to suit neoconservative geo-strategic interests. Where such hopes spring eternal, being hawkish on Iran is par for the course.Others see Iran as a last bastion of stability, and most amenable to forgive/forget past hostilities, and turn a new page with the US. It could be this ambivalence/indecision that explains the preference for a ‘simmer’ to a ‘boil.’

  430. Liz says:

    If the US attacks Iran it will lose the war and as time goes by things can
    only get more difficult for the US to initiate conflict. We all know the
    implications of what is happening with the European economies as well as
    the US economy. What will they do when all the oil and gas wells in the
    Persian Gulf and Central Asia are destroyed, the Strait of Hormuz closed,
    and all oil tankers destroyed?

  431. Liz says:

    According to Sassan 90 percent of Iranians are opposed to the Islamic
    Republic and all the polls are wrong because Iranians are terrified of
    expressing their opinion. However, Sassan, who claims to be an Iranian,
    went to visit has grandfather in Iran for a few months and knows the
    opinions of 80 million Iranians.

    Grow up child.

  432. Castellio,

    You perceive inconsistency in my argument about the importance of US public opinion, apparently believing that, if US public opinion can be so easily manipulated, it must not matter.

    I admit that, if US public opinion can be manipulated at will, it’s pointless to argue that it matters. But it’s not quite that bad here. US public opinion indeed is easier to manipulate than I wish it were, but it still requires some effort, and that effort must be made before a politician can take the country to war.

    Bush did not get re-elected in 2004 despite having thumbed his nose at US public opinion before the US attacked Iraq in March 2003. Quite the contrary: he got re-elected because he had made the US public believe that that’s what they wanted, and he still had them believing, as late as November 2004, that that’s what they had wanted.

    People were willing to “forgive” Bush for having been “mistaken” about Iraqi WMD or other pretexts for attacking Iraq. But they wouldn’t have forgiven him if he’d said, instead: “We really don’t think Saddam has any WMD, or that he’s ever had any contact with al Qaeda; nor do we have any other plausible excuse for attacking Iraq. But we’re going to attack Iraq anyway.” Had that been Bush’s stance, US voters indeed would have blamed him when things starting going wrong in Iraq.

    Public opinion mattered, in other words. It still does, and probably always will. Because it still matters, it is worth one’s while to try to make it just a bit more difficult to manipulate. This may be a wasted effort, but it’s about all one can do, and worth a try. It sure beats simply concluding that US public opinion doesn’t matter at all. That strikes me as not only incorrect, but an acknowledgement of utter weakness.

  433. Arnold Evans says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:35 am

    From a strategic point of view, a strategic alliance between Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan is desirable to keep all these non-Muslim adventurers outside of the Lands of Islam.

    I’ve read that Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq reached that conclusion before he was assassinated by the USSR in 1988. Today would seem like a much better environment for this idea than prevailed then.

    Which brings up the subject of Turkey. Last year at this time, there seemed to be a lot more tension between Turkey and NATO than had existed during the cold war. Today, Turkey is very vigorously going along with the US’ program to pressure Assad which creates the impression that Turkish concerns with the West have been mollified. I’m not sure by what though. Maybe Saudi Arabia came in an offered a whole lot of money. I honestly don’t have a better theory than that.

  434. Castellio writes:

    “Also, Eric, I can’t think of one regular here who argues that the US is constrained in its war making madness by legality. Who are you thinking of? Or are you creating a straw man?”

    I wish they were “straw men,” Castellio. But I see it often here. A few weeks back, for example, a commenter asked rhetorically why, amidst all the arguments presented here for the US not to attack Iran, no one seems to mention the simple fact that to do so would be morally wrong.

    Straw man?

    On the question of “nuclear weapons capability,” commenters argue here that Western countries should be called on the carpet to explain why Iran should not have the same “rights” as Japan or Brazil or Germany.

    Straw man?

  435. Karl says:

    fiorangela:

    “Those of us who advocate for Iran are not among the vocal minority; we are the “silent” — and please god, growing “majority.””

    Very true.

    The situation is like how it is in israel/palestine debate.
    While the israeli side do have the power to push their lies, propaganda etc in periodicals, MSM, lobby, politicians etc
    the palestinian side dont have that media/politician-monopoly-privilege but instead have the truth, and are also growing.

  436. Karl says:

    fyi:

    Yes and it exactly because of that like I told you earlier, its a sunni victory. Not a shia (iranian).

  437. Fiorangela says:

    On this day before Thanksgiving, I was looking for some hope, and for something to be thankful for in an atmosphere where war on the Iranian people is becoming ever more likely.

    Those of us who advocate for Iran are not among the vocal minority; we are the “silent” — and please god, growing “majority.”

    The Silent Majority wielded persuasive power a generation ago. Spiro Agnew, who fancied himself the spokesperson for the Silent Majority, was removed from office by the Silent Majority. Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace, at the hands of a “silent majority.”

    The Silent Majority — people who did not seek or gain prominence in media, included brave souls like late Congresswoman from Texas Barbara Jordan. On July 25, 1974, Jordan was a junior member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that was considering whether or not to impeach Richard Nixon for his involvement in the Watergate burglary. Jordan reminded her colleagues on the Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional basis for impeachment, and that “a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” She said that, although the resounding words of the Preamble to the Constitution, We, the People, did not originally include her,

    “My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”
    :http://watergate.info/impeachment/74-07-25_barbara-jordan.shtml

    I recall the galvanizing impact of Barbara Jordan’s Declaration. In a situation where the nation was confronted with widespread corruption in its leadership, Jordan’s words drew the people together around their shared values and legacy — a ration understanding and application of the rule of law.
    When I see Hillary Leverett slicing away rhetoric and applying reason and principle to an analysis of U.S. foreign policy, Barbara Jordan’s example comes to mind.

    Peter Rodino, Jr., Democratic Representative from New Jersey, chaired the Judiciary Committee in which Jordan participated. When he died at age 96, Rodino’s obituary opened with these words:

    “. . .an obscure congressman from the streets of Newark who impressed the nation by the dignity, fairness and firmness he showed as chairman of the impeachment hearings that induced Richard M. Nixon to resign as president . . .” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/nyregion/08rodino.html?pagewanted=all

    These words remind me that courage resides in obscure corners, and they bring to mind the firmness and dignity displayed by Mohammad Larijani.

    There were other quiet but courageous people who managed that national “nightmare,” as Gerald Ford later described it. Judge John Sirica presided over the trials of the Watergate burglars. “Suspecting publicly that the defendants in the first Watergate trials weren’t fully truthful, Sirica took an investigative approach, questioning witnesses and irking critics who said he overstepped his bounds.” Judge Sirica overstepped his bounds in the quest for truth. In a situation where legalisms are manipulated by the perpetrators of evil deeds, such courage is the only salvation from the perpetration of a legal evil.

    Archibald Cox was willing to put his professional reputation on the line in support of Sirica’s mandates, and Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus lost their jobs rather than follow orders to fire Cox from his position as special Watergate prosecutor.

    As events unfolded, on August 9, 1974, Nixon handed over a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Gerald Ford, recently appointed to the vice presidency in place of the disgraced Spiro Agnew, became president and, upon swearing the Oath of Office told the nation:
    :http://watergate.info/ford/ford-swearing-in.shtml

    “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

    Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

    As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process, and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate.”

    In 1974, when powermadness compounded by psychological instability (Nixon was psychologically fragile and frequently drank too many martinis, rendering him belligerent and irrational) corrupted the very heart of American leadership, persons from the Silent Majority rose to the occasion, reaffirmed the principles the United States thinks she stands for, and applied their best abilities to resolve the situation.

    This was supposed to be a hopeful comment, and a Thank You to the courageous men and women who stepped forward in 1974. But it is hard to avoid the realization that in 1974, when the people of the United States celebrated their faith in the ability of a few courageous men and women to fend off domestic Constitutional threats, they simultaneously handed over the reins of power to Ford’s Cabinet –Kissinger, Haig, Rumsfeld, Cheney, George H. Bush at CIA, and Alan Greenspan as chair of Ford’s economic advisers — people who have further corrupted both the domestic and foreign policy values of We the People.

    So it is up to us.

  438. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 23, 2011 at 10:52 am

    Most of these states have no Shia in them.

    Maghreb states, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan have no Shia and you cannot rile them on the Shia-Sunni divide sufficiently to align themselves with Saudis or others.

    Yes, I am certain.

  439. Castellio says:

    Also, Eric, I can’t think of one regular here who argues that the US is constrained in its war making madness by legality. Who are you thinking of? Or are you creating a straw man?

  440. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: November 23, 2011 at 10:41 am

    You are correct and Iranian leaders took US at its words.

    For example, the Guardians of Revolution has been re-organized into multiple semi-autonomous command centers, responsible for the defense of different regions of Iran.

    Bridges have been painted, for example, to camouflage them.

    A number of essential items have been purchased and stored in various parts of Iran.

    The threat of a prolonged war with US was taken very seriously from 2003 and Iranians have been preparing for it. No doubt.

  441. Castellio says:

    You state “Despite what many argue here, American public opinion counts for a very great deal when it comes to the US going to war.”

    But your post, rather than proving or substantiating that statement, goes on to show how easily the legalities of the issue can be manufactured and framed.

    You see no disconnect in your argument?

  442. Pirouz_2 says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:56 am

    Eric;
    What was interesting for me in that exchange during the interview was that Larijani was trying to separate the rebels from NATO (an impossible task) and Rose was saying that the rebels could not have overthrown Ghaddafi without NATOs full support and that they [the rebels] were very grateful to the West (both of the assertions were absolutely correct).
    You see it is always Iranians who very successfully point out the hypocrisy of the West on various issues, for once this became the oppositte and a western journalist successfully pointed out a hypocrisy of Iran.

  443. fyi says:

    All:

    Hans Blix on Iranian nuclear program

    http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20378

    Note that for him also the scrapping of enrichment in Iran is the desired outcome of the Siege of Iran.

    The western states want to assert and maintain their control over Western Asia.

    That is the fundamental geostrategic aim for them and then there is the Islamic Republic of Iran that is preventing it.

  444. Karl says:

    “Iranians will be winners – just no clear by how much – in the years to come as Arab Spring unfolds in various states.”

    Are you sure?
    While the opposition in every nation in the arabspring is islamic and could therefore at prima facie benefit the islamic republic of Iran, they are sunni islamic and stand closer to the gulf regimes (and therefore indirectly US) than Iran.

  445. Iranian says:

    Where is the western media? They are killing people on the streets in
    Saudi Arabia:

    http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/205565/شهادت-3-معترض-در-شرق-عربستان

  446. Fiorangela,

    More on Clark, particularly this remark you paraphrased:

    “Don’t you worry about a thing; ‘when the time comes,’ the US will make sure the legalities are in place.”

    This highlights a point that too many commenters on this website (and others) ignore, but Iran does not have the luxury to ignore: to imagine that the US will be constrained by legalities is quite naive.

    What is right and wrong does make some difference, to be sure (a point I return to at the end), but not as much as we might think or would like.

    Despite what many argue here, American public opinion counts for a very great deal when it comes to the US going to war. But shaping that opinion has not been very difficult.

    Doing so was a cake-walk in Afghanistan: strong and undeniable facts fell right in the lap of the US government when 9/11 occurred; very little “legality” needed to be added to the mix. The clearest case since Pearl Harbor.

    In most cases, though, selling the American public on war requires a combination of stretched or misstated facts and stretched legal reasoning. In the case of Iraq, for example, the US stretched several important facts – WMD, Saddam’s relationship with al Qaeda. This fact-stretching moved the American public close enough to approving the war that only one obstacle remained: the stubborn refusal of the UNSC to pass a clear go-to-war authorization. The US thereupon shifted to “legal” arguments to close the remaining gap to war – first arguing that the UNSC resolution already in place (1540) was sufficient, and then, when that argument fell on skeptical ears even among European allies, falling back on the argument that the US had a plain old-fashioned sovereign right to attack Iraq in order to defend itself from WMD attacks, whether by Iraq itself or by its stretched-fact al Qaeda allies.

    If the US government could sell that combination of stretched facts and legal reasoning to the American public, Clark is probably understating his point on Iran: It will be child’s play to sell an attack on Iran to the American public. There will be other obstacles, to be sure – the economy, the stretched-too-thin state of the US military the fear of higher oil prices, or an attack Israel, or a broader and longer Middle East war; and on and on. But, among all those obstacles, selling the American public on the virtues – indeed, the necessity – of attacking Iran will not be high on the list.

    It’s nevertheless important to press for facts to be kept straight. Stretched facts are usually good enough – for example, the Iraqi WMD “facts.” But if a “fact” has to be stretched a very great distance in order for the American public to accept it, it might not be usable to fashion an argument for attacking a country. About all one can do is hope that people recognize just how very far they are being asked to stretch a “fact,” and pray that that stretch will be a tad too far even for the American public.

    This view stresses, for example, the usefulness of pointing out that Iran held a fair election in 2009, or that Iran is abiding by its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement and has a right to enrich uranium. But to imagine that those arguments are going to have sufficient strength by themselves to hold back the tide of war – that Americans, for example, are going to be persuaded that Iran should be treated the same as Brazil and Japan because, gosh darn it, that’s only fair – strikes me as the height of naivete – and dangerous, if Iran were to adopt such an approach. If a commenter here wants to argue such a point, that’s his right, but doing so is not a luxury that Iran can afford. It lives in the real world. It should not change the way it goes about its nuclear business, but should avoid any pointless bravado while it does so. Swaggering, hide-the-ball behavior, designed to persuade others that Iran just might be working on a bomb – or even defiantly insisting that Iran has the same rights as Japan and Germany – doesn’t advance Iran’s nuclear program one iota. Instead, it poses an obstacle to Iran’s nuclear progress by playing right into the hands of US war-mongers who exploit any such overt defiance to gin up support for an attack on Iran.

  447. fyi says:

    Irshad says: November 23, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Americans are clever and have been able to pass the cost of their siege warfare against Iran to other states (such as UAE, India, and others).

    But they are not so foolish to harm themselves and their allies.

    The high-water mark of the Siege of Iran was reaced in 2010.

    Now, the Axis Powers will have to try to maintain the siege of Iran at that level.

    But the regional context started changing with the Arab Spring and continues to changes.

    Iranians will be winners – just no clear by how much – in the years to come as Arab Spring unfolds in various states.

    There will be a very deep and very painful recession in the United States in 2013 or 2014 as the fiscal crisis of the United States Federal Government will cause both deep defense cuts and the repeal of a tax cut made during the flush times of Mr. G.W. Bush’s presidency.

    Governments all over the world will be tied up with issues of economic survival during 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 years.

    That is the time for Iranians to break out of their siege.

    Now, US and EU could certainly start an aerial war against Iran, much of the weapons are already paid for and so does not put burden on their treasuries.

    But once that force is spent againt Iran – with dubious gains, I should expect – they will have not much left for other contingencies.

    That is, they have replenish that depeleted force.

    From a strategic point of view, a strategic alliance between Ira, Turkey, and Pakistan is desirbale to keep all these non-Muslim adventurers outside of the Lands of Islam.

  448. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 23, 2011 at 9:05 am

    That undoubtedly is the intention of the United States.

    But she does not have that power.

    Neither does Israel.

    Americans are not going to put several million people underarms and invade Iran.

    Nor can they effect regime change via UNSC from 5000 miles away.

    People inside US have an exaggerated opinion of US power, people outside of US of her weakness.

    The Americans could have attacked Iran anytime between 2003 to 2009.

    Ask yourself why they did not.

    Regime change in Iran is a fantasy, both for Iranians and for foreigners.

  449. Irshad says:

    Interesting article re: intentions in regards to West attack on Iran.

    http://iraniandiplomacy.ir/en/news/71/bodyView/18149/Attack.on.Iran:.Intentions,.capacities.and.limitations.html

  450. Fiorangela,

    It’s been hard for me to take Wesley Clark seriously ever since the press conference on his campaign plane shortly after he announced his candidacy for President in 2004 (at the strong urging of the Clintons).

    A reporter asked Clark whether he had been in favor of the US’ attack on Iraq in March 2003. To say the least, that was a question that any candidate should have expected – such an important one, in fact, that any candidate should have made his views on the question clear in his very first speech as a candidate, or in position statements on his campaign website.

    The question nonetheless seemed to surprise Clark, and he didn’t answer immediately. Instead, he turned to his aide, and asked “Mary, what’s our position on that?”

    Very hard to take a guy like that seriously – even though I’d had until then hopes for him as an anti-war candidate. It nonetheless appears that others have forgiven him.

  451. Fiorangela says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:37 am

    ““I’m not disagreeing with you, dear, but this is Colin Powell saying these things.””

    imo the warmongers are not going to use exactly the same tactic this time around. There will be a series of “because Colin Powell said so” events.

    One of them played out on C Span Washington Journal this morning. Wesley Clarke, a war leader that the Left lionizes, appeared opposite C-Span’s Susan Swain, arguably the last uncorrupted member of the C Span team of moderators for Washington Journal.

    Clarke stated quite unambiguously that Iran’s “regime” must be changed, that the US and/or Israel will do it; that Iran’s government should not delude themselves to think that it won’t happen — Saddam did not believe the US would attack Iraq and neither did Qaddafi re Libya or Noriega in Panama. So be afraid, be very afraid, Iran.
    A caller said, Maybe US and Israel CAN attack Iran, but wouldn’t it be illegal? Clarke said, in effect, Don’t you worry about a thing; “when the time comes” the US will make sure the legalities are in place. “When the time comes.”

    Wesley Clarke said so.

  452. Voice of Tehran says:

    Castellio says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Re.:cerebellum |ˌserəˈbeləm|

    Right Castellio , that’s what comes of it , when someone visits his own country for 8 months , just filling one’s useless stomach with “Chelo Kababe Soltani = Royal Kabab”

  453. Empty says:

    …”by” reaching out, rather.

  454. Empty says:

    Sassan,

    RE: “An apocalyptic religious regime should never have access to apocalyptic weapons.”

    “Apocalypse” is a term that carries with it a lot of different meanings. These meanings have been shaped by different beliefs and doctrines in different cultures and religions. The word itself is Greek in origin and means “to reveal” or “to lift the curtain/the veil.” In the New Testament, it has been interpreted to connote “the end of time.” Adding to the mix is the Hollywood movies that have been designed to stir up fears and anxiety buy reaching out into people’s deeply-rooted beliefs and exploiting them to make money.

    The original idea behind the term “apocalypse” was/still is that in the age of great deception when it is rather difficult to tease apart the truths from the lies, a grand revealing shall occur that makes things to look exactly as they are and cannot be concealed by deception. HOW exactly that happens is left to the imagination of the people. The void in the specificity of the “how” has also created a fertile ground for the Hollywood and others to come up with their own fabricated scenarios and fantastic tales.

    Because you have brought this subject up with respect to the concept of “Mahdaviyat” and equated (incorrectly and falsely) the two interpretation (either knowingly or unknowingly), I will clarify the concept from the perspective of the person who, by constitution, must oversee Iran’s overall policy and direction (both internal and foreign policy issues), Ayatollah Khamenei, using his own documented and publicly available work.

    RE: How to prepare the conditions for the “Appearance” of the “Imam of Time”:

    ین زمینه ها وقتی آماده شد، آن وقتی كه معلوم شد در مقابل قدرت مادی متسكبران عالم، زمینه ی این وجود دارد كه آحاد بشر بتوانند بر روی حرف حق خود بایستند، آن روز، روز ظهور امام زمان است آن روز، روزی است كه منجی عالم بشریت به فضل پروردگار ظهور كند و پیام او همۀ دلهای مستعد را كه در همه جای جهان هستند، به خود جذب كند و آن وقت دیگر قدرتهای ستمگر، قدرتهای زورگو، قدرتهای متكی به زر و زور نتوانند حقیقت را – آن چنانی كه قبل از آن همیشه كرده اند – با فشار زر و زور خود به عقب بنشانند یا مكتوم نگهدارند.

    Translation/Interpretation:

    “When these conditions are prepared, when such time arrives when it becomes clear that the masses of people could stand up to oppressive materialistic powers of the world, when there is a platform for the masses of people to stand up for truth, that day is the day for Imam of Time to appear. That day is the day for the savior of the humanity (with God’s blessing) to appear and his words are going to attract the heart of all open hearts all over the world. At that time, the oppressive powers, the bullies, and the powers who rely on money and force cannot conceal the truth—as they have been able to do so in the past—and push the truth aside.” [lecture delivered on 22/8/79 or 11/12/2000. retrieved from: ;http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=1192

    چند خصوصیت در این عقیدۀ مهدویت هست، كه این خصوصیات برای هر ملتی، در حكم خون در كالبد و در حكم روح در جسم است. یكی، امید است. گاهی اوقات دستهای قلدر و قدرتمند، ملتهای ضعیف را به جایی می رسانند كه امیدشان را از دست می دهند. وقتی امید را از دست دادند دیگر هیچ اقدام نمی كنند، می گویند چه فایده ای دارد؟ ما كه دیگر كار از كارمان گذشته است، با چه كسی دربیفتیم؟ چه اقدامی بكنیم؟ برای چه تلاش بكنیم؟ ما كه دیگر نمی توانیم! اعتقاد به مهدویت، به وجود مقدس مهدی موعود (ارواحنا فداه)، امید را در دلها زنده می كند. هیچ وقت انسانی كه معتقد به این اصل است، ناامید نمی شود. چرا؟ چون می داند یك پایان روشن حتمی وجود دارد، برو برگرد ندارد. سعی می كند كه خودش را به آن برساند. “
    (25/9/1376 or Dec. 16, 1997 retrieved from: ;http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=1192)

    Translation/Interpretation:

    “First, it [belief in Mahdaviyat] requires hope. This belief in Mahdaviyat has several characteristics. These characteristics, for every population, is like the blood in the body, like the spirit/soul for the body. There are times when the bullying and powerful hands pressures weak nations to a point that they lose hope. When they lose hope then they will not take any action. They would say, “what’s the use? It’s all too late for us now, whom should we oppose? What should we do? Why should we even struggle? We are no longer able! The belief in Mahdaviyat, in the pure presence of the “promised one” revives hope in people’s heart. Never a person who holds this fundamental belief will lose hope. Why? Because he/she knows there is a bright end. No doubt about it. Therefore, he/she strives to get there.”

    از نظر اسلام و بینش اسلامی، جریان عالم به سمت حاكمیت حق و به سمت صلاح است، این بروبرگرد هم ندارد. … همۀ انبیاء و اولیاء آمده اند تا انسان را به آن بزرگراه اصلی ای سوق بدهند كه وقتی وارد آن شد. بدون هیچ گونه مانعی تمام استعدادهایش می تواند بروز كند انبیاء و اولیاء این مردم گمگشته را مرتب از این كوه و كمر و دشتها و كویرها و جنگلها به سمت این راه اصلی سوق دادند و هدایت كردند. هنوز بشریت به نقطۀ شروع آن صراط مستقیم نرسیده است آن در زمان ولی عصر (ارواحنا فداه) محقق خواهد شد لیكن همه این تلاشها اصلا بر اساس این بینش است كه نهایت این عالم، نهایت غلبۀ صلاح است ممكن است زودتر بشود، ممكن است دیرتر بشود، اما بروبرگرد ندارد، قطعا این طوری است كه در نهایت صلاح بر فساد غلبه خواهد كرد. قوای خیر بر قوای شر غلبه می كنند. این هم یك نقطه از نقاط جهان بینی اسلامی است كه در آن هیچ گوهه تردیدی نیست.

    Translation/Interpretation:

    “From an Islamic perspective, the overall movement of the world is toward the governance of justice and reform. No doubt about it…All prophets and sage came so that they guide the humanity toward that main path. Once they have entered that path, then without any obstacle, their true potentials can flourish. The prophets and the sage constantly have guided people from all the difficult twists and turns and deserts and jungles toward this main path. The humanity has still not reached even the beginning of that right path. That will materialize at the time of Imam of Time. Therefore, all these efforts is predominantly based on this worldview that the end of this world is ultimately the victory of reform. It is possible this happens sooner or it is possible this happens later. But it will certainly happen. It is decidedly so that the reform will be victorious over corruption. The power of good will win over the power of bad. This too is one point of Islamic worldview. Without a doubt.” (12/9/1379 or Feb. 27, 2001;retrieved from: ;http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=1192)

  455. Castellio says:

    cerebellum |ˌserəˈbeləm|
    noun ( pl. -bellums or -bella |-ˈbelə|) Anatomy
    the part of the brain at the back of the skull in vertebrates. Its function is to coordinate and regulate muscular activity.

    cortex |ˈkôrˌteks|
    noun ( pl. -tices |-təˌsēz|) Anatomy
    the outer layer of the cerebrum (the cerebral cortex), composed of folded gray matter and playing an important role in consciousness.

  456. Anon says:

    James and others,

    re. the 20% enrichment, see the recent Politico article on Iran:

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CF319F46-19C3-4378-BCED-E82700FA36C9

    quoting:

    “The highest level of enrichment being carried out in Iran is to 19.75 percent, a level considered **low** enriched uranium by the International Atomic Energy Agency, not “medium” enriched uranium as even the august New York Times misstated.

    In fact, the IAEA’s International Fuel Cycle Evaluation working group has emphasized, “Proliferation resistance can be increased by enrichment reduction preferably to less than 20 percent, which is internationally recognized to be a fully adequate isotopic barrier to weapons usability of 235U”

    Of course, it would be a nice gesture for Iran to offer greater transparency for its nuclear program, but it is not legally bound to do so. Both the unilateral sanctions as well as the U.N. Security Council sanctions are a disincentive for Iran to cooperate with the West since they require Iran to stop enrichment — something Iran is entitled to do.

    Even if Iran provides more transparency, it will likely still be sanctioned for enriching — so why should it cooperate with the West? “

  457. Empty says:

    LOL….I just realized something. It’s like a hornets nest here.

    Sassan,

    A few of the points you raise require thoughtful consideration. There is a lot of areas that you touch on that has been reviewed, discussed, and rebutted several times over by many of the frequent commentators on this site. Each thread on this site averages about 550-600+ comments. Any time a new topic, a new angle, or anything new comes up that has not been carefully look at before, most people jump on it and turn it inside out and get to every conceivable hole it might have.

    So, just as a recommendation, I’d say it might be useful to you if you review some of the previous threads and comments to see the discussions there. If you don’t want to do that and would still like to have a constructive exchange, you have to back up your statements with good reasons. For example, if you believe that something is true, bring your evidence and say for this, this, and this reasons, I believe X or Y or Z to be true. The likelihood that you get rebutted for a point when the only reason you offer is “because I said so” is going to be very high. I hope this suggestion is useful to you. For my part, I’ll try to exercise a bit more patience.

  458. Voice of Tehran says:

    Sassan says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:03 am

    “”Don’t let his English skills and his obvious cerebellum and intelligence fool you.”"

    There is currently only one fool on this site.

  459. Empty says:

    Sassan,

    RE: but easily, over 90% of society is against this regime and want a secular democracy.

    It appears that you have an extraordinary skill in surveying people. You have an extremely high response rate and it appears that that most (if not all) of your respondent feel free to accurately (and fearlessly) convey their desires to you. I think you should publish your methods. Or at least copyright them. You could make a fortune.

  460. Karl says:

    Sassan:

    Yes your arguments being recycled over and over again still they have beenr refuted. Just look below, its just that you wont accept the factual claims being made.

  461. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:

    Sassan

    Then you’d be happy to hear that
    - Islam forbids the use of weapons of mass destruction,
    - the Supreme leader has declared a fatwa against them,
    - the Iranian government is continuously denouncing nuclear weapons and any ambition to develop them,
    - there is no evidence found by the IAEA or US intelligence agencies of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

  462. Empty says:

    RE: Also, please tell me what the consequences would have been if they didn’t enrich 20% uranium.

    One of the most significant consequences not on the list (or hardly highlighted) is that every hospital and cancer clinic would have to refuse specific necessary treatments and say, “sorry, we had a revolution, we are suffering sanctions, and we endure a barrage of attacks so that we don’t use our capabilities to produce what is needed to treat you because the west and the US don’t like it. Now, go home and die.”

  463. Sassan says:

    My last two posts haven not been copied and pasted. I just typed them right now. I copied and pasted one of my arguments as the gentleman asked for my reasons why it would be a threat for this regime to have nukes. And no, I have not been refuted to those arguments if that is what you are referring to. An apocalyptic religious regime should never have access to apocalyptic weapons.

  464. Karl says:

    Sassan:

    Why do you keep copy+paste your arguments? Your arguments have been made and have been refuted.

  465. Sassan says:

    Finally, towards the end he brought up human rights – but still. Every time that Larijani smirks and mentioned “democracy” and how everyone in Iran is “free” – the rest of the 90% of the show he gets away with it…it is still irking..

  466. Sassan says:

    It was a good interview overall and brought forth some great revelations but I am disappointed that every time this Larijani terrorist stooge kept repeating “democracy” for the region, Charlie rose did not a single time throughout his show mention the plight of the Iranian people, the oppression, and the human rights and freedom aspirations of the Iranian people from the dictatorial, oppressive, and maniacal rule of the Islamic Republic. Remember, it was Larijani who in the past defended the practice of stoning as a legitimate punishment. This man is a liar, a stooge, and one evil man. Don’t let his English skills and his obvious cerebellum and intelligence fool you.

  467. TheDonkeyInTheWell says:

    James Canning

    I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the 20% enrichment.

    Could you please explain what you expected the Iranians to do?
    - The US refused to sell 20% enriched uranium.
    - The US refused to trade 20% enriched uranium.

    What else could Iran have done? It’s not like they need 20% uranium out of spite. It has even been reported by Western propaganda that they indeed need it for medical usage.

    Should they just have shrugged their shoulders and went “Oh, well. Let’s not make them (the US/British/Saudi/Israel) more angry”?

    Also, please tell me what the consequences would have been if they didn’t enrich 20% uranium.
    - Wouldn’t that have been a sign of weakness?
    - Wouldn’t that have been an incentive to the US to continue its policy as it would be seen as it was working?

    What on earth makes you think that Iranian suspension of 20% uranium would have been positive for Iran, when every goodwill gesture by Iran has continuously been turned downed or turned against Iran?

    Maybe I’ve misunderstood your argument or something.

  468. Voice of Tehran says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:36 am

    Re.: Iran nuclear arms deceit

    Richard you are prefectly right and I am sure that there are a lot of people on this site and elsewhere , who exactly share this point of view.
    However as you know for sure , the whole ‘ theatre ‘ regarding Iran and specifically this point , is that the show is conducted by grandmasters of Mind Control , who perfected their ‘ magic ‘ throughout generations and centuries.
    I have absolutely no idea of how to overcome this ‘ superiority.
    “By way of deception , thou shalt do war ” , Tavistock etc. , you know better than me.

  469. Pirouz_2,

    Can you elaborate on your point about Charlie Rose having “cornered” Larijani on Libya? I know the exchange you’re referring to, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean.

  470. Arnold writes:

    “I wish Larijani had pressed Charlie Rose, and I think every westerner should be pressed on why Iran should not have the capabilities that Japan and Germany have.”

    That sums up in a nutshell the difference between your view and my view on this. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m right – merely that we have different views. I agree that Larijani did not press Rose on this, but I am glad he didn’t and don’t think Iran should. I think it should just go about its peaceful nuclear energy business and let the West think what it wants to think, but not draw attention to it. That DOES translate into a strong position, just as you take, that the West should not interfere with Iran’s nuclear activities on the ground that Iran should not be allowed to attain a “nuclear weapons capability.” We really differ only in that I think Iran should be very careful not to rub the West’s nose in it. I don’t think Iran has ever done so (Richard’s point, which he incorrectly suggests I do not acknowledge, despite that having been the essential point of my long post about the Charlie Rose interview), and I think it’s quite a good thing that it does not.

  471. Eric: “At the same time, while Iran inevitably will acquire nuclear weapons capability in the course of developing its peaceful nuclear energy program, it should never indicate that it “wants” this – either overtly or by being cagey about its intentions. It should merely point out what Larijani pointed out in his Charlie Rose interview – no more, no less.”

    And it never has – a point you always forget to mention in these discussions.

    In fact, it has repeatedly gone further and explicitly disavowed ANY interest in nuclear weapons on both religious and geopolitical grounds. Ahmadinejad made the logic quite clear when he said recently that “Iran is wise, and will not make two nuclear bombs to compete with your 20,000.”

    The ONLY time Iran EVER considered whether it MIGHT need to know how to make a bomb was when it believed Iraq might be doing so. Israel and the US never entered into it at all.

    This is a point which is completely ignored by almost everyone, even those who oppose the persecution of Iran over the nuclear issue. I seem to be the sole individual who keeps bringing it up.

    Iran has NO NEED OR DESIRE FOR nuclear weapons. Not even “breakout capability”. They DO recognize that they will have that capability by virtue of the level of technology they possess, and the IRGC presumably has done “due diligence” in acquiring the knowledge to construct a weapon, just as Japan, Brazil and South Korea have done.

    But Iran will never make nuclear weapons, because nuclear weapons are utterly useless to them strategically, tactically and geopolitically.

    The only way Iran will ever make nukes is if – like the US – the primary goal is to PAY FOR THEM and thus enrich the manufacturers.

  472. pirouz_2 says:

    When watching the interview of C. Rose with Mr. Larijani, several points caught my attention but the most important one was the following:

    For the first time I saw a western reporter who was actually able to corner an Iranian official on at least one point! Usually they either become downright rude (as in the interview with M. Brzezinski) or if they stay polite they fail even to score a single point. For the first time a Western interviwer was able to score a single point! And that single point was about Libya and the support of the “revolutionaries” (!!!) by NATO. He did corner Larijani and he cornered him really well. Kudos to Mr. Rose. By the way if Larijani was corenered on that issue it was not because he is not as smart as Ahmadinejad, but rather because he came across -to me- as a more honest person than Ahmadinejad.

  473. Arnold Evans says:

    Eric:

    I had actually already gone and transcribed that part of the interview because the issue of what I call legal nuclear weapons capabilities is so important and also because Larijani expresses it in English pretty clearly.

    http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/mohammad-larijani-on-legal-nuclear.html

    I wish Larijani had pressed Charlie Rose, and I think every westerner should be pressed on why Iran should not have the capabilities that Japan and Germany have.

  474. Sassan says:

    So according to Ron Paul, it’s perfectly acceptable for Israel to use as many nukes as they desire on Iran, as long as it is not the United States involved in regime change. In addition, apparently, it’s okay for the Taliban to oppress the Afghan people and in particular Afghan women, even stoning them to death as long as they don’t attack us here in America. What moral clarity. :yawn:

  475. Arnold writes:

    “About the Charlie Rose interview: Larijani says that while Iran does not want or need weapons, it is natural for a country with technology to have the capabilities to make a weapon. And Iran would share those capabilities with Saudi Arabia with no problem. Rose was surprised by that answer. He asked the question almost rhetorically.”

    Good observation. I also noticed Rose was a bit non-plussed by that answer. He clearly had been laying the groundwork for some tough questions on the Iran/Saudi Arabia “rivalry,” and had to flip through his notes to the next line of questioning.

  476. We’ve had several debates on this: whether Iran should seek “nuclear weapons capability.” There was an interesting exchange about this in the Charlie Rose interview of Mr. Larijani. He expressed exactly the view that I consider to be appropriate. Rose asked (in essence – I’m paraphrasing):

    “Setting aside the question of whether Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, many people have argued that Iran’s extensive nuclear activities indicate clearly that Iran at least wants nuclear weapons capability – the ability to produce a nuclear weapon fairly quickly if Iran ever decides to do so. Does Iran want nuclear weapons capability?”

    I should add, before proceeding, that this plainly was very high on Charlie Rose’s to-do list during the interview. I found him respectful, as I usually do, but on this line of questioning he got a bit close to rude – not quite there, but close. Larijani responded clearly and diplomatically, each of the several times that Rose asked essentially the very same question. Larijani said (in essence – I’m paraphrasing):

    “Iran’s nuclear knowledge is quite advanced. We want for it to become even more advanced, and we fully expect that it will be. As that has occurred and continues, it is inevitable that Iran will learn things that are useful to build a nuclear bomb. Frankly, building a nuclear bomb is not all that difficult; many countries have the capability and, as we all know, several countries actually have nuclear weapons. This does not mean, however, that Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb, or ever will. It does not, and it never will. If a man exercises and lifts weights so that he becomes very strong, capable of hurting someone if he chooses to do so, would you say that the man’s acquisition of strength means that he “wants” to hurt someone? Would you say that he should not be allowed to acquire strength merely because he could, if he chose, use his strength to hurt someone?

    Larijani’s actual presentation was a shade less combative than I’ve presented it here but, whatever points one might subtract for that reason, he deserves more points for an extra measure of diplomatic tact that may not be evident here.

    In any case, he dealt with this annoying question exactly as I think it should be dealt with: Iran should not apologize, much less change its behavior, to avoid having critics argue that it “wants” nuclear weapons capability. At the same time, while Iran inevitably will acquire nuclear weapons capability in the course of developing its peaceful nuclear energy program, it should never indicate that it “wants” this – either overtly or by being cagey about its intentions. It should merely point out what Larijani pointed out in his Charlie Rose interview – no more, no less.

  477. Rehmat says:

    ‘Memogate’ scandal – Pakistani envoy in US fired

    On December 10, 2010 – Washington-based journalist, Ali Gharib, exposed Husain Haqqani on Ziocon Foreign Policy (FP) magazine as an Israel Lobby fundraiser. According to Ali Gharib, Haqqani hosted a fundraising event at his home for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Jewish think tank connected with Israel’s Likud party. It was established after 9/11 and since then has been campaigning for an attack on Islamic Republic…..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/memogate-scandal-pakistani-envoy-in-us-fired/

  478. Fara says:

    A War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia has found former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair guilty of war crimes for their roles in the Iraq war
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211590.html

  479. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 22, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    In regards to stoning, you are right.

    The man, even though a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics, ultimately is either a fool or a knave.

    But you have to let these people to come and demonstrate the inadequacy of their conceptions and their utter bankruptcy to any and all before the tide of Islamic Nekbat could turn.

  480. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    ““US is like a drunkard who charges to war with anyone who might pose a threat” says Mike Gravel, ex- US senator.”

    Several weeks ago a professor at Kent State Univ. became angry with an Israeli guest speaker (arranged by CAMERA) and shouted “Death to Israel” then stormed out of the room.
    A local newspaper, the Akron Beacon Journal, has run an editorial, several reports, and an op ed by a professor of history at nearby Akron University, Dr. Walter Hixson. The follow-up letters to the editor are most interesting — universally pro-Israel; written primarily by leaders of Jewish organizations or by persons who identify themselves as Jewish. The letters demand that the shouting professor (Julio Pino) be fired, and mock the qualifications of Dr. Hixson and claim that his arguments are lies mendacious and distorted.

    Mr. Gippin’s letter was revealing. He identified himself as Jewish, said he frequently disagreed with Israel, but that Hixson was wrong on every count and the charge that Israel is an aggressive rogue was “immoral and unhelpful.”. Gippin took specific issue with Hixson’s claim that Israel started the 1967 war –

    QUOTE
    “What Israel has done — both right and wrong — has largely been the product of the centuries of oppression that culminated in the Holocaust. Think of Israel as a post-traumatic stress disorder victim, still. Unjust attacks only reinforce Israel’s instinct to fight no-holds barred against perceived threats to its survival, whether it’s really threatened or not.”
    CLOSE QUOTE

    “Still” is a very important qualifier: Most survivors of the actual holocaust must be at least 63 years old. It’s not likely they are suiting up and flying fighter jets and shooting phosphorus bombs at children. IDF soldiers are doing that and they are in their 20s, 30s, 40s. They did not experience the holocaust, they were taught the holocaust.
    No Jew alive would have experienced the most recent, pre-holocaust pogroms, those in Russia in 1903-05, so the “centuries of oppression” that produce “post traumatic stress disorder” are taught, not experienced phenomena. They were taught to think of themselves as perpetual victims.

    Based upon the things Jews teach themselves and their children, Gippin conveys on Jews the right to go with their “instincts” to “fight no holds barred,” whether or not the threat is real, whether or not the threat is rational.

    How can that insane and murderous cycle be unwound? And why in the world should such a crazy society be permitted to possess unmonitored nuclear weapons?

  481. Persian Gulf says:

    Arnold Evans says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    The very idea of 90+ of Iranians in today’s Iran wanting the same thing ,specially in political discourse, is absurd. you are wasting your time. anybody with even a very shallow understanding of Iranians would laugh at this preposition.

  482. Arnold Evans says:

    About the Charlie Rose interview: Larijani says that while Iran does not want or need weapons, it is natural for a country with technology to have the capabilities to make a weapon. And Iran would share those capabilities with Saudi Arabia with no problem.

    Rose was surprised by that answer. He asked the question almost rhetorically.

    That exchange combined two issues on which most Westerners are delusional regarding Iran. 1) The entirely unjustifiable position most Westerners have that Iran should be prevented from having the capabilities that they admit are legal in Germany, Japan and some other NPT countries. 2) This idea they’ve developed that Saudi Arabia’s rivalry with Iran is organic and not instructions Saudi Arabia is following as a colonial subordinate, ultimately on Israel’s behalf. (Just like Saudi Arabia’s previous “rivalry” with secular, Sunni Gamal Abdel Nasser.)

  483. Arnold Evans says:

    “easily, over 90% of society is against this regime and want a secular democracy”

    Easily.

    So your friends and family give you a more accurate impression of the government’s level of support than professionally administered polls, given by organizations that are hostile to Iran’s government like Terror Free Tomorrow?

    Just asking.

    And how do you explain the election results? The results of every ballot box were published in newspapers. Did your friends and family tell you that the result at any specific ballot location was wrong?

    But I guess you’re lucky 90% of Iranians agree with you. You would almost think the Khomeini was a foreigner imposed on an Iran that would have preferred to be ruled by somebody guided by native Iranian values – like the Shah.

    But if you weren’t as lucky as you are, if it somehow happened to not be the case that 90% of Iranians have the same understanding of the country that you have and also your values since you’ve visited there recently then what should the country do?

    If, by some crazy idea, about two out of three Iranians who voted actually preferred Ahmadinejad to Mousavi, for example, I know that’s crazy but this is hypothetical.

    In that hypothetical, where most Iranians in 2008 proved by voting that they do not want a secular non-religious state like the US, in that hypothetical, should Iran have a non-secular religious state?

  484. Sassan says:

    “What proportion of Iranians do you think agree with your views?

    In the time since raceforiran started, two or three polls of Iranian citizens have been released that indicated that more Iranians agree with Ahmadinejad than with you. And there is also the issue of the elections.

    If, by some crazy chance, most Iranians do not share your contempt for the Iranian government, would that mean anything to you? Or would that be a reason that a Shah should be imposed on Iran by someone like the United States – to make sure Iran’s government agrees with you instead of the people of Iran?”

    First off: no poll can be done in Iran that is legitimate, reliable, and valid. This is obvious as to why: the Iranian people live under oppression, brutality, and terror in living in a fascist police state and people are afraid of expressing how they feel to others due to these factors. Therefore, it is quite comical for people think that “polls” can in any way reflect Iranian opinion.

    And I am not a monarchist. I simply want to see a free and democratic Iran. Iranians are an intelligent people with a multitude of different opinions, but easily, over 90% of society is against this regime and want a secular democracy. Iranians are really not a religious people at all. Now, different Iranians feel different methods will be effective in bringing about regime change – but 90%+ of the people are united in this central message. And what credentials do I have to say this? Spending considerable amounts of time in Iran. I was in Iran for over 8-months last year (as my grandfather had a heart attack) and it was a great time for me which provided me great insight as I had an opportunity to spend that significant amount of time as both an Iranian and American. In addition to Tehran, I also spent time in Shiraz and Azerbaijan province. This regime in no shape or form represents the Iranian people. In fact, they are the enemy of the Iranian people.

  485. Arnold Evans says:

    Sassan:

    What proportion of Iranians do you think agree with your views?

    In the time since raceforiran started, two or three polls of Iranian citizens have been released that indicated that more Iranians agree with Ahmadinejad than with you. And there is also the issue of the elections.

    If, by some crazy chance, most Iranians do not share your contempt for the Iranian government, would that mean anything to you? Or would that be a reason that a Shah should be imposed on Iran by someone like the United States – to make sure Iran’s government agrees with you instead of the people of Iran?

  486. James Canning says:

    “US is like a drunkard who charges to war with anyone who might pose a threat” says Mike Gravel, ex- US senator.

    http://rt.com/news/us-wars-corporations-gravel-925/

  487. Sassan says:

    Those in Iran of the regime are called “Hizbolli” for a reason..

  488. Sassan says:

    lol James. What “experts” say this? Come on buddy..

  489. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    Experts on Hezbollah and Lebanese politics say Iran does not control Hezbollah.

  490. James Canning says:

    Russia has condemned the latest UK sanctions against Iran as “extraterritorial measures unacceptable and contradictory to international law.”

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/211514.html

  491. Sassan says:

    BTW, this regime constantly time and time again refer to Khamenei as “Seyed Khoarasani”. Who is “Seyed Khoarasani”? “Seyed Khoarasani” is the mythical figure of the Hadith who “will” create the conditions for the end of times and the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam, by destroying Israel and the West.

    The fabled “imam mahdi” like a quack been hiding in a well in Qom for the last 900-years or so! lol. How can people be so irrational and brainless to believe this? Again, as accorded by their beliefs and the Hadith, as a prerequisite for his return the Mullahs must take over Jerusalem through warfare. In fact, this global warfare will turn towards the west as accorded by the Hadith and their ignorant, irrational, and fanatical beliefs in which 2/3rd of humanity will perish through war, havoc, famine, and chaos. And I am sure Jesus will come back with Imam Mahdi riding in huge oversized donkeys, camels, and elephants (lol they actually believe this).

    DO YOU NOT PEOPLE SEE THIS IS WHY THIS REGIME IS SUCH A THREAT? If the Shah was in power, it wouldn’t be a problem for Iran to be a nuclear power. In fact, neither the Soviets nor the United States resorted to nuclear warfare due to the concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. There will be no “Mutually Assured Destruction” with this regime. This regime will not only kill every last Iranian to keep power, but they will sacrifice the lives of every last Iranian as long as it meets their religious goals. This is why this regime is such a threat – because of their fanatical ideologies and beliefs. People complain about Israel having nuclear weapons; but let me tell you: if Israel were run by Rabbis and a “Supreme Rabbi” who was only “answerable to god” then I would share the concern of everyone with Israel’s nukes. But the fact is the leaders of Israel are secular, not rabbinical. People need to understand that the reason why this regime is such a threat with their nukes, terrorism, and the sorts is because of their hardened righteousness that they are doing “god’s work”. In fact, Khamenei says he meets with “Imam Mahdi” from time-to-time and Ahmadenijad a couple of years back had “felt the glow and aura” of “imam mahdi” in the U.N. in which “all the world leaders couldn’t stop looking at him”.

    This regime made a short documentary which was leaked in which they even named Khamenei, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ahmadenijad as characters in the Hadith who are going to fight this holy struggle!!!

    Watch it yourself, English subtitles are provided: http://youtu.be/WwiadYT-N9k

  492. Karl says:

    sassan:

    First off Iran is not a threat. Second share Leverettes view on Iran and I am against the reckless warfare being brought against middle east nation by US but also any part that engages in the tactics. EU, Qatar et.c.

  493. Empty says:

    Kooshy,

    Are you sure?! Call me crazy but I have a hunch that you’d take the 2nd one.

  494. Sassan says:

    Here I will repost it:

    “Distinguished career?? How about being one of the key culprits of the regime in that he holds the position for “human rights” for the Islamic Republic and hence human rights violations being ignored are on him; and once we gain liberation in the upcoming years, this degenerate will have to face trial at the International Court of Justice in Hague along with a whole slew of criminals, hooligans, and murderers which compromise this regime.

    And it is quite sad that this site seems to be the cheerleader for the biggest terrorist regime in the world. Not only does this regime oppress and terrorize the Iranian people in the most brutal of ways (including raping our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t die as virgins); this regime has been a sponsor of terrorism from its very on-set. This fanatical regime from its very onset has resorted to supporting the most brutal terrorists throughout the world. This is not mere conjecture, this is the reality. Argentinian courts have convicted in absentia former Revolutionary Guards commander Ahmad Vahidi and the courts ruled that the plot was concocted from the very top. In addition, the U.N. tribunal recently passed down indictments against Hizbolli agents in the death of Rafic Hariri and of course Hizbollah in Lebanon is controlled by the Islamic Republic and they get their orders directly from Tehran. In regards to the Barrack bombing, Islamic Republic Guards generals bloated about the fact that the fuel for the bombs used to kill American and international troops was supplied by the Islamic Republic. And the record is clear that this regime has been involved in providing the training, weapons, and funds in which they have been directly responsible for the murders of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let’s not forget the terror network this regime has all over the world. And in regards to Syria, it has been clearly established that this regime has been providing training, funds, weapons, and have helped implement the methods for the Syrian regime in massacring their people. In fact, there is a large presence of Guards deployment in Syria and in fact, one of them was recently killed by the Syrian Free Army and their badge was aired on youtube; in fact, the Syrian people are so fed up with the terrorist Mullahs that they chant “death to Khamenei” and burn his pictures and curse the regime during their protests.

    In regards to dissidents being killed overseas (outside of Iran), the list is quite extensive. This includes former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar. “Since 1979, high-level officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly those associated with the Ministry of Intelligence and Revolutionary Guards, have been linked to the assassinations of at least 162 of the regime’s political opponents around the world. The regime has vigorously and systematically pursued its state-sponsored campaign of terror in contravention of a host of domestic and international laws promoting peace and security and protecting the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life.”

    And the fact is purchasing the know-how from A.Q. Khan is only done for one reason: in acquiring the bomb. In addition, this regime having the bomb will create a nuclear-arms race in the region among all the Islamic countries which is something truly frightening. In addition, this regime is NOT a rational actor. With the Soviets the doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” helped contain both countries from obliterating each other but this regime is a regime that does not make decisions “in this world”. You’ve heard it before and to paraphrase, “They love death more than you love life”. If you go on youtube and type “The Coming is Upon Us” you will pull a documentary produced by the regime themselves in which they cite Khamenei, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ahmadenijad as characters in the Hadith in preparing for the “return of the hidden imam” or “imam mahdi” and in doing this, they must conquer Jerusalem and cause the deaths of 2/3rd of humanity through war, famine, and chaos. This is THEIR CORE IDEOLOGY. There is no guarantee of “Mutually Assured Destruction” here. These terrorist madmen do not care one bit about the lives of the Iranian people and will gladly kill every last Iranian to keep power – and a nuclear weapon will only enable them to torture, murder, and terrorize the Iranian people further without impunity as they will have no fear of international intervention in the mass murders that will follow during the street protests that will be coming up in a little over a year during the next round of fake-elections in Iran.

    The sad part is that out of all the countries in the region, Iran is the only one that offers a true hope for secular democracy. We have had to learn under the most brutal of ways the evils of Islamic rule. The Iranian people (not the regime) are not a religious people and the demand is clear: complete secular democracy. We have had our homeland pillaged and have had our people tortured and executed by the thousands – we deserve to live in freedom. DO NOT LEGITIMIZE THESE TERRORISTS. Regime change and regime change only.”

  495. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    Yes.

  496. Karl says:

    JAMES:

    “As I previously have noted, the fears in Saudi Arabia, generated by Iran’s production of 20% U, are largely driving British policy toward Iran at this time.”

    I dont know how many times it has been repeated.
    1. Saudi arabia so called concern has nothing to do with enrichment. The Iran/Saudi weak relations is about power and religion.

    2. UK, US, France are all about regime change in Iran. It doesnt matter if even Iran stop enrichment which they did for almost 2 years back in like 2005. They didnt get anything in return, instead their file was sent to UNSC and sanctions were imposed later on.


    Why would Iran want to lobby on behalf of Israel, in effect, for sanctions to be applied by the UK against Iran? How can this make sense

    its the lobby that push for sanctions no one else.

  497. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    So, I take it you believe Iran is “dangerous to the world” because Iran gives support to Hezbollah?

  498. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Are you positing that the family in the small house (or flat) has eight children already? And that the large house has a family with no children?

  499. kooshy says:

    Empty says:

    November 22, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    I will take the first family, only when they can prove they own a good reliable Printing machine and have plenty of paper spray put away.

  500. Sassan says:

    Please scroll down to my previous posts from the last day or two in which I have written EXTENSIVELY on this matter.

  501. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    How exactly is Iran “dangerous to the world”?

  502. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    That post below was supposed to be addressed to you.

  503. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    I think a good argument easily can be made that Iran would want to provide the funding, but it is peculiar this has not been reported in the Financial Times etc. (that the funding in fact has been provided).

  504. Sassan says:

    Karl: why do you defend the Islamic Republic when it is among the most brutal and dangerous to the world and to human rights?

  505. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    As I previously have noted, the fears in Saudi Arabia, generated by Iran’s production of 20% U, are largely driving British policy toward Iran at this time.

    Why would Iran want to lobby on behalf of Israel, in effect, for sanctions to be applied by the UK against Iran? How can this make sense?

  506. Sassan says:

    It’s well known that Iran’s central bank has been providing loans (bail-outs) for Assad’s regime during this crisis.

  507. Karl says:

    James:

    No, “Why do you care so much what the gulf regimes thinks towards Iran” would be more plausbile. It seems that you approve the warmongering from these gulf regimes.

  508. Empty says:

    There are two families.

    One of the families owns a 100-sq-meter house in which 10 people live. The family expenditure is noticeably higher than the income. They have no saving account and no real asset to speak of. Their debt is about 10 times their income.

    The other family owns a 600-sq-meter house in which 2 people live. The family expenditure is right below the income. They have been saving about 10% of their income every year and have a good saving account.

    Which of the two family do you recommend to engage in family planning and try not to have any children?

  509. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Do I understand your question to be: why do I think the position of the Gulf monarchies regarding Iran is important?

  510. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    The best information I have is that Iran is unwilling to fund the Assad gov’t, which continues to be in a cash-flow crisis. Problem is inability to sell the oil that fills available storage tanks.

  511. Karl says:

    James:

    I wasnt asking gulf regimes connection to israel/palestine conflict but regarding to Iran.

  512. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    I want Israel out of West Bank and Golan Heights. Gulf monarchies are rich and they want Israel out of West Bank and Golan Heights. American politicians are controlled by special interests, meaning money. So, rich Gulf monarchies are in a position of getting some things accomplished, and Iran tends to interfere.

  513. Sassan says:

    “When you say that Syria is important part of Iran’s security interests, why is Iran not providing funding for Syrian gov’t during its current crisis?”

    James, they have been and are continuing to do so – along with having Guards members in Syria in providing weapons, training, technology in assisting with the brutality, genocide, and mass oppression of the Syrian people. When Iranians protested for freedom in 2009, the IRI brought in Arabs (Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians) in killing the Iranian people as mostly snipers.

  514. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    And let’s remember that in Britain, timne and time again, British leaders tried to apply a policy in Palestine prohibiting or severely restricting Jewish immigration. Time and time again, rich Jews applied pressure and reversed the programme.

  515. Karl says:

    JAMES:

    so…why do you keep being concerned what saudi and other gulf regimes thinks?

  516. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Rich Cuban exiles nearly brought catastrophe to the world in 1962 because they wanted to reclaim their properties in Cuba. And foolish American politicians and other leaders went along with the scheme.

    Rich Jews in the US helped bring about the 1973 Arab-Israel war which produced a near-confrontation between USSR and US in the Sinai.

    And rich Jews in the US are trying to set up US war with Iran, so more stealing of land and water by fanatical Jews in the West Bank can take place.

  517. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Regarding the events of 1973, let’s bear in mind that Leonid Brezhnev pleaded with Nixon and Kissinger to force Israel out of Sinai in interests of avoiding what otherwise was a certain war. Kissinger and Nixon feared USSR would gain too much prestige in wake of forced Israel evacuation of the Sinai. So they refused to apply the pressure, and in effect forced the war to take place. Which nearly brought about a confrontation between US and Soviet Union in the Sinai.

    Israel lobby suppresses and discussion of these events.

  518. Sassan says:

    For anyone defending this imbecile and degenerate (Larijani), after the U.N. voted yesterday to condemn the Islamic Republic’s atrocious human rights abuses (that this guy defends), by claiming its record as “exemplary”.

    “Iranian government representative, Mohammad Javad Larijani, an advisor to the country’s supreme leader, called the resolution “substantially unfounded and intentionally malicious” in a speech to the General Assembly’s human rights committee.

    “The document is an onslaught on the good conscience of the international community and an unforgivable insult to the whole institution of the U.N.,” Larijani said.”

    This is the same degenerate who has in the recent past defended the right of stoning as a legitimate and just punishment.

  519. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I don’t think Saudi Arabia would be looking to persuade Israel to get out of the West Bank, so much as underlining from time to time Israel is outnumbered by ten or twenty to one, in the region, and that all countries want Israel out of the West Bank and Golan Heights.

  520. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Iranian enrichment to 20% surely is not “water under the bridge” when offer to cease production is still open. That fools in the Obama administration are failing to respond to the offer does not mean the offer is not on the table.

  521. James Canning says:

    One of the idiot Republicans currently seeking nomination for president, Rick Santorum, apparently thinks Israel has already annexed the West Bank. Encroyable!

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2011/11/22/santorums-shaky-grasp-of-history/

  522. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 22, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Could you please sketch out a plausible scenario under which Saudi Arabia could persuade Israelis to evacuate the West Bank – per your claim below?

    [The late President Sadat had to go to war to get back Sinai, please provide contrary evidence.]

    Yes, may be 20% enrichment was a tactical mistake by Iran but that is now water under the bridge.

    Its suspension was not whetting any US-EU negogiator’s appetite and its continuation does not seem to be an issue any longer – not even for the Russians.

    I do not know how Iran is supporting Mr. Assad’s government – if at all – or if that government requires funding.

    As for the Southern Persian Gulf Arabs – there is a single act of friendship towards Iran and the Iranian people that they could undertake which will not cost them anything except ink and paper. That is: change their name to “Persian Gulf Cooperation Council”.

    But you know what? They will sooner speak Mandarin Chinese than to take that step.

  523. kooshy says:

    fyi says:

    November 22, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    “If I were leaders of these state-lets, I would be very cautious carrying water for US, EU, and Israel.”

    This is understandable, for these small states, like for their western puppeteers, it is all a zero sum game, at this stage there is no more room to step back it’s all or nothing.

    I agree with the list you posted on the situation in Syria vis-a-vis Iran, But I think the other fact to be consider is, due to close proximity of the Syrian and Lebanese with real threat of Israel, and the fact that beside the Palestinians these two countries are the only Arab countries that part of their territory is still under an illegal Israeli (you read US/ West) occupation, therefore the population has naturally became more informed to resist the occupation and the western hegemonic pressures, regardless of the system that is governing them. Just like any other country including the US when your territory is occupied there is more sense of unity regardless of governance differences especially when the population (unlike Libya) is well informed with outside hegemonic threats. I sense the same feeling, by the majority of educated Iranians.

  524. Karl says:

    James:

    Well you seems to defend saudi and other gulf regimes stance to Iran.

  525. Fara says:

    James Canning says:
    November 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    “…Iran’s continuing production of 20 U is a potentially disastrous blunder. It is driving the latest sanctions from the UK.”

    Dear James, this has nothing to do with the nuclear program, but rather to do with the progress Iran has been making independent of the west and despite all sanctions. The southern Persian Gulf arab countries are afraid of their own citizens looking up to Iran and ask for public election and dignity in theri own countries. Why do you think UAE has hired the former Blackwater founder to establish security forces in UAE, the security forces whose members can NOT be from Arabs? They are basically hiring mercenaries to silence their own arab citizens.

  526. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Can you be more specific? For example, I think Saudi Arabia is country best able to pressure Israel to get out of West Bank. Saudi ability to achieve this is undermined by ill-considered actions coming out of Iran.

  527. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    I meant last comment for you, not FYI. I also favor population control where it is badly needed. Overpopulation is huge challenge in years ahead.

  528. Karl says:

    JAMES:

    So whats up with your concern of the gulf regimes?

  529. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    My “agenda” is peace, stability, and economic development (ecologically sound) in the Middle East. And Israel out of West Bank and Golan Heights.

  530. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Thanks. Yes, the Gulf monarchies wanted Iraq out of Kuwait. And getting Iraq out was essential to the peace of the region. G H W Bush blundered by keeping US military bases in Saudi Arabia after the war was over. And US did so at behest of Israel.

  531. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I think you are quite right to believe Israel will be in no hurry to return the Golan to Syria even if there is a change of gov’t.

  532. Karl says:

    JAMES:

    Once again you are coming out defending the gulf regimes. What is your agenda?

    As for the topic, I was speaking of the attack on Iraq in the 90s.

  533. khurshid says:

    Endless US allegation on Iran – this time chemical weapons to GADDIFI !!!!!!

    http://rt.com/news/libya-chemical-shell-iran-947/

  534. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    When you say that Syria is important part of Iran’s security interests, why is Iran not providing funding for Syrian gov’t during its current crisis?

  535. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I should add that the Saudi foreign minister wanted to meet with Iranian FM, but latter refused to do so unless Saudi national guard was pulled out of Bahrain beforehand.

  536. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Qatar, UAE and Oman all tried to improve relations with Iran. Kuwait has also.

    You seem reluctant to accept that Iran’s continuing production of 20 U is a potentially disastrous blunder. It is driving the latest sanctions from the UK.

  537. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    If the decision had been in the hands of the Gulf monarchies, there would have been no invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    Gaddafi tried to have King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia assassinated, while the latter was still Crown Prince. Not the wisest move to have made.

  538. James Canning says:

    Writing in The Times (London) Nov. 15th (“Nuclear Iran would wreck the peace process”), Tzipi Livni claimed: “Even before it gets nuclear weapons, Iran is a threat to the search for progress in the Israeli-Palesinian peace process. . .”

    What complete cr*p! All Arab countries offer peace to Israel within pre-1967 borders.

    The Kadima party leader also claimed, in same piece: “The Iranian regime, with its genocidal rhetoric and its growing military might, is not just a threat to the stability of our region.”

  539. Karl says:

    fyi:

    One dont have to ask. Its obvious from the events whats going on.

  540. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 22, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Ask them.

    They seem to have a genuine fear of Iran – they did so during the Monarchy and they do after the Islamic Republic.

    On the other hand, it might be that they are racist Arabs who – at the same time – envy Iran.

    They have pathologies, no doubt.

    This will also come to naugh; it is laugable when Absolute Monarchies want to support Arab Spring in Syria.

    There will almost certainly be Iranian reaction against them – one way or another.

    Syria is necessary for defense of Iran.

    Undermining Syria is a direct threat to Iran.

    If I were leaders of these state-lets, I would be very cautious carrying water for US, EU, and Israel.

  541. Karl says:

    fyi:

    Again, why do you think gulf regimes are so eager to criticize Syria? Concerns for human rights? Why do you think gulf regimes always have been in the forefront in other conflicts bringing down leaders in the region? Libya, Iraq etc?

  542. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 22, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    That is indeed the hope of US-EU Axis and their local associates in their strategic competition with Iran.

    There will be lots of ups and downs over the coming weeks and months and years.

    We shall see how the strategic situation will pan out.

    Some of what Mr. Donilon states is accurate, some is hyperbole.

    But he has to put best face for his President.

  543. fyi says:

    Karl says: November 22, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    So for a moment assume that Alawite state has fallen in Syria.

    Would there be peace with Israel?

    No.

    Will they get the Golan back?

    No.

    Will US-EU remove sanction on them is the absence of a peace with Israel?

    No.

    Will there be Qataris fighting for Syria or will Qataris give them weapons?

    No.

    Will anyone help defend Syria besides Iran?

    No.

    These are the hard facts that Shia-Sunni divide cannot paper-over.

  544. Karl says:

    fyi:

    Well if Syria falls I assume the friendship will be reestablished but you cant be sure of them being allies especially since the opposition is sunni and backed by the gulf regimes. Why else do you think qatar, saudi etc have so much interest in seeing Syria fall? Its all about sunni taking power and weeken the shia-Iran-connection.

  545. Rd. says:

    Interested says:

    “I think Iranians see the Turkish prime minister as someone who supports terrorist organizations in Syria”

    he has also been receiving a lot of the green money from saudis, according to Michael Rubin. So he needs to play the game.. and with Egyptian uprising 2.0, he along with obama aide (below) and others have to keep the Syrian narrative on the front pages. UN right panel just condemned Syria for crack down.. um, but nothing on the brutality of the Egyptian military strong man.. ironically, the demonstrators in Egypt are now demanding his resignation.. he is likely a gonner long before Assad.

    Theses guys are spending a great deal of capital to bring Assad down just for the sake of harming Iran (in their own mind). That remains to be seen. In the mean time, what happens if we were to see Egypt closer to the side of resistance?

    http://www.meforum.org/684/green-money-islamist-politics-in-turkey

  546. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Assad will not fall.

  547. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Yes, I agree with you.

    But therein lies a recent pathology of US citizens.

    Mr. Haas is not the first American who has been to Palestine or to the Near East.

    More than a hundred years scores of missionaries and charitable (largely Protestant) organization existed in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Tureky, Iran, and eleswhere.

    They were not seduced – as Mr. Hass himself admits – by this lure of History.

    When, as an Iranian I walk in Mecca, or Medina, or Baghdad or Dushanbeh I am mostly reminded of death and destruction.

    The ancestors of contemporary Americans tried to leave that legacy behind.

    Mr. Haas wants to re-live it and drag the United States into it.

    The only thing good about those times was their passage.

  548. Fiorangela says:

    Karl at 3:45 pm, re Haaretz article, “Syria defeat will weaken Iran,” sez US’s Donilon.

    mash this comment from the Haaretz article –

    “end of the Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region yet—a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran. . . .The Assad regime is thoroughly isolated and universally condemned.”

    with Georg Friedman’s article that fyi linked at 12:59 pm
    and you get:

    “failure to topple the Assad regime would put stamp finis on the U.S.’s ability to influence the Middle East, the outcome of a disastrous strategy that will further shift the balance of power in the region against the U.S. and toward Iran. . . .Although it has been dealing with rebellion since last January, the Syrian military has not fragmented, remaining fully behind Assad.”

    PS. notice that at this time, every comment to the Haaretz article is anti-US.

  549. Voice of Tehran says:

    Interested says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    The reason for Erdogan to play dirty with Assad is money , as usual.

    “”Saudi Arabia Foresees $600 Billion of Investment in Turkey”"

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-27/saudi-arabia-foresees-600-billion-of-investment-in-turkey.html#

  550. fyi says:

    WigWag says: November 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    So you have found your way here from Steve Clemens’s site.

    What took you so long?

    Looking forward to your well written rhetorical defenses of all US follies – even to the point of absurdity.

    In regards to your question:

    The sentiment in Iran is to wait and see.

    And the expectation is that any post Alawite Syria will remian a strategic allie of Iran.

    Since the threat of Israel against Syria will persist and no other credible allie is in sight.

    Future would tell if Iranians are correct in their assessment in this regard.

  551. Interested says:

    I think Iranians see the Turkish prime minister as someone who supports terrorist organizations in Syria and at the same time reserves the right for himself to heavily bomb Kurdish terrorists and civilians in Iraq. He is seen as trying to prevent Assad from carrying out reforms, because he knows that Assad will probably win the elections, because millions come to the streets to support him. Mr. Erdogan is also seen as being on the same side of the battlefield with other humane regimes and democracies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia which among other things has recently occupied Bahrain. Of course, there are also the NATO radar instillations and the threats to cut of electricity to the Syrian people, hospitals,…Quite an extraordinary man.

  552. WigWag says:

    From today’s New York Times,

    “ISTANBUL — In his most blatant criticism yet of Syria’s political repression, the prime minister of Turkey said for the first time on Tuesday that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria should resign, raising the pressure on Mr. Assad from a country that Syria had once counted as its friendliest neighbor and economic partner.

    The criticism by the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of Mr. Assad, was not totally unexpected, given Mr. Erdogan’s increasing exasperation with Mr. Assad’s intransigence over the political uprising against him, now in its eighth month. But Mr. Erdogan’s comments were notable for his explicit language. He likened Mr. Assad to the self-delusional dictators of history who have met violent ends, most recently Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.”

    Perhaps Mr. and Mrs Leverett would like to inform their loyal readers just how well Prime Minister Erdogan’s comments are being received in Iran.

  553. Fiorangela says:

    thanks for the reference to NYTimes article/s, James.
    :http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/nyregion/public-lives-worried-about-a-foreign-policy-of-going-it-alone.html?ref=richardnhaass

    You might also be interested in Jacob Heilbrunn’s comments on Richard Haas :http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/books/review/29HEILBRUNN.html?ref=richardnhaass

    Haas was never opposed to waging war on Iraq; he was FOR US acting multilaterally.

    QUOTE
    “Dr. Haass was a beleaguered multilateralist, one of the dissidents within the current Bush administration who argued for the building of a broad international coalition to fight the war in Iraq and rebuild the country.

    ”Iraq was a war of choice,” he said, ”not a war that had to be fought. In that sense it is closer to Vietnam rather than Korea or the first Gulf War or Afghanistan. It behooves us to get it right. The danger we face is that it distorts and drains American foreign policy. This is why it is important to get others involved, to accelerate Iraqi involvement in governing and securing the country. We have too many other things we need to do in the world to let Iraq dominate foreign policy.” ”

    CLOSE QUOTE

    His view may have become the prevalent one today, with an added twist: Hillary Clinton celebrates the Libya model, in which US allies with others, plays a minimal role, draws in financiers in exchange for a share of the spoils. Everything old is new again.

    According to the Hedges interview, Haas is a great fan of Henry Kissinger, including Kissinger’s use of deception, secrecy, double dealing –

    QUOTE
    “Henry Kissinger. His first book, ”A World Restored,” is one that his devotees — and Dr. Haass, 52, is an enthusiastic devotee — often cite as a model for how to conduct foreign policy. It portrays the delicate shell game of alliances, deceits, power grabs and scrambles for influence. Dr. Haass says the book is especially important because it depicts a world with muted rivalries, a world much like our own. ”
    CLOSE QUOTE

    Are the Leveretts Kissingerians as well; does advocacy for the “Nixon to China” model of US relations with Iran include the Kissinger template?

    I will be very disappointed if Leveretts are Kissingerians. How about American foreign policy that is run based on American forms and foundations, and passions aroused by experience of and on American soil, rather that that which Haas cites as the dynamo of his passion for foreign policy — Israel:

    QUOTE
    “He spent his junior year in East Jerusalem on archaeological digs. The world of the Middle East mingled the sacred and the profane in a potent brew.

    ”As a Jew I never read the New Testament until I went to Oberlin,” he said. ”In Israel I could read texts that were thousands of years old and walk in the same places, see the same battlegrounds that had been the site of conflict for centuries. The problems of the past became contemporary. They were no longer just historical. I was hooked.” ”
    CLOSE QUOTE

    Far too many policy makers and shapers in the US think that Israel and the Hebrew old testament are the center of the universe. They are not.

    That is the dramatic and compelling distinction between the foundation of the United States and that of Israel: American founders were conversant with the thinkers of the Enlightenment and of the Italian Renaissance; they “plundered history” to pluck the finest ideas from generations of geniuses from Cicero to Newton Petrach to Filangieri and Mazzei.

    Israel “plunders” only Palestine and Torah. David ben Gurion was a zionist and a secular Jew but he “based the Jewish mandate for Palestine on the Hebrew Bible.” Herzl closed “Der Judenstaat” with the battle cry, “the Maccabees will rise again.” Judaism had little appeal to Jabotinsky; his biographer and close friend and correspondent wrote that “Rome and the muscularity of Mussolini formed Jabotinsky’s spiritual center,” but Jabotinsky would join Ben Gurion so far as claiming a “biblical mandate” to the land of Palestine. The Torah was not a Holy or religious book to Israel’s founders, it was their guide to political action.

    Those who would shape foreign policy for the American people must be steeped in and passionate for the thinking and wisdom of AMERICA’s founders, not Israel’s.

  554. fyi says:

    paul says: November 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Yes, it is a form of Siege Warfare without the certainity of success.

    It is forcing Iranians to stand on their own 2 feet – even more than before – and be organized.

    The Iranians cannot afford to act as before; foolsihly, chaotically, and stupidly.

    US-EU are teaching bitter lessons to Iran on how to resist and how to fight back.

    Sort of like what their Israeli allies taught the Shia of South Lebanon from 1982 onwards.

    There is no possibility of externally induced change of government in Iran.

    Overall, business as usual as trade is re-routed (e.g. sell a used airbus to a Ukranian firm that turns aorund and sells it to Iran rather than directly selling it to Iran. And many more such things.)

  555. paul says:

    The sanctions on Iran don’t just contain it. They are themselves a form of war, and they are a step towards war. Unless regime change comes first, and that’s basically a form of covert war.

  556. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    If Iran is seen in Syria as essential to the security of the people of the country, can Friedman explain why Iran has not helped Syria all that much with its serious cash-flow crisis?

    The Shia will continue to control Iraq’s government even if Iran pays little attention to events in that country.

    If Friedman sees Shia power in Iraq as a problem for the US, in that Shia-cotrolled gov’t is unlikely to be hostile toward Iran, why on earth did he encourage idiotic and illegal invasion of Iraq by G W Bush?

  557. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    The influence of Arabic enriched the Persian language. At about the same time, the influence of Norman-French enriched the English language (thanks to Norman Conquest 1066).

  558. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Yes, a magnificent imperial past (Persia). The question in those days was which empire would control or dominate any given people. Not a matter of whether this would be the situation that obtained.

  559. James Canning says:

    kooshy, Eric,

    Richard Haass told Chris Hedges (New York Times Sept. 9, 2003) :” Iraq was a war of choice, not a war that had to be fought.”

    Hedges wrote that Haass’s “intellectual passion was, and has remained, how to stanch the decline of American power.”

    And Haass helps to hype the so-called “threat” posed by Iran.

  560. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    RE:Re: surviving cultural remnants from early Persian empires. Are there not many clay cylinders that have yet to be transcribed and translated? Reflecting on the history and culture from time of Cyrus the Great?

    Yes. They also point to an imperial past and subjugation of many nations.

  561. Empty says:

    Kooshy,

    Yes, the spirit and mechanics of the Iranian poetry (owing to a great extent to the influence of the Arabic language) in the past 1000 years or so have been profound. It is unmatched by anything (very sparse) that may have been written in old Persian or Pahlavi.

    Lessons from history (any era) should not be disregarded/discounted.

  562. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 22, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    The way I understand Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that the position of Iran is enhanced because Shia (Arabs) now control Iraq.

    Implicit in this analysis is that the Iran is the security linchpin of tens of millions of people who live outside of Iranian borders: in Iraq, in Armenia, in Afhanistan, in Tadjikistan, in Syria and in Lebanon.

    He is correct is his straetgic assessment.

    Once the overthrow scenario in Syria is foild, US-EU and their local dependencies have to re-evaluate their strategic situation.

    As you can see, events in Egypt over the last 24 hours – make for a very fluid situation.

  563. James Canning says:

    Philip Giraldi has some interesting comments on the CIA’s recent disaster in Lebanon (“Who dies, who pays”):

    http://www.theamericanconxervative.com/blog/

  564. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:33 am

    well said. in fact, beyond that I think over emphasizing on the distant past is a tacit approval of the fact that we have nothing else even in contemporary time to refer to. talking about glorious time of pre-Islam Iran sounds like a joke for me. it’s an identity crisis, at best, and a resist pronouncement at worst.

  565. kooshy says:

    Eric A. Brill says:

    November 22, 2011 at 10:37 am

    “Am I the only one who’s amazed and amused to have learned, only after the fact, of the vast number of people (Richard Haass, for example) who had been opposed to the US invasion of Iraq? Why, I often ask myself, was it so difficult to spot these people BEFORE the US invaded Iraq? These days, finding someone who acknowledges having supported the Iraq war is tougher than finding someone of my vintage who admits to having smoked marijuana during his college years.”

    Well, Eric I don’t know about that, but I think I can safely venture a guess that majority of Iranians that I know “were for it before they were against it” for a simple fact of, when one is tossing a coin up in the air one may just get lucky and get a head, and I think that was a safe bet to make.

  566. James Canning says:

    Scott,

    You are no doubt quite right that Washington wanted an excuse to apply more sanctions against Iran. And needed a pretext or two. Ergo, the so-called “plot”, hype about Iranian enriching of U to 20%, etc etc etc.

    Regrettably, in my view, Iran’s enriching to 20% is hugely beneficial to Israel, and does nothing for Iran.

  567. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Perhaps the crux of the matter is that George Friedman want to enable fanatical Jews in the West Bank to continue to f*ck the national security interests of the American people, and he hopes to convince the Gulf countries that Iran is a “threat” and they need to work with Israel in order to remain safe.

  568. Scott Lucas says:

    Karl,

    “1. What is your take on the nuclear issue? What should Iran do? What should the US do?”

    My starting point is that Iran has the right to develop its nuclear programme as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I do not see how the latest IAEA report establishes that Iran went beyond those commitments — at least after 2003 — in pursuit of a militarised nuclear capability.

    My belief is that the nuclear issue is usually a pawn for bigger fights between the US and Iran over influence in the Middle East and other regions. My reading is that Washington has been seeking devices, such as the allegations of The Plot and the IAEA report, to ratchet up sanctions on Iran and thus “contain” it.

    “2. What is your take on Iran as a Islamic Republic. Do you support it? Does it have ‘right to exist’?”

    Yes, it has a right to exist and this should be recognised by all other countries.

    Best,

    S.

  569. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    George Friedman’s literally idiotic assertion that Iran without nuclear weapons is a “threat” should beggar belief. Gulf monarchies have defence budget many times that of Iran. But armaments manufacturers would of course like to see such “defence” spending doubled. Maybe trebled.

  570. James Canning says:

    Empty,

    Re: surviving cultural remnants from early Persian empires. Are there not many clay cylinders that have yet to be transcribed and translated? Reflecting on the history and culture from time of Cyrus the Great?

  571. Fiorangela says:

    thanks for the link to Friedman at Stratfor, fyi.

    “The main Iranian threat is not nuclear. It might become so, but even without nuclear weapons, Iran remains a threat.[!] The current escalation originated in the American decision to withdraw from Iraq and was intensified by events in Syria. If Iran abandoned its nuclear program tomorrow, the situation would remain as complex. Iran has the upper hand, and the United States, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all are looking at how to turn the tables.

    At this point, they appear to be following a two-pronged strategy: Increase pressure on Iran to make it recalculate its vulnerability, and bring down the Syrian government to limit the consequences of Iranian influence in Iraq. Whether the Syrian regime can be brought down is problematic. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi would have survived if NATO hadn’t intervened. NATO could intervene in Syria, but Syria is more complex than Libya. Moreover, a second NATO attack on an Arab state designed to change its government would have unintended consequences, no matter how much the Arabs fear the Iranians at the moment. Wars are unpredictable; they are not the first option.

    Therefore the likely solution is covert support for the Sunni opposition funneled through Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan.”

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111121-syria-iran-and-balance-power-middle-east

    Amazing logic: Iran is a threat because US is withdrawing from Iraq and Iran chooses to stay in the neighborhood.

    Maybe US could cobble together an army of ants to “move that rubber tree plant” Iran to some place where it’s not in the way of US “interests.” The United States Treasury, Budget Dept. does not seem to be getting much attention from US govt; maybe Iran could be transplanted there.

  572. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    The fanatical Jews in the G W Bush administration, who conspired to set up the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq, wanted a strong Iraq under the control of a government in cahoots with Israel. They did not want to destroy Iraq; Iraq was to be a strong ally of Israel (and the US).

    I like Eric Margolis, but he was quite wrong to think the scheme was intended to destroy Iraq.

    Saddam Hussein was damaging property values in Tel Aviv and hurting other business. He had to go. American people needed to be lied to, to set up the illegal invasion. Liar warmongering Jewish neocons were in total control of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. Which took lead in duping Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and of course G W Bush

  573. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Friedman noted, on March 12, 2003, that France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece openly opposed the imminent invasion of Iraq. Who cares? in effect, is what Friedman advised the warmongers in the G W Bush administration.

  574. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    On March 12, 2003, shortly before the idiotic launch of the Iraq War, George Friedman advised the Bush administration that they could ignore the apparent hostility toward the war that was evident in Europe. Friedman was confident there was enough fear of a Franco-German domination of Europe, to enable the US to carry through its illegal war in Iraq without too serious consequences for America within Europe.

  575. Rehmat says:

    Eric Margolis: ‘US lost Iraq to Israel and Iran’

    In October 2002, Canadian war reporter, journalist and author Eric S. Margolis warned Americans that Washington’s invasion of Iraq for a regime change would be “road to folly”. He believed that the war hysteria against Saddam Hussein’s ‘non-existent’ nuclear bombs was created by the pro-Israel individuals and groups who wanted to destroy the only technically advanced Arab neighbor of Israel…..

    After Iraq being bombed to Dark Age – the same warmongers and the army of Zionist liars have been creating a similar hysteria against the Islamic Republic since then….

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/eric-margolis-us-lost-iraq-to-israel-and-iran/

  576. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    I agree with you that propagandists for the illegal and insane invasion of Iraq will work continuously in effort to prevent the American public from comprehending just how utterly insane was the Iraq War programme.

    If the moron in the White House had delayed the invasion for a few more days, Saddam Hussein likely would have left the country. The apologists for the crimanl conspirators who set up the illegal invasion on knowingly false pretenses, obviously do not want the American people to understand that Saddam could have been removed at next to zero cost to the American taxpayers.

  577. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Is George Friedman a propagandist for the armaments manufacturers and fanatical Jews who want to keep much of the West Bank permanently?

  578. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    What utter rubbish from George Friedman at Stratfor that you linked! US withdrawal from Iraq creates “potential for a massive shift in the balance of power in the region, with Iran mvoing from a fairly marginal power to potnetially a dominant power.”

    This is some of the foolish “thinking” used to help convince G W Bush to reject the policy called for by the Iraq Study Group. And this foolish “thinking” helped cause the squandering of many hundreds of billions of dollars on the quagmire in Iraq caused by illegal and idiotic invasion.

  579. kooshy says:

    Empty says:

    November 22, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Well my dear Empty Jan,

    For some of us to better enjoy this fantastic literature of modern (new) Persian language (New in our history is at least a modest 1300 year old, which that alone equates to half of our political history) currently the mother tongue of 110 million speakers, which includes likes of Ferdossi, Hafez, Molana(Rumi), Sadie, and many many others who will never die, we will need to full heartedly accept that if we are still versed in the Old Persian or the Middle Persian (Pahlavi) we need to move on, and learn to accept that these old forms of Persian language are dead, and are now only used in academic circles, it also helps if we can somehow do a sole search to find out if we have consciously or unconsciously separated ourselves from the balance of our history which indeed, “For Some Reason” during this period of the modern Persian language it created one of the most artistic literatures that mankind has ever experienced.

    Cheers

  580. Empty says:

    fyi,

    I am not surprised that you believe that….:)

  581. fyi says:

    Empty says: November 22, 2011 at 12:13

    I believe that I have established what I set out to do.

  582. Empty says:

    fyi,

    RE: Please produce an Iranian work of that period that is the analogue of Aristotles Physics, or Plato’s Republic, or Xenophon’s Cyropedia.

    1. Please clearly state your definitional framework for what constitutes “work” worthy of analogy.

    2. Please state your views about various modes of human expressions/communication and application of human knowledge and which one, you believe, to be more preferable than other in reinforcing a particular worldview and why.

    Let’s see if we even have any commonality on our basic assumptions first.

  583. fyi says:

    Empty says: November 22, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Please produce an Iranian work of that period that is the analogue of Aristotles Physics, or Plato’s Republic, or Xenophon’s Cyropedia.

  584. FYI says:

    “US population has to experience a few more such disasters like Iraq before they come back to the reality of the world as it is and not as they wish it to be.”

    Good observation. But the effect of the Iraq war on the US population may be found less in what we actually “experienced” in that war than what the repackagers of history later tell us we experienced. A too-common formulation of those engaged in that repackaging goes something like this (at least in a low-brow Fox News variant):

    “There are those out there who claim Iraq was a mistake because we found no WMD. I would ask those people this: Do you wish Saddam Hussein were still in power?”

    Others will point out that many Iraqis wanted the US military to stay longer (much as we are now hearing about the Afghan “people” who’ve asked the US military to stay longer in their country). Whether this is true or not really doesn’t matter (all the polls I’ve ever seen suggest the Iraqi people wanted the US to leave long before it did). The key fact is that we’ve left, so that any future unrest in Iraq can be cited as proof that the US military had performed an invaluable service to the Iraqi people and isn’t it a shame that we ever left?

  585. Empty says:

    fyi,

    Oh, I definitely understand what they are doing. The fact that I do not ethically approve of them does not impede my understanding of the deceptive games they are playing. For the same ethical reasons, I cannot admire how well they are playing.

  586. Fiorangela says:

    correction to post at 10:54 am:

    in the video at this link, http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/unprecedented-minneapolis-forum-of-4-jews-arguing-about-israel-is-on-line-now.html , Ron Farber discussed how “all Jewish children” are taught to “boo” . . .etc. at the celebration of Purim.

  587. Empty says:

    fyi says,

    RE: That there is nothing surviving in the form of poetry, drama, histories, philosophy, and science from the establishment of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great to the demise of Sassanian Empire.

    This statement is incorrect in the following areas: There are decidedly multitude of concrete and tangible evidence of history, science, and application of science (i.e. technology). In addition, there is concrete evidence of systematic and orderly development and design for governance, taxation, communication and mail delivery.

    The statement is correct about poetry and drama.

  588. Fiorangela says:

    Sassan says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:30 am

    “In fact, Cyrus The Great deemed the world’s first human rights declaration in which a replica stands in front of the entrance to the United Nations Security Council. Kouroush was a King – but he allowed people to keep their religion, culture, and language. He did not kill women and children.”

    Sassan, you wrote earlier complaining of some negative attitudes towards Jews that you found objectionable.

    Here’s something that truly bothers me about Jews — yes, in general and in the foundational beliefs and practices. Arguably, Cyrus did more for Jews than any other person or government, past or present. Yet, as witnessed by the comment of a ma
    Jewish children are raised to “boo” at the mention of Haman and “cheer” that, at the hands of Esther, 70 000 Persians were slain. Even secular Jews who observe no other rite of Judaism or Jewry, celebrate Purim, when Esther caused 70,000 Persians to be slain. The very few Jews who remain in Sousa, in the Dominican Republic (on land given to Jews as a place of refuge and sanctuary by Trujillo in 1938, no longer have a synagogue but they do celebrate the festival of Purim.

    In the United States, we are preparing to celebrate OUR secular national holiday — Thanksgiving.

    Is there a Thanksgiving celebration in the Jewish calendar to balance out the celebration of the slaughter of 70,000 Persians — people of the land that had given Jews refuge and, indeed, their very identity?

  589. fyi says:

    Eric A. Brill says: November 22, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Sometimes in Life, just like in Business, you have to stand aside and watch things fall apart.

    I, for one, watched the virulently fantaical Muslims in Iran rampaging through Iranian society, imposing by force, their low class pharisee bigoted Islamicization agenda; all the while claiming that the Mulsim Utopia was just around the corner.

    Thirty years later and the Islamic Nekbat is everywhere to be seen in that country.

    US population has to experience a few more such disasters like Iraq before they come back to the reality of the world as it is and not as they wish it to be.

    Clearly, the US disasters in Iraq and Economic Crisis of the United States (and EU) has not yet inflicted enough suffering on the People of the United States to effect a substantial change in attitude.

  590. fyi says:

    Empty says: November 22, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Well do not give them kudos but at least understand their accomplishment.

    They have succeeded in pinning down US and EU across the Middle East with no possibility of extrication.

    On this thread I had earlier posted several pieces from various US analysts; all of whom were positing and suggesting the construction of elaborate (and expensive to create and to maintain) military and deterrence structures in the Persian Gulf and in Palestine against Iran.

    Russia and China sold – at a high price – enough rope to the Americans and the Europeans to hang themselves with in the Middle East.

  591. The Leveretts write:

    “Although, after the fact, Richard [Haass] wants everyone to believe that he was all along opposed to the Iraq invasion, as Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff he helped oversee the preparation of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, see here, which was critical to “selling” the idea of a U.S.-led invasion.”

    I consider this very damning. It also recalls for me two reactions to important events in February 2003, just before the US invasion of Iraq:

    1. Powell’s presentation to the UN itself, in early February, to which I reacted by wondering: “If he’s really investigated these WMD allegations as carefully as he claims, how has he managed to overlook that they have no solid basis?” At the time I attributed it to nothing more than Powell’s craven desire to remain “relevant” in the Bush administration (which he did, of course, at least for another few months). Now I know the answer to that question had at least one other component: Richard Haass and his group had done much of the “investigating” for Powell.

    2. My own wife’s reaction to Powell’s UN presentation marked the end of my effort to persuade others that the US should not invade Iraq. After I’d done my best to poke holes in his allegations, one by one and with as much precision and fact as I could bring to bear, she replied, in essence (and almost verbatim): “I’m not disagreeing with you, dear, but this is Colin Powell saying these things.”

    From that point forward, I recognized (as many more realistic people had recognized, long before I did) that the Iraq invasion was inevitable, and turned my immediate attention to guessing the exact day it would begin. If my own wife was persuaded, it was inevitable that all but a small and ineffective group of opponents was left.

    A final note on that small group of Iraq-war opponents:

    Am I the only one who’s amazed and amused to have learned, only after the fact, of the vast number of people (Richard Haass, for example) who had been opposed to the US invasion of Iraq? Why, I often ask myself, was it so difficult to spot these people BEFORE the US invaded Iraq? These days, finding someone who acknowledges having supported the Iraq war is tougher than finding someone of my vintage who admits to having smoked marijuana during his college years.

  592. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 22, 2011 at 9:30 am

    I cannot accept your statements about Ancient Iran; there is no evidence for them.

    On the other hand, there is substantial evidence supporting my assertions:

    That there is nothing surviving in the form of poetry, drama, histories, philosophy, and science from the establishment of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great to the demise of Sassanian Empire.

    THis is to be contrasted with the massive volume of works surviving from Ancient Greece or even China during the same period.

    Ancient Iran was a barren land of Nobles lording it over the Peasants, with a few Dehghans who were trying to survive as independent free men.

    The only poteic form surviving from late Sassanian era is “Asurik Tree” which is quite primitive in poetic form to those of Arabic poetry.

  593. Empty says:

    Sassan,

    1. Name one or two Persian poets (any poet) and a sample of his/her work before 600 A.D. outside of the writings of Avesta.

    2. Compare their work (any) with the poets you named in your post. What are the differences and similarities?

    3. Why did you choose them (in #2) and not the ones from #1 as your example of fine Persian literary “superiority”?

    You do not need to make it lengthy. A short 6000-word essay would be sufficient.

  594. Karl says:

    Voice:

    Why cant I ask lucas questions? I dont agree with his views but its important to know how and why people have certain standpoints, because then you can make a counter-argument to them.

  595. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Usul says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Methinks the word you are searching for might be ‘presstitute’.

    *

    Bussed-in Professor: As always, good to see you around.

  596. Empty says:

    fyi,

    You must admire them for their successes with very little diplomatic or political expenditures they have made themselves indispensible to everyone. I say, “Kudos to you! Very Well done Indeed!”

    I will not give any kudos to the Chinese and the Russians and anyone else who are complicit with the US and her allies (whatever shape or form that complicity takes) in the ongoing crimes and killing, displacing, and maiming exacted upon vulnerable and defenseless people. Sixty cents of every dollar that is spent on bullets and bombs by the US is financed by the Central Bank of China. May the misguided be guided by the Almighty.

    My choice in interpreting and presenting of what might be actually happening (sometimes mixed with some mockery for effect) should not be mistaken for approval of certain actions.

  597. Sassan says:

    And FYI: to be fair, ancient Persia was far superior the Iran of today in not only cultural advancement, but in terms of human rights, women’s rights, and freedom of religion. In fact, Cyrus The Great deemed the world’s first human rights declaration in which a replica stands in front of the entrance to the United Nations Security Council. Kouroush was a King – but he allowed people to keep their religion, culture, and language. He did not kill women and children.

    “The Persian Poetry itself owes its existence to the Arabic poetic forms. And in many many way, Iran is an Arab country.”

    Civilizations came into connect with other civilizations and most definitely improved upon innovations. But in fact, Persian poetry was purely distinct from Arabic poetry when we are referring to the GREAT poets of the time – Ferdowsi, Saadi, Hafez, Khayyam… they kept Persian culture alive. And in fact, one of the greatest Iranians to ever have lived was the great Omar Khayyam. He was not only a poet, but a mathematician and great scientist. In fact, he was a staunch atheist…but he was too useful for the rulers so they wouldn’t dare touch him and needed his knowledge…that was what a great he was. In fact, Omar Khayyam is LOVED throughout the western world.

  598. Sassan says:

    I need to get more sleep so sorry I haven’t had time to reply but just to quickly clarify. I wasn’t equating myself to any racist or nationalistic superiority. We are all ONE race, Homo sapiens derived from our primate past out of Western Africa. BUT, I don’t play this cultural relativism nonsense. Not all cultures are equal. That was what I was inferring to.

    And let the Hizbolli/Basiji fan-boys roam the comments section and I know you tend to be illiterate as being such fanatical religious maniacs – but all one has to do is open up a history book to know the end is near for Khamenei and your thuggish hooligans. Once a people have risen up and are no longer afraid to make such chants and expressions that they once thought was unimaginable (such as death to Khamenei) the regime or government in power can only delay the inevitable. The question is not “if” this regime will change but rather the length of time and the amount of further bloodshed the Iranian people and Iranian nation will have to suffer to become free. The same is true for Assad.

  599. Usul says:

    I know that niceties, when you do the same kind of job, are sort of prereqisites.

    But by stating “American elites are gearing up for …” entails thet these people fall under the title “Elites”. For the sake of the correct use of language and intellectual honesty, it is high time to start dispensing with such free gifts.

    In my humble idea, “opinionist” or “commentator” in most cases will just do. Of course most of the times you cannot call them by their real titles such as buffoon or crook, nor they will go away if you flush the toilet as they seem to be quite sticky.

    But still, Brzezinski, Barnicle, Haass, and Meacham (and the list goes on forever) are no elites, unless elite means someone who has never worked a single day in his life.

  600. Voice of Tehran says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Willkommen , geehrter Professor….

  601. Voice of Tehran says:

    Karl says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:04 am

    Aren’t we good enough for you , that you are posing those weird ‘ questions ‘ to SL.
    I really don’t get . What about asking Pak and Binam and passerby etc. back to this forum and ask them the same questions ??

  602. kooshy says:

    The media and Iran: familiar mindlessness

    By Glenn Greenwald

    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_media_and_iran_familiar_mindlessness/singleton/

  603. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Sasan,
    Spend a little more time in class my boy, your genes are gushing with the DNA of the Macedonians, Turks, Mongols and Arabs that literally effed your “Persian” ancestors (if your ancestors are from around Shiraz area). No such thing as “Iranian” in the cultural-racial way your exile taghuti parents taught you. “Farsi speaking” yes, because all Iranians today regardless of ethnicity and creed have become Farsi speaking- thanks to mandatory universal primary education brought to you by the awesome and wonderful Shia clergy-led Islamic Republic. And don’t forget to over 50% of the words used in Farsi are Arabic according to Dehkhoda (ask your taghuti parents about Dehkhoda dictionary). Ironic, isn’t it? (Ask UU to explain the irony to you because I doubt you really get it).

    As far as regime change, it will never happen in your life time. Don’t waste your life trying. fyi predicts 77 years for the Islamic Republic, Soros predicts 1 year (around 1 year ago). Be so kind- you know between classes- and enlighten us with your prediction for when the Islamic Republic will end- a nice round figure in months or years. The likelihood of Israel ending in the next 20 years are exponentially higher than regime change in Iran in the same time period. Bet on the winning horse my young inexperienced friend!

    My suggestion is you spend your life being a good American or Brit or wherever the hell you are and leave your “homeland” to those of us who can stand being in it for more than 8 months. Sasan my dear boy, you are not Iranian, you are …(fill in the blank) of Iranian descent. Have a nice life and I wish you the best.

  604. Karl says:

    Scott Lucas:

    I would appreciate if you just could elaborate/summarize your view in some sentences regarding:

    1. What is your take on the nuclear issue? What should Iran do? What should the US do?

    2. What is your take on Iran as a Islamic Republic. Do you support it? Does it have “right to exist”?

  605. Scott Lucas says:

    Karl,

    EA’s current news and analysis on Iran should give you a reading of both domestic and international issues, but let me know which of the many topics is of most concern to you.

    S.

  606. Karl says:

    Scott Lucas:

    Could you please elaborate your view on Iran and what you think about the current topics about the nation?

  607. Scott Lucas says:

    Pirouz,

    They were wrong because 1) you mis-read what James Miller said and 2) you seem to have missed EA’s coverage of Occupy Wall Street in recent days.

    A few items from the last 48 hours to illustrate the range of coverage:

    Bahrain Video Diary, Part 3: The Freedom Torch Marches To Its Final Destination
    ,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/22/bahrain-video-diary-part-3-the-freedom-torch-marches-to-its.html

    The Latest from Iran (22 November): The Security Forces v. Ahmadinejad’s Senior Advisor
    http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/22/the-latest-from-iran-22-november-the-security-forces-v-ahmad.html

    Iran Special Analysis: The Security Forces Cross Ahmadinejad’s “Red Line”
    ,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/22/iran-special-analysis-the-security-forces-cross-ahmadinejads.html

    Egypt (and Beyond) LiveBlog: Turmoil and Confusion
    ,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/22/egypt-and-beyond-liveblog-turmoil-and-confusion.html

    Iran Feature: So What Happened When Security Forces Tried to Arrest the President’s Senior Advisor?
    ,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/21/iran-feature-so-what-happened-when-security-forces-tried-to-7.html

    US-China Video: Will There Be Confrontation?
    ,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/21/us-china-video-will-there-be-confrontation-scott-lucas-on-al.html

    US Video: Police Pepper-Spray Sitting Protesters at California University
    ,http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/11/20/us-video-police-pepper-spray-sitting-protesters-at-californi.html

    Best,

    S.

  608. hans says:

    fyi says:
    November 21, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    So you have taken refuge in the Dream Place of non-religious Iranians; the fantasy world of pre-Islamic Iran. The reality of course was a rigid cast system with almost no literacy for anyone outside of the nobles; who helped themselves to the best of everything

    Just like Tibet before the Chinese take over.

  609. Pirouz says:

    Yeah, Scott, you took the time to address me here on RFI but didn’t specifically address how the two items I cited were actually wrong. Typical.

    This is the last comment I ever direct in your direction.

  610. kooshy says:

    I found this interesting comment posted on one of the authors of the article I posted earlier ersonal blog, it is worth reading his earlier posts on his blog, which I repost the comment here as well as a ;ink to his blog

    http://robertjprince.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/the-israeli-pickle-iran-part-two/

    “Rob Prince permalink*

    November 21, 2011 3:07 pm

    This from Paul Billings of Swarthmore PA, (sent to me by email)

    RE: Constructing a New Balance of Terror- The Israeli Pickle: Iran by Ibrahim Kazerooni & Rob Prince Nov 21, 2011

    Very well written piece on Counterpunch. A few comments.

    Iran has not invaded or attacked another country in 250 years. Iran did respond to Iraq’s invasion in 1980 (the US provided military aid to Iraq). In contrast, Israel has been involved in multiple wars in the Middle East, but had not successfully won a war since 1973. Israel has received hundreds of $ billions of US taxpayer support over the last 4 decades. One could argue that Israeli actions are an extension of US policy, or serves as a US proxy.

    Considering the nearly continuous bellicose rhetoric directed at them, Iran is no doubt pursuing measures to protect themselves. What would the US do if we were in Iran’s position? I think part of the hysteria regarding Iran is a consequence of the strategic failures of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan- which have cost US taxpayers $ trillions and greatly exacerbated economic problems in the US and Europe. It appears that Iraq (60% Shiite; Muqtada al-Sadr highly influential religious and political figure in Iraq, has spent a lot to time in Iran) will develop closer relations with Iran. An Iran/Iraq alliance would be formidable, controlling a huge amount of oil natural gas reserves. One might think that the Pentagon and State Dept would have thought about this prior to occupying Iraq.

    At this point, it is not clear if US/Israel/NATO will attack Iran. I suspect that if they felt they could get away with it, Iran would have been attacked. Obviously, any attack on Iran is going to lead to a wider war in the ME and may well incinerate the Persian Gulf. If nuclear weapons are used (a likely scenario), all bets are off.

    Despite what we read in the US press, the majority of people living in the ME view Iran favorably, as they have consistently supported Palestinian rights. I think the US & Israel are viewed much less favorably.

    FYI- you might want to check out Flynt & Hillary Mann Leverett’s website-
    Race for Iran; Link: :http://www.raceforiran.com.

    Thank you
    Paul Billings
    Swarthmore, PA

  611. Scott Lucas says:

    Pirouz,

    Thanks for your continued support. Your post is wrong on all counts, as even a brief glance at EA’s latest coverage from Iran to the Middle East to Occupy Wall Street would establish.

    If you are being ignored, please do not take offence — we just are very busy dealing with the news.

    Best,

    S.

  612. Fara says:

    New sanctions on Iran illegal: Russia

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211421.html

    Then, why did they vote against Iran recently at IAEA. Is it that they got deceived, once again. Didn’t they expect no more sanctions coming out of their vote?

  613. kooshy says:

    In my opinion this article is overall a sound analysis of current sum of the affairs surrounding the geopolitics of Iran/US and the rest of the region, I recommend it

    Constructing a New Balance of Terror

    The Israeli Pickle: Iran

    by IBRAHIM KAZEROONI and ROB PRINCE

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/21/the-israeli-pickle-iran/

    “As the Arab Spring extended beyond Tunisia to the rest of the region, long held alliances between Israel, Egypt and Turkey began to fray – if not unravel. Sympathy for the Palestinians surged, Israel’s status plummeted, not just in the Third World, but also in Europe to a great extent. If Israel could still count on the U.S. Congress to genuflect, it is no longer true of the American people, who have begun to have doubts, including in the American Jewish Community.”
    “The wind was taken out of the sales of the U.S-Israeli anti-Iranian campaign. On the surface the anti-Iranian alliance is a curious hodgepodge uniting Israel and seeming allies like Saudi Arabia in a common effort to produce `regime change’ in Iran. In less polite language, `regime change’ refers to nothing less than a combined effort to effort to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran by any means necessary.

    Still, the anti-Iranian coalition lost considerable momentum over the past year, undermining Israel’s position in the region as the Arab partners have been pre-occupied. It turns out that the argument Iran is a threat to the region is falling flat yet again. The `threat’ Tunisia, Egypt and the rest of the region faced had nothing to do with Iran. Instead it had its roots in the socio-economic policies and U.S. backed authoritarian regions which had long stifled development and democracy.”

    “It is clear that Iran’s current nuclear program – even one based upon the peaceful use of the atom – has provoked a level of insecurity in Israel. A nuclear Iran threatens Israeli self-confidence by crossing two “redlines” in the Israeli strategic psyche.

    1. First, the arsenal of a single country would pose an existential threat. Focusing on Iran’s ultimate destructive capability rather than its intentions, Israeli strategists therefore view a nuclear Iran apocalyptically.

    2. Second, many Israelis believe that the end of Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region would terminate the country’s ultimate insurance policy, fundamentally undermining Israel’s general deterrence posture.”

  614. Pirouz says:

    Arya says:
    November 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    I agree, it’s too bad Pak gave it up. Not that I agreed with most of what he said, only that a stimulating and honest debate is usually a good thing. I have a hunch that, like most Green partisans these days, he’s given up on a successful sedition taking place anytime soon.

    As for Scott Lucas, you’ll recall I had previously defended the man’s right to speak up here at RFI. Not any more. You folks that claimed he was dishonest and a liar have been proven correct. I’ll cite two examples (or which there are more):

    1) Remember when Scott claimed he had teams of Green supporters for research and reporting, inside and outside of Iran? James Miller admitted EA has no such thing, when I pointed to their lackluster OWS coverage.

    2) Remember when Scott gave his qualifications for constantly describing Iran’s political establishment as a “regime,” as well as his qualification for Iran’s political establishment being “illegitimate” based upon its law enforcement and security measures? When I pointed out to him these same qualifications were hypocritically not being applied to the OWS protests and responses, he simply ignored me.

    You folks were right: he is dishonest and a liar. I have removed EA as a bookmark in my web browser.

  615. Unknown Unknowns says:

    And for the hardcore fans:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTSBR7eHL_I&feature=related

    The Gibson SG in all its magnificence.

    Isn’t it romantic?

    That’s all it is. LOL

  616. fyi says:

    Mohmmad Agha says: November 21, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    You live in a fantasy land.

  617. Mohmmad Agha says:

    حلقه محاصره جهانی ایران، روز گذشته تنگ تر شد. دو کشور فرانسه و انگلیس بانک مرکزی را تحریم کردند و سازمان ملل با رد دروغ هائی که محمد جواد لاریجانی در سفر به امریکا گفته بود، با اکثریتی بالا قطعنامه ای را تصویب کرد که بموجب آن جمهوری اسلامی نه تنها بدلیل نقض حقوق بشر محکوم شده، بلکه در آن بندهائی وجود دارد که بالاتر و جدی تر از این محکومیت است. بموجب این بندها، سازمان ملل از حکومت جمهوری اسلامی خواست تا زندانیان سیاسی را آزاد کند، به حبس خانگی موسوی و کروبی خاتمه بدهد و با برگزاری انتخاباتی آزاد و تحت نظارت داخلی و خارجی موافقت کند.
    سه خواستی که از شلیک سه موشک اتمی به طرف جمهوری اسلامی جدی تر و کمر شکن تر است. تردید نیست که سرنشینان کشتی تبدیل شده به قایق “نظام” حمله به ایران، برپائی جنگ و ویرانی کشور را به پذیرش این سه خواست ترجیح میدهند. زیرا تصور می کنند با حمله به ایران، می توانند مردم را به بهانه دفاع از وطن مجبور به صرفنظر کردن از خواسته هایشان بکنند و علیرغم هر ویرانی که بر کشور تحمیل بشود بر سر قدرت باقی بمانند، اما در صورت پذیرش سه خواست مندرج در قطعنامه سازمان ملل، قدرت را باید بوسیده و از منبر آن پائین آمده و آن را واگذار کنند به منتخبین مردم. منتخبینی که حداقل از کودتای 22 خرداد تا اکنون، تحت سخت ترین پیگردها بوده اند. با قطعنامه سازمان ملل، رهبر جمهوری اسلامی و باند کودتای 22 خرداد و تصاحب کنندگان ارگان های نظام مانند صندلی های مجلس و یا کرسی های قضاوت و نهاد ریاست جمهوری که همگی مدعی “فتنه 88″ اند و انتخابات 22 خرداد را انتخاباتی سالم دانسته و خود را برگزیده مردم میدانند، حالا دعوت به همان میدانی شده اند که مدعی آن هستند. یعنی رای مردم. اما انتخاباتی تحت نظارت داخلی و خارجی و نه نظارت احمد جنتی و شیخ محمد یزدی!
    علیرغم آن که اکنون تحریم نفت ایران نیز از سوی فرانسه مطرح شده و امریکا نیز از فرانسه و انگلیس برای تحریم ها عقب نخواهد ماند، قطعنامه سازمان ملل و بویژه بندهائی از آن که در بالا به آنها اشاره شد؛ برای رهبران کودتاچی جمهوری اسلامی سهمگین تر است. بویژه که حدس می زنند فشار تحریم ها نه تنها شامل حال فعالیت های نظامی- اتمی می شود، بلکه باحتمال قریب به یقین با اجبار به برگزاری یک انتخابات تحت نظارت، با شرایط ذکر شده در قطعنامه، یعنی آزادی زندانیان سیاسی و بویژه کروبی و موسوی گره خواهد خورد. نه تنها گره خواهد خورد، بلکه این احتمال قوی است که این خواست بعنوان خواستی جهانی در راس خواست های مورد تاکید در تحریم ها قرار گیرد. دو راه حل در پیش پای حاکمیت است:
    1- تن به این خواست ها – از عقب نشینی اتمی تا برگزاری انتخابات تحت نظارت- بدهد، که در اینصورت نه تنها با رای مردم رفتنی است، بلکه عقب نشینی اتمی بزرگترین واکنش ها را در داخل نیروهای نظامی بوجود خواهد آورد.
    2- نخواهد و یا نتواند تن به قبول این خواست ها بدهد؛ دراین صورت گام بلند دیگری برای اجماع جهانی برای حمله نظامی به ایران برداشته شده است و این همان نتیجه ایست که اسرائیل روی آن سرمایه گذاری کرده و شبکه های نفوذی اش در دولت و مجموع حاکمیت کنونی، برای رسیدن به این نتیجه کار می کنند.
    بدین ترتیب است که یا حاکمیت کنونی از قدرت دست می کشد و به سود ملت و کشور و حتی برای حفظ جمهوری اسلامی کنار می رود و یا می ایستد تا با ویرانی ایران کنار برود. صحنه رویاروئی درون و بیرون نظام بر مدار این تضاد شکل گرفته و در آینده شکل عریان تر به خود خواهد گرفت.

  618. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sassan says …

    He’s a little fond of chiffon in a wrist array.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w7SiJygZK0 (At around 6:18)

  619. Arya says:

    Sassan said:

    Because we are not Arab. We are Iranian.

    Congrats. Lol

    looking forward for your insight (literally), I missed Pak and Scott Lucas’s posts.

  620. Arya says:

    @fyi

    As far as negotiator and diplomacy goes, Larijani was doing pretty good last week wasn’t he? He stood his ground during barrage of questions slash insults in morning joe, came up ok in Charlie Rose and Fareed Zakaria’s shows. One couldn’t detect any condescension or hidden animosity toward his counterpart in those discussions.

    But I get your point, in Indonesia we also have to, at times, endure religious speech at Friday prayer that filled with so much hatred, it disturbed you. But as more and more Indonesians flock to school to pursue higher education, hopefully clear and logical thinking persevere.

  621. Sassan says:

    “Sassan’s sentiment (regarding his government) obviously not shared by Arab spring activists.”

    Because we are not Arab. We are Iranian. Our culture is pre-Islamic.

    I will respond to the rest of the posts later on tonight when I get home.

  622. Arya says:

    Interesting survey showing “Arab street” opinion, taken in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Lebanon, and Jordan. Sassan’s sentiment (regarding his government) obviously not shared by Arab spring activists.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/21/arab-public-ranks-china-turkey-irans-ahmadinejad-ahead-of-us-obama-iran-and-china-beat-us-in-arab-poll?s_cid=rss:arab-public-ranks-china-turkey-irans-ahmadinejad-ahead-of-us-obama-iran-and-china-beat-us-in-arab-poll

    “Public opinions in the Middle East have become more favorable toward the United States and the Obama administration since a year ago, according to a recent regional survey. But compared to other countries and other world leaders, America and President Obama are far from regional favorites.”

  623. Dan Cooper says:

    Sassan

    Your views on Iran and Israel are outrageous. There is a clear lack of understanding of the international politics and the world order.

    It seems to me that you have been watching too much Fox news, CNN, VOA and BBC and have been brainwashed by their lies and propaganda.

    I strongly advise you to read the two links by professor Avi Shlaim and James Petras.

    I will discuss your posts about Iran in another session if I manage to find free time, however;

    Today, I would like to concentrate solely on Israel.

    It is an offense to intellect that the West can see thousands upon thousands of evidence of Zionist atrocities and continue supporting this fascist state with its sick pretence to ‘democracy’.

    61 years ago, Palestinians were happy because there was no Israel.

    Suddenly, Israel brought people from all over the world to Palestine and terrorised the indigenous Palestinian people, stole their land, forced them out of their homes and established this raciest and apartheid state of Israel that we see today.

    The entire world is aware that occupation is a crime, the Israelis are the aggressors and perpetrators of this crime and the Palestinians are the victim.

    So many decent Jewish people in Israel are totally against their governments murderous atrocities in Palestine.

    More than 80 Israeli students announced their refusal to serve in the Israeli military because of what they call their nation’s track-record of oppression in the occupied territories.

    The conscientious objectors issued a letter declaring their determination not to join up during a news conference in Tel Aviv in protest against the government’s policies towards Gaza and the West Bank.

    They publicly declared that:

    “We cannot ignore the truth –

    The occupation is a violent, racist, inhumane, illegal, undemocratic, and immoral.

    “We, who were educated on the values of liberty, justice, honesty and peace, cannot accept it.”

    It was signed by 84 high school students.

    The biggest problem facing the world and the Middle East peace process are the powerful Israel lobby organisations in USA.

    The US media is a complete mouthpiece for the Israel Lobby. Never a critical word is heard against Israel.

    James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, He wrote: http://petras.lahaine.org/todos.php

    “The great majority of the world’s people are sickened and incensed by Israel’s mass murder of the citizens of Gaza.

    Israel’s embargo, the daily ‘targeted’ assassinations of Palestinians, the ‘targeted’ missile attacks against civilians, the land, sea and air blockades and the blatant ‘targeted’ destruction of the infrastructure of Gaza.

    No government, indeed a democratically elected Hamas government, can stand by while its people are starved and murdered into submission.

    According to the respected Congressmen Bermans, only the lives of Jews matter, not the growing thousands of murdered, dismembered and mutilated citizens of Gaza – they do not count as people!

    Until we neutralize the pervasive power of the Zionist Power Configuration in all of its manifestations – In American public and civic life – and its deep penetration of American legislative and executive offices,

    We will fall short of preventing Israel from receiving the arms, funding and political backing to sustain its wars of ethnic extermination.

    Israel will continue its barbaric ethnic cleansing.

    Israel objective is to obliterate Palestinian civilization and to wipe Palestine off the map.”

    Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford wrote;

    How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe.

    ,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine,

    “A wide gap separates the reality of Israel’s actions from the rhetoric of its spokesmen.

    It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It did so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November 2008 that killed six Hamas men.

    Israel’s objective is not just the defence of its population but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers.

    And far from taking care to spare civilians, Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and of a three-year-old blockade that has brought the inhabitants of Gaza, now 1.5 million, to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe. ”

    Israel has imprisoned 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza strip.

    They have caged them in like animals, and control their food, water, electricity and more importantly their freedom, and when Hamas tries to defend its people and resist this illegal occupation, Israel call them terrorist.

    Hamas is a democratically elected government.

    Israel wants us to believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, but the truth is that Hamas is a democratically elected government.

    In January 2006, President Carter together with UN and British observers monitored Hamas’s election and categorically confirmed that the election was free and fair.

    I have lost counts of how many times Israel has deliberately massacred the innocent Palestinian civilians during the past 61 years.

    This makes Israel is a terrorist state and the biggest threat to world peace.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Israel’s leaders are guilty of crimes against humanity and must be brought to the international court of justice and tried as war criminals.

    The most destructive power in the world is the Israel lobby in America, they control the media and they are the reason why Israel kills with impunity.

    Israel disregard for justice & human rights will have far-reaching consequences for mankind

    We already know that Israel genocide in Palestine has created terrorist and fundamentalism around the world, which will indirectly, effects all of us one way or another.

    The whole world is suffering because of Israel desire to exist by force and occupation.

    Why do we all have to suffer because Israel wants to exist by force and occupation?

    When is it going to sink in, that Israel has never wanted peace, it wants the West Bank and Jerusalem without Arabs, and of course, it requires continued hostility to justify the charity and sympathy it receives!

    Israel is a serial killer and will continue to kill until and unless the international community collectively make the leaders of Israel accountable for their crimes.

    I cannot understand how the world can stand by and make excuses for an Israeli government hell bent on instigating aggression. It’s unfathomable that the people, who were victims of unspeakable crimes in World War 2, are now the perpetrators of equally heinous acts.

    Israel encourages their supporters to hijack public opinion in forums.

    The supporters of Zionist terrorists believe in Brainwashing the international public opinion by playing “the self-defence” card, “rockets”, “Human shield”, “cover ups” and blaming the victim.

    In the age of satellites and television, This does not work anymore, and the international community have called their bluffs.

    Just remember, we are defending the justice and fairness for the innocent and defenceless Palestinian women and children but they are defending Israel’s military and illegal occupation and 61 years of atrocities.

    In the carnage in Gaza, we all witnessed with horror how Israel brutally massacred more than 700 innocent and defenceless Palestinian women and children.

    The Zionist leaders of Israel did not even let the international press inside Gaza because they knew that their atrocities & genocide would be revealed and their propaganda machine would collapse.

    In a sick attempt to brainwash the public opinion in this forum and others, the supporters of this apartheid state are still trying to portray that the aggressor (Israel) is the victim, how low and sick can you get.

    It is time the international community get together and put sever pressure on this apartheid and racist state, as they did to South Africa.

    Those of us who condemn Israel’s atrocities believe in Love, justice, fairness and the rule of law in this world and we cannot tolerate to see the criminal and terrorist leaders of Israel to get away with murder.

  624. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    There is a religious war between Judaism and Islam in Palestine.

    What do you expect?

    But cease fire deal with HAMAS – for 99-years – is still a possibility.

  625. fyi says:

    Arya says: November 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    (Protestant) Americans consider themselves almost a Chosen People withe America being the New Jerusalem, the City on the Hill, etc.

    In Iran, they have been confronting a polity whose People & Government have come to identify America with Satan, with Evil and with anti-God.

    That juxtoposition is so jarring to their self-image that they can no longer think straight.

    It would help if Iranians refrained from constanly chanting “Death to America” (last one was 2 days ago in Majlis).

    I mean if you want to negogiate with some one, it helps not to antagonize him.

  626. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 21, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    So you have taken refuge in the Dream Place of non-religious Iranians; the fantasy world of pre-Islamic Iran. The reality of course was a rigid cast system with almost no literacy for anyone outside of the nobles; who helped themselves to the best of everything – including women; leaving none for marriage to other men.

    The Persian Poetry itself owes its existence to the Arabic poetic forms. And in many many way, Iran is an Arab country.

    You really need to spend more time studying.

  627. Fiorangela says:

    Empty says: November 21, 2011 at 5:48 pm, wrote:

    “Let’s see if we could deconstruct the logic here: a person who says end justifies the means and in order to achieve one’s goal, one could use any means possible could be trusted with an atomic bomb. However, a person who says that only ethical means must be used to achieve ethical goals should not be trusted with a nuclear program. It makes perfect sense.”

    I was visiting family in Ohio and chanced upon a set-to in the Akron-Beacon Journal, consequent to the incident at Kent State University where Prof. Juan Pinto shouted “Death to Israel.”
    The Akron newspaper printed an editorial arguing that free speech included the right to say objectionable things. Several days later, the Beacon Journal printed an op-ed by Prof. Walter Hixson of Akron University, who chastised Pinto for his outburst, but said that Israel must confront its past.

    Then the fit hit the shan.

    The AJC corrected the deluded Professor’s facts — “Arabs started the war in 1948;” “Arabs started the war in 1967;” “Arabs walked out of a peace agreement in 2001 that were on the verge of success.” :http://www.ohio.com/editorial/vop/letters-to-the-editor-nov-11-1.244852

    The Jewish Community Board provided additional corrections to Prof. Hixson’s “distortions” — contrary to Hixson’s assertion, “there was no ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948;” “occupations are legal;” and “Israel has NOT rejected land for peace negotiations.” :http://www.ohio.com/editorial/david-k-koch-confront-israel-s-past-task-gladly-accepted-1.245328

    CAMERA weighed in — In addition to repeating some of the earlier refutations/(hasbara), CAMERA asserted that “Israel did not destroy the USS Liberty.” :http://www.ohio.com/editorial/vop/letters-to-the-editor-nov-14-1.245408

    But my favorite was a letter from R Gippin, who identified himself as a “Jew who frequently disagrees with Israel’s actions.” He, too, hit most of the talking points that the earlier responses to Hixson’s essay had made, and expanded on the response to Hixson’s assertion that the 1967 war was an Israeli war of aggression:
    “As to 1967, there is no serious question but that if Israel had not struck preemptively, it would have been attacked by its Arab neighbors and put at a huge disadvantage. It was an appropriately defensive first strike, not a war of aggression.
    Gippin explained that fortune-telling quality Israel uses to wage war “preemptively:” it’s due to Israel’s psychological condition;
    “Think of Israel as a post-traumatic stress disorder victim, still. Unjust attacks only reinforce Israel’s instinct to fight no-holds barred against perceived threats to its survival, whether it’s really threatened or not.”

    Got that?

    Israel’s psychologically unstable condition entitles it to wage preemptive war on anyone who, in its detached-from-reality state, it considers a threat to Israel, whether that “perceived” threat is real or not.

  628. fyi says:

    Empty says: November 21, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Russia and China helped US-EU commence and continue the Siege of Iran.

    They have successfully pinned down US-SU and Iran in useless and draining exercise in geopolitical siege warfare.

    In the meantime, they well services and goods to both sides.

    You must admire them for their successes with very little diplomatic or political expenditures they have made themselves indispensible to everyone.

    I say, “Kudos to you! Very Well done Indeed!”

  629. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    I think you are seriously misinformed about the influence of religion on the Western Civilization. Only a foreigner could be so blind to the effect of the Three-Year-Long Ministry of Jesus, the Blessed Son of Mary, on the European peoples.

    I agree with you that the Apostasy Law in Sharia is a disgrace and a smear on Islam. No doubt.

    And no one has the courage to say so.

    Only someone with the stature of the late Mr. Khomeini could do so but he did not.

    The best short term path is lack of enforcement followed by a long term effort to repeal it by reducing the fanaticism of so many Muslims through better education – God Willing.

    If you think Iranians are the only ones with a holy cause, ask yourself why Americans are supporting Israel to the hilt? The answer: Religious reasons having to do with schismatic Christians who rejected the Authority of the Bishop of Rome.

    There is no pre-requisite to the emergence of the Hidden Imam, it is all based on God’s Will. And we pray that since Jesus will be His Companion, Jesus would interecede on behalf of sinners and evil-doers an forgive them. For Jesus, The Spirit/Word of God, has the Authority to do so – He is the Law and he can forgive sins since as the Immaculate Perfect man he is co-participant with God in the Life of the Universe.

    Your statements regarding regime being a threat I find too incoherent and in-accurate to warrant a response.

    And yes, Israel does have a Supreme Rabbinate – the Power Behind the Throne as you will – that has enormous power in that country. The Israelis have managed to hide it rather well, but that country is analogue of Iran – the Seaside Fortress of Jews.

  630. Sassan says:

    You see what I mean James? Every single time someone disagrees with them or thinks differently from them they so predictably dulge into calling the other person a “Zionist”. This is exactly what is the main problem in Islamic culture.

    And Rehmat, please call me a “kafar” or a “mohareb” or an apostate – that is very much preferrable as that is what I am in the eyes of true believers. I was “born” a Muslim (although again the majority of Iranians are not religious) but I have nothing but respect for the great scientists and thinkers their culture has produced. How can one not be in envy of the great scientists as in the all-time great Albert Einstein? And in fact, we Iranians have nothing against Israelis or the Jewish people. We are in fact historical allies going back 2500+ years. In fact, we do have Iranian-Jews as well.

  631. Rehmat says:

    “Sassan tell me would you like to receive ADL’s award for “Top Hasbara Liar” of 2011,” Abraham Foxman, national director ADL.

    Shalom = “What’s good for Jews,” Gilad Atzmon.

  632. Sassan says:

    I really don’t care to discuss the Palestinian issue further as the issue itself is not important in the hearts and minds of the majority of Iranians. But last thing I will say before I run: as long as the charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and on every Friday prayer day the Mullahs chant “death to Israel”, “death to America”, and march and burn their flags and epilogues, how can one expect Israel to take such hooligans seriously? This regime lies lies lies…they may claim things some times…but believe me, all they do is LIE LIE LIE. LIE LIE LIE. This regime is the biggest liar in the world. I spent over 8-months in Iran last year and it is disgusting how much they lie. LIE about everything. Enough is enough – it is time to support regime change.

    Take care :)

  633. Sassan says:

    Have a class coming up. Nice conversing with you all. :).

  634. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    As I previously mentioned, Iran agreed to accept Israel within pre-1967 borders, during the Swiss-facilitated negotiations of 2001-02 (to restore normal US-Iran relations). Ahmadinejad has said that if the Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza as their share of Palestine, this would likely be accepted by Iran too.

  635. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    Hamas accepted the 2002 Saudi peace plan. That plan was endorsed by the Palestinian unity gov’t of Hamas/Fatah. Saudi plan calls for all Muslim countries to accept Israel within pre-1967 borders.

  636. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    I agree with you Iran would benefit from a relaxing of the religious restrictions that obtain. Progress in Europe centuries ago owed a great deal to the fact the religious prohibition on interest was dumped into the rubbish bin.

  637. Sassan says:

    “Or tries to claim as legitimacy”.

    And James, I think there should be a two-state solution. I am against terrorism on all sides. But I don’t believe Hamas should be a part of any government which tried to negotiate for peace as long as their constitution and charter remains the destruction of Israel. There needs to be a two-state solution where both sides can live in peace and harmony. But let’s be honest now, Yasser Arafat had a historic opportunity and failed the Palestinian people after the Camp David Peace Accords. Peace and a two-state solution must be the only answer – but unfortunately three factions are in the way: 1) the terrorist organization Hamas as they have not changed their ways and ideology, 2) the Islamic Republic which wants Israel to no longer exist, 3) Hardline Prime Minister in Benjamin Netanyhu. At the end of the day, I personally think Jerusalem should be a neutral city controlled by the U.N. or some international body. There is too much history and emotions for that city to be in the hands of just one party at the end of true negotiations. That one city is what has always kept the conflict boiling. We shall see…but my concern and the concern of the Iranian people is not Palestine – in fact, it is this Islamic Regime which has prevented the peace; and the Iranian people see groups like Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organizations.

  638. Arya says:

    @ James

    I was referring to the Bible, and Quran too for that matter, about the promised land given to Moses and its people? I understand that the Zionist movement derive some of its zeal from the passage.

    To be clear, I’m not antagonizing the west, I’m Indonesian with pepper of influence of American culture (my father studied at mit, my family spent 10+ years in USA,Canada and UK) and enjoy very much the benefit of modern devices and subsequent lifestyle made affordable by Gates (Bill that is,not Robert) and the late Steve Jobs. But how come when it comes to Iran’s affair, all the common sense seems to be thrown out of the window? I’m confused by the action of so called educated people in US, UK and the west shown in mainstream media. Thanks for the Leverrets for setting up this website/forum. I thought every language speaking media outlets is going mad.

    Cheers from Jakarta.

  639. Sassan says:

    Empty: he was never “chosen” by the people. Initially, he was chosen by a rag-band of clerical fanatics – true – but in his position, Khamenei is only “answerable to god” and has been “chosen by god”. Everyone knows that this is the only legitimacy that he claims for power.

  640. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    Are you actually claiming there was no Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations after the First World War? Purpose of mandate was to prepare existing population for self-rule.

  641. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Who was expecting no further sanctions against Iran from US, Canada, UK? I thought they were a certainty.

  642. Sassan says:

    “How could you miss the screaming hypocrisy (of the west ) of giving carte blanche to Israel which used the unverifiable 2,000 something years old document as a legal pretext to occupy and steal lands from its indigenous owner, and at the same time deride and prosecute Iran for it’s religious root?”

    Let me first start off a slogan for you: No to Gaza, No to Lebanon, I only sacrifice my life for Iran.

    Most Iranians do not see the Palestinian issue an Iranian issue and in fact do not support the terrorist organizations this dirty and brutal regime has supported for so many decades.

    In regards to the nuclear weapons; the day Rabbis run Israel and can make state decisions such as Khamenei and the terrorist Ayatollahs can, I will be the first one protesting Israel’s access to nuclear weapons. But in reality, Israeli leaders are secular politicians. The problem is RELIGION. No prophetic madmen should ever have access to nuclear weapons. This would take away the deterrent of “Mutually Assured Destruction” and put civilization and even humanity at risk.

    And the only positive this regime has done the last 30+ years is drive Islam out of the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. Islam as a political force has no future inside of a free and democratic Iran as a free Iran will truly be a secular democracy. And this is not limited to just the youth – I found from my time in Iran (I was in Iran for over 8-motnhs last year) that the middle-aged male 45-50+ years old, tended to be atheist. The young people are not religious at all, but most of them still have a vague belief in a god (but they still despise religion). Fortunately, more and more Iranians are no longer even self-identifying as Muslims and I believe as this older generation passes on, the majority of Iranians in the next 10-20 years will no longer even self-identify themselves as Muslims – and a sizable portion already is this way.

    “to occupy and steal lands from its indigenous owner”

    First off, it was a United Nations mandate. Second, let’s be honest. There has never been a Palestine. The lands that you call Palestine was part of Jordan and Egypt and those rulers where far more brutal against the Palestinians and killed far greater numbers of them including what is believed to be up to 10,000 in a single day of massacre alone. How come Muslims don’t complain when Muslims do evil to them? We know that the worst enemy of the Muslim believer is the Muslim as the vast majority of deaths are in this result. The problem with Islamic culture is that it has been taken over by antisemitism and instead of Islamic people looking inward and realizing that the problem is not some boogey man but rather the fundamentalist and intolerant culture itself, they continue to refuse to take blame for any of the actions that goes on in their communities including lack of women’s rights, human rights, and freedom of expression. For example, as an atheist and someone “born” Muslim – I would be executed in Iran for this.

    To expand on this briefly – look at the Jewish culture. They value atheists within their communities and it is estimated that 10-20% of Israelis are atheist Jews. Despite the atrocities that have happened to the Jewish people and despite the antisemitism they have experienced and even often times continue to experience, they don’t provide excuses. They work hard, become educated, value science and reason and have produced such great scientists as Albert Einstein. Atheist Jewish scientists have been a major force towards the advancement of civilization.

    Now, what the hell happened to the Islamic world?? While Europe was in the “Dark Ages”, Islam was flourishing and was for the most part moderate and reasonable. When Europe got out of the Dark Ages, the Muslims decided to turn inward in the ways that they were under Muhammad’s time. There are two things Muslims need to change as a philosophy among themselves if they really want to flourish: 1) Don’t demand religion and government need to be one as under the Shariah, 2) Don’t take the quran literally as the word of god. In doing so, the true believer closes his brain and free spirit almost IMMEDIATELY. In contrast, Jews always debate with others with their beliefs and enjoy debate and free dissent. Even Christians have a more more open-mind and don’t want to kill atheists and respect the rights of others. Islam truly needs reforms – and it starts at home inside of those nations where people are under oppression.

    Fortunately, as Iranians, our culture has always remained pre-Islamic. Our Persian New Years is pre-Islamic along with all our other cultural holidays and traditions. For this reason, we have always valued and kept our Iranian identity. Our of all the nations in the Middle East who are vying for freedom, the only one who will come out of this in becoming a true secular democracy will be Iran. And possibly Lebanon if we can kick Hizbollah out of there and send that terrorist Hassan Nasrallah to the International Court at the Hague.

  643. Empty says:

    RE: Khamenei is “appointed by god” and is only “answerable to god”.

    Article 107 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

    “….the task of appointing the Leader shall be vested with the assembly of experts (Khobregan) who are elected by the people. The experts will review and consult among themselves concerning all the fuqaha’ possessing the qualifications specified in Articles 5 and 109. In the event they find one of them better versed in Islamic regulations, the subjects of the fiqh, or in political and social Issues, or possessing general popularity or special prominence for any of the qualifications mentioned in Article 109, they shall elect him as the Leader. Otherwise, in the absence of such a superiority, they shall elect and declare one of them as the Leader. The Leader thus elected by the Assembly of Experts shall assume all the powers of the wilayat al-amr and all the responsibilities arising therefrom. The Leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law.”

  644. Karl says:

    US, EU sanctioning oil and iranian bank.
    What do you say now, those of you who denied that possbility just days back?

  645. Sassan says:

    “Khamenei a god? Is the Pope in Rome a god? The issue is whether Khamenei has authority in Iran to make the relgious ruling prohibiting nuclear weapons. No need to be a god.”

    Khamenei is “appointed by god” and is only “answerable to god”. First Khomeini then followed by Khamenei have taken and are continuing to take even further to abyss down the path of where the Catholic Church was during the “Dark Ages”. Fortunately, the Pope no longer has any real power and the vast majority of the people in the west do not take him seriously. In fact, his institution is a mockery.

  646. James Canning says:

    Arya,

    Are you referring to the events of 1948-49? Or earlier? Later? I do not think the Jews have a document that gives them title to any part of the “Land of Israel”, other than some title deeds obtained during the Ottoman period, and other deeds obtained during the Mandate. The Bible does not give current title.

    I agree the hypocrisy by “the west” is profound, but I think most “western” countries want Israel out of the West Bank.

  647. James Canning says:

    Cyrus_2,

    Pepe Escobar should have mentioned (in piece you linked) that Gaddafi went way beyond accusing then-Crown Prince Abdullah of being a traitor to the Arab cause. Gaddafi tried to have him assassinated.

    And Crown Prince Abdullah had grave reservations about the idiotic and illegal plan to invade Iraq.

  648. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ Sassan

    “I am sure their nuclear program is for “peaceful” purposes. That’s why they went directly through the back-channels to A.Q. Khan in purchasing their nuclear know-how, materials, and contacts.”

    Actually, before Iran approached AQ Khan, Tehran tried to buy nuclear material and technology from NPT-member states or the IAEA itself. But almost every time the US armed-twisted the member state or the IAEA not to cooperate with Tehran, leaving Iran with no other option than buying some nuclear technology from more dubious sources like Khan. There are plenty of examples where the US eventually forced Tehrans nuclear partner to backtrack: the IAEA, Argentina, China, Czech Republic …

  649. Arya says:

    @ Sassan

    How could you miss the screaming hypocrisy (of the west ) of giving carte blanche to Israel which used the unverifiable 2,000 something years old document as a legal pretext to occupy and steal lands from its indigenous owner, and at the same time deride and prosecute Iran for it’s religious root?

  650. Empty says:

    RE: their fanatical religious end-of-times prophetic belief which as accorded by their own beliefs requires the conquering of Jerusalem and the deaths of 2/3rd of humanity.

    You are wrong both in the facts and the premise of the belief. This might be either because you are ignorant of the details of the belief and repeating the false information of others or because you’re deliberately spreading falsehood. It is also possible that it is a combination of two.

  651. James Canning says:

    I recommend “Erdogan blasts anti-Islam propaganda”

    http>//www.presstv.com/detail/211394.html

  652. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    Khamenei a god? Is the Pope in Rome a god? The issue is whether Khamenei has authority in Iran to make the relgious ruling prohibiting nuclear weapons. No need to be a god.

  653. Fara says:

    It seems that things are also heating up in Saudi Arabia.

    Qatif police attack Saudis, kill several
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211374.html

    Saudi protesters capture army vehicle
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211395.html

  654. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    Are you aware that millions of Christian Zionists in the US claim to believe the end of the world will be at hand if only the Jews can succeeed in driving all non-Jews out of the West Bank (and out of Israel proper). Is this prposterous, in your opinion? Lunacy? Perhaps Gaza is part of this fabled “Land of Israel”, and the Jews will have to drive the Muslims and Christians out of Gaza too. In the religious fantasies these claim to hold.

  655. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    Doesn’t Larijani underline the importance of Khamenei’s religious ruling prohibiting nuclear weapons in Iran?

    Why did Iran offer to cease producting 20% U? Are you claiming this was some sort of trick?

  656. Sassan says:

    You speak as if he’s a god? Can you not think for yourself by learning the realities of the situation and the true nature of the regime?

  657. Cyrus_2 says:

    From Pepe Escobar:

    Last week, independent journalist Sam Husseini went to a news conference by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia at Washington’s National Press Club – where Husseini is a member.
    Then he did something that is alien to United States corporate media culture. He behaved as an actual journalist and asked a tough, pertinent, no-holds-barred question. Here it is, as relayed by Husseini’s blog:

    I want to know what legitimacy your regime has, sir. You come before us, representative of one of the most autocratic, misogynistic regimes on the face of the earth. Human Rights Watch and other reports of torture, detention of activists, you squelched the democratic uprising in Bahrain, you tried to overturn the democratic uprising in Egypt and indeed you continue to oppress your own people. What legitimacy does your regime have – other than billions of dollars and weapons?

    According to Husseini, on the same day of the news conference he received “a letter informing me that I was suspended from the National Press Club ‘due to your conduct at a news conference’. The letter, signed by the executive director of the club, William McCarren, accused me of violating rules prohibiting ‘boisterous and unseemly conduct or language’.”

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK22Ak01.html

  658. James Canning says:

    Seymour Hersh told Amy Goodman that the “hysteris” in Washington about Iran was virtually a psychosis. False stories get planted in a British newspaper, and then are reprinted in American newspapers. Sme game plan as we saw in the campaign of lies that was used to set up illegal invasion of Iraq. Hersh piece is on New Yorker blog.

  659. Cyrus_2 says:

    Exclusive: CIA Spies Caught, Fear Execution in Middle East

    In a significant failure for the United States in the Mideast, more than a dozen spies working for the CIA in Iran and Lebanon have been caught and the U.S. government fears they will be or have been executed, according to four current and former U.S. officials with connections to the intelligence community.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-spies-caught-fear-execution-middle-east/story?id=14994428

  660. Sassan says:

    I am sure their nuclear program is for “peaceful” purposes. That’s why they went directly through the back-channels to A.Q. Khan in purchasing their nuclear know-how, materials, and contacts.

  661. Sassan says:

    –> Sorry about my spelling in the post below. I am just in class right now and I didn’t realize I mistyped until after I submitted.

  662. Sassan says:

    James: In Islam, particularly Shiism, yo are allowed to lie to protect and benefit your faith. In fact, Khomeini did it when he came to power in 1979′ when he said and promised that he would simply be a “spiritual leader” and stay in Qom. IT is called Taqiyyah and it is what these regime hooligans do time and time again..

  663. Sassan says:

    Nonsense James. There is no evidence that document/letter was approved by Khamenei. In addition, the regime was scared that they were next at the time. You simply don’t understand Islamic ideology and all the different facets, lies, and deceptions involved.

  664. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I agree Khamenei has had his hands full at times. I also of course think he was quite right to prohibit Iran from possessing nukes. And this fact virtually never gets mentioned in an American newspaper.

  665. James Canning says:

    Sassan,

    When Iran tried to restore normal relations with the US in 2001-02, Iran agreed to accept Israel within pre-1967 borders. I very much doubt Iranian leaders want to destroy Jerusalem.

  666. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Didn’t US participation in the Libyan intervention cost more than $1 billion, without accounting for wear and tear on aircraft, ships, etc.?

    And we have to hope a civil war can be avoided in that country.

  667. Sassan says:

    BTW, “Seyed Khoarasani” is the mythical figure of the Hadith who “will” create the conditions for the end of times and the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam, by destroying Israel and the West.

  668. Empty says:

    soldiers, rather.

  669. Sassan says:

    Empty: it is not hypocritical at all. The problem is with a regime that makes all their decisions based on their fanatical religious end-of-times prophetic belief which as accorded by their own beliefs requires the conquering of Jerusalem and the deaths of 2/3rd of humanity. In addition, this regime regularly calls Khamenei “Seyed Khoarasani”. This is no joke – religious fanatical madmen cannot be rational players and we cannot taken them rationally in any matter – and this brutal and fanatical regime should never be given the opportunity to have nuclear weapons – it will most definitely have devastating consequences for humanity, the world, and for the stability of peace worldwide.

  670. Empty says:

    fyi says,

    You just have to love the Chinese: everywhere there is a win for them in the Siege of Iran.

    One of the most critical problems with pipelines is that they have a very high security risk and are much more effective targets than traditional maritime routes. A single-point explosion (very cheap) in a 1000-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in 2008, for example, shut down the entire route for 20 days.

    Multiple pipeline explosions in Basra in early part of the US-UK invasion brought made any oil transport virtually impossible. It was not until the British soldier had left the city and the militia took control of the city that the oil began to flow.

    Under no-security-risk condition, each cubic meter of oil transported via a pipeline incurs $1 over the alternative mode of transport (tankers). This adds to the cost of oil.

    UAE should go ahead with the pipeline project though: in the short term, it provides the Chinese with the construction and maintenance profits. In the long run, it creates more accessible and cheaper hard to control targets for sabotage.

  671. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Re: construction of UAE pipeline to Gulf of Oman, by Chinese company. Chinese construction companies are highly competetive in their bidding. I doubt Iran cares which company builds the pipe line.

  672. James Canning says:

    Seymour Hersh at Truthout site today: “Propaganda used ahead of Iraq War is now being reused over Iran’s nuke programme”.

  673. Empty says:

    RE: “DO YOU NOT PEOPLE SEE THIS IS WHY THIS REGIME IS SUCH A THREAT? If the Shah was in power, it wouldn’t be a problem for Iran to be a nuclear power.”

    Let’s see if we could deconstruct the logic here: a person who says end justifies the means and in order to achieve one’s goal, one could use any means possible could be trusted with an atomic bomb. However, a person who says that only ethical means must be used to achieve ethical goals should not be trusted with a nuclear program. It makes perfect sense.

  674. Voice of Tehran says:

    “West hits Iran with new sanctions”

    http://news.yahoo.com/us-unveil-sanctions-iran-093042972.html

    The Cabals are playing the end game.

  675. Fiorangela says:

    welcome Sassan.

    You may enjoy reading “The Oil Kings: How the U.S., Iran, and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East,” or listening to its author, Andrew Scott Cooper, discuss it and the way that Henry Kissinger, especially, as well as other members of the Ford and Nixon administrations played the Shah for a fool. The Ford administration personnel went on to earn fame and fortune as the neocons, who so dearly love your country that they wish to either possess it or destroy it.

    Reading the book is a bit mind-bending, especially after reading Stephen Kinzer’s “All the Shah’s Men,” and Ronen Bergman’s “The Thirty Years War,” because Cooper discusses the deposition of Mossadeqh as if it is the best thing that could have happened to Iran.

    I’m an outsider, though, and I admit to having a text-book, somewhat romanticized appreciation of Iran that conflates its Persian heritage and culture with the imposition of Islam that prevails now, and which, I understand, some Iranians–like you– object to vehemently. It’s the difference between “Reading Lolita in Tehran” and “Jasmine and Stars: Reading More than Lolita in Tehran.”

  676. kooshy says:

    Sassan says:

    November 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    “And it seems as if you have a fellow Hizbolli as a regular contributor on here.”

    I can’t think of any reason if that indeed is a reduction to the credibility of this forum, especially when this forum can entertain (presumably) a green like yourself or likes of professor Lucas to comment here, one can only hope that an opposing view like a Hezbolahi comment is also presented, I for myself welcome all comments, if you don’t enjoy reading opposing views you may want to catch on one of the western main stream medias like CNN.

  677. Sassan says:

    “For indeed the Prophetic Tradition is what sustains all of us, even the misguided Americans.

    And when the Al Mahdi returns – per the Shia Tradition – he will be accompanied by Jesus.”

    Actually, in the west, we are guided by secular law. We are not guided by prophecy; and in particular with our government policies. We make decisions in this world, not your fabled “other world” that does not exist. And guess what? I am atheist. In the west, people are allowed to be atheist. Under the brutality of the Islamic Republic, I would not only be executed for being an atheist but would be executed for “leaving” Islam since I was “born” Muslim (even though Iranians are not religious and I term them “fake Muslims” and fortunately more and more Iranians refuse to even self-identify as Muslims in private).

    In addition, the return of your fabled “imam mahdi” who has like a quack been hiding in a well in Qom for the last 900-years or so (how can someone be so stupid to believe this?) requires as a prerequisite for his return for the Islamic Republic to take over Jerusalem through warfare. In fact, this global warfare will turn towards the west as accorded by the Hadith and their ignorant, irrational, and fanatical beliefs in which 2/3rd of humanity will perish through war, havoc, famine, and chaos. And I am sure Jesus will come back with Imam Mahdi riding in huge oversized donkeys, camels, and elephants LOL.

    DO YOU NOT PEOPLE SEE THIS IS WHY THIS REGIME IS SUCH A THREAT? If the Shah was in power, it wouldn’t be a problem for Iran to be a nuclear power. In fact, neither the Soviets nor the United States resorted to nuclear warfare due to the concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. There will be no “Mutually Assured Destruction” with this regime. This regime will not only kill every last Iranian to keep power, but they will sacrifice the lives of every last Iranian as long as it meets their religious goals. This is why this regime is such a threat – because of their fanatical ideologies and beliefs. People complain about Israel having nuclear weapons; but let me tell you: if Israel were run by Rabbis and a “Supreme Rabbi” who was only “answerable to god” then I would share the concern of everyone with Israel’s nukes. But the fact is the leaders of Israel are secular, not rabbinical. People need to understand that the reason why this regime is such a threat with their nukes, terrorism, and the sorts is because of their hardened righteousness that they are doing “god’s work”. In fact, Khamenei says he meets with “Imam Mahdi” from time-to-time and Ahmadenijad a couple of years back had “felt the glow and aura” of “imam mahdi” in the U.N. in which “all the world leaders couldn’t stop looking at him”. This regime made a short documentary which was leaked in which they even named Khamenei, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ahmadenijad as characters in the Hadith who are going to fight this holy struggle!!!

  678. Arnold Evans says:

    I’m watching the Charlie Rose interview now. It is very good. I’m looking forward to getting the transcript.

  679. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “In regards to Turkey; she is not a free agent. She is also reliant on EU for financial infusions from time to time. She is firmly entrenched in NATO and does not enjoy the strategic autonomy of Iran. Turkey would like to become a free agent, with Strategic Autonomy but that is a distant dream.”

    ———————

    Turkey apparently is also awash with green money! Would this be akin to printing money? which helps propping their economy?

    http://www.meforum.org/684/green-money-islamist-politics-in-turkey

  680. fyi says:

    All:

    You just have to love the Chinese: everywhere there is a win for them in the Siege of Iran.

    http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=471413&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28

  681. fyi says:

    Sassan says: November 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    One could only hope that Iran “is a prophetic regime that guides” her “policies on the “return of the hidden imam”??”

    For indeed the Prophetic Tradition is what sustains all of us, even the misguided Americans.

    And when the Al Mahdi returns – per the Shia Tradition – he will be accompanied by Jesus.

    And if the Al Mahdi and Jesus should appear, surely Joshua, Meshakah, and finaly, Pirooz Bahram could not be far behind either.

    Let us hope so.

  682. Sassan says:

    And it seems as if you have a fellow Hizbolli as a regular contributor on here. lol

  683. Sassan says:

    You are all quite disgusting. This seems to be one big orgy for the terrorist Ayatollahs which have raped and pillaged my homeland and is among the greatest human rights abusers and barbarians in the world. This guy you are so in “love” with supposedly is supposed to “defend” the human rights of the Iranian people. In fact, I am shocked by your complacency and attitudes in that the vast majority of you seem to have no problem with an apocalyptic regime acquiring nuclear weapons. Do you not comprehend or have the rationality to understand that this is a prophetic regime that guides their policies on the “return of the hidden imam”?? In addition, you all also seem to ignore the fact that this regime has been the greatest sponsor of state terror the last 30+ years and has had a systematic campaign to assassinate dissidents overseas in which they have in the past been quite successful.

    It seems as if some of you truly don’t understand how fortunate we are to live in a western secular democracy in which we are afforded rights in which Iranians can only dream about. It is quite distasteful and I suggest you all take a look at yourselves in the mirror the next time you justify the actions of this illegitimate, barbaric, and illegal regime. Iranians of all walks of life demand regime change and simply to live in a free secular democracy which values the rights of all people.

  684. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says: November 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I cannot see Qatar being a party to any war with Iran; and I do not care how much money they have.

    What is in it for them?

    The man running the show over there is an autocrat but not a fool.

    Mrs. Clinton has been less than candid; in fact, US had to resupply the EU with military aide. I imagine different kinds of ordonance for the aeroplanes.

    I know that Qatari soldiers have been in Libya but I do not know the deatils.

    Mr. Salehi – the Iranian FM – has publicly stated that they (the Iranians) have helped Libyan rebels.

    In regards to the United States, even 25 years ago I could tell – talking to US young people – that while Americans would fight a defensive war vigoroulsy, they could not win an imperialist one.

    In regards to Turkey; she is not a free agent. She is also reliant on EU for financial infusions from time to time. She is firmly entrenched in NATO and does not enjoy the strategic autonomy of Iran. Turkey would like to become a free agent, with Strategic Autonomy but that is a distant dream.

  685. fyi says:

    Rd. says: November 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Where are Mr. Obama, Mr. Sarkozy, Mr Camron condemning these latest violence in Egypt?

    Truly; God turns their tricks against them.

  686. Fiorangela says:

    fyi says:
    November 20, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    “I am very doubtful that Mr. Obama will initiate a war against Iran; there are political as well as economic constraints on US that will be not be alleviated at that time.

    I agree that a certain group of people in US wish to cause US to make war against Iran. The “Saudi Plot” was an act of desparation by them to that end.”

    Comments by Shadi Hamid, the Brookings fellow from Qatar, in the video posted in the earlier article on RFI, tie all of those conditions together, fyi: Qatar has money to do anything it wants (for the moment); as Hamid said, the Iran-Qatar ties are weakening; Qatar and Saudi Arabia may draw closer; US is certainly doing all it can to draw close to Qatar, and will likely seek to close a circle with Qatar-Saudi Arabia-US, and Iran on the outside. US needs the money. Clinton boasted of US doing the Libya deal without using US assets, and called that the New US strategy — get someone else to pay to do your dirty deeds (it’s actually a strategy at least as old as the ancient Assyrian conquerors). Qatar is — how do the French say, nouveau riche; it will be easily seduced to use its wealth to curry the favor of US and harm Iran.

    Israel’s (via Hiam Saban) sponsorship of Brookings suggests that Israel has positioned itself to have significant influence with Qatar; Israel will use that position to strengthen ties to Saudi Arabia and US. Israel, SA, Qatar, and US have chosen their friends and closed Iran out of the circle.

    It is deeply troubling that zionists have been relentless in achieving everything that has been on their agenda. Iran is on the zionist agenda. Zionists have not been thwarted in over 100 years.

    As Flynt and Hillary point out from time to time, Iran has also made choices in partners, usually more durable choices. Turkey, Russia and China are ‘free agents’ that strive to “keep their options open, though I agree with Empty that China is standing aside as US destroys itself. Why would China feel constrained about losing a market of people who have no jobs to maintain their consumption habits, when there are new and larger markets opening up closer to home?
    The new balance of power will see US on the wrong side of the see saw I’m afraid, but US will not jump off until she’s done a great deal of damage.

  687. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Mr. Khamenei – and before him the late Mr. Khomeini – has maintained the inetgrity of Islamic Republican dispensation in Iran.

    Without the Office of the Supreme Jurisprudent,one or other of these factions (of largely fools – in my opinion) would have destroyed the current constitutional order in Iran in order to gain power.

    As an example, consider the faction behind Mr. Mousavi in 2009 that created a national crisis in order to gain power.

    Or another one that created the dis-honorable verdict against Mr. Aqajeri, a maimedveteran of Iran-Iraq War?

    Do you think very many of these factions would be willing to abide by a set of rules?

    Sometimes I feel sorry of Mr. Khamenei who has to carry this load surrounded by fools and knaves.

  688. Anon says:

    James,
    agreed. But at the moment the UNSC+west says they want Iran to stop all enrichment even the 3.5%. I think the idea in the Politico oped is pretty good: get the additional protocol in Iran and lift sanctions on them………… No one really has any right to stop Iran from enriching as long as safeguards are in place….what do you think?

  689. Rd. says:

    The Egyptian government resigns. More than 30 are killed so far.

    Once the people lose their fear, there is no stopping them. Those who revolted against the shah in Iran, understand that.

    And US continues to push Egyptian military to safeguard the western interest. By doing so they risk making the military look more and more like the face of Mubarak. One can presume the eventual outcome.

    In contract, the OWS movement will likely gain momentum because of people experiencing the fear / brutality of the police and security forces.

    In general, people in US feel they have the freedom and the right to assemble and protest. However, as it appears, the establishment is not interested in that. Though, you won’t necessarily notice that by watching MSM. However, those who are close to these movements have a better opportunity to experience the reality, that they no longer have the freedom to assemble and protest. Would this be the catalyst to promote this movement in to a mass mobilization? If so, next spring/summer along with the election can be interesting.

    “Washington Lobbying Firm Offers to Undermine Occupy Movement on Behalf of Wall Street

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/21/headlines#6

  690. James Canning says:

    Suzanne Mahoney also testified (in comments you linked): “The outcome of this infighting [in Iran] has only reinforced the role of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the country’s paramount authority.”

    Why didn’t Mahoney say that Khamenei has forbidden Iran from possessing nuclear weapons? If she thinks Khamenei’s authority has been strengthened, why would she omit this very important fact?

  691. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Efforts to hurt Iran help keep oil prices high. Fabulous for Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. US leader do not tell the ignorant and rather stupid American people that they are being charged many hundreds of billions of dollars per year, to enable fanatical Jews in the West Bank to continue their oppression of the Palestinians.

  692. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Powerful vested interests in Washington are f*cking the ignorant and rather stupid masses of the American public. And enriching themselves.

  693. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I think you are very wrong to believe the architects of idiotic US foreign and “defence” policies sees those policies and benefiting the US economy. It is all about pleasing oligarchic Jews and enriching “defence” contractors, powerful law firms, stooge politicians and senior US military leaders, etcc etc etc.

  694. Pirouz says:

    UU,

    Do you like it when anti-Iran folks use the term “those crazy mullahs”?

    That’s what you sound like with your anti-American name calling.

    You can let your criticism and arguments stand on their own merit, or you can admit to your own weakness of such and resort to petty name calling. That’s your call, guy.

  695. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    The populating of the vast American Mid-West was subsidized by US Federal Government through various schemes; specially in Nebraska, the Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.

    There has been a low-intensity crisis of farming economy since 1950s as farmers and ranchers failed to make the end meet with the decline of US Federal dollars.

    The formulators of US Grand Strategy hoped that by gaining control of key regions of the planet they could help stem the internal decline in US.

    They gambled big and lost big.

    The rest is about retrenchment that US leaders and population are loath to admit – at least publicly.

  696. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    You have to ask her but I suspect that she does.

    James Canning says: November 21, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    You have to ask American leaders and planners.

    But just like the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq War which caused a permanent fissure between Sunni Arab States and Iran, the Axis Powers siege warfare against Iran has created the same chasm between US-EU and Iran.

    We cannot go back to status quo ante; that world has been destroyed jsut as all wars destroy the world that existed before them.

    I personally am satisfied with the leadership of Iranian leaders and I beleive this war, in which US-EU initiated, will not end in Iranian defeat but in an expensive draw.

  697. James Canning says:

    Interesting comment by Simon Kuper in Financial Times Nov. 19-20 (“Norway: a vision of Eden, with Wi-Fi”): “You imagine destitute Norwegian-Americans across the Midwest now scouring the attic for ancient birth certificates, dreaming of procuring Norwegian passports.”

    How much of the American dream, that brought so many Norwegians to the US, is being wrecked due to idiotic American foreign and “defence” policy largely dictated by fantatical “supporters” of Israel right or wrong in US Congress?

  698. James Canning says:

    Side note: King Abdullah II of Jrodan is visisting the West Bank, in effort to help bolster Mahmoud Abbas.

    Fanatical “supporters” of Israel right or wrong always try to deflect attention from continuing oppression of Christians and Muslims in West Bank by illegal Jewish colonists.

  699. Voice of Tehran says:

    Eric A. Brill says:
    November 21, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Thanks dear Eric , especially that I hear the words from you.
    “Gott , wann ist der Spuk vorbei ? “

  700. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    I entirely agree with you the US could accomodate the strategic requirements of Iran without any damage to the national security interests of the American people. As laid out by you in latest comment.

  701. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    What is your conception of the “surrender” you claim is sought by “the US”? Stopping any financial support for Shia community in Lebanon even though construction of water lines, sewer lines, repair of thousands of houses wrecked by Israel, etc etc etc is done by Hezbollah?

  702. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Does Suzanne Mahoney comprehend that a series of apparent “tactical successes” is totally foolish strategically?

  703. James Canning says:

    paul,

    If Charlie Rose is a “despicable monster”, what would you call the talk-show hosts who try to suppress any comments favorable to the Palestinians or Iran?

  704. fyi says:

    James Canning says: November 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Mrs. Maloney’s testimony, stripped of value-judgements and rhetorical floursihes contains a realitic – in my opinion – assessment of the state of siege of Iran.

    It points out to the numerous tactical successes of US-EU Axis in extending and intensifying the siege (warfare) against Ira.

    It points out that the siege and the repeated threats of military action has made Iranain surrender of her nuclear capabilities impossible for any (responsible) government in Iran.

    It alludes to the unhappiness of various inetrests in US, EU, India and elsewhere who are unhappy with the current siege warfare. These minority interests are unhappy as the siege – predicated on quick Iranian strategic surrender – denies them tangible benefits.

    It recognizes that there is no realistic expectation of Iranian surrender and – due to its absence – any possibility of US-EU accomodation of a Nuclear-Ready Iran. [US-EU have invested too much diplomatic/commercial effort in this to back-track now.]

    The report is consistent with what I had tried to convey on this forum: US-EU confrontation with Iran is now a permanent feature of the international system that will likely continue for the next decade.

    Here is alos Dr. Cordesman’s latest report:

    http://csis.org/files/publication/111116_Iran_Ch5_GulfState.pdf

    Iran’s major aims are preserving Iran’s sovereignty and the gains of the Islamic Revolution (which includes a Nuclear-Ready Iran), and expanding her influence in the region and the Islamic world, and defending her allies and co-religionists in the Muslim World (and not in Russia, China, or India).

    In my opinion, the United States could accomodate all of these had she not been committed to the now obsolte grand strategy.

  705. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    Haass says that G W Bush did not expect things to go easily in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and that the object was only to get rid of al-Qaeda. (in linked comments(“Richard Haass: ‘I did not believe in the Iraq War’”).

  706. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    According to Richard Haass, he was “60%” opposed to Iraq War and would have resigned from State Dept. had he known Iraq had no WMD and Bush intended to invade anyway.

    http://www.org/templates/story.php?storyId=104088144

    In other words, Haass admits he too was duped by warmongering neocon Jews in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, who seem clearly to have duped Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and G W Bush. Intentionally. To set up illegal war on knowingly false grounds.

  707. James Canning says:

    Eric,

    My opinion of Richard Haass plummeted after seeing how eagerly he served as a stooge of those trying to demonise Iran. Pathetic, and of course very dangerous.

    The primary message we can discern is that those who act as eager stooges of powerful Jews trying to facilitate continuing oppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank, no matter how much this injures the national security interests of the US, will be rewarded handsomely.

  708. James Canning says:

    Anon,

    The British are especially concerned about Iranian production of 20% U. Iran could alleviate such concerns by announcing it has enough 20% U to operate the TRR etc for the next ten years (assuming the plates can be produced). And that no more will be produced at this time.

  709. James Canning says:

    Karl,

    Have you noticed how little attention is being given to this week’s conference in Vienna on ways to achieve Middle East free on nukes, in US newspapers?

    Israel lobby, which includes the people who challenged Larijani, do not like to talk about efforts to rid the ME of nukes.

  710. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Thanks fror link to testimony of Suzanne Mahoney. Quote: “Iran’s leaders have been exposed as tin-pot dictators. . .” PLURAL. Has anyone ever heard of a supposed “dictator” of a country, where there was another “dictator” in the same country? What rubbish.

  711. James Canning says:

    Irshad,

    Are you referring to the recent IAEA resolution?

    I think chances are very low that Iran will be attacked by US, if Iran ceases production of 20% U. Is this a matter of national pride now, to enrich enough 20% U to frighten the Saudis so chances of a disastrous conflict are increased greatly?

  712. fyi says:

    Irshad says: November 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Scenario number one is full US attack on Iran, starting with air attacks followed by ground invasion.

    Scenario number 2 is a decapitation attack to create internal dissention to force Iranians to negogiated surrender.

    The 3rd scenario is a series of aerial attacks on military, civilian, and assorted other targets to force Iranians to surrender.

    There will be no Iranian reaction to any and all provocations.

    Iranians will wait until attacked.

  713. Irshad says:

    fyi says:
    November 21, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    what are those swar cenarious that Iran has been preoparing for?

    Also, will there be an Iranian reaction to the Saudis re: the phony “kill Saudi diplomat” affair and the subsequent resoltuion at the UNGA?

  714. Photi says:

    i spoke too soon, the Rose interview of Larijani is working now.

  715. kooshy says:

    In light of UC Davis being California’s most famous agriculture school, I like to think that the university police was not spraying the students to stop them from protesting, I think the good policemen were rather demonstrating a practical use of spray in poeticizing everyday common garden pests, in our constitutional and democratic country that make more common sense then god forbid one may be thinking that the police was brutally punishing to brake a none violent student protest.

  716. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Pirouz:

    John Shreffler says: “… and it came to pass Big Foot, the American Wookie, was playing Grand Master Pars in a game of chess.”

    So can I use Team Big Foot (or Team Flat Foot) and Uncle Wookie, and variations and reasonable facsimiles thereof in lieu of Weasel, which I agree has become tiresome? The reason I ask is that Uncle Angel, as charming a concept as it is, just isn’t working for me. So to reword my questions: is it just that Weasel has grown old, or do you object to having fun at Uncle Wookie’s expense period? Or were you just having a bad hair day?

  717. fyi says:

    All:

    An American assessment of the siege of Iran:

    http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2011/1115_iran_policy_maloney.aspx

    I also would like to add that Iranian leaders have considered several war scenarios with US and have planned for them and been preparing since 2003.

    Mr. Khamenei also has stated publicly that Iran will not initiate hostilities against any state but will fight back with all her might.

  718. Interested says:

    Can anyone remember who was the person on this website who said this was just Iranian propaganda a few months ago?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-cia-spies-caught-fear-execution-middle-east-233819159.html

  719. Anon says:

    What does Haass mean by ” slow the nuclear program”???

    How do you slow it? How slow is consistent with the IAEA’s demands de jour?

    I encourage all to see the link Clint pointed to below for the POLITICO article by Prof. Yousef Butt on Iran:

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CF319F46-19C3-4378-BCED-E82700FA36C9

  720. I’m only partway through the Morning Joe interview, but two observations:

    1. Haass strikes me as a lightweight. I’ve read a few things he’s written, and had come away with that impression from those writings but thought maybe I’d been unfair to judge him so quickly. Now I have another data point, and it’s not changing my opinion of him.

    2. It’s interesting (and Larijani could barely suppress a smile) to hear Haass refer to a “pattern” of information about Iran’s nuclear program, followed up by Brzezinski’s challenge to Larijani: “Mr. Larijani, this doesn’t sound like some preposterous bits of evidence here,” but rather a pattern.

    For anyone who doesn’t recall how this works:

    1. One “preposterous bit of evidence” is just that: preposterous.

    2. Two or more “preposterous bits of evidence” add up to a “pattern.” And not just any old pattern, according to Haass: a pattern that cannot be denied “unless one believes in the tooth fairy.”

  721. Photi says:

    Is anyone else having difficulty viewing the Charlie Rose interview? I assumed we must still be in the delay between broadcast and posting on the web, but no one else has mentioned it (or maybe i missed a comment).

  722. Voice of Tehran,

    I share your frustration, as I am sure many here do. Two observations that might warm your heart, though.

    In the New York Times article that reported Dennis Ross’ departure (I hesitate to say retirement, since that’s been reported several times in the past), the comments were scathing. With few exceptions, each of them could have been expressed in just two words: “Good riddance.”

    Charlie Rose is a cut or two above the rest of the pack. He may not reach the conclusions many of us would reach, but he does do his homework before asking questions.

  723. Kathleen says:

    Watch Morning Joe several days a week. Have heard Haas pound the go get Iran drums many times. Barrnacle.Scarborough and Meacham are the echoes in the room. Had more hope for Mika but she often seems rather uninformed about this issue as well as other international issues. Seems rather limited in her scope and repeats the knuckle head, knee jerk reactions of the rest of the crowd at the Morning Joe table. I am sure her father would have some things to say about this groups response to what Larijani had to say. Will they be brave enough to have Zbigniew on at the same time with Haas so he could roll right over his arguments. Doubt it.

    It is pathetic and extremely disturbing how quickly our MSM started allowing unsubstantiated claims about Iran to be repeated on their programs. Say just after the invasion of Iraq. Then so many of them (Stephanpoulous, Amanpour, Maddow, Neil Conan, Diane Rehm, Terri Gross (one of the worst) not only allow guest to repeat these claims about Iran the host repeat those claims themselves.

    The dead and injured in Iraq as a result of an invasion based on false claims have and will probably never really be counted accurately. You can place your bets that the Morning Joe team will not be focusing on this at any time And the majority of journalist, MSM outlets are on the go get Iran bus without much thought.

    No need to wonder why so many people around the world hate the US. No need to wonder

  724. anonymous lurker says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15823622

    More nonsense from the British government.

  725. Rehmat says:

    Currently, both former US President Dubya Bush and former British Prime Minister and Israel-Firster, Tony Blair are being tried by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia for war crimes and a regime change in Iraq (for Israel). This is the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

    The Tribunal heard that the UK Attorney General (AG) had reservations, at the relevant time that the UN Resolution 1441 did not permit the use of force against Iraq for non compliance with the said resolution in his advice to the Prime Minister on 7 March 2003. And the AG maintained his stand even years later at the Chilcot Enquiry in January 2011.

    The Prosecution argued that UK along with the US had also advanced the viewpoint that regime change could be the basis for the use of force. This viewpoint had been expressed as far back as 1998 when president Clinton suggested that Saddam Hussein had to be removed to end his threat. The Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998 declared that goal of US policy should be to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power. This then became the official US policy. Bush and Blair had on various occasions since then expressed this viewpoint. Two months after 9/11, Bush had asked Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, to review existing battle plans for Iraq. On September 15, 2001 Bush stated ‘once Afghanistan has been dealt with, it will be Iraq’s turn’.

    Blair had also stated after the invasion of Iraq, that even if there were no threat of weapons of mass destruction, he would still have effected regime change in Iraq. The AG had advised Blair on 7 March 2003 that regime change could not be the objective of military action.

    The Tribunal heard that the US and UK had commenced a ‘secret air war’ against Iraq in the later half of 2002 and early 2003 wherein 21,736 air sorties resulting in 253,000 pounds of bombs being dropped in Southern Iraq to degrade the Iraqi air defences. This was the beginning of the war.

    The conduct of both accused indicated a clear intention to invade Iraq to effect regime change that was never authorised by UN Resolution 1441.

    As of May 2011 1.4 million Iraqis, 4,770 US soldiers and 2,445 personnel from other coalition forces have lost their lives as result of the invasion of Iraq.

    http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/malaysian-tribunal-tries-bush-and-blair-for-war-crimes/

  726. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Oh Leveretts, just to think that this was the BEST man (Haas) in your wedding, who has become a Zionist stooge, making these foolish comments.
    Aren’t you glad you have parted ways?

  727. John Shreffler says:

    Arnold Evans, you’re over-estimating the role of rationality in US decision-making. The air campaign boys are like alchemists or snake-oil salesmen who believe in their product to the pint of mysticism: it’s just never been used right. The best comment on this subject I’ve seen was posted several days back on a thread to a post “Is War with Iran Already Underway?” by a bloke who goes under the name of “Harper:”

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2011/11/harper-is-war-against-iran-already-underway.html

    The relevant part of the post reads:

    Thomas said:

    ….

    A story.

    “… and it came to pass Big Foot, the American Wookie, was playing Grand Master Pars in a game of chess.

    Waiting for his opponent to make the next move, Big’s mind began to drift “If I lose should I stay true to tradition and rip his arm from the socket? Or like Uncle Chewey’s best friend Han, blow it clean off from under the table with a .44 magnum? How about going all Hannibal Lecter and surgically slicing it while sipping a splendid Shiraz?”

    Awakening from the movie motif of his mental mischief, Big surveyed the board, looked up at Pars asleep, and glanced at the clock showing two minutes and counting…”

    19 November 2011 at 01:19 PM

    That’s it in a nut-shell.

  728. Bob Marshall says:

    A little reach would show that no other organization is responsible for more civilian deaths than the CIA through assassination and supplying, training and funding terrorist groups around the world since 1947 until the present. Much of the funding through drug trades. Since they have been and are still training the MEK and the Bauchi terroris organization to undermine the government of Iran so why should anyone be surprised. This is not for America but for the war hawks in Washington, corporate American and the global elite. How many more of Americans young men and women have to die to satisfy their hunger for power and world dominance.

  729. Clint says:

    “Don’t Blame Iran….blame the NPT”…by the same author who wrote the earlier Asia Times piece….must read!

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CF319F46-19C3-4378-BCED-E82700FA36C9

  730. Sassan says:

    That is how I spell my name. There is not only one way to spell Sassan you know. You can spell it Sasan or Sassan and I use Sassan. :)

  731. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Sasan (who misspells his name) says, “And it is quite sad that this site seems to be the cheerleader for the biggest terrorist regime in the world. ”

    While it is true that some of us cheer Uncle Weasel and his goons at times, don’t worry: they are not really happy about his terrorist activities, and wish that he would apply the rule of law to himself and his lapdogs as well, and not just to those whom he wants to bring under his control.

    People misspell Hasan too. What’s with the double esses?

  732. Voice of Tehran says:

    Sassan says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:09 am

    Sassan , from which cave in Bora Bora did you escape ?

  733. Voice of Tehran says:

    Re.:MSNBC , Charlie Rose , Fox , CNN , etc.

    I cannot help myself.
    Although I try to avoid crazy statments , but recently when I see those grown up men and women on MSNBC , CNN , Fox , GOP candidates ( except Ron Paul of course ) , Zionist stooges in AIPAC and elsewhere , the Denis Rosses et al , I can only see “Draconian , Reptilian Cretins ” who only happen to look like human beings.
    Sorry to say this , but there is no other way , I am fed up with this shit.

  734. Sassan says:

    Distinguished career?? How about being one of the key culprits of the regime in that he holds the position for “human rights” for the Islamic Republic and hence human rights violations being ignored are on him; and once we gain liberation in the upcoming years, this degenerate will have to face trial at the International Court of Justice in Hague along with a whole slew of criminals, hooligans, and murderers which compromise this regime.

    And it is quite sad that this site seems to be the cheerleader for the biggest terrorist regime in the world. Not only does this regime oppress and terrorize the Iranian people in the most brutal of ways (including raping our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t die as virgins); this regime has been a sponsor of terrorism from its very on-set. This fanatical regime from its very onset has resorted to supporting the most brutal terrorists throughout the world. This is not mere conjecture, this is the reality. Argentinian courts have convicted in absentia former Revolutionary Guards commander Ahmad Vahidi and the courts ruled that the plot was concocted from the very top. In addition, the U.N. tribunal recently passed down indictments against Hizbolli agents in the death of Rafic Hariri and of course Hizbollah in Lebanon is controlled by the Islamic Republic and they get their orders directly from Tehran. In regards to the Barrack bombing, Islamic Republic Guards generals bloated about the fact that the fuel for the bombs used to kill American and international troops was supplied by the Islamic Republic. And the record is clear that this regime has been involved in providing the training, weapons, and funds in which they have been directly responsible for the murders of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let’s not forget the terror network this regime has all over the world. And in regards to Syria, it has been clearly established that this regime has been providing training, funds, weapons, and have helped implement the methods for the Syrian regime in massacring their people. In fact, there is a large presence of Guards deployment in Syria and in fact, one of them was recently killed by the Syrian Free Army and their badge was aired on youtube; in fact, the Syrian people are so fed up with the terrorist Mullahs that they chant “death to Khamenei” and burn his pictures and curse the regime during their protests.

    In regards to dissidents being killed overseas (outside of Iran), the list is quite extensive. This includes former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar. “Since 1979, high-level officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly those associated with the Ministry of Intelligence and Revolutionary Guards, have been linked to the assassinations of at least 162 of the regime’s political opponents around the world. The regime has vigorously and systematically pursued its state-sponsored campaign of terror in contravention of a host of domestic and international laws promoting peace and security and protecting the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life.”

    And the fact is purchasing the know-how from A.Q. Khan is only done for one reason: in acquiring the bomb. In addition, this regime having the bomb will create a nuclear-arms race in the region among all the Islamic countries which is something truly frightening. In addition, this regime is NOT a rational actor. With the Soviets the doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” helped contain both countries from obliterating each other but this regime is a regime that does not make decisions “in this world”. You’ve heard it before and to paraphrase, “They love death more than you love life”. If you go on youtube and type “The Coming is Upon Us” you will pull a documentary produced by the regime themselves in which they cite Khamenei, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ahmadenijad as characters in the Hadith in preparing for the “return of the hidden imam” or “imam mahdi” and in doing this, they must conquer Jerusalem and cause the deaths of 2/3rd of humanity through war, famine, and chaos. This is THEIR CORE IDEOLOGY. There is no guarantee of “Mutually Assured Destruction” here. These terrorist madmen do not care one bit about the lives of the Iranian people and will gladly kill every last Iranian to keep power – and a nuclear weapon will only enable them to torture, murder, and terrorize the Iranian people further without impunity as they will have no fear of international intervention in the mass murders that will follow during the street protests that will be coming up in a little over a year during the next round of fake-elections in Iran.

    The sad part is that out of all the countries in the region, Iran is the only one that offers a true hope for secular democracy. We have had to learn under the most brutal of ways the evils of Islamic rule. The Iranian people (not the regime) are not a religious people and the demand is clear: complete secular democracy. We have had our homeland pillaged and have had our people tortured and executed by the thousands – we deserve to live in freedom. DO NOT LEGITIMIZE THESE TERRORISTS. Regime change and regime change only.

  735. Castellio says:

    But Arnold, if I might, your thoughts are predicated on a rational actor deciding American military and foreign policy. Given Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine, why this faith in the rational actor?

    FYI, thanks for the link.

  736. Arnold Evans says:

    As of today, I don’t think the US believes it can achieve regime change in Iran through military or non-military means. The US, of course, does not want to occupy Iran. I don’t think there is an amount of airpower that the US believes would successfully force the Iranian government out of power.

    The United States would be willing to collapse the Iranian economy just to do that, hoping that it leads to regime change but if not, its only Iranians suffering anyway. But I don’t see support the US would need from China and Russia to stop all international trade with Iran. For a lot of resources, the US could purchase support from China and Russia but the cost of the purchase, the amount China and Russia would be able to extract in geo-strategic terms for that cooperation seems to me to be what prevents or limits that.

    I also don’t think a complete stop to trade would work to get regime change and don’t think US policymakers think it would.

    I think the ball to keep an eye on is discussions about the feasibility of regime change or national dissolution of Iran. Until somebody expresses confidence that it is feasible I don’t think we’ll see high-risk actions by the US against Iran such as a military strike. There would be a day after such a strike, and the US position would be either helped or harmed. Unless regime change would be closer, the US position would not be helped.

  737. Karl writes:

    “Why did they even invite him if they just wanted to make a mockery out of him?”

    Are you asking that question, or answering it?

  738. fyi says:

    All:

    Interesting example of the thinking of US Analysts’ (but not planners)

    http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/Iran_with_Nuclear_Weapon.pdf

  739. fyi says:

    Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett:

    I agree that nothing will happen until Spring or Summer of 2013.

    I also think Mr. Obama will be re-elected.

    I am very doubtful that Mr. Obama will initiate a war against Iran; there are political as well as economic constraints on US that will be not be alleviated at that time.

    I agree that a certain group of people in US wish to cause US to make war against Iran. The “Saudi Plot” was an act of desparation by them to that end.

    War, in my opinion, is very unlikely since it will not change the strategic situation to the benefit of US.

    But time would tell.

  740. Rehmat says:

    Sharon was right: ‘Israel does control US’

    After returning from their recent pilgrimage to Israel – five Republican congressmen lead by Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado) are planning to table a ‘Congressional bill’ that would require Washington to use the ‘military option’ to defend Israel if the Islamic Republic retaliates as result of Israeli attack on Iran. In 2007, the House also blessed Zionist regime for attacking unfinished nuclear reactor sites in Syria (2007) and in Iraq (1981)…..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/sharon-was-right-israel-does-control-us/

  741. “It will take a lot to head this one off.”

    Good luck with that.

    Email me when you succeed.

  742. Rd. says:

    So Arab League suspends Syria.. is there a precedent established?

    The demonstrations in Tahrir are gaining momentum and unfortunately so is the fatalities. What is Arab League to do??

    Some one please hand a gun to the Arab League so they can practice shooting themselves in the foot….

  743. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “Colin Powell disgraced the office he held, and helped inflict a catastrophe on his own country, with his pathetic stooge perfomance at the UN. “
    ————–

    Powell Disgraced himself all right, but he was never held accountable. So long as these people can get away with their misdeeds, others will follow suit with impunity.

  744. Fiorangela says:

    Amir at 6:22, You are precisely right; the ignorance of the people will destroy the US.

    What I found particularly galling was Huntsman’s deferral to Israel to tell the US what to do: “we will have to sit down with Israel and decide . . ,” TWICE. This as a follow-up to Huntsman declaring that if he becomes president, “in order to let our closest allies know that they can count on the U.S., the best policy is to align directly with the Israeli government.”

    Israel-Palestine question begins at 34:32. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301950-1

  745. paul says:

    Charlie Rose is a despicable monster. How easily you are impressed, Leveretts. Perhaps the prestige of being on his show has gotten to your heads. Yes, because he has positioned himself, in terms of branding, as an open and curious intellectual, he does occasionally indulge in a relatively fair interview that comes from an alternative point of view, but that is all too clearly for bogus cred. The vast majority of the time, he spends sucking up to US political establishmentarian elites, and promoting their narrow, warped and homogeneous points of view. If you appeared on his show, you were there to be used as window dressing for his imperial propaganda.

  746. James Canning says:

    And here’s Richard Haass on “Morning Joe” Nov. 17th: “We see all sorts of undeclared efforts [by Iran] to produce nuclear material, now up to 20 percent, well on the way to what you needd to produce a weapons.” Obviously Haass is well aware that Iran offered to cease production of 20% U. And that Obama ignored the offer. So, we clearly see Haass as a liar, and stooge of warmongers seeking to scr*w the people of the US yet again, so Israel can continue its ethnic cleansing programme in the West Bank.

  747. James Canning says:

    Why are so many in the so-called “American elite” willing to be stooges and whores of warmongers? Could it have something to do with the guaranteed benefits awaiting those who knowingly harm interests of the US to “benefit” Israel?

  748. James Canning says:

    Speaking with the New York Times in New York, Larijani recalled his days at U of California, Berkeley, and how he liked to walk down to Sproul Plaza and watch the different people going here and there. Quite a mix to be seen there, to be sure.

    Larijani should try to visit the US as often as is practicable.

  749. James Canning says:

    And what evidence does Richard Haass cite for proving his contention that Iran will have nukes if it is not somehow stopped?

    Colin Powell disgraced the office he held, and helped inflict a catastrophe on his own country, with his pathetic stooge perfomance at the UN. Powell was duped by the neocons, but he clearly allowed himself to be duped by neocon warmongers. Who were helped by Richard Haass.

  750. James Canning says:

    Bravo. And how disturbing that Richard Haass, who presents himself as a paragon of intelligent thinking about the Middle East, allows himself to serve as a stooge of the warmongers out to “protect” Israel by harming Iran.

  751. Amir says:

    I have been living in US for almost 2 years and I saw that kind of ignorance many times. Believe me it is the single danger for US national security and future. No one can hurt you other than you ignorance of others

  752. hass says:

    It is interesting for how long now the media have presented this false choice on Iran which comes down to either accepting a nuclear-armed Iran (when there’s no evidence of any nuclear weapons) or war. Engaging Iran is apparently an option that simply does not exist for these people.

  753. Karl says:

    The approach the neocon and zionsits showed this man is despicable. They have so much hate for arabs, iranians and muslims its disgusting. They kept making fun of him, patronizing him and showed neither he personally or his views any respect.

    Why did they even invite him if they just wanted to make a mockery out of him?
    This proves that american exceptionalism is still alive in the US. Being a westerner myself I am ashamed that our society havent got any further than make fun of other and being ignorant to other cultures and why nations act like they do.

    Note the usual rant by the richard haas and the other zionist warmongers.

    1. He repeat the claim about explosives and Iran and connect this directly to nuclear explosions, while it has been exposed even before the report was given out that the explosives were nano-explosions. And while there has been no diversion of nuclear enrichment according to IAEA.

    2. He keep saying “Oh Hizbollah are terrorists” While only some 7 nations in this world claim such. Saying that people under occupation and aggression is ‘terrorists’ is absurd and sickening. If for example NAM had the power, they would have listed US as a terrorist regime decades back.

    3. Note how the zionist posse drag up the question of Israel “Oh Larijani you dont recognize Israel huh?”. No why would Iran recognized Israel? Does Israel recognize Palestine? Does Israel recognize the leadership of Iran? I mean cmon, what kind of disgusting attitude do those warmongering folks have towards arabs, iranians, muslims?
    Dont they think that world know the ethnic cleansing, racism, colonialism, apartheid, state-terror that are vibrant in israel society?

    4. Note the complete lack of condemnations from the zionist posse to condemn israels secret nuclear program when Larijani brings that up.

    5. Note how richard haas tries to shift attention from the fact that US supported Al-Qaeda in the 80s. What haas doesnt get is that while there was no actual group calling itself alqaeada (and no by this time either) in the 80s US supported the exact same islamic fundamentalists that established al-qaeda (there is no difference in ideology between the islamic fighters in Afghanistan in the 80s and the so called 9/11 terrorists), that were fed with american taxdollars and with weapons from other allies in the area (pakistan, saudiarabia), even Israel supported the islamic warriors. These same warriors, these same money helped the so called al qaeda going into wtc 2001. haas living in denial.

    6. The fact that the zionist panel get furious when Larijani portray US as the biggest terroristnation is another proof of the ignorance, and brainwashing these people are obviously subjected too.

    7. “well Larinjani your nation is nuts, you imprision people for entering the borders..ohhh blowing up desert”. Once again we see US contempt and ignorance for other peoples law, culture and conduct.
    Also just imagine if 3 iranian so called hikers just slipped in in America. Just imagine what would happen…

    We saw how US demonized the whole of Iran when 1 iranian was caught in the saudi-plot. And how did US reacted? Did the proceed the “rule of law” that US are so proud of because its “democratic”? Oh no, they didnt even bother to research the man, they havent even let the man stand trial yet but they still screaming “Iran did it!”.
    Cangaroo court-style. And thats the exact same way dictators rule. They say x did it without having any trial for the suspect etc. Thats not credible at all.

    While Larijani made some good points there is a different debate climate in Iran US talkshows. In Iran, and correct me if I am wrong, you dont heckle, use ad hominem, make a mockery of a guest. I think Larinjani was good and kept a higher moral standard and wasnt lured in by the emotional filled zionist posse that tried to push his button. He made a calm and tried (due the constant break ins by the zionist clique) to argue reasonable to make his point. The fact that Larijani had a small smirk ,yet fully controlled himself , in his face made the zionist clique even more furious and emotional. Pathetic. That proves Iran take US warmongering and lame attempts of discredit Iran lightly and doesnt bother with the childish attitude.

    US neocon israel-cheerleader like haas refuse to change his ideas on Iran, hes a hatred and daily indoctrination stands in the way of thinking logically.

  754. Pirouz says:

    When the Tehran Declaration was rejected the way it was in 2010, I gave the odds of a U.S. directed war against Iran at better than 50/50 during the following four years.

    I guess we’ll be looking at gas prices passing $6 a gallon following the course of the next war in the ME.

    We’re already experiencing the outbreak of social unrest in the form of various Occupy movements. Just imagine the uptick in that unrest with gas prices going the way of my forecast.