photo from Foreign Policy
President Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, spoke last week at the Brookings Institution on “Iran and International Pressure: An Assessment of International Efforts to Impede Iran’s Nuclear Program”, see here. His remarks provide as comprehensive and authoritative testimony as it is possible to find as to the strategic vacuity—and duplicity—of the Obama Administration’s Iran policy. This is, of course, a subject we have explored regularly on Race for Iran.
Donilon’s remarks also reveal the profoundly ill-informed and deeply delusional assessments of Iran’s policies, strategic position, etc., that undergird U.S. policy. In this regard, we want to focus on one of the more prominent themes in Donilon’s address: the Administration’s claim as to “how profoundly the Iranian regime has been weakened and isolated, at home, in the region, and globally.” This trope is becoming part of the evolving-yet-fundamentally-unchanging conventional wisdom about the Islamic Republic in Washington policy circles and among American political and media elites. A couple of recent pieces offer badly needed doses of reality on the matter.
With regard to Iran’s purported international isolation, we want to highlight M.K. Bhadrakumar’s “BRICs Block the US on Middle East”, posted on Indian Punchline: Reflections on Foreign Affairs, see here. Bhadrakumar, a richly experienced retired senior Indian diplomat, provides a useful assessment of the deputy foreign ministers of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) in Moscow last week. Here is his summary of the final communique, in five points (please take particular note of the fourth item):
–“BRICS has taken a common position with regard to what has come to be known as the ‘Arab Spring’. The basic principles have been identified: focus should be on peaceful national dialogue; no excuse for foreign intervention; central role of the UN Security Council.
–BRICS took a common stance on Syria. The key sentence is, ‘Any external interference in Syria’s affairs, not in accordance with the UN Charter, should be excluded.’
–BRICS calls for a ‘thorough review’ of the appropriateness of the NATO intervention in Libya and suggests a UN mission in Tripoli to handle the current transition process, flagging specifically a role for African Union.
–BRICS rejected the threat of force against Iran and called for continued dialogue and negotiations. Most significantly, it criticised the US-EU moves on additional sanctions, calling them ‘counterproductive’ measures that would ‘only exacerbate’ the situation.
–BRICS lauded the GCC initiative on Yemen as an example.”
Bhadrakumar notes that this “will be received well in Damascus and Tehran. On the contrary, it is a setback for the US and its allies who are ratcheting up the tensions over Syria and Iran. No doubt, India’s participation in the Moscow meeting is a matter of particular interest. Washington will take note. Russia virtually got the BRICs to censure US’s interventionist policies in the Middle East.”
We think the point that rising powers are becoming decidedly less tolerant of Washington’s hegemonic unilateralism is important, and will become an ever more significant aspect of international politics in coming months and years. It is, of course, a trend from which the Islamic Republic can only benefit.
With regard to accounts of Iran’s international economic isolation, we want to highlight a piece published in The Guardian by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a young academic at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. (Adib-Moghaddam is the author of—among other things—Iran and World Politics: The Question of the Islamic Republic, which has definitely been a stimulus to our own analysis of Western stereotypes about modern Iranian politics.)
In his Op Ed, see here, Adib-Moghaddam Adib-Moghaddam explains simply and clearly that
“the argument that Iran is economically isolated does not hold…According to the most recent UNCTAD report, foreign direct investment to the country has increased exponentially from $1.6 bn in 2008 to $3.6 bn in 2010. This does not mean that there are no serious economic problems in the country…It means that there is another side to the Iran story that is subdued for ideological reasons. Ultimately, the US and to a lesser extent the European Union are disqualifying themselves from the Iranian market during a period of intense economic calamity. China and Russia say ‘thank you’.”
We agree that America and Europe’s ongoing determination to keep trying to isolate Iran—first and foremost, by isolating themselves from Iran—is economically as well as strategically ill-considered. But Bhadrakumar and Adib-Moghaddam’s analyses also put the lie to another point that Donilon made, not in his Brookings speech but a few days earlier, see here, while talking to reporters in Indonesia during President Obama’s recent Asia tour: “The isolation that Iran is undergoing right now…really is unprecedented. They see themselves wholly isolated.” (emphasis added) We are left, once again, wondering which is worse: that the national security adviser to the President of the United States is prepared to say something so manifestly untrue with regard to Iran, or that the national security adviser to the President of the United States may actually believe his own statement.
In addition to the points about international investment flows to the Islamic Republic, Adib-Moghaddam’s Op Ed takes on the narrative (also emphasized at some length by Donilon), that “the Iranian state is likely to collapse under the pressure of sanctions”. As Adib-Moghaddam elaborates, this narrative “maintains that Iran is running out of money and that its economy is teetering on the brink. This has been repeatedly presented as an argument in support of sanctions or as an example of the incompetence of the Iranian state”.
But, Adib-Moghaddam points out, this narrative “does not correspond to the facts”, as reported by the World Bank as well as the International Monetary Fund. He notes the Islamic Republic’s “early successes with the subsidy reform programme” and “advances in the financial sector, which is boosted by a buoyant stock market”. He has other interesting things to say about various “soft factors that feed into the relative stability of the Iranian economy”, including its accomplishments in technological innovation and scientific research.
This helps undergird Adib-Moghaddam’s dismantling of conventional arguments in the West that “the Iranian state is collapsing”. Beyond his economic analysis, he offers a succinct summary of “several interdependent reasons” why the Iranian state is likely to remain stable. The manner in which Adib-Moghaddam formulates these reasons suggests a clearly pro-reformist predilection on his part, but the basic factors he identifies—“popular accountability”, a “committed base” supporting the state, and “no real penchant within the country for revolution”—are on point. This, in particular, really caught our eye:
“there is no over-dependency on the west that would yield a legitimacy crisis (as in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt and Zine al-Abidine Ben-Ali’s Tunisia and under the shah) and there is no subservience to Israeli demands. The Iranian government’s strident emphasis on “national independence” continues to garner support within Iranian society.”
Adib-Moghaddam concludes with the important observation, with which we entirely agree, that nuanced and informed assessments of economic, social, and political realities in the Islamic Republic
“are largely subdued in many analyses about Iran. Instead, there exists an entire literature of instant expertise that is tied to the politics of the moment. If the analysis of a country is wrong the policy prescriptions are bound to be wrong too. Afghanistan and Iraq are very good examples of that relationship between the absence of sound knowledge on a country and strategic failure.”
It will be very difficult to repeat that admonition too frequently in the coming months.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
James Canning says: December 11, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I judge intentions based on capabilities and actions.
When is UK sending Mr. Straw to Iran?
James,
“Zero chance US would use nukes to attack Iran. It would be beyond insane.”
Definitely the reverse of this is true. Zero chance the IRI would use nukes to attack the US. If it is so certain the US would not attack Iran with nukes, why does not the successive American administrations take nukes off the table when speaking about Iran?
In fact, this whole time the Americans go out of their way to exclaim to Iran “We will attack you!” At no point has diplomacy been seriously considered by the US towards the IRI. ‘Attack’ has been certain, the rest of us are trying to figure out What kind of attack and When? I am not as certain as you nukes would not be used. The Americans already drop dirty bombs whose effects will last for generations. What prevents them from going all the way? If global public opinion had any sway, the wars themselves would stop to say nothing of nuclear weapons. So what stops the nukes from falling?
fyi,
Israel reserves its nukes for the purpose of eliminating any chance Arab armies would be massed for attack on Israel. Soemthing that simply is not going to happen. And Israel has ample conventional weaponry to deal with any such contingency.
Zero chance US would use nukes to attack Iran. It would be beyond insane.
Why would US build 30,000-pound “bunker busters” if idea was to use nukes anyway?
Your belief US could use nukes with impunity simply is not true.
Iran can be safe, without nukes. Trying to build them would be extremely dangerous.
I continue to find it peculiar that you claim UK leaders are unwilling to accept a strong Iran, but when a very prominent and highly regarded former foreign minister of UK says the world would welcome a strong Iran playing prominent role in world affairs, you take offence!
James Canning says: December 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Says who, James Canning?
In regards to armament spending by the Southern Persian Gulf states; so what?
Their military spending is irrelevant to the balance of military power in the Persian Gulf.
In regards to a potential nuclear attack on Iran; in the light of previous WMD attacks on Iran; Iranians planners would be remiss in their duty if they do not consider it and plan accordingly.
If an attack is made on Iran, using nuclear weapons, no other state would do a damn thing.
fyi,
Re: electoral fraud in Russia. Exit polls as some voting stations showed the results were unsound. And at others, apparently hundreds more votes were cast, than there were voters. United Russia would have lost even more seats, with fair vote counting.
fyi,
Iran as practical matter has next to no reason to fear a nuclear attack.
On the other hand, your recurring call for Iran to build nukes is a great way to make an attack on Iran much likelier than otherwise would obtain.
The Gulf monarchies can outspend Iran on weapons by a factor of eight or ten times. What benefit to the people of Iran would come from an arms race?
fyi,
Idiot Israeli militarists launched the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Their intention to launch the attack was concealed from the American secretary of defence. Blaming the invasion on the US or the EU is silly.
fyi,
I would not be surprised if Sir Malcolm Rifkind sees merit in Russia’s proposal for a phased reduction in sanctions. There is a very big difference between enriching to 3.5% and enriching to 20%.
Mr. James Canning:
Strategic autonomy for Iran means this: Neither East, Nor West.
Neither Russia, nor China, nor US-EU Axis are ever going to dictate to Iran the conduct of her foreign and domestic policies.
Iranian leaders have paid a very heavy price for this achievement and will continue to do so.
In regards to Mr. Rifkin:
20% or 3.5% is immaterial in my judgement. He cleverly avoids mentioning the siege of Iran.
The fact of the matter is that the US-EU Axis have failed strategically in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the Levant (after igniting the Lebanese Civil War, 1982 invasion of Lebanon, 2006 War against Lebanon), and in Central Asia.
They have failed, strategically on a broad front from Qara Qurum to the Nile.
Now they have to re-double their efforts to demonstrate that they are not such failures after all and further yo show that they still have a life left in them.
Thus the escalation of Siege Warfare against Iran, and, simultaneously, drawing their knives to kill the Ba’ath state in Syria.
When the late Mr. Khomeini advised Muslims to come back to Islam, very many people laughed at him; inside Iran, among Muslim polities, and outside of the lands of Islam. When he stated that there is no alternative to the Path of Islam – however broadly defined – no one thought that he was speaking strategically and not metaphorically.
Now you can see that in Lebanon, Egypt, in Tunisia, in Iraq, in Afghamistan, in Turkey Islamist are in power. And Pakistan – which had been trying to live the Raj – finally has started changing course.
James Canning says: December 10, 2011 at 2:05 pm
The costs of nuclear program in Iran must be balanced against the possibility of the disintegration of the Iranian state or future WMD attacks against Iran.
I have already articulated my view points regarding the necessity of Iran fielding nuclear weapons for the resons of state cohesion and security.
And a nuclear attack against Tehran, causing several hundred thousands of casualties, is not out of the question as WMD attacks against Iran – both civilian and military – demonstrated during Iran-Iraq War.
Several tens of billions of dollars is nothing compared to the costs above.
James Canning says: December 10, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I am saying that it is hard to believe that there were electoral fraud when the ruling party loses so many seats.
And just like the Green Movement in Iran, the protestors in Russia are strong on theatrics and very weak indeed on evidence (of fraud).
fyi,
What do you mean by “strategic autonomy” that you seem to think the US and the EU resent? Hostile comments about Israel?
fyi,
I agree EU and US/Canada would benefit from better relations with Iran.
War would be disastrous for US and EU. And for the Palestinians.
fyi,
Estimates of actual cost of Iran’s nuclear programme run into tens of billions of dollars. Iranian economy is 15% smaller than otherwise would obtain.
But Iran of course benefits from higher oil prices.
fyi,
I think Sir Malcolm Rifkind might very well support Iranian enrichment to 3.5%.
And of course support nuclear power programme in Iran.
I think you should applaud him for saying it would be a good thing for Iran to occupy a prominent position in world affairs. And not to be the focus of hostility.
fyi,
I do not understand your comment. Are you saying United Russia would have done better if no fraud took place? Or the opposite?
James Canning says: December 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm
It is indeed some fraud that United Russia loses so significantly.
James Canning says: December 10, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Sir Malcolm is a man who states, with a straight face, that Iran should conform to the demands of UNSC. Those demands are meant to take sovereign rights from Iran.
And he goes on to try to sugar-coat that flattering Iran as a “Great Country”.
Well, in my opinion, is not a great country; her best days are behind her. She is a medium-sized country which, after 200 years, has regained her strategic autonomy.
This is what Sir Malcolm and other US-EU leaders find so unpleasant.
“Iran playing a great role in the World”; what rubbish!
Iran is already playing a role, making sure, with minimal costs to Iran, the failure of US-EU strategies in the Middle East.
It is a largely negative role but it is not directed and orchestrated by US-EU Axis.
And please keep in mind, US-EU Axis need Iran more than Iran needs them; on non-proliferation, on the war in Palestine, in energy security, in the Levant, in Central Asia etc.
File under “You Couldn’t Make It Up”.
UK’s top spies approved export of surveillance technology to Iran:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/11/30/uks-top-spies-approved-export-of-surveillance-technology-to-iran/
Newt Gingrich is eager to prove he is an ardent stooge of extreme Zionists. To curry favor with foolish Israel-firsters, Gingrich claims the Palestinians are an “invented people”! Lebanese, I suppose, are “invented people”. But Gingrich would not say so, because that would not bring favor with the ignorant Christian Zionists whom he is courting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/10/palestinians-gingrich-history-invented-people
fyi,
Surely you are aware there was significant “voter fraud” in the Russian elections.
That said, I think Hillary Clinton did not act wisely in her reaction to the election results.
fyi,
Sir Malcolm Rifkind is arrogant? Why? Because he thinks Iran will continue to enrich to 20%, to build up stocks that can quickly be further enriched to 95%?
Why are you angry that a former British foreign secretary would say he is sorry that Iran, “as a great country”, is not playing a “much more important role in the world”?
All:
Report on Russian protests:
http://news.yahoo.com/russians-rally-vs-putin-election-fraud-163519670.html
Note the similarity of the strategy and tactics with the 2009 protests in Iran:
-Bring very many people into the streets
-Claim that there has been massive voter fraud (in Russian case, the United Russia actually lost significantly)
-Seek to nullify the vote
Almost certianly emanating from the same sources in US-EU Axis that created the fitna of 2009 in Iran.
Political ramification: suppression of NGOs in the Russian Federation, further rapproachment with Iran, increased surveilance of “Democracy Activists” in China etc.
James Canning says: December 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm
The arrogance is quite clear.
There will be no resolution; a relentless and exhausting struggle for the elimination of the US-EU Axis power in the Middle East must necessarily be the strategic objective of Iran – just like in the early days of the Iranian Revolution.
Let us see what happens in Syria.
Rehmat,
The so-called “Christians” seeking the Republican nomination for president, are never asked why they encourage Israel to oppress the Christians in the West Bank.
Malcom Rifkind, quoted in the Guardian: “Iran is a great country and ought to be playing a much more important role in the world. Instead, it has made itself the focus of antagonism.” Rifkind is a former foreign secretary of the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/09/is-war-with-iran-inevitable-nuclear-weapons
fyi: inter-regnum with an ‘n’, as in regnator (ruler or king)
Empty says:
I see this problem most fundamentally rooted in the corrupted Christianity that has been instilled into western thinking/policy making that they could commit any sins (mistakes, financial corruptions, mishandling, etc.) and then they will be absolved of their sins and “saved” by the jesus du jour (who should suffer on their behalf) as soon as they confess.
*
Yes, as opposed to:
يَوۡمَٮِٕذٍ۬ يَصۡدُرُ ٱلنَّاسُ أَشۡتَاتً۬ا لِّيُرَوۡاْ أَعۡمَـٰلَهُمۡ (٦) فَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيۡرً۬ا يَرَهُ ۥ (٧)
099.007
YUSUFALI: Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good, see it!
PICKTHAL: And whoso doeth good an atom’s weight will see it then,
SHAKIR: So. he who has done an atom’s weight of good shall see it
099.008
YUSUFALI: And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it.
PICKTHAL: And whoso doeth ill an atom’s weight will see it then.
SHAKIR: And he who has done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it.
And of course the fact that Pauline Christianity, from almost the very beginning, laid the foundations for its later antinomianisms (ghayr-e mutisharri’), has much to do with what you talk about when you point to the centrality of the “independence” of central banks from governments. Whereas Jesus is said to have thrown the money lenders out of the temple (we don’t *know* this, as all these ahadith are zaeef, be they canonical or apocryphal), now the Christians who are trying to occupy the Temple (Wall Street) are thrown out. The opening of the floodgates was effected when the Church lost control and the money lenders were able to charge interest with impunity. Now the greatest nations of New Atlantis are not even in charge of their own money supply, and have to pay exhorbitant interest rates to International Bankers. Unless I am quite mistaken, around 40% of the US Federal budget goes to service the interest on the debt that the government owes private banking interests; money it would not be paying a penny of interest on if ownership and title of its central bank was not wrested away from it by the Creature from Jeckyl Island in 1913 (the year that not only the Fed was created, but that the Federal income tax was instituted as a mechanism to pay for the interest on the anticipated debts.)
Empty says: December 10, 2011 at 10:50 am
Christians have no monopoly on corruption.
Look no further than contemporary Iran for that.
In fact, many Northern Europeans – from rural area of UK, Germany, and Scandinavia were truly honest and sincere people; with their word being their bond etc.
Recently, over the last 40 years, that has changed.
The current economic crisis will not foster a strengthening of international institutions of post WWII.
This economic crisis is forcing every state on the planet to work on his own for her own interests. None of the G-7, G-8, or G-20 meetings over the last 4 years have produced any meaningful collective action.
I expect that to continue and to accelerate when it is finally accepted that the cure may take one or two decades.
It is in this light that I see US, UK sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran; meaningless tantrums when the writ of these states no longer carry the weight that it did.
US-EU Axis are damaging the institutions of the post WWII world in their confrontation with Iran.
One must conclude that they think that it is worth it (the destruction of the independent Iranian power) and, furthermore, that they can come back and repair that damage when they have disposed of their nasty Iranian peoblem.
This will not happen.
We were in the so-called inter-regum period between 1991-2008 which marked the end of the Cold War and the start of a new World Order which also witnessed the so-called unilateral moment of US dominance.
The inter-regum period is over and we are in the uncharted waters for world economy as well as for international state actors.
US-EU Axis will try to maintain their alliance but, in reality, neither can help the other much in this economic crisis. And within EU, different states clearly have different interests and will pursue them.
The effects of sanctions on Iran is this: creation of alternative financial institutions as well as monetary channels that will by-pass the US-EU Axis states system.
Unknown Unknowns,
RE: I just wanted to point out that my thinking has been that just as the arms embargo has forced Iran to develop its home-grown military industry from the grass roots up, the *gradual* encirclement and attempted stangulation of Iran in the diplomatic, trade and financial domains has and will continue to force upon her (Iran) the need to develop supra-national institutional connections with other state players with which she has contact with (e.g., Venezuela, Syria, Belarus, North Korea, Lebanon, and Russia & China of course).
I think the push is exactly in this direction. However, I think the intention is to make it happen sooner rather than later. If it happens sooner, then these emerging economies with new currency will shoulder the bulk of the burden from a too-weak a dollar because: 1) most of the reserve in the form of either dollar euro (so the collaborative force between US/EU is also to make sure they push these countries to a 3rd/4th direction); 2) the lag time cost (severe) for the new currency/currencies to acquire notoriety and inspire confidence. This would also fall on the shoulder of the emerging economies.
I see this problem most fundamentally rooted in the corrupted Christianity that has been instilled into western thinking/policy making that they could commit any sins (mistakes, financial corruptions, mishandling, etc.) and then they will be absolved of their sins and “saved” by the jesus du jour (who should suffer on their behalf) as soon as they confess.
“oath” and not oat ….lol
Castellio, Sakineh Bagoom, and Unknown Unknowns:
Sakineh Bagoom, you are arguing the consequence of a given objective (once implemented) for the actual goal and purpose of it [i.e. your examples address “if…then…” (pros and cons of a mechanism to achieve a given goal), while I’m discussing the “why”]. I think we could better address your (correct) points (that relate to the consequences) after we have clarified and addressed Castellio’s and Unknown Unknowns’ that relate to the goal.
Castellio and Unknown Unknowns, the points that you two are raising support (rather than refute) the essence of my argument. But, I think, you don’t realize that and we have to make this evident by deconstructing and clarifying your statements first.
RE: The Americans see their banking system, including their central bank, as central to the world’s economy.
Yes, with the clarification that I think the Americans might have a different conceptualization of the role their functionally-autonomous central bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve) plays than those who are actually in charge of the Federal Reserve. I also think most Americans (most but not all) might be under a misperception that they actually have some sort of say (political & legal say, that is) in how their central bank (the Federal Reserve) makes policies, the evolving relationship between USFR, IMF, and central banks of nations around the world. For the past thirty plus years, the real oat taken by elected presidents has been the one they have delivered to the Federal Reserve (and not the one that is window dressed for the American public’s benefit). In a speech delivered at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies International Conference (May 2010) in Tokyo, Japan, this is what Bernanke said:
O.Q.“In 1979, President Carter appointed Paul Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve with the expectation that Volcker would strengthen the central bank’s inflation-fighting credibility, even though those steps would likely involve short-term economic and political costs. Subsequently, President Reagan’s support for Volcker’s politically unpopular disinflationary policies and for the principle of Federal Reserve independence proved crucial to the ultimate victory over inflation, a victory that set the stage for sustained growth. Presidents and other U.S. political leaders have since then regularly testified to the benefits of an independent Federal Reserve. For instance, President Clinton said in 2000, “[O]ne of the hallmarks of our economic strategy has been a respect for the independence and the integrity of the Federal Reserve.”President Bush noted in 2005, “It’s this independence of the Fed that gives people not only here in America but the world, confidence.” And President Obama said in August 2009, “We will continue to maintain a strong and independent Federal Reserve.”[See 1 for the full speech] E.Q.
*Side Note: an inaccurate positive correlation/association between the degree of independence of central banks (F.R. in the US case) and anti-inflation success has been highlighted and summarized best in C.E. Walsh’s [2] summery (I’ve referenced a PDF of the paper below).
But why would the elected presidents need to affirm the Fed’s independence? The key could be extracted from the following explanation [2] about what “independence” for a central bank means and how some countries (US & UK, for example) have approached this:
O.Q.“Most discussions have focused on two key dimensions of independence. The first dimension encompasses those institutional characteristics that insulate the central bank from political influence in defining its policy objectives. The second dimension encompasses those aspects that allow the central bank to freely implement policy in pursuit of monetary policy goals. …. In the U.K., the Bank of England lacks goal independence since the inflation target is set by the government. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve’s goals are set in its legal charter, but these goals are described in vague terms (e.g., maximum employment), leaving it to the Fed to translate these into operational goals. Thus, the Fed has a high level of goal independence.”E.Q.
RE: Excluding a nation from American and any American related financial services (ie: all) is meant to be the “worst” punishment. This action is also meant to be a signal to all nations that to go against American hegemony is to find oneself no longer functioning within the American led financial system.
I am arguing that: A) the American financial services itself is under the control of an unelected body; B) This unelected (and unaccountable to the American public and any other public for that matter) body (i.e. the Federal Reserve) is working in concert with IMF to push for what E.M. Truman [See 3] frames as “the IMF as the central institution of global economic governance”; C) there is a functional push (steps actually taken without having obtained the consensus of the global actors) in increasing the surveillance and regulatory activities of IMF over all global central banks (sooner rather than later). I believe the “American hegemony” that you refer to is only the tip of the arrow and the “fletching” might be an eagle’s feather but the ones who draw have no allegiances but to profit. D) there is parallel push on the central banks (of countries) to become independent of their governments to prevent “unpredictable” decision making independent of IMF/a global financial supervisory body; E) a push to create a basket of currencies (4 to be exact) but certain governments are resisting as they are major lenders and their greatest reserve is in dollar; F) the conflict among countries is not over “if”, it’s over “how fast”.
China says it should happen gradually from 2020 onwards, the US and EU say it should happen yesterday. The slower it happens, the less severe it is on China but more deleterious it is on US/EU combo. Targeting the central banks (under the guise of targeting Iran’s oil and central bank) is meant to serve as a catalyst. The following sources could yield a deeper understanding of this very coarse summary that I did: “The Dollar Dilemma” [See 4], “The Currency War” [See 5]
In a nutshell, this is what is being pushed fast and furiously: Central banks becoming independent of their government is good; Central banks being independent of a global financial body is bad. To achieve this, something similar to the UN security council is being created with powerful nations wanting to be “more equal” (with veto power) and emerging nations resisting this and demanding more say.
RE: The American action is not, as I think you are suggesting, in the expectation that other economies of sufficient scale will go their own way, but is an act to precipitate that eventuality from happening.
That is not what I suggested. The push is for China to help clean up the mess US/EU has created sooner rather than later and in a larger than smaller scale. Instead of working on this cooperatively with China (and other emerging countries) to determine the pace, they want to shove it down China’s throat not caring much that it might actually choke her.
RE: It is linked to (or backed up by) the American commitment to control the shipping channels of oil to China.
This is the means not the end (mechanism vs. goal).
RE: Full spectrum dominance remains the strategy, and the banking system remains its most powerful player.
Directly relevant to our conversation, the aim right now, I think, is to push a level of autonomous space for the central banks within each country (as I stated before) so that they could gain legal independence later. From a social perspective, if a government has learned how to successfully by pass its own central bank to do international business, it would be less resistant to its own central bank working independently. This opens the venue through which an IMF-style body could push a more global agenda on the central banks. That, I think, is the direction where things are being pushed.
Finally, below is a sample of different quotes (from within the sources I have cited) that you might find interesting:
QUOTE- “I think there is a good case for granting the central bank independence in making quantitative easing decisions, just as with other monetary policies. Because the effects of quantitative easing on growth and inflation are qualitatively similar to those of more conventional monetary policies, the same concerns about the potentially adverse effects of short-term political influence on these decisions apply. Indeed, the costs of undue government influence on the central bank’s quantitative easing decisions could be especially large, since such influence might be tantamount to giving the government the ability to demand the monetization of its debt, an outcome that should be avoided at all costs.” END QUOTE
QUOTE-“Prior to the creation of the European Central Bank (ECB) in June1998, independence was seen as such a crucial element that it was enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, an international agreement that can only be changed by unanimous consent of its signatories. The independence of the ECB has helped to keep euro-area inflation expectations firmly anchored.”END QUOTE
QUOTE- “The importance of central bank independence also motivated a 1997 revision to Japanese law that gave the Bank of Japan operational independence. This revision significantly diminished the scope for the Ministry of Finance to influence central bank decisions, thus strengthening the Bank of Japan’s autonomy in setting monetary policy. END QUOTE
QUOTE-“As a result of the crisis, countries around the world are implementing significant financial and regulatory reforms. Such reforms that reduce the chance of a future crisis and that mitigate the effects of any crisis that does occur are worthy of our full support. As we move along the path of reform, however, it is crucial that we maintain the ability of central banks to make monetary policy independently of short-term political influence. In exchange for this independence, central banks must meet their responsibilities for transparency and accountability. At the Federal Reserve, we will continue to work to facilitate public understanding of both our monetary policy decisions and our actions to ensure the soundness of the financial system.”END QUOTE
QUOTE- “One country has little concern about the issue of central bank independence: China. The Chinese central bank is a government department in charge of the nation’s monetary policy. The issue of political “interference” never arises in Beijing because there is no independence to compromise.” [6] END QUOTE
==============================================================
Sources:
[1] B. Bernanke’s speech in Tokyo, Japan: ;http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20100525a.htm
[2] CE Walsh “Central Bank Independence”: ;http://people.ucsc.edu/~walshc/MyPapers/cbi_newpalgrave.pdf
[3]E.M. Truman (2009) “IMF and the Global Crisis: The role and reform”, Peterson Institute for International Economics
[4] B. Eichengreen (2009) “The Dollar Dilemma” in Foreign Affairs: ;http://economicforumonline.org/_source/downloads/thedollardilemma.pdf
[5] J.G. Rickard, “Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis”
[6] ;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703585704574650441367544288.html
Ron Paul: ‘Bush boys were happy after 9/11
Rep. Ron Paul is the only GOP presidential hopeful, who is not competing with his opponents (Romney, Gingrich, Cain and Bachmann) to prove “who loves the Jews the most and hates Iran the most“.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/ron-paul-bush-boys-were-happy-after-911/
Unknown Unknowns says:
“This was just too good for me to pass up and not share. From b over at MoA:”
Speaking of moon of Alabama, I have yet to see a word on P Lang’s blog about the no so downed, not captured, none existant, not important drone in IRGC’s hand!!! guess hush is the word..
There’s a good article by Peter Lee over at the Asia Times which discusses Chinese nuclear deterrence.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ML10Ad02.html
So, 400 nuclear warheads is the current estimate of Chinese strength (not the reported 3,000).
One of the oldest nations in the world, with the largest population by far, and the second largest economy, with a vast territory, has 400 nuclear warheads.
Consider Israel, which has been variously estimated at having 200 – 400 weapons.
Now how exactly did this happen? Why is Germany selling a submarine delivery system for these nuclear weapons. What is going on here?
fyi says:
December 9, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Thank for your response, and thanks for the link to the truthout article by Richard Sale, which I reproduce here as I think Sale has the most first-hand knowledge of the people in high places in both Israel and the US to be able to give a good picture of what is actually going on.
http://www.truth-out.org/what-israels-war-against-iran-would-look/1323374542
Excerpts:
In the past, the United States had led in confronting Iran. For years, the United States Air Force has had “Project Checkmate,” a secret, strategic planning group tasked with running detailed contingency scenarios for a possible massive, three-day US attack on Iran. It is part of US Central Command (CENTCOM) and consists of 20 to 30 top air force officers and defense and cyber experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and other government agencies.
Time changed the United States’ leadership in confrontations with Iran. During the past few years, it was Israel that increasingly sought to launch a preemptive strike on Tehran, with the United States assigned a subsidiary role. According to one former senior US military official with personal knowledge, all through the late spring and the summer of 2011, “Israel wanted to start something and drag us in.”
This correspondent first heard of the threats of a preemptive Israeli strike as early as last May, when Department of Defense (DoD) officials told me of classified DoD drills being conducted in support of an Israeli attack on Iran. All summer long, the drills continued – supervised by teams of senior former and serving CIA and DIA officials who were personally opposed to any such attack.
Last spring, then-secretary of defense Robert Gates, who had a fixed and determined will, resisted the very idea of such an attack. In August, after Gates retired, there were leaked rumors that Israel would attack after Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired in September. The attack was aimed at foiling the Palestinians’ bid to get some form of statehood from the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
After Mullen stepped down, President Obama sent the new Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, to Israel to argue that an attack would not succeed in its aims, and to attempt to get a commitment from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to strike Iran without warning. According to US military and intelligence sources, Panetta failed to get that pledge.
…
In the case of an attack on Iran, Israel has a vast array of weapons, including neutron bombs, nuclear weapons and fuel-air explosive (FAE) bombs. But if Israel used an FAE weapon in an attack, Iran and its allies in Lebanon would fire thousands upon thousands of scud missiles armed with high explosive (HE) warheads “at every Israeli population center down as far as Tel Aviv,” according to one former DoD intelligence official.
The Syrians, using larger and more actively guided missiles, could shower Israel with high explosive warheads (or even WMD payloads) while Israel would attempt to use its Green Pine radar system, and a combination of US and Israeli anti-missile missiles, to shoot down these salvos. Former CIA and DoD analysts told this reporter that Israel, in the beginning, would have good success in knocking down many incoming missiles, but the sheer number of incoming missiles would “totally overload all and any defensive measures.”
A former US intelligence official with direct knowledge of Israel’s attack plans emphasized: “The Israelis have no defense against this. Israel has a massive disincentive against the use of any kind of nuclear weapon. Israel has only two population centers, and this attack would finish them.”
…
There appear to be three major targets in Israel’s strike plan: the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan, the fuel-enrichment plant at Natanz, and the heavy-water production plant and heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak. Even if Israel’s Air Force reached those targets, their position deep underground would make them hard to hit. “It would take thousands of sorties,” said a former senior Pentagon official. And given the range, the Israeli planes couldn’t stay at the area for very long. “The Israelis have no idea of the scale and complexity of this kind of operation,” said a former senior US intelligence official.
…
The former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, who made headlines last January when he resigned after calling any preemptive strike by Israel “insane,” added that he would do anything in his power to prevent an attack.
unknown unknowns:
“Medvedev bans sale of S-300 missiles, other weapons to Iran (Update 1)”
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100922/160688354.html
And now for something completely different :-). I’d like to point you to a gorgeous photo report of Iran at the German Nikon Photography forum. You find “On the Axis of Evil” here: http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/foto-reportagen/179488-auf-der-achse-des-boesen.html . Wonderful.
From Air Force Times (Weaselistan):
How’d It Go Down?
Still unknown is how Iran captured the stealthy aircraft in the first place. Tehran claims to have used cyberwarfare to hack the drone’s systems.
Schwartz declined to say whether he believed the RQ-170 was brought down by electronic means.
Goure said the largely intact airframe ruled out the possibility of an engine or navigational malfunction.
“Either this was a cyber/electronic warfare attack system that brought the system down or it was a glitch in the command-and-control system,” he said.
If it was a malfunction, it was a spectacular one. Not only did the aircraft lose its command link, it also failed to return to base as it was designed to do in such an eventuality, Goure said.
This was just too good for me to pass up and not share. From b over at MoA:
@Cyrus – yes the spinning is ridiculous. Loren Thompsen, the Lockheed lobbyist, went from “can’t have happened”, to “accident”, to “self destructed”, to “has no intelligence value”, to “Iranians can not reverse engineer”. This in a matter of four days.
Posted by: b | Dec 9, 2011 1:38:03 PM | 48
*
Loren Thompsen, Weaselette.
Castellio says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I just read this post of yours after I had responded to Empty’s post, and I of course agree with you. Ultimately, Atlantis will lose this game, as their project is too ambitious, based on delusional Enlightenment thinking. In the struggle between unipolarity and multi-polarity, multi-polarity will always win. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it always will be. Same as it ever was. I think it was Aristotle (of all people) who said that strictly speaking, the smallest number is two, as it takes two to know one. One must have multiplicity in order to know unicity (tauhid).
This seminal *hadith qudsi* comes to mind (time and again), where God, speaking through his blessed Prophet, said: I was a Hidden Treasure, and I wanted to be Known. So I created Creation in order to be known.
The implication (for those other than Castellio, who gets it already) is that He didn’t create Creation in order to place a Weasel on its Throne.
We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it!
Empty says:
December 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm
It is meant to force the governments (of these countries), I believe, to find alternative methods of transacting so that an autonomous space for their respective central banks are, inevitably created.
*
Huh. Interesting you should think in those terms. My thinking has been in the exact opposite direction. And I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I just wanted to point out that my thinking has been that just as the arms embargo has forced Iran to develop its home-grown military industry from the grass roots up, the *gradual* encirclement and attempted stangulation of Iran in the diplomatic, trade and financial domains has and will continue to force upon her (Iran) the need to develop supra-national institutional connections with other state players with which she has contact with (e.g., Venezuela, Syria, Belarus, North Korea, Lebanon, and Russia & China of course). Iran is just embarking on this path and is a long way from achieving any tangible results, but my feeling is that by century’s end, there will be alternatives to such organizations as the WTO, the IMF & World Bank, and even to the UN Security Council… that the non-Aligned movement, the BRICS, the SCO, ECO, and the Axis of Resistance will foster and develop alternative international institutions and mechanisms for conflict resolution and the facilitation of trade independent of and free from the yoke of New Atlantis and “the international community” (Reg. TM).
kooshy says: Ouch, I guess that puts me to be the Herman Cain with my 999 comment
LOL. I had always figured you for a pizza man!
*
Karl:
My understanding is that Russia never signed any treaty banning the sale of the S-300, but rather, reneged on the deal so that Israel would cooperate with her with its advanced drone program. Also, that the S-300 has been vastly improved upon by the S-400, which is a joint Russo-Chiniese program, and that the Russians have consented to the Chinese giving blueprints and part numbers and supplier contacts to the Iranians for them to purchase and build their own version, which they have already announced (the S-374, which is based on the Chinese HQ-9, which is an improvement on the S-300).
This is all heresay from a clown. I know just enough about military affairs to get myself in trouble. Take it with a large grain of salt, a twist of lime, and a non-alcoholic cerveza Corona.
Sakineh, depending on the context, there could be very little ink spilt.
I meet people all the time who don’t know that a third sckycraper came down on September 11, 2001. They tell me if it had happened it would have been in the press.
And do you expect the WTC 7 to show up in the high school history books?
If the capture of a toy plane spills this much ink, how much will Noor missile landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier?
Empty says: December 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Empty, the US has to answer the question of what happens to all the exceptions she has to make once she sanctions ICB? The exceptions to for oil sale to China, Japan, Italy, Greece, etc… Wouldn’t everybody else be up in arms, screaming favoritism?
fyi says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“I respectfully decline to indulge in that type of fantasy.”
fyi, haven’t i seen you more than once advocate that Iran should develop a nuclear weapon? if that is your prescription, shouldn’t you at least consider what occurs in the post-breakout environment?
Critics: ‘We want to save Israel from Doomsday’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/critics-we-want-to-save-israel-from-doomsday/
R S Hack,
“Lawrence Wilkerson: Dick Cheney ‘fears being tried’ for war crimes”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/lawrence-wilkerson-dick-cheney-book_n_943217.html
Dan Cooper,
James Petras claims Obama had adopted: “A policy designed to weaken and disrupt China’s access to raw materials.” Rubbish.
How does Petras explain why the US has encouraged China to become the largest buyer of Saudi crude?
And how does Petras explain why the US is helping arrange for China to develop one of the largest copper mines on the planet, in Afghanistan?
Dan Cooper,
The US is not trying to “intimidate” Russia or China.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: US War w Iran ‘3 yrs. Away’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lbT5XFnhUGw
Dan,
There is a lot of wishful thinking in Petras’ article. I may share that wishful thinking, but I don’t over-estimate it.
Japan breifly had an independent government which has now backed away from its more “controversial” policies. Japan continues to pay for its own occupation by the American military.
South Korea is led by a government in the American pocket. True, it will be thrown out next year, but that doesn’t mean there will be change. By then there will be a new American naval base on Jeju Island, and the Free Trade Agreement has been signed.
Do you want to talk the Phillipines? Vietnam? Even Myanmar for God’s sake.
I think the American policy of intimidation will eventually backfire in Asia, but its first major loss already has been South America, which just formed an alliance with all American countries minus the US and Canada. This is not yet, however, the center of an effective financial alternative to the American led banking system. Far from it.
Interesting times.
Empty at 4.33.
I think you’re making a mistake. The Americans see their banking system, including their central bank, as central to the world’s economy. Excluding a nation from American and any American related financial services (ie: all) is meant to be the “worst” punishment. This action is also meant to be a signal to all nations that to go against American hegemony is to find oneself no longer functioning within the American led financial system.
True, other countries are slowly rebelling against this de facto extra-territorial control, but the practical opposition is currently disorganized and ineffective. What happened to the Iraqi oil bourse, or the Libyan gold standard? The Euro is too deeply integrated with the American economy to be separate.
The American action is not, as I think you are suggesting, in the expectation that other economies of sufficient scale will go their own way, but is an act to precipitate that eventuality from happening. It is linked to (or backed up by) the American committment to control the shipping channels of oil to China.
Full spectrum dominance remains the strategy, and the banking system remains its most powerful player.
We live in a period of the global integration of the financial and military strategies of the American empire.
Obama’s ‘crackpot realism’, his shift from wars in the Islamic world to military confrontation in Asia, has no intrinsic worth and extraordinary extrinsic costs.
The military methods and economic goals are totally incompatible and beyond the capacity of the US, as it is currently constituted.
Washington’s policies will not ‘weaken’ Russia or China, even less intimidate them. Instead it will encourage both to adopt more adversarial positions, making it less likely that they lend a hand to Obama’s sequential wars.
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1883
Already Russia has sent warships to its Syrian port, refused to support an arms embargo against Syria and Iran and (in retrospect) criticized the NATO war against Libya.
China and Russia have far too many strategic ties with the world economy to suffer any great losses from a series of US military outposts and “exclusive” alliances.
Russia can aim just as many deadly nuclear missiles at the West as the US can mount from its bases in Eastern Europe.
In other words, Obama’s military escalation will not change the nuclear balance of power, but will bring Russia and China into a closer and deeper alliance.
Gone are the days of Kissinger-Nixon’s “divide and conquer” strategy pitting US-Chinese trade agreements against Russian arms.
Washington has a totally exaggerated significance of the current maritime spats between China and its neighbors. What unites them in economic terms is far more important in the medium and long-run. China’s Asian economic ties will erode any tenuous military links to the US.
Obama’s “crackpot realism”, views the world market through military lenses.
Military arrogance toward Asia has led to a rupture with Pakistan its most compliant client regime in South Asia. NATO deliberately killed 24 soldiers and thumbed their nose at the Pakistan generals while China and Russia condemned the attack and gained influence.
In the end, the military and exclusionary posture to China will fail. Washington will overplay its hand and frighten its business oriented erstwhile Asian partners, who only want to play-off a US military presence to gain tactical economic advantage. They certainly do not want a new US instigated ‘Cold War’ which divides and weakens dynamic intra-Asian trade and investment.
Obama and his minions will quickly learn that Asia’s current leaders do not have permanent allies’ only permanent interests.
In the final analysis, China figures prominently in configuring a new Asia-centric world economy. Washington may claim to have a ‘permanent Pacific presence’ but until it demonstrates it can take care of “basic business at home”, like arranging its own finances and balancing its current account deficits, the US Naval command may end up renting its navy to Asian exporters and shippers, transporting goods between them, and protecting them by pursuing pirates, contra-bandits and narco-traffickers.
Come to think about it, Obama might eventually even lessen the US trade deficit with Asia by renting out the Seventh Fleet to patrol the Straits, instead of wasting US taxpayer money bullying successful Asian economic powers.
Video of drone shot down by Iran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LcuQAnZ4Uw&feature=player_embedded#!
Empty says:
December 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm
You are absolutely correct, once this is enacted it ultimately means that the countries who comply with the US’s regulation are no longer having full autonomy on their financial system and are giving US government a full veto power over their financial affairs.
If Iran was a full ally of US, and the government of Iran was to agree and comply with this set of US demands, in reality was performing an act of treason against Iran’s national security.
RE: Sanctions on Iranian central bank….
Just to reiterate again, I believe the focus on Iran’s central bank is actually meant as a detraction in order to target the central banks of other nations, namely the emerging economies of Asia. It is meant to force the governments (of these countries), I believe, to find alternative methods of transacting so that an autonomous space for their respective central banks are, inevitably created. This would virtually remove any sort of control the governments would have over the policies of their own central banks and would prepare the (political) grounds for those central banks to adopt, implement, and operate rules and regulations set by the largest un-elected, non-transparent, and corrupt international financial institutions in the world. It is meant to virtually remove the very last voice that any nation would have on national and global financial policies and decisions. No government would be able to use its country’s central bank to stabilize prices, curb inflation, and make lending decisions based on the local needs of their populations and financial situations.
Yes, countries would find different ways to get the Iranian oil outside of their own central banks. That is exactly the whole point of this theatrics.
Marco Rubio (idiot Republican senator)
Pat Buchanan warns about effort of yet another idiot Republican Senator, Marco Rubia, ot get Georgia into Nato. “Marco Rubia vs Rand Paul”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
Pat reminds his readers that John McCain foolishly called for admitting Georgia to Nato, after McCain’s foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, had been paid $290,000 by Georgia to lobby for this object. (Before R.S. joined McCain for effort to gain presidential nomination.)
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
You forget the substantial cuts in “defence” spending achieved by the two Clinton administrations. Those cuts helped produce a strong dollar.
The moron who entered the White House in 2001 allowed idiotic levels of “defence” spending by the US to be achieved. By the tens of thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, other influence peddlers, etc. In alliance with Israel-firsters.
Karl,
Aren’t the Russians buying drone technology from the Israelis? Israel has shown itself willing to sell secret US military technology to Russia and China.
Castellio,
By a “step down” from Israel, do you mean agreeing to get out of the West Bank? Or merely stopping all the bellicose rhetoric directed against Iran?
Just imagine if russians and iranians made the deal: Russia get drone technology, Iran get the s-300. I cant understand why russians even signed a decree banning the selling of such weapons to Iran. What did Russia get in return by the US?
fyi,
Rich and powerful Jews in the US have shown themselves willing to coerce American taxpayers into spending trillions of dollars to “protect” Israel. This situation will not change, sadly.
fyi,
Has the thought even come to your mind that war between Israel and Iran could prove catastrophic for the Palestinians?
fyi,
What gives you the notion rich and powerful American Jews would allow Iran to “thrash” Israel? ZERO chance of that.
nahid says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Ouch, I guess that puts me to be the Herman Cain with my 999 comment
James Canning says: December 9, 2011 at 1:24 pm
An Israeli-initiated war in which the Iranians thoroughly thrash Israel will actually give an opportunity for US to step in and try to play the peace maker – in Palestine.
It also gives incentives to Champions of Israel in US to climb down from their perch as US will no longer be able to bear the cost of defensing Israel.
Israel, due to her geopolitical situation as well as her limited resources, can never win a strategic victory.
All:
http://www.truth-out.org/what-israels-war-against-iran-would-look/1323374542
Unknown Unknowns says: December 9, 2011 at 12:40 pm
EU states will go with US in sanctioning Central Bank of Iran.
Then, they will find a mechanism to pay for the oil – say through Russian banks.
This is a shell game.
Sanctions against Iran have been eroding for a while.
This latest diplomatic tantrum actually helps Iran.
Because it clearly demonstrates that due to domestic poliy issues (factionalism in US); she is incapable of dealing with Iran diplomatically or militarily.
That is, there is an indefinite confrontation between US and Iran.
Now what that means is that those states whose compliance with US-EU Axis Siege of Iran was predicated on quick US-EU Axis victory have to re-examine their policies.
As for teh Chinese and the Russians; I expect to zig-zag; as always.
The fact is that the world needs oil; people are not going to freeze the world-over because of US.
fyi,
An insane Israeli attack on Iran likely would be a catastrophe for the US. And American leaders would do ZERO to punish Israel for the reckless act. ZERO.
Rehmat,
Ron Paul does not have to claim that IAEA report shows no diversion of enriched uranium from civilian sector in Iran. There hasn’t been any.
Absurd. (Contention the west will not tolerate an “independent” Iran)
fyi,
I continue to find it peculiar that you think the US, Canada and the EU are opposed to an “independent” Iran. This actually is aburd. Iran poses a political problem because rich and powerful Jews want to pressure various countries into enabling continuing suppression of the Palestinians by Israel. This is the core issue.
fyi,
Nato backed the US attack on the Taliban by stretching the interpretation of the treaty. This was understandable in wake of “9/11″. But what strategic objective does the EU have in Afghanistan, apart from seeking minimal stability? Iran favors at least minimum stability in Afghanistan.
Excellent analysis in the Financial Times today on “Israel’s eroding democracy” by Tobias Buck (“A shadow is cast”).
fyi says:
December 9, 2011 at 11:04 am
All that is well and good. But I was more interested in how things are going to play out between countries such as Greece and Italy, and also China and Russia, once this legislation that Kaveh talks about passes, as it seems sure to do. Obama can’t veto it, and it puts him in a diplomatic straight jacket. HIs government will have no choice but to disallow any country that does business with Iran’s central bank to do business with the US. Will be issue presidential waivers (as allowed for in the legislation) to China and Russia? To Greece and Italy and Spain? This will cause a political uproar in the “Homeland” of the Evil I mean Weasel Empire. And if he does not, it will place demands on allies who will not be able to or will not be willing to comply. If this happens, will it be the beginning of the end of Russian and Chinese participation in the sanctions regime?
Irshad,
Certainly. Thanks for reading.
TDITW,
I see.
….and I’d like to make this the one thousand and one story that Shahrzad told the king after which, the king decided not to kill her.
kooshy says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm
really funny, and I want to make 1000th commets
One of the most recent comments on why the drone was landed in Iran was “that simply it ran out of the fuel and safely landed itself”
That tells me that perhaps the recent joint Obama / cong. committee’s military budget cuts has taken effect (wishful thinking) and the military no longer can afford to run the drones on a full tank of $400 per Gallon fuel, so in this new posture when the drones run out of fuel they are programed to just find a nice little cozy runway and land, waiting for daddy to come and get them.
Karl says: December 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I respectfully decline to indulge in that type of fantasy.
Opinion: ‘EU sanctions to hurt EU more than Iran’
GOP presidential hopeful, Rep. Ron Paul, has claimed that the latest IAEA report has provided NO evidence that Iran has diverted enriched uranium towards building a nuclear weapon.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/opinion-eu-sanctions-to-hurt-eu-more-than-iran/
Of all denominations, Roman Catholics comprise the largest plurality in the US Congress — 156, or just over 29% of the 535 members.
It’s possible they are the least informed of any group regarding international affairs. Based on recent articles in the supposedly liberal National Catholic Reporter, Catholics are least likely to see informed involvement in political activities as an element of their Catholic faith. Echoing the sentiment of a friend who told me she did not get involved in foreign policy questions but trusted that “God will take care of it,” commenters to a recent article on NCR regarding the moral character of GOP candidates who profess to be Catholic stated that Catholicism should be less concerned with political situations and more concerned with “spirituality,” presumably seeking divine support for uber Catholic Rick Santorum to prey upon Iranian nuclear scientists and kill ‘em wherever you can find ‘em.
Ora pro nobis.
fyi:
It is true that iranian diplomats and politicians deny they want these weapons. However, just for arguments sake, how will world react in case of break out? And would you for example change your view about this topic if it becomes a reality?
Karl says: December 9, 2011 at 11:34 am
Iranian leaders have many too many public pronouncements and too many private promises to other states that they are not interested in building nuclear weapons to actually build a weapon.
There are public and private political constraints on them.
US-EU Leaders know this; that is not their issue.
Their issue in that the destruction of the Ba’ath state in Iraq has essentially created an area between Hindu Kush to the Mediterranena Sea which is controlled by a strategically independent actors (from US-EU Axis).
As US forces withdraw from Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan is anything but strateguc victory for the US-EU states, and Pakistan finally is sobering up from 30 years pro-West policies, the extent of the strategic defeat of the US-EU Axis is becoming more clear and the shrillness of the noise for war with Iran increases.
The problem for US planners is that war with Iran will not be so severe to bring about strategic defeat to Iran; it will severe to leave a permanent wound in Western Asia that – in time – will destroy the last vetiges of US-EU influence in that part of the world.
Again, teh salient feature is that US-EU Axis have nothing to offer but more war and bloodshed in which Muslims die.
Castellio says: December 9, 2011 at 11:28 am
Let there be war; it would be only tactical and will achieve no strategic aim for Israel.
On the other hand, Israel attack on Iran will be a strategic victory for Iran; once the extent of damage to Israel becomes clear.
When Israelis run to US for help in recovery, the US leaders will be able to exact a price from Israel as well as the Champions of Israel in US.
In fact, an unprovoked attack by Israel on Iran will be a blessing for US as it gives her leaders more political room to maneuver – but only after the war has ended.
It would certainly relieve the pressure of Mr. Assad’s government and re-direct Muslim ire at Israel.
All in all, the loser would be Israel and EU, the winners Iran and US.
If it in the near future gets exposed that Iran actually have nukes and Iran self admit it, how will the world react right after the breakout/admittance? Will they bomb a nuclear weapons state? Would you change your view on the subject?
FYI… the Israeli leaders still believe that any polarization will work to their advantage.
I tend to agree with DITW that Iran is the hurdle, not Islam per se. However, Iran and Islam are over-lapping terms, so the discussion is a touch futile. But I point out that many of the Greens in America are Muslim and they certainly aren’t hurdles to the US, they have become allies.
Apparently Germany said it wouldn’t deliver its sixth nuclear capable sub to Israel unless it released 100 million of PA tax-withheld money. Sounds like a nice gesture on Germany’s part, heart in the right place sort of thing. But seriously, what sane country would sell a nuclear weapon carrying sub to a regime in Israel holding back the legitimate funds of one of the poorest populations on earth?
Talk about arming the terrorists…
How can this end well without a step down from Israel? It’s impossible.
Could it be a trojan drone? Or was it a real screw up? And we know the US screws up…big time. How many innocent people have been killed by US drones? How many have been killed as a direct result of the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq? Yep the US can locate a particular fly landing on a piece of shit but they refuse to count the dead and injured in Iraq.
Unknown Unknowns says: December 9, 2011 at 10:11 am
US leaders do not know hwo to responsd to the Strategic Defiance of Iran.
The Saudi Plot, the IAEA annex report on Iran (dated to 2003), the new US, EU, Japan sanctions, and repeated threats by Israel are all indicators of desperation.
Desperation by US leaders (some are the Partisans of Israel – no doubt – as well) as well as Saudis and Israelis.
Basically, I think, the Qum-Najaf Axis is in control of Iran and Iraq (the Shia Vatican) and they are not about to be cowed into giving up on something that they had wanted for a 1000 years.
On the other hand, US-EU Axis project fro controlling West Asia cannot be called a success if the Iranian strategic autonomy persists.
Thus the desperation and the escalation to strategic Never-Never Land.
The Siege of Iran will continue, Pakistan will become closer to Iran, and Syria is up in the air but I expect the Ba’ath to crush the uprising.
Watch what happens in Egypt – either the Military will bow to the Muslims or will have to destroy the Muslim parties.
In my opinion, the best option for US-EU Leaders is strategic retrenchment – say take the HAMAS Hudna deal.
But they are not that smart, are they?
They prefer the slippery slope of war with Islam.
Empty, you said
“I am still trying to fully understand your original statement though: were you questioning any noteworthy connection between Islam and this successful resistance or were you meaning to imply that it is more the “Iran” nature of it (whatever that means) rather than the “Islam” nature of it that has improved the efficacy? I suppose I need to hear more of your reasoning and examples.”
I wasn’t questioning any connection between Islam and “the resistance”. I was merely pointing out that the Iran is the best, and only real, manifestation of that resistance. Maybe Egypt and others will join that resistance, but until now only Iran has been hampering US/Israeli efforts in that region effectively. Thus Iran = hurdle. Other “Muslamic resistance” = inconvenience.
For me, this quote takes the cake. Keep underestimating Iran…
“From a secrecy standpoint, it’s like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture,” Aboulafia said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8517205&c=AIR&s=TOP
James you said
“The proponents (and beneficiaries) of insanely high levels of “defence” spending, by the US, need Iran. If Iran were quiet, what would these exponents of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars every year use to frighten the ignorant American public?”
And again, I agree with your statement, ie a bad guy is needed to sell to the tax payers the necessity of a high defence spending.
But let’s look back to my previous comment:
“There will always be bogeymen, James. If Iran was a client state of the US then you’d be hearing about Taliban, Russian or Chinese incursion in the Middle East or elsewhere. Maybe Al-Qaeda or some other offspring.
The US & friends have shown they can take any harmless fact or fantasy and turn it to an “imminent threat” through their propaganda system. I can promise you this. If the west wanted to, they could make cookie scout girl activities be looking like an attempt to gather financing for the destruction of world jews. This is one of the reasons why I’m critical of the west. Such power and behavior will be the doom of us all.”
Ie the US would just have created a new enemy. Eg selling weapons to Iran, SA, etc so they could protect themselves against Chinese or even Russian incursion into the ME.
During the “cold war” the US embellished the threat of Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union there was no reason for US to maintain its defence spending. However it didn’t cease. And after a while they embellished the threat of Iran. If it wasn’t Iran it would have been some other state or something.
What Israel’s War Against Iran Would Look Like
http://www.truth-out.org/what-israels-war-against-iran-would-look/1323374542
But if Israel used an FAE weapon in an attack, Iran and its allies in Lebanon would fire thousands upon thousands of scud missiles armed with high explosive (HE) warheads “at every Israeli population center down as far as Tel Aviv,” according to one former DoD intelligence official.
…
A former US intelligence official with direct knowledge of Israel’s attack plans emphasized: “The Israelis have no defense against this. Israel has a massive disincentive against the use of any kind of nuclear weapon. Israel has only two population centers, and this attack would finish them.”
Kaveh Afrasiabi’s latest article in today’s Asia Times:
“The United States government is on the verge of taking its problems with the Islamic Republic of Iran to a whole new and ominous level that portends clashing interests with China and a number of other countries, including in Europe, which receives some half a million barrels of oil from Iran on a daily basis.
Last week, the US Senate unanimously adopted a new sanctions bill that calls for drastic measures against any foreign bank involved in transactions with Iran’s central bank.”
Kaveh goes on to say that Obama is between the rock of the Jewish Lobby and the Republican contenders for his spot and the hard place of the reality that countries such as China, Italy and Greece simply will not abide by these measures.
fyi: is this where cracks in the united front of “the international community” (Registered Trademark by Uncle Weasel) begin to show? What does your crystal ball tell you of the times ahead between now and the elections in November?
Kissinger thinks Afghanistan’s neighbors are best option for stabilizing Afghanistan — those neighbors include, first and foremost, Iran:
“Iran attended the conference and pledged to support an Afghan-led reconciliation process, provided all foreign bases were closed down by the end of 2014, when U.S. troops are scheduled to leave. In addition to Iran, Mr. Kissinger says that to guarantee an international settlement, China, Russia, India and, of course, Pakistan should also be included.”
Empty,
Thank you for the translation – very much appreciated! Please keep up the good work and great posts you post!
BiBiJon:
Americans have always been sloppy in their tradecraft. When they are in the ME, in the thick of a bunch of ragheads and dune coons, they get slopier. Beside this latest *coup de grace*, all one has to do is to think of the video clip on You Tube where an Iranian drone circled for 15 minutes over a US aircraft carrier sending live video feed back to base without being detected, or how Iranian-traied Hezbollah fighters ran circles around Israel’s IDF in 2008 with their ability to intercept their command and control communications, and of course – how can we forget?! – Ahmad Chalabi. LOL. Indeed, you can be sure that our boys have been boning their skills over the last two decades and making the most of Uncle Flatfoot’s sloppy tradecraft.
Also, I can’t resist. I had to post this, from “somebody” over at MoA:
thanks no14 Jeremiah Cornelius for the link
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/
yeah, blowback from stuxnet.
better not mess with a people who developed mathematics when Europe thought the earth was flat:
,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayy%C3%A1m
Posted by: somebody | Dec 9, 2011 4:34:39 AM | 34
Squire Guv’na James,
Thank you for your earlier comments – I hope you understand that this 20% issue is just a red herring!
Anyway something for you to read (and everyone else re: WW1, Empire and India)
THE ORIGINS OF TERROR
- A war that is profoundly responsible for the world as it is today
Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040818/asp/opinion/story_3616535.asp
On November 10, 2011 (exactly a month ago), Ayatollah Khamenei delivered a speech at Imam Ali (a.s.) college (military training). His speech marked an open declaration of a very decisive and active defense. The full speech (in Farsi) can be accessed here: http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=17868 Below, is a translation/interpretation of an excerpt relevant to the topic:
“God Almighty says, ‘و اعدوالهم ما استطعتم من قوة و من رباط الخلیل ترهبون به عدوالله’ [Quran, Chapter 8, Verse 60 –Note: this Sura in Quran is called Al-Anfal, “The Spoils of War” – the interpretation/translation of the verse is provided below, see (1)]. Your preparedness frightens the enemy; they are not fearful of your aggression—as you’re not inclined to transgress—they are fearful of your resistance and resolve, they are fearful of even thinking about attacking you. In a world which, unfortunately, reliance on forces of arrows and weapons can determine the fate and connections among people and nations, in a world in which the bullies want to determine/control the fate of all nations with their iron fists, in a materialistic world, only a nation that could prove it is fully prepared to defend itself can be protected from ruin. Our military forces, our beloved Islamic Republic military have proven this. This [ability] is dignity; this, for the nation, generates dignity. You must protect this [ability]. You must protect all your capitals: your faith, your belief, your inspiration, your “Taqwa” and your purity, your virtues, and your unwavering resolve for defense while in service and for the rest of your life.”
“We are not inclined to aggress against any people and any nations; we will never initiate any bloody war –our nation has proven this. But, we are not a nation that just sits by idle and watches a bunch of flimsy materialistic powers, which have decayed and are termite-stricken from within, to threaten our hard and solid nation. We answer a threat with a threat. Anyone who dares to even imagine to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran must also prepare itself to receive a hard slap with a solid fist, from the powerful Iranian nation, from the armed forces, from the army of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, and from the Basij force, and behind all of these, the great people of Iran. They must know, and America must know, and their puppet regimes must know, and their guard dog in this region—the Zionist regime—must also know that the Iranian nation’s response to every act of aggression, to any attack, even to any type of threat is going to be the type of response that will disintegrate them from within.”
“Prepare yourselves for an enduring national dignity and international authority. We must all be prepared. All must prepare themselves to defend our supreme values that will last in history in all areas, in the area of science, in the area of work, in the area of industry, in the area of management and politics, and at the tip of the arrow, for your national defense, the preparation of the armed forces in military battles.”
+++++++++++++++++++
(1) Interpretation/translation from Quran, Chapter 8 (the Spoils of War), Verse 60: “You shall prepare for them all the force and equipment you can muster, in order to deter the enemies of God, and your enemies, as well as those you are not aware of, while God knows them. Anything you expend in the cause of God will be repaid to you without the least injustice.”
Drone on the Throne
=================
Just thinking and stretching MoonOfAlabama’s b speculations about Iran listening for years, and breaking the codes for ‘line-of-sight’ communications.
I am thinking if true, then knowing the encryption keys, and therefore being able to listen to a wide variety of operational matters, was particularly valuable when US didn’t know that Iran knew.
Downing the drone, and fessing up to it, is a case of Iran trading one valuable secret (you don’t know that we know) with the psychological and public blow that potentially everything the US is/has been doing in the MidEast is an open book to Iranian intelligence.
This is bigger than just the secret war technologies falling in Iran’s hands.
Blast from the past:
http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2010/08/iran-unveils-bomber-drone.html
Hi Res images:
http://i.imgur.com/xObbm.jpg
,http://i.imgur.com/NdilW.jpg
,http://i.imgur.com/G50t2.jpg
,http://i.imgur.com/cRdJn.jpg
,http://i.imgur.com/TIE1u.jpg
For all you Beast of Kandahar junkies:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/12/here-is-the-drone.html#comments
In the 33 comments so far, we have no less than three Americans saying what a “nice touch” the skulls in lieu of stars is on the stars and stripes. Intelligent people of good will are so sick of this regime. Truly it is time for regime change up District of Columbia way.
And here you will see Team Weasel stepping on each others’ dicks:
,http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/iran-drone-video/#disqus_thread
WTF
Sorry I didn’t see your post, you beat me to it,
Pirouz jan
Ok sounds like this clowns got have driven themselves to the dead end and now have to admit how the plane was hacked and brought down. What a fantastic job of imbursement.
“Two U.S. officials with knowledge of the RQ-170 program said that some details, including the seams on the drone’s fuselage, its access ports and its unusual air intake, appear to confirm that it’s genuine.
The aircraft shown on Iranian TV — or at least its forward and upper surfaces — appeared to be in good condition for a high-altitude plane that the Iranians initially said they had shot down.
The most frightening prospect raised by what appears to be a largely intact Sentinel is that the Iranians’ second claim about how they brought it down — by hacking into its controls and landing it themselves — might be true, said a U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the basis of anonymity because the RQ-170 is part of a Secret Compartmented Intelligence (SCI) program, a classification higher than Top Secret.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/iran-shows-off-downed-spy-drone-as-u-s-assesses-technology-loss.html
Iran Shows Off Downed Spy Drone as U.S. Assesses Technology Loss
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/iran-shows-off-downed-spy-drone-as-u-s-assesses-technology-loss.html
The most frightening prospect raised by what appears to be a largely intact Sentinel is that the Iranians’ second claim about how they brought it down — by hacking into its controls and landing it themselves — might be true, said a U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the basis of anonymity because the RQ-170 is part of a Secret Compartmented Intelligence (SCI) program, a classification higher than Top Secret.
Mr. Unknown Unknowns:
Note the Christians (“Nosar”) in the Quran below.
Quran makes no distinctions between Nicean Creed Christians, Monophysites, and others.
If it meant only Nestorian, I would imagine Quran would have mentioned that explicitly.
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians — whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve” (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).
“…and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant” (5:82).
“O you who believe! Be helpers of God — as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, ‘Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?’ Said the disciples, ‘We are God’s helpers!’ Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed” (61:14).
“If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil” (5:66).
“Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, ‘Trinity.’ Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs” (4:171).
“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)” (9:30-31).
James Canning says:
December 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I don’t know. I’m not a historian, and have only tangential knowledge re that period and place. What I do know is that a stipend of 5,000 pounds sterling each and every month, together with access to purchasing of British rifles went a long way in the 1860’s to give this snake legs.
fyi says: “You are conflating my understaindg of Zoroastrian religion with that of Islam.”
You are the one that conflated the two in your original post to Fiorangela. Else I was happy for you to spread your misinformation regarding other religions.
Anyway, your display of your Wall of Immutability reminded me why I had stopped responding to your sophomoric ejaculations on religion.
Empty says:
December 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Agreed. Similarly, the Koran does not actualy refer to “Christians” as such, actually. It refers to Nestorians, which is a now-obscure sect of the ‘Iraq, mostly displaced by Uncle Flatfoot’s shenanigans. Needless to say, fyi’s pontifications re: Islam are taken with a grainery or two of salt.
Walters: “Bashar al Assad is a dictator by accident”
-Well, I guess that’s better than a dictator by choice. What a kind lead in to the interview.
Barbara Walters Interview with Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsyQ442Xvnw
Mehopes that our boys in the electronic warfare units of the Army and Sepah receive a boon to their budget commensurate with their outstanding achievement. Ameen.
Eric, I used to read Stratfor, but find I often pass it by now for lack of time and interest.
The words “intelligence” and “cold war” in the context of US- and Israeli-led terrorism within Iran is just too, too, out-to-lunch.
Apparently the experts believe that the “drone” in the footage that the Iranian Government released is fake.
Authenticity of Iranian captured US drone questioned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/authenticity-iran-captured-us-drone
However, John Pike, an expert on military hardware at the GlobalSecurity.org thinktank in northern Virginia, said it was highly unlikely the Iranians had the technology to wrest control of the drone’s navigation and bring it down so softly that it was left with barely a scratch.
“It looks like a parade float. For one thing, it looked remarkably intact for something that crashed, and the wings are drooping the wrong way.
Ahh, those eyerainyans lyin again…Oh wait, what’s that
U.S. official: Iran does have our drone
;http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57339834/u.s-official-iran-does-have-our-drone/
A U.S. official tells CBS News that there is “high confidence” that a captured American aircraft shown on Iranian television today is, in fact, one of this country’s most sophisticated spy planes.
Rehmat,
I think drones that collect information offer much less of a moral problem, compared to drones that launch attack missiles to take out targets on the ground.
kooshy says:
December 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Kooshy jan;
I really don’t know anything about military gadgets so what I say is of little value in this regard. However, looking at the western media outlets shifting their positions (BBC just said that the Iranian footage of the captured drone tends to confirm what Iranians have been claiming), I would say that what you say seems very plausible. Indeed it would be really weird that the bird would not self-destroy, unless it has been fooled by Iranians to believe that the commands that they are sending to it are from the Americans.
The only question that remains will be that then ‘if’ this is not the first mission of its kind then why didn’t Iranians capture the previous *stealth* UAVs? Of course the answer to this question could be that Iranians capabilities in AD have been increasing at a very high speed, and what they could not do before, has become possible this time, presumablly through a very recent breakthrough/advancement in AD technology.
All I can say is that if Iranians have detected, tracked and hijacked a state-of-art stealth aircraft then this is a HUGE step in reducing the possibility of a US attack on Iran (I hear from b’s site that US has already grounded all of its sentinel UAVs until they figure out what happened, so even their spying missions have taken a huge blow). Indeed this is EXCELLENT news for all those (be they Iranian or American) who do not wish to see a new criminal war waged by the West.
Barbara Walters: ‘Assad is intelligent and charming’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/barbara-walters-assad-is-intelligent-and-charming/
James Canning – YES, since now Iran has the drone technology – the drone wars have become bad. Just wait until Hamas receives it from Tehran.
Yossi Melman reports in Haaretz that Numerous Israeli companies trade with Iran, and Bibi does nothing about it, “causing severe damage to the image of both Israel and its prime minister.”
Now CIA’s preferred propaganda broadcaster ABC news is reporting that the drone showen is a fake and is a model
“The aircraft shown on Iranian television today likely was not the American stealth drone that crashed in Iran last week, as the Iranian government claimed, but was likely just a model, U.S. officials told ABC News.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-rq-170-sentinel-stealth-drone-shown-iran/story?id=15115781
Sure why not , in just couple of days Iranians manage to copy and made a fake model, just walk to copy machine and bush the button in minutes you will get a precise copy in size, shape and color, with complete detail of radar domes and front air intake, now just how many copies you need Mr. IRGC.
Sometimes one wonders and get worried, what kind of idiots are running this country, at the same time this same country’s poltical elites claime they are tasked to mage the world.
“West military greed feeds on wars”
http://www.presstv.com/detail/214571.html
Story is from Terry Jones piece in the Guardian, which claimed US spent $687 billion on “defence” in 2010. Actual figure was considerably higher than that. Maybe more than $1 trillion (1,000 billion). Much spending on “defence” is kept off the books, or concealed in other categories.
At HuffingtonPost, Robert Naiman asks why Democrats would support neocon/Republican effort to sanction or block Iranian oil exports to the EU, when that would damage the American economy and possibly cause electoral defeat of Obama in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonbpost.com/robert-naiman/gop-sanctions-europe-economy_b_1137095.html?ref=worldir=World
Philip Giraldi has serious concerns about the “drone war” programme, and questions its legality. (“The changing face of war”):
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
The proponents (and beneficiaries) of insanely high levels of “defence” spending, by the US, need Iran. If Iran were quiet, what would these exponents of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars every year use to frighten the ignorant American public?
Empty,
I agree with you the US cannot control the Middle East, even if Iran pays zero attention to what the US does or does not do. American taxpayers are “hosed” by propagandists for the armaments manufacturers, who make spurious claims Iran poses a “threat”.
More anti-Iran propaganda in pages of the Wall Street Journal yesterday (“Pearl Harbor, Iran and North Korea”, by Warren Kozak). Quote: “A nuclear-obsessed Iran, and emerging China and Russia, along with smaller rogue actors are enough of a threat to justify a vigilant and even aggressive guard.”
Kozak appears to be a stooge of the armaments manufacturers. Iran, about to pull a “Pearl Harbor” attack on the US? Preposterous.
Kozak didn’t mention, of course, that the Japanese admiral who conducted the attack on Pearl Harbor, in fact opposed war with the US and opposed any alliance with Germany and Italy.
Explosions in Iran seem most likely to have been missile attacks. The apparent presence of a stealth drone in Iran airspace seems to make this possibility more likely.
The site has begun to waver when one tries to re-load (a bit shy of 1,000 posts)….maybe we, too, should take over the command of the site and start a new thread (and keep our fingers crossed that it won’t self destruct)….lol
fyi,
Yes, I understand your position.
[That was meant to clarify what the actual statement in Quran (i.e. مجوس) was.]
pirouz_2 says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“US claims that the aircraft has had a malfunction and since it has been designed to self-land, it is very reasonable to assume that it has self-landed with minimal damage inside Iran.”
Pirouz Jon , since the beginning of the lost drone incident US has made many claims which had made them to step by step to retract with a new story, they have made themselves laughable clowns in eye of the rest of the word including with their own alley’s military and security lads.
It doesn’t make sense that a sophisticated spy plane once it encounters a malfunction will land wherever it finds most continent, it make sense to self-destruct once can’t find way back home.
Iranians security forces played a smart media game, they first announced that they shout it down, in turn US at the begging totally dined, then the Iranians claimed that they have the plane, this time US acknowledged that they lost a plane that was probably crashed in western Afghanistan, hoping it did so and the Iranian just have the knowledge of its downing or they shot it down,
This is where then Iran announced that soon we will show the video of the intact plane.
You see, since Iranians knew US doesn’t have any credible knowledge of what happened to the plane or it’s where about and the condition, they smartly released incremental information to force the US making false claims and later retract to make fools of themselves. Besides capturing an important piece of hardware with a mountain load of information the Iranians in fantastic professional way used the US for incredible credibility PSYOP warfare.
As b on his blog said, hats off to the IRIAF electronic warfare unite. Sophisticated military spying equipment like that would self-destruct before landing in enemy territory, so most probably we can assume that the command of the plane was taken over in midair and to secure the catch from self or remote commanded destruction it was quickly brought down in a rough desert landing strip. So there might be some damage to the landing gears since the bottom of the plane was not shown.
Irshad says:
December 8, 2011 at 11:58 am
I don’t think UAE sheikh-dom claim of Iran not after nukes has anything to do with Mohsen Rezai’s son’s death in dubai. When if it was true that CIA, Mossad and other Arab intel agency was behind his death, it is highly unlikely (near impossible) that Iran would feel provacated to act against UAE just because it is Mohsen Rezai’s son. Compare Mohsen Rezai’s death with Emad Mugnie’s death (Emad was Hezbollah’s important man). When Emad was assignated Iran did not reply with any uncalculated mis-advantures. Again compare this with Hamas’s imporant man’smurder in Dubai two years ago and again Iran didn’t run into a rushed decision. In both cases Hezbollah and Hamas are strong alies of Iran and embedded within Iran’s security framework.
Again comapre this with Ali-Reza Asgari’s (Former Deputy Defence Minister of Iran) kidnapping in Turkey. Again Iran didn’t react harshly towards Turkey.
Perhaps the best analogy will be the murdering of Iran’s nuclear scientists Dr Majid Shahriari and Dr Muhammad in Tehran. In both cases Iran didn’t reply with hostility beacuse an uncalculated response wouldn’t be wise on the part of Iran. What Iran did do however was to appoint Feroudin Abbasi, who was victim of assasination in Tehran on the same day as Dr Majid was murdered but survised the murder attempt, as iran’s ambassador to IAEA.
Wikileaks decumennts revealed that german iran analyst telling US and its allies that killing Iran’s scientists would not allow Iran to take any action because in this sort of murder of individuals states can not do much. So, in case of Mohsen Rezai’s son there is no way Iran government can do much and thus it is unlikely that UAE sheikh would be so scared of Iran’s response that it would go public and say Iran has no nukes.
Empty says: December 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Since one of the aims of the Revelations is to bring men together, I err on the side of treating as many religions and faiths as those of the Book as possible.
In the famous Hadith of Issa – the Immaculate Perfect Man – he observes that: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions.”
I will not quibble with the Uranic Revelations nor with the Revelations of Jesus.
If I am wrong, no harm is done.
If I am right, I will reap the benefits in this world and the next; I should hope.
TDITW,
RE: If it wasn’t for Iran, what would have stopped the US for absolutely controlling the Middle East for another 100 years? Hezbollah, Syria? Maybe Turkey or Saudi Arabia?
1. I think there are other competing interests that would have made/still do make an absolute control of the region by the US an impossible task.
2. That Iran has successfully resisted, I believe, has meant that others (with the vested interested but not exactly in the US camp) had to spend less of their resources to do so. When push comes to shove, they, too, will jump in.
I am still trying to fully understand your original statement though: were you questioning any noteworthy connection between Islam and this successful resistance or were you meaning to imply that it is more the “Iran” nature of it (whatever that means) rather than the “Islam” nature of it that has improved the efficacy? I suppose I need to hear more of your reasoning and examples.
fyi,
RE: Please note that the Quran indentifies Zorastrians as the people of the Book.
Quran identifies “Magi” (Chapter 22, Verse 17) as one of the people of the book. That “Magi” referred to Zoroastrians was not clarified and is a matter of much debate by several Muslim scholars some of who (including Ayatollah Tabatabaee) content that Zoroastrians may have been one of several branches of the original “Magi”. Others believe, based on historical evidence, this may not be true.
Kooshy,
RE: “self-destruct” trigger, if we take everything that is being said (from both sides) at its face value, from a systems perspective, having a built-in self destructive mechanism needs to clearly define under which scenario/circumstances it should self destruct. If these multi-million dollar big-boy toys are as sensitive as they say they are, and if a critical concern exists about the technology falling into the “wrong hands” then the programming would be such that the “self-destruct” is activated when the device/toy is taken apart by someone who may not know how to “safely” take it apart. This mechanism, I believe, would ensure that the device/toy is not accidentally or needlessly “self-destroyed”. And it would ensure that attempts at “reverse engineering” would end several lives and, as last resort, would destroy the toy. That, I think, may have been one of the (several) reasons the images of this toy were unveiled by the IRG. They had already won the propaganda war over it last week and did not need to unveil it (of course, another potential reason could be that they are daring the US to take the bait and try to pull a “Chinese embassy” on them and they are betting that it won’t which would be an even bigger propaganda win.
Time will tell if they find the “bug”.
James Canning
You’ve understood my argument stated as a question: “If it wasn’t for Iran, what would have stopped the US for absolutely controlling the Middle East for another 100 years? Hezbollah, Syria? Maybe Turkey or Saudi Arabia?”
As “Iran is in effect the guarantor that the US will not “be in the Gulf” for the next 100 years”
However, I’d say my question doesn’t imply the exile of the US from the Persian Gulf. Only that the US (and Israel of course) cannot rule absolutely as long as Iran is resisting. (thus Iran = hurdle)
Although in addition to that, Iran is probably the most likely candidate to be able to cause the departure of US military forces.
Re the bogeyman that is Iran.
I completely agree with you that Iran is used as a pretext for many US/Israeli policies in the region.
On the other hand, it’s clear (to me at least) that the US/Israelis really want to get rid of the current Iranian government. I for a moment entertained the thought that perhaps Iran and US had some secret understanding or the US was “letting Iran be” so that the US together with corrupt Arab leaders could excuse their vile policies in the region. After the eg “Green uprising” and the “deployment of Iran’s car salesmen in the US”, I was however convinced that the US & friends seek confrontation and the absolute destruction of the Iranian people.
There will always be bogeymen, James. If Iran was a client state of the US then you’d be hearing about Taliban, Russian or Chinese incursion in the Middle East or elsewhere. Maybe Al-Qaeda or some other offspring.
The US & friends have shown they can take any harmless fact or fantasy and turn it to an “imminent threat” through their propaganda system. I can promise you this. If the west wanted to, they could make cookie scout girl activities be looking like an attempt to gather financing for the destruction of world jews. This is one of the reasons why I’m critical of the west. Such power and behavior will be the doom of us all.
Unknown Unknowns says: December 8, 2011 at 11:52 am
You are conflating my understaindg of Zoroastrian religion with that of Islam.
In fact, Evil – the Acts of Human Beings so characterized – are attributed to the temptation of Satan; who was given leave by God to temp men.
The Stroy of Job clearly attests that all ills and evils of the world are coming from God.
Yes, God willed it for 25,000 people to die on Christmas Day in Bam.
With regard to the captured American spy drone, in response to earlier comments that why the drone did not have a self-destruct mechanism this comment in the H Post was a very interesting truth telling,
alphaome4
25 Fans
23 minutes ago (1:19 PM)
“No self-destruct mechanism? Oh, that’s right; they left it here at home.”
Kathleen,
We should give Jon Stewart credit for mocking Obama’s opposition to Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. Stewart said that negotiations with Israel clearly were not working.
Humanist,
The ruler of Dubai says openly he “detests” or “hates” American foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel lobby makes sure this fact is kept hidden under the rug, for the most part. (Dubai’s ruler is prime minister of UAE.)
The ruler of Dubia says foolish American “support” of Israel is a primary problem in the Middle East.
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
Perhaps you should consider whether you have the situation backwards, or upside-down? You say Iran is in effect the guarantor that the US will not “be in the Gulf” for the next 100 years”. In fact, if Iran was not available to serve as the “enemy” or “potential enemy”, how would the armaments salesmen do their weapons sales of hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars? (US and Gulf monarchies)
What actual reason is there for such an enormous American military presence in the Gulf? Iran provides the necessary pretext for grotesque squandering on “defence”.
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
I do my best to understand the actual facts of any given event. What happened, and why it happened.
I also seek to identify those people who were better able to foresee the way events would develop, in any given situation.
Obviously the Ottoman Empire had no “need” to intervene in the titanic struggle known as the First World War. Most of the elected representatives in Constantinople opposed entering the war on Germany’s side.
Karl,
I agree with Seumas Milne, in Guardian piece you linked: “Opposition [to war with Iran] has to get more serious.”
Kathleen,
Bravo, for noting the sad fact that Chris Matthews and David Korn did not nothing to challenge vicious slandering of Iran by Rachel Maddow. Is she a whore of the Israeli militarists?
Irshad,
The UAE is not going to launch an attack on Iran, no matter how many billions of dollars it spends to buy weapons.
Unknown Unknowns,
I am trying to ascertain if you think Britain was responsible for the fact Ibn Saud conquered the Hejaz during the decade following the First World War.
Britain supported the Hejaz monarchy. Why would Britain, in your view, have caused the destruction of that monarchy?
Pirouz_2:
I agree with you, that if our friend b at Moon of Alabama is correct (and he certainly seems to have the technical credentials), that this is indeed huge. It confirms all the other capabilities Iran has been saying it has reached: improvements to the supersonic anti-ship missile (the Noor), improved local Howitzer artillery, second-generation phased-array S-200 SAM, S-374 design-development completed, speedboats, subs, and all the improvements in missile technology, etc., etc.
My gut tells me that the saner voices in the Pentagon are ascendant and have the President’s ear. A commenter on MoA put it nicely:
A pithy commenter at another board suggests the following in which I mostly agree, ” Israel ain’t launching no attack. The reason all the noise is getting so “shrill” is because Israel’s agents are trying to pressure Obama into bombing Iran for Israel before the elections. On the one hand, the Republican candidates have all been running off at the mouth about how they want to bomb Iran for Israel’s sake — if a Republican president does it and it goes badly for America, as it must, the zionist lobby in the US and its influence will be the target of a lot of very, VERY angry American citizens, with no “plausible deniability”. On the other hand, once Obama achieves a second term, the zionists will lose a substantial amount of leverage that they can use against him, and he may just decide not to do it. So expect the warmongering hysteria to reach a crescendo in the months leading up to the presidential elections.”
I would add that the above describes the rational domain. There is always the irrational: the invisible government or a rogue element within Israel’s IDF staging a false-flag provocation. Let us all hope and pray that does not happen.
I think once the election is over, Obama, whore that he is notwithstanding, will not have the stomach for such a major war. And its not because he is not a willing enough prostitute, but that he is pussy-whipped, and Michelle will not let him make such a huge mistake.
From Stratfor, this morning:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111207-covert-intelligence-war-against-iran?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=111208&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=SECtitle&elq=73a8d98ed2c8442596f4155bd2fcfdd1
Headline: The Covert Intelligence War Against Iran
By Scott Stewart | December 8, 2011
First sentence: “There has been a lot of talk in the press lately about a “cold war” being waged by the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies against Iran.”
COMMENT:
Am I the only one who wonders whether the limiting adjectives “cold” and “intelligence” really belong in this headline and first sentence?
Thanks UU.
If this is true and indeed Iran has been able to detect and track the “state-of-art” stealth aircraft and not only that but also it has been able to disrupt its communication link and then take control of it and get it to land, then this is extremely important (very good news to all people across the globe indeed).
From the point of the view of the possibility of a military strike on Iran, this is far more important than whether Syria stays as an ally to Iran or whether NATO will succeed to go to regime change and install a puppet dictator in that country. This news and the level of Iranian AD capailities against stealthy aircrafts that it implies, will make the real possibility of an attack on Iran decrease by an order of magnitude.
Pirouz_2:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Scroll down to b’s December 5th entry. Its the best piece I have read so far.
James-sahib: In response to your last question, I refer you again to Professor Algar’s essay, “Wahhabism: A Critical Essay”, pp. 38-42.
Kooshy (and everyone else):
US claims that the aircraft has had a malfunction and since it has been designed to self-land, it is very reasonable to assume that it has self-landed with minimal damage inside Iran. I am very ignorant in millitary matters but so far as I understand the claim is that since there was a malfunction in the drone, it did not follow the routine of following a pre-determined path and go back to Afghanistan and instead self-landed in Iran. They also claim that this type of mission (with RQ170) over Iran has been going on for a few years now, which if true , it would suggest that *maybe* the plane did not come down as a result of an Iranian intervention but rather as a result of an accidental malfunction.
Is there any one who can make a comment on this claim?
Congratulation to the Iranian Air force electronics warfare, for capturing the intruder in the air
This brings me to one of common Iranian proverb that says
رو هوا زدیمش pronunciation “ Rou Hava Zadimish” Translation” stole it in the air “
This is commonly most often used when someone captures a very valuable item much like when a hawk captures a prey in the air
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/214524.html
Thanks for the link, Loyal.
Talk about rubbing their nose into it.
For those wondering what is written on teh flags, the left one is a quote of the late Imam Khomeini’s that says “America can’t do didley,” and the right one strikes a stance in the typically humble Moslem way to the effect that “We will crush the Weasels under out feet.”
LOYAL,
Thank you for that – seems the Iranians were not lying when they said what they said! The whores of Lockheed Martin were out in the press telling everyone, how the Iranians dont have this as one piece – must have crashed at from high altitude – you just gota see the Al Jazeera article to see what I am talking about.
So Russia – give Iran S400 sams and you can come and have a look at this baby?
Khursid,
How much of what Sheikh Mohammad al-Maktoum said was a response to pacify Iran’s anger (both at government level and people level) at the recent murder in Dubai of the son of Mohsen Rezai, Ahmed?
Were the UAE inteliigence/military involved in assisting Mossad, CIA, M16 in murdering him and are seriously worried about an Iranian reaction and this is their peace offering (“Hey he died in Dubai, we didnt do it – look how nice we Arabs are we dont believe you want nukes anymore!”)?
Also, I have had a gut feelings over the years – reading about the insane amount of advanced weaponery USA selling to UAE is related to the 2 islands issues (abu musa and the 2 tumbs). Is the US strategy is sell them all these weapons and then ego massage them as to how good they are and how capable the UAE personel are using them that they can knock out Iran in a war (ala what Petraues said a few years ago about UAE airforce more powerful then Iranian airforce etc) and actually hypnotized them in to attacking and invading the 3 islands, which the UAE feels to be their territory? What will be Irans reaction?
fyi:
So let me get this straight.
“God created Evil and gave it leave to trick Mankind.”
And
“God gathered the souls of all men ever to be born and asked them if they pledged themselves to that struggle (That the Dark Lord may be entrapped in the Creation).” In other words, God mustered Adam and his progeny to fight Evil.
God created Evil, and God created Mankind to fight Evil. Oh, and God is All-Powerful and All-Wise.
That’s some crazy-ass shit, dude. No wonder you are a born-again Christian. Only born-again Christians can believe in shit *that* deep. I think you should see a real doctor. Next.
Sepah released Pic & Video of Drone.
http://www.farsnews.com/media.php?nn=13900917000696
Jon “this is just a comedy show” Stewart and Rachel Maddow both once again helped set the stage for an attack on Iran on their shows last night.
Last night Chris Matthews hammered on what the use of the loaded word “appeasement” means when used in reference to Israel.
He had Republican Strategist Bradshaw on along with David Corn. She kept repeating that the Obama adminstration had not been supportive of Israel. Corn and Matthews kept asking her for specific examples of the lack of support.
Chris Matthews and David Corn did not object or correct her when she repeated the debunked and endlessly repeated claim that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map” Neither one corrected or objected.
And last night “liberal” Jon”I’m just a comedian” Stewart hammered Iran again. Repeating “Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and wants to blow up the world” bullshit again. He then went onto say that Iran might sell the downed drone information to China. Stewart must know that Israel has sold plenty of US military technology to China. Jon Stewart continues to help set the stage for an attack on Iran
(unable to link)
Vintage Foursome (Explicit) and the latest demonstrations in Bahrain.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/latuff071211.html
Unknown Unknowns says: December 7, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Evil exists in Islam; God created Evil and gave it leave to trick Mankind – it has independent freedom of action but not independent substantial existence.
I am influenced by the late Professor Zaehner on many subjects, including Zoroaster.
The book to read is “The Teachings of the Magi. A compendium of Zoroastrian beliefs”. George Allen & Unwin, London, 1956. Reprints: Sheldon Press, London, 1972; Oxford University Press, London, 1976.
Please note that the Quran indentifies Zorastrians as the people of the Book.
It doesnt bring much new, but I think this article was pretty good for being in the mainstream media.
War on Iran has already begun. Act before it threatens all of us
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war-already-begun
WSJ: ‘How to destroy drone shot-down by Iran’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/wsj-how-to-destroy-drone-shot-down-by-iran/
James,
It’s not the questions per se. Those were good questions. I was curios about how you seem to recognize that there is more to the story than “UK did it”.
You see, the one thing I’ve always reacted to your comments is how you sometimes argue that “the Zionist lobby did it” (or is responsible, or similar to that). No nuances. The west is innocent (my impression).
My comment about the hostage/Stockholm syndrome situation questioned how much responsibility could really be attributed to the Zionist movement. I used your argument with UU to emphasize this again. I could perhaps have chosen a better approach.
Humanist says:
“Anyhow maybe other things are going on over there. “
One has to wonder if events in Pakistan may have ’some’ bearing as well..
i.e. Iran capturing the high tech US spy drone.. while drones have been slaughtering innocent people in Pakistan. Can Pakistan change its approach and follow IRI example with an independent policy?
http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/
Empty
Perhaps I did present my argument in a poorly structured sentence (affirming the consequent). Thank you for pointing that out. And I’d agree with your two presented hypotheses.
My poor argument did deflect from what was originally intended: If it wasn’t for Iran, what would have stopped the US for absolutely controlling the Middle East for another 100 years? Hezbollah, Syria? Maybe Turkey or Saudi Arabia?
kurshid,
speaking of fruit, thank you for your post @5:12. let’s hope reason prevails in this belligerent onslaught by the western powers. the sheikhdoms should realize it is not in the interests of their own people to shun Iran the way they do.
If Americans believed in our own national myth, the Iranians would be ‘the good guys.’ We ourselves would not accept the servitude foolishly being shoved in the face of the Iranians. get a grip America.
Khurshid:
Interesting. I had not thought of the UAE’s change of tune in that way, but it seems to make sense. Let us hope that the weaseling and scheming ambassador is returning with his tail between his legs, and not with a rocket in his pocket.
Humanist says:
December 7, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Please read the comment I posted for James canning on
khurshid says:
December 8, 2011 at 5:12 am
James Canning says:
December 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm
The Sheikh-dom of UAE never believed that Iran is making nukes regardless of what it might have said in the past. However, why is he saying now that the sheikh-dom does not believe iran is making nukes? The answer lies in the post arab spring events. Arab sheikh-doms were confident that they can bring down syria’s asad regime and with that severely weaken Iran – perhaps permanantly destroy Hezbollah and Hamas. However, now they have seen that US is sending its ambassador back to Damascus, an indication that US-Israel-Arab League plot has failed to bring fruit. Therefore, regional power status of Iran is rubber-stamped now. It is fuitile to make any sort of provocative lie about Iran’s nuclear program. And thus the chnage in tone of UAE sheikh-dom.
Before Arab spring UAE actively took part in anti-Iran nuclear propaganda and policy. The most damaging of its policies was to cut of financing ties between Iran and Dubai. The latter was Iran’s biggest business partner. At the time UAE’s calculation (wishful thinking) was that if Iran is barred from doing business in dubai than that would put severe pressure on Iran’s economy and which would perhaps cause collapse of Iran’s regime. Now if we see things through the prism of current events, it is clear why UAE sheikh has changed its tone and went as far as saying ‘Iran and region has stayed together for 1000 years’ – its all to do with Iran’s regional power status. Had syria collapsed or Russia and China not vetoed UNSC resolution on syria, UAE sheikh-dom would still be saying IRAN IS MAKING NUKES !!
Actually James it was Serbian backed terrorists who fired the shot that started the war and provided the excuse for Austria-Hungary to crush Serbia,Germany no more started ww1 than England did but both got dragged into it because of the system of alliaaces that existed at the time,also both sides were confident of victory and sought to settle old scores ,as for the Ottomans one of the events that led to their entry into the war was the british seizure of 2 battleships under construction in english yards unfortunatly for the british one of these had been paid for by popular subscription ie the donations of lots of ordinary people the seizure of that ship caused a lot of outrage
Jambalaya no more?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/06/afghanistan_resupply_nato_ndn
I for one would like to see the Quds Force pay a Northern Alliance used car salesman to blow up the bottleneck of the US supply line, the Friendship Bridge at Termez, to smithereens.
Here’s a link to a map of the supply routes into Afghanistan:
,http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zRMgPKI_AEs/TtegnKQXR2I/AAAAAAAACKg/AbI5SM_cWOM/s1600/NDN_Afghanistan.jpg
http://www.inquisitr.com/163527/vatican-exorcist-specialist-says-yoga-is-the-devils-exercise/
“Vatican Exorcist Specialist Says Yoga Is The Devil’s Exercise
Gabriele Amorth, a Vatican exorcist specialist who claims to have banished evil spirits from 70,000 people is now claiming that the practice of Yoga is the work of the devil.
According to Amorth yoga automatically leads to the belief in Hinduism and he tells the Telegraph “all eastern religions are based on a false belief in reincarnation.”
The good priest failed to qualify his statement, which should have read, “yoga automatically leads to the belief in Hinduism IN SOCIETIES WHOSE VAST MAJORITIES HAVE LOST THEIR RELIGION. (Excuse the caps. One of these days I’ll remember how to italicize and embold in HTML).
fyi:
I’m the one that’s confused? You are the one that equated the Day of Alast with a day in which the Sons of Adam covenanted to fight Evil, whereas Evil does not even exist is Islam! Evil as commonly understood in the West is a force that has ontic independence and as such, can only exists in non-monotheistic religions.
The best source that I have been able to find on the subject of Zoroastrian cosmogony (not that I am interested in such arcana) is iranica online:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cosmogony-i
Here is the relevant passage:
“… According to these texts, in the beginning Ohrmazd (Av. Ahura Mazdā, q.v.) dwelt on high, in pure light; Ahriman (q.v.; Old Av. Angra Mainiiu, Young Av. Aŋra Mainiiu) dwelt in the depths, in darkness. Between them was the void. Ohrmazd was aware of Ahriman’s antagonism, and, to prepare himself for battle, he first shaped his creations in a spiritual (mēnōg) state, in the form of “bright, white fire” (Bundahišn 1.44). The creations remained in this state for 3,000 years. In the meantime Ahriman made his demonic creatures out of darkness. He then attacked the luminous world. Ohrmazd initially offered peace, which was rejected. Finally, the two spirits made a treaty (paymānag) to wage war for a limited period of time (a speculative duration of 9,000 or 12,000 years is given) in a well-defined arena: the world. The three stages in the cosmic drama were the (material) creation (bundahišn), which began with the treaty; the mixture (gumēzišn) of good and evil; and the separation (wizārišn) of evil from good. The last stage, however, was to fall outside historical time.”
As can be seen, creation came about as a result of Ahriman’s “antagonism”, not due to a will on the part of Ahura Mazda. (I said envy, which will be found elsewhere in the literature). The rest is details and minutia. To equate the Day of Alast with the Zoroastrian cosmogony is … well, what can I say? All I will ask is that you stop spreading MISinformation on topics you know nothing about. Else I will have to start referring to you as fyM.
Khurshid,
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with your assessment. However what surprised me was his assertiveness on “Iran is not building the bomb”. He is a big shot. He is the vice president of UAE….and remember just recently the verbal abuse of Iran by UAE was the norm of the day.
I Knew at times, on less critical issues Qatar’s top man had crossed the red line and had sided with Iran. I can sort of understand that, especially now that it is proven the combined gas reserves of Iran and Qatar is a sizeable chunk of the world reserve. I am just guessing, in these crucial times, the slim possibility of war with Iran must have forced UAE to evaluate the situation further. My guess is the Arab Gulf states are aware of what El-Bardei has predicted ie such a war can set the ME on fire and will profoundly endanger the status of Arab rulers. Maybe UAE, to be on the safer side, is trying to adapt the Qatari approach. In other words to place itself not in the extreme position (at it was before) and move as far as it can to the center.
I think the above type of assertiveness by UAE is no joke, it appears more like their intention to move to the left of the center. That would be a big move indeed.
Anyhow maybe other things are going on over there. Whatever they are, for me they are complicated and are well beyond my politically limited comprehension.
Have you or anybody here any convincing explanation on this issue?
Clinton: ‘Russian elections were Fraud’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/clinton-russian-elections-were-fraud/
from Gilad Atzmon, The Bumper Sticker of the Century
The War against Iran has already begun
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war-already-begun
This is, so far, a low intensity conflict, but one which is a conflict nonetheless.
Empty,
Defect from what? Unknown Unknowns claimed Britain two hundred years ago put a Wahabi dagger into the heart of Islam. I asked if the reference was to the capture of Mecca and Medina in 1803 by the Al Saud-Wahabi armies (that had sacked Karbala in 1801).
Are you suggesting Britain backed the Al Saud-Wahabi armies in 1801 & 1803?
Interesting, and heartening, photos from Gaza Strip:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/photostory-brighter-side-gaza/10607
James Canning, thank you for the links. I’ll read after dinner.
James and Empty, re Newt & Bolton — I love it! Newt could not have said any other single thing that could cost him election. He is not stupid, he knows that; he does not want to be president, he just wants the attention and brand recognition.
Notice that Daniel Pipes was one of the persons who asked a question? He referred to Iran taking hostages in 1979 and somehow drew a parallel to how we should not allow Iran to do X Y Z.
James Canning,
Don’t deflect.
Unknown Unknowns,
Touching again on the notion Britain put Wahabi dagger into heart of Islam. After Germany in effect started the First World War, in August 1914, the British and the Russians tried to persuade the Ottomans to remain neutral.
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) warned Enver Pasha that Ottoman entry into the war on the side of Germany would be disastrous no matter which side won. If Germany won, Kemal said result would be German control of the Ottoman Empire. And if Germany lost, as Kemal expected, the Ottomans would lose their Arab provinces. And maybe more.
Empty,
John Bolton and Newt Gingrich are indeed poisonous. Like certain snakes.
khurshid,
My understanding is that Sheikh Mohammad al-Maktoum’s denunciation of American foreign policy in the Middle East, made in prime time on US TV, was not welcomed by most of the Israel-first crowd in Washington.
Do you think he actually does believe Iran is building nukes? I think he is sincere in his belief Iran is not currently trying to build nukes. Again, this is not what Israel lobby likes to hear.
James Canning,
One word: venomous.
Karl,
thanks for info. John Bolton as Gingrich’s Secretary of State! Utter lunacy.
Fiorangela,
Bravo, re utter stupidity of Rick Santorum. Does that clown even comprehend that oil prices are higher, and Iran’s oil revenues are highter, due to western intervention in Libya?
Fiorangela,
Here is the reason why Iran did not attend: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211200.html
Fio,
“Israel in Hot Seat at Middle East Nuclear Ban Conference”
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=11643
Link carries though to further link with detail on what was said. Arabs want nuke-free zone even before peace deal with Israel.
Firoagnela,
I’ll get you a good report on Vienna Conference. Announcement Sept. 2nd (of the conference 21-22 Nov.):
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/prn201112.html
Karl,
re the Israel Mutual Masturbation Society event, (please pardon the offensive language. Nothing else was quite as descriptive.)
The award for the most brilliant policy proposal has to go to Rick Santorum:
“We should sanction Iran, really tough sanctions. Of course, China will not go along because China buys a lot of oil from Iran. But if there’s no competition, China will be paying a low price, thus Iran will be deprived of revenue.”
China smiled.
It’s embarrassing to be an American, an Italian, and Catholic when Santorum is also.
James Canning says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:31 pm
thank you for the comment. Please tell us more about the Vienna Conference; I was not aware of it.
Humanist says:
December 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Arab sheik-doms have made such remarks before, it means nothing. Thanks to wikileaks world now knows what these arab sheik-doms kings/ prince/ ameers were telling US in private. so don’t be surprised, remarks of UAE despot is just an eye wash.
Reckless threats and hysteria about Iran on the please-give-me-money israeli event.
(B)[B]
“2:50 – Interestingly, the issue of U.S. foreign assistance – including to Israel – is absent from everyone’s agenda.
2:40 – On Iran, Gingrich says: “The only rational long-term policy is regime replacement. I’ll focus on gasoline supply, how to sabotage it every day. I’d find every dissident group in the country. I’ll do everything I could to keep the regime off balance.” “It’s better to stop them early than to stop them late,” he adds.
2:31 – Indeed, Gingrich is getting a much more enthusiastic reception than Romney.
2:30 – Gingrich: “I will ask John Bolton to become Secretary of State” (hysterical applause).
”
(/B)[/B]
Its like a sick event where everybody tring to bid over the other of being ignorant, hateful and warmongering.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/live-blog-u-s-presidential-candidates-speak-at-the-republican-jewish-coalition-1.400175
Is there any wonder Iran have suspicion about united states? I dont hear iranian presidential canditates talking about attacking US.
Unknown Unknowns,
The British were at war with France in 1798 when France invaded the Ottoman Empire, by attacking Egypt. Do you think the British would seek to weaken the Ottoman Empire, after it was attacked by France, when Britain was engaged in a titanic struggle with France?
TDITW,
Mecca and Medina, captured in 1803 by Al-Saud/Wahabi armies.
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
Unknown Unknowns claimed that Britain planted Wahabi dagger into heart of Islam. I think this notion is worth exploring. So, I asked UU of Britain had anything to do with the sack of Karbala in 1801 by Al Saud-Wahabi armies. Did Britain have anything to do with the Saud-Wahabi capture of Mecca and Median (and the other Sunni cities in the Hejaz) in 1803. Do you object to these questions?
Fiorangela,
Would it not make sense for Iran to cooperate with Saudi Arabia, in putting pressure on Israel to sign the NPT and get rid of its nukes?
Iran did not participate in the recent Vienna conference on ways and means of getting rid of Israel’s nukes.
Gingrich apparently wants the US to take out Hezbollah! What a lunatic. And what a whore of Israeli militarists.
Those who see Newt Gingrich as yet another idiot warmongering neocon Republican will not change their viewpoint after reading “The scariest commander in chief” at salon.com today. (By Jordan Michael Smith.)
fyi,
Are you referring to the large loans made by Kuwait to Iraq during the insane Iraq-Iran war? Saddam Hussein wanted those loans forgiven. (One reason he invaded Kuwait.)
Qatar worked for years to improve relations between US and Iran, and between other Gulf monarchies and Iran. Qatar also tried to improve western relations with Syria.
Rehmat,
Why would the British have wished to have “Arab Gulf” on maps rather than “Persian Gulf”?
Fiorangela,
Lord Rothschild was one of the very few members of his family that favored a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. Most Rothschilds in England saw themselves as Englishmen (or women) who happened to be Jewish by religion.
Humanist,
The prime minister of the UAE also said he did not believe Iran is building nuclear weapons.
Unexpectd remarks from United Arab Emirate’s Prime Minister?\
http://www.localnews8.com/news/29929016/detail.html
“…. we lived next to each other for thousands and thousands of years….” !!
Unknown Unknowns says: December 7, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Mr. Unknown Unknowns, you are wrong.
You are confusing the religion of Mani with that of Zoraster.
Incidentally, all you have to do to get an idea of the pervasiveness of the dualistic error that was Zorozstrianism, and its continuing legacy through the gnostics (via Mani) and into Christianity is watch the movie “The Matrix”, which, I can only assume, is the source for the name of one of our contributors here – the eponymous salvific character Neo, “the One”, the Christ and Messiah figure, who saves Zion (!) from the Original Sin of being a Duracell battery. LMAO.
fyi says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I tend to err on the side that considers Zoroaster a messenger of God whose message was not preserved correctly through the millennia…. His message was that God had created men to help God fight the False Lord, the Lord of Lies, the Evil One. That the Dark Lord may be entrapped in the Creation. [In the language of the Aristotelian metaphysics, this amounted to the negation of the potentiality of Evil and its neutralization by being baited (by mankind) into a trap called Creation.] In fact, before Time was created and Universe existed, God – the Wise Lord – gathered the souls of all men ever to be born and asked them if they pledged themselves to that struggle. They all agreed. [That was referred to as the Day of Alast in Islamic Tradition.]
*
Well, it seems the medication has been working somewhat, but that it still seems to need some tweeking. The medication is simply this: next time and every time thereafter you get the urge to talk religion in public, in the immortal words of Nancy Reagan, “Just say ‘No!’”
You have made two very gross errors here, I am afraid. The first is in your depiction of the cosmogonic or creation myths of Zoroastrianism as positing that the world is the creation of the forces of Good in an attempt to ward off evil. It is no such thing. To the contrary, the world, in the mind of Zoroaster and his followers, is the creation of the Evil One, Ahriman. It was an act in response to a pre-creation Event that shattered the Unicity of Good into myriad Shards of Light. The Evil One then proceeded to create the World or Creation as a Crypt for those Shards of Light, in order to prevent them from re-uniting with their Source and achieving Unicity once more. The motivation for Ahriman, who is ontically co-equal with Ahura Mazda, is envy.
The World-As-Crypt cosmology or weltanschauung most probably has its origin in Africa. It can be seen in the Hindu concept of Maya (which posits the world as a delusion from which one must escape through asceticism), in the Western concept of Mayo (with which sandwiches must be liberally spread in order to *avoid* the hardships of sandwich-asceticism, in Manichaeism, in Gnostic Christianity, and finally in Pauline and later, Nicene (Trinitarian) Christianity, where the world and all its inhabitants are doomed to eternal damnation save for the Christ sacrificing himself in order to save human souls from this crypt (the belief in Original Sin is provided as the reason for our having found ourselves in a situation necessitating salvation): we are between a rock and a hard place, which is why we are in need of the Christ to save us. And he cannot save us by simply willing it, as he is *not* all-powerful. The vestigial remnants of an ontically co-equal Entity are clearly still extant in this soteriology, which can only obtain from a dualist ontology.
OK, so you utterly misunderstand Zoroastrianism, whose ritual purities and the need to keep the flame alive at all time are precisely to *avoid* entrapment in the World and to guarantee Godspeed in deliverance from it. But then you make another massive mistake by equating the Day of Alast in the Islamic Traditiion with this
“God – the Wise Lord – gathered the souls of all men ever to be born and asked them if they pledged themselves to that struggle (That the Dark Lord may be entrapped in the Creation). They all agreed. [That was referred to as the Day of Alast in Islamic Tradition.]
And so, having turned black into white, you go on to equate the Islamic creation myth with your own impromptu concoction. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad, with whom be peace, was sent to rid the world of these imprisoning word viruses that started with Zoroaster and whose errors were perpetuated by Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity and such modern day pseudo-religions as empiricism and logico-positivism. The lesson of the Day of Alast is that the world is decidedly *not* a crypt, that it was our own will, expressed in preeternity, to come into creation, out of eternal unicity and into time-bound multiplicity. And the reason we did this, a *hadith qudsi* tells us, is that “I was a Hidden Treasure, and I wanted to be known. So I created creation, in order to be known.” The “I” is interchangeable with “we”, we being the souls who are the sons and daughters of Adam. The forgetfulness (gheflat) that this interchangeability obtains is part of the fantastic (or phantastic, if you prefer the archaic spelling, which is more apt here) pre-programming that we opted into on that fateful Day where the decision was made. Elsewhere, God reminds us (from a tanzihic perspective; = Himself, from a tashbihic one) that when we accepted this Trust (of His vice-regency on Earth – a Trust that was offered to the Heavens and the Mountains, and from which “they shrank [in fear] thereof”), that “Verily, [we] were foolish and unjust [to ourselves].”
By insisting on the unicity of God (tauhid), His ontic uniqueness or oneness, i.e., that there is only One God, and that there are no others, Islam brings man back in tune with the reality that there are no other forces (such as aliens or the Mayan calendar or God only knows what else) out there. “Not a leaf falls from a tree without God willing it to happen.” (Koranic paraphrase). And by so doing, it lifts the dark cloud of pessimism which humanity was laboring under thanks to the decadence of all the previous religions before it.
May God shine His Muhammadan Light to all of the dark corners of the world, so that non-Moslems are liberated from the shackles of their slef-imposed mental crypts. Ameen.
khurshid says:
December 7, 2011 at 5:41 am
Iran will never show any pictures, you know the saying “the pictures tells a thousand words”. The want to keep USA and it’s NATO allies guessing.
“as” their policy making methodology, rather.
TDITW,
RE: My point was simply that “Islam” does not (seem to) constitute a problem for western policy makers. Otherwise US & friends would’ve given a second thought about their actions in the Middle East and Central Asia.
You’re arguing, in essence, that because the US&Company’s policy makers are not more thoughtful in their policy making decisions it must indicate that Islam doesn’t (or doesn’t seem to) constitute a problem for them. This reasoning is not valid and constitutes a fallacy of consequence.
Even if we look at the existing evidence, there is ample evidence that suggests: a) making short-term policy decisions with long-term disastrous consequences (with or without having Islam as cause for worry) is more of a norm than exception by the U.S.&Company; b) there is a tangible and verifiable concern about what Islam (as an effective doctrine and an alternative functioning model) means/could mean and policies related to that are more rampant but less obvious and “in your face”, so to speak.
In general (though exceptions could be seen), you could examine the US policies for evidence that supports “a” and you could explore and examine the UK policies for evidence that supports “b”.
At the moment, looking from an outsider’s perspective, it appears that the said team are using “speed-dating” and their policy-making methodology to help facilitate multiple “implosions” from within Islam and their greatest faulty assumption, I believe, is that they equate Islam with Muslims.
apparently the presidential canditate speak in front of jewish groups today.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/live-blog-u-s-presidential-candidates-speak-at-the-republican-jewish-coalition-1.400175
this is getting absurd. almost like if it is israel that will elect the president or that israeli interest is more valuable than american. everytime I see something from santorum or ronney its cheering the zionist regime one way or another.
Rehmat says:
December 7, 2011 at 10:30 am
“fyi – All those Arab ‘Sheikhdom’ were created by the British colonialists by bribing the former Sea pirate to secure the safety of their shipping to their largest colony, India. ”
which is analogous to the reason Balfour granted Baron Rothschild a “homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine” in 1917. Britain desired Mediterranean ports-of-call, AND Britain was heavily in debt and required a Rothschildean bail-out.
selling israeli military
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/selling-israeli-militarism/
“Racism against Palestinian in Israeli school books” – by Israeli professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/racism-against-palestinian-in-israeli-school-books/
fyi – All those Arab ‘Sheikhdom’ were created by the British colonialists by bribing the former Sea pirate to secure the safety of their shipping to their largest colony, India.
It the British Raj which coined the term “Arab Gulf” to replace the centuries old “Persian Gulf”.
All these ‘Sheikhdoms’ are like “ants” in American and British socks. Their rulers even cannot control their subjects without the help of “Infidels” – how could some idiot expect them to harm Islamic Republic without the active military backing of Western powers and Israel/
As professor James Petra says that during the very first days of coming WW III – these Arab puppet regimes will down the drain followed by Israel – and the US may have to fight next 100 years to control Iran.
HAPPY DREAMING!!
James Canning says: December 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Excepting Oman, the Southern Persian Gulf states made a decision to be enemies of Iran – it started sometime in the 50s and 60s and UK withdrew.
Just to spite Iranians, they fabricated the appelation “Arabian Gulf”.
And they went on to such glorious strategic achievements as funding the late Mr. Hussein’s war against Islamic Iran.
Now, they are marching down the same path again, in the Persian Gulf and in the Levant.
May be they will be more successful this time.
Empty,
–as cryptic as ever I see–
I’m not disputing the validity of your or fyi’s statement.
My point was simply that “Islam” does not (seem to) constitute a problem for western policy makers.
Otherwise US & friends would’ve given a second thought about their actions in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Has the actions of the west caused ripples that will eventually one day bite them in the ass; without a doubt.
Does the known consequences or the unknown consequences trouble western policy makers? All evidence—Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt etc- point to a big fat “no”.
The fallout seems to be “manageable” to them.
Iran is however not as easily “manageable”. The methods available (sanctions, threats, bribes) to handle other Muslim states (or any other state) doesn’t seem to work as well. That’s why I said Iran is an “actual” obstacle.
Fiorangela says:
December 7, 2011 at 8:06 am
Saudi’s pronouncement is unassailably logical, though not necessarily prophetic. There is much historical evidence that countries by and large do not act as proliferation dominoes. E.g. consider China’s, Russia’s and US’ possession of nuclear weapons has not proliferated to other neighboring technologically-capable countries for decades, and counting.
But the Saudi logic is not lost on Iran. I had argued before that:
“Though The Nuclear Dominoes Rarely Fall, the fear of a regional arms race is proffered often by Western pundits, but ironically, they are usurping Iran’s own fantods. Regional proliferation would transform hostile Arab governments from an over-the-horizon security concern, into Iran’s proximate security nightmare. Free-for-all proliferation would squander Iran’s geographic/population advantage, vitiate Iran’s conventional defensive capacity, and render even the tiniest of its neighbors a military equal.”
Another words, Iran’s first nuclear bomb will usher the shortest celebration, and the longest abject insecurity for Iranians. Iran will not develop the bomb, and continue to make it known that they never will.
“It is our duty” to consider obtaining nuclear weapons, says Saudi chief of Intelligence.
““If our efforts, and the efforts of the world community, fail to convince Israel to shed its weapons of mass destruction and to prevent Iran from obtaining similar weapons, we must, as a duty to our country and people, look into all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves” “
“big” bite, that is.
TDITW,
RE: But I was talking about an actual obstacle. What kind hurdle does Islam pose?…. Islam. For the moment is just background noise.
The main premise of your argument, I believe, suffers from the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of reduction, both at the same time (a rare but interesting occurrence). I think what is happening is not only a challenge by Islam against the doctrines of materialism (in whatever “ism” they are bundled and packaged) but also a challenge and a revolution from within Islam. Active forces (from within) are also opposing and, for the moment, they have formed a marriage of convenience, if you will, with the forces that represent the other “isms”. Deeply understanding this very critical fact allows us to evaluate and assess the events more accurately.
I do not think, for example, that it is/was just a politico-economic jockeying that inspired/inspires the kingdom of Saud to spend millions of dollars in a single Egyptian election for a particular sect to win seats. The real events have not really begun yet. From where I’m observing things “let’s-see-how-we-could-milk-and-exploit-the-situation-to-profit-the-most” of the west is really the background noise. Unfortunately for them, the side they have chosen is going to come back and take a bit bite out of their ass.
I pretty much see the evidence supporting fyi’s assessment. Establishment of a Jewish state where it is today in effect helped (unwittingly) the “future” situation in favor of the revolutionary scholars of Islam.
تو مو می بینی و او پیچش مو….تو ابرو او اشارت های ابرو [You see the hair, he sees its twists and curls......you see the brow, he reads the messages of its gestures]
khurshid,
RE: Does anyone know if Iran has released photographic or video evidence of RQ-170 in its possession?
I doubt they would.
Iran downing of US top drone RQ-170 has got lot of media attention both inside and outside Iran.
Does anyone know if Iran has released photographic or video evidence of RQ-170 in its possession? If yes, please post the link here on this blog. It will be much appreciated.
fyi said
“The obstacle is not Iran.
It is Islam.
The capture of Jerusalem by Israelis in 1967 was the worst thing that could have happened to Jews, Muslims, and schismatic Christians.
In less than 2 generations the war in and for Palestine bcame a religious war for Jerusalem.”
I’d agree with your statement.
But I was talking about an actual obstacle. What kind hurdle does Islam pose?
Islam offers no competing economic or politic philosophy against western ideas. At best “Islam” is a nuisance for US/Israel. It creates a common identity between a large group of people whom at best “complain” about western aggression.
Iran on the other hand constitutes an actual problem. As you stated many times yourself, it’s the only state between the Mediterranean and Hindu Kush. It has an industrial and scientific base, and an ancient civilization with rich culture, and is basically the USA of Asia (the melting pot of many different ethnicities etc).
As I’ve understood Muslamic achievements, they’re essentially an extension of Iranian/Persian/Hellenistic civilization. In modern times Islam in itself hasn’t been able to reconcile the “material” needs (ie consumerism) with spiritual needs. And it has not offered an alternative. The current economic system today is based on people worshipping physical pleasures; money, goods and services. And political power is derived from being able to produce, provide and protect those commodities. Morality and spirituality is in this sense an “obstacle”. (I’m keeping things short and neat here).
Iran is not only an obstacle, but the gravest danger the west has ever met. This is why I’m fascinated with Iran. The danger lies in Iran’s potential and not so much in its current state (~30 year old baby vs ~500-600 bully). That’s why Iran must be “contained” and eventually destroyed. The Soviets really never posed the same danger, neither does China (they’d basically continue the “material” history).
Nonetheless, without Iran the west really wouldn’t have any problems. Until the “Arab Spring” they’d actually “won”. The moment of truth is now. Either the people of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria etc will be able to win their freedom or the they will once again be subjected to the will of the west.
If Islam could be channelled to become a beacon for political organization then Islam would be dreadful impediment to western interests.
Islam. For the moment is just background noise.
James Canning
I’ve notice when it comes to Arab history you seem to distance British involvement.
When it comes to contemporary US/UK role in the Middle East you seem to emphasize Zionist/Israeli involvement.
Isn’t much you say about Arab/UK history on some level true about US/UK and Israeli relations?
Given what others have pointed out, this argument would be equally valid (eg) “When the Bush dynasty armies sacked Baghdad in 2003, do you think the Zionists had anything to do with this event? When the Catholic-Protestant forces took the Sunni cities, in 2003, do you think the Israelis were involved?”
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=5609
Book Review: Violence in the Muslim world: myth versus reality by Muhammad Khan
The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists. By Charles Kurzman, New York: Oxford University Press, pp228, 2011, HB, $24.95
James Canning says:When the Al Saud-Wahabi armies sacked Karbala in 1801, do you think the British had anything to do with this event?When the Saud-Wahabi forces took the Sunni cities in the Hejaz, including Mecca and Medina, in 1803, do you think the British were involved?
Yes, my Sahib, your forces were indeed involved. If it were not for the British arms provided and the tens of thousands of pounds provided by His Majesty’s government to the brigand knawing at teh soft underbelly of the Ottomans at HM Govt’s behest, these event could never have taken place. Refer to the Algar essay for the exact amounts of arms and monthly stipends that went to pay for the Najdi mercenary troop.
You should not think, my Sahib, that your scorpion-like brigandage goes unnoticed by the natives, and that we will not punish you for it.
In March 2008, John McCain and Lindsey Graham visited Israel in the company of Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman and met Israeli President Shimon Peres for talks on Iran’s nuclear project and Tehran’s backing of Hamas and Hizbullah.
In September 2010, Lindsey Graham, told Israel Lobby linked think tank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that Washington must be prepared for a military strike against the Islamic Republic not only to destroy its nuclear program but also to bring a regime change in Tehran.
American author, Jeff Gates, in ‘Guilt by Association: How deception and self-deceit took America to war‘, recounts the shameful role of John McCain’s father (Admiral John McCain Jr.) in helping to cover up Israel’s deliberate attack on USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/lobby-pakistan-is-not-a-trustworthy-ally/
I just love Megan Kelly of FOX NEWS. She makes the Iranian capture of the stealth recon drone seem all so important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYV1IywlGJQ&feature=player_embedded
Jonathan Cook, “Netanyahu shattering the myth of Israeli democracy”
http://electronicintifada.net/cotent/netanyahu-shattering-myth-israeli-democracy/10651
Quote: US casino magnate Irving Moskowitz and other rich Jewish Americans have “pumped enormous sums into propping up illegal Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land”.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, on Charlie Rose PBS TV programme, Sept. 19, 2011:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11898
Prince Turki makes the obvious point straight away: that the UN recognised Israel in 1947-48 and it should accordingly recognise Palestine now. Negotiations with Israel can continue.
Sensible position. Hated by ISRAEL LOBBY.
Lara Friedman, “The 3 Monkeys of the ‘Pro-Israel’ Right”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lara-friedman/the-3-monkeys-of-the-proi_b_1130422.html?ref=world
Richard Siverstein of Seattle today calls Bibi Netanyahu a “two-bit tin-pot megalomaniac”. Bibi is a dangerous man, to be sure.
Irshad,
I think North Korea will at some point give up its nukes. Zero need for them for purposes of defence. Zero. Russia and China would like the nukes to be trashed.
Nasser,
You suggest that “the west” may have planned “all along” the military intervention in Libya. You overlook the fact numerous American, British, and other Europeans were reasonably pleased with business opportunities in Libya. Saif al-Islam had a fine house in London, as did a number of other important Libyans.
You also overlook the fact a number of European diplomats pleaded with Gaddafi to tone down the ranting etc, that was part of Gaddafi’s reponse to the outbreak of the revolt in E. Libya. They warned him if he did not quieten down, public opinion in France and UK would force military intervention.
a
“Prince Tukri calls for a stronger Gulf bloc”
http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article543648.ece
Prince Turki al-Faisal calls for unified economy, defence spending, currency, etc. by Gulf monarchies.
FYI, what aspect of the programme do you find unattractive?
fyi,
The capture of East Jerusalem by Israel in 1967 was regrettable, but the situation could have been remedied if Lyndon Johnson had possessed sufficient moral fibre to join the Uk in forcing Israel out of all territories occupied during that war.
“US launches virtual embassy for Iran ”
I wonder if they are trying to get over their Stockholm Syndrome!!!
lol
US launches virtual embassy for Iran
more lol..
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011126185647788952.html
Stockholm Syndrome
eDonkeyInTheWell says: December 6, 2011 at 3:06 pm
The obstacle is not Iran.
It is Islam.
The capture of Jerusalem by Israelis in 1967 was the worst thing that could have happened to Jews, Muslims, and schismatic Christians.
In less than 2 generations the war in and for Palestine bcame a religious war for Jerusalem.
A random thought on the subject of the west being held hostage by the evil zionistas.
The difference between “rich jews” and “zionists” (can be Jews, Christians, Saudi princesses, Scandinavian Vikings etc), and the “innocent western people” feels frankly too “muddied” to make any meaningful distinction anymore.
It all reminds me of those movies where person A kidnaps person B. They’ll initially hate each other (“anti-semitism”) but eventually they’ll fall in love and become partners in crime (“zionism”).
Although I do wonder how this story will end…..
Will our beloved couple perhaps overcome the obstacles in their way (“Iran”) so that they can live happily ever after?
Or will they increasingly become aware that their love is hopeless and impossible in this cruel and vicious world and kill themselves (“economic meltdown”). Or will they perchance turn on each other as they realize that there is indeed other fish in the sea (“BRICS”).
One can only hope the story ends soon and with no cheap sequel in the making.
khurshid says: December 6, 2011 at 2:27 pm
My sense of this is that Regime Change in Syria is off the table.
Also, I think, the attempt to frighten Iranians also has bogged down – scaring them through the Israeli threat.
The whole thing was just a fool’s errand; strategic escalation to nowhere, if you will.
Notice the statements of Mr. Turki today.
Leave the Saudis to always bet on the wrong horse.
US is sending back its ambassador to Syria.
Does this mean US plot in Syria has failed?
OR
does it mean US thinks Bassar al-asad is weakened enough to get consessions out of him?
Castellio,
Are you arguing that the US and the UK are trying to “crush the euro”?
I agree with Tanaka Sakai who says (in piece you linked): “U.S. politics is still under the thumb of right-wing Israelis”. Who would argue with that statement?
Castellio,
You linked a piece by Tanaka Sakai arguing that “American and British speculators are trying to crush the euro, their potential rival, to protect the dollar. ..”
Primitive thinking. Speculators will attack any currency they see as vulnerable to attack. But most economists see destruction of the euro as a very bad thing for the US, the UK and for the EU.
Unknown Unknowns,
Amusing cartoon (Britsh scorpion dumped out of Iranian shoe), but it reflects a primitive concept of what a diplomatic presence of one power in another power’s capital entails.
For example, I think it would be in the best interests of the US for Iran’s embassy in Washington to be reopened.
Unknown Unknowns,
When the Al Saud-Wahabi armies sacked Karbala in 1801, do you think the British had anything to do with this event?
When the Saud-Wahabi forces took the Sunni cities in the Hejaz, including Mecca and Medina, in 1803, do you think the British were involved?
kooshy,
Thanks for link to story on Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai. I agree with the Sheikh who is quoted: “I don’t believe that Iran will develop a nuclear weapons.”
I would add that I am a fan of Sheikh Mohammad, who went on American TV (CBS’ 60 Minutes programme) and said he loved America but hated American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Irshads,
Of course I agree with you that the Gulf needs a security architecture that accomdates legitimate security needs of Iran.
Irshad.
I also agree with “Mark” that Ahmadinejad wanted to negotiate, thus offer to cease production of 20% U, but Khamenei raised what amount to objections. 2013 election in Iran is a factor.
Kathleen,
Bravo. Re: Iranian efforts to negotiate. And Reuel marc Gerecht ranting about how Obama tried so hard to negotiate! Didn’t Hillary Clinton very stupidly talk publicly about “carrots and sticks”? Her extremely stupid comments helped to wreck the opportunity that was available.
Irshad,
I should add that the piece you linked should be read by those following the issue of Iranian production of 20% U, and the earlier offer by Iran, arranged by Brazil (and Turkey), to ship some 3.5% U out of the country if the IAEA application to re-fuel the TRR was approved. And this was a deal the Obama administration asked Brazil to arrange. Here again, the Israel lobby (meaning very rich and powerful Jews), blocked the deal. No bother to the Lobby whether it damages the national security interests of the American people.
Irshad,
Again, re: comments of “Mark” you linked. He correctly notes that Obama failed to respond to repeated offers from Iran recently to cease production of 20%U. And “Mark” says that domestic politics is reason. Clearly this is correct; Obama is in effect coerced into damaging American national interests, due to pressure from Israel lobby.
Irshad,
Re piece by “Mark” that you linked. I agree with him the US has done little to respond to Russia’s proposal for a phased reduction in sanctions. Financial Times today reported that Russia and the US may try to convince the EU not to adopt embargo against Iranian oil exports (as sought by France).
fyi,
Yes, Kenneth Pollack evaded Israel/Palestine problem. And is Hezbollah “on the wrong side of history”, as claimed by Pollack? Isn’t one reason Hezbollah grows stronger simply that the Shia are increasing their percentage of the population of the country?
All:
Dr. Pollack’s Policy perscription for uS
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/05/americas_second_chance?page=full
Note that he avoids the war in Palestine.
Fio going to go back and listen to the whole Slavin discussion at Washington Journal. She was clealy more willing to bang away on Iran but not as much as I have heard her in the past. She even said that a nuclear free zone in the region was a great idea. Of course did not say anything about how Iran has pushed for this idea.
Compared to the very bloody and deadly Reuel Marc Gerecht she sounded like a pussy cat.
Was so mad that I said “Iran has threatened Israel” because as far as what I have read here at Informed Comment, listened to interviews with the Iranian President at Charlie Rose and Democracy now the Iranian President has never threatened Israel. Said inflammatory and stupid things yes. But threatened them?
Kathleen, Slavin’s comments about Iran were Israel-centric and soto voce punitive (while also gathering in some “I told you so” creds) vs Gerecht’s full-throated war mongering.
Of particular note was Slavin’s comment that “Iran’s leaders are coldly rational, willing to fight “to the last Arab.” Now, it’s ludicrous to think of Iran inciting Saudi Arabians or others who are commonly thought of as Arabs, to fight and die on behalf of Iran. What Slavin was referring to was Palestinians; she just could not bring herself to mouth the word, Palestinians.
Fio you are right my question/comment are at 18:40. Hope folks listen the the complete Slavin appearance and what she had to say about Iran and legislation in the US congress having to do with Iran
“I thought Slavin’s claim about how the latest IAEA report was to be taken very seriously.”
Oops did not finish “was interesting” And hope Flynt and Hillary and others listen to what she had to say about Iran.
Reuel Marc Gerect was a flaming warmonger this morning on the Diane Rehm Show. Have no idea why they claim he is an “expert” That would be an “expert” at lying. Amazing that the host on these shows never challenge the guest. Or very seldom
Thanks Fio. We all need to keep hammering away so more innocent people do not get killed, injured etc based on unsubstantiated and deadly claims.
I thought Slavin’s claim about how the latest IAEA report was to be taken very seriously.
I (Anna, my middle name) was also able to get through recently on CSpan’s Washington Journal when Barbara Slavin was a guest. They were discussing Iran. Mentioned this site and Hillary and Flynt and what they have reported about the most recent IAEA report on Iran. Also brought up what former weapons inspector Robert Kelly said at REAL NEWS in regard to the most recent IAEA report.
My comment and question are at 18;00 minutes (Anna/Ohio) during the Slavin appearance. Barbara says that she believes that what was claimed in the most recent IAEA report about Iran is to be taken seriously. Hope folks go listen to what Barbara Slavin had to say about Iran and how she responded to what I had to say. (made a mistake and said Iran had threatened Israel and that is not what I meant to say) Later clarified that Iran and Israel use fiery and dangerous language towards one another.
Unable to link
Washington Journal: Sunday, December 4
Barbara Slavin, Atlantic Council, South Asia Center – Senior Fellow
Topic: The Senate on Thursday passed new sanctions against Iran’s central bank, which would give Pres. Obama the power – starting July 1 – to bar foreign financial intuitions that do business with Iran’s central bank from having bank accounts in the U.S. Slavin discusses these new sanctions, as well as ones already in place, as well as the overall U.S.-Iran relationship.
Kathleen, perchance did you hear [ ;D ] Ann, the lady from Ohio who called in to C Span the other day when Barbara Slavin [at 18.40 min] was guest on Washington Journal? That lady urged viewers to visit RaceforIran!
That wonderful lady also corrected the false narrative about what Ahmadinejad said about Israel, citing the translation by Juan Cole, who speaks Farsi. She said that Ahmadinejad said that the zionist entity will disappear from the pages of time. Slavin felt compelled to reshape that declaration, but then Slavin is a tightrope walker whose technic is to tilt first this way then that.
In any event, well done to Ann, the Lady from Ohio.
Corrections:
In my December 5, 2011 at 11:02 pm post:
1- Instead of Stephan please read Stephen.
2- Instead of “civility dictates avoiding opening the old wounds” please read ” unless is it a definite necessity, civility dictates avoiding opening unnecessarily the old wounds”
Ok I did get a comment and question in about Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett and negoations with Iran. That Iran wants to negotiate (this was at about 10:50 am) All three quest responded. Reuel Marc Gerecht ranted and said that Obama has tried harder to negotiate directly with Iran more than any other President of the US. Then Reuel went onto claim that the Iranian President responded to Obama calling him “Satan incarnate” Robin Wright went onto say that there have been plenty of efforts to negotiate directly with Iran and then Trita Parsi objected to these claims about plenty of efforts to negotiate with Iran. This show will be up at Diane Rehm show later today. Hope Hillary and Flynt Mann Leverett go over this show and their responses to questions and their claims about Iran.
WHEN WILL THE DIANE REHM SHOW HAVE THE LEVERETTS ON TO DISCUSS IRAN. What are they afraid of?
All:
Why (Political) Philosophy Matters:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111205-egypt-and-idealist-realist-debate-us-foreign-policy
The Diane Rehm show has 20 minutes left on air. They are discussing the situation with Iran. Reuel Marc Gerecht is busy lying on the program. Robin Wright is spinning. Please contact with your questions. drshow@wamu.org. 1-800- 433-8850
Turkey’s involvement in Libya and its reward!!!
Libyan gunman injures two in Topkapı Palace shooting
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-264687-libyan-gunman-injures-two-in-topkapi-palace-shooting.html
A group of Libyans occupy Libyan Consulate in İstanbul
;http://www.todayszaman.com/news-264957-a-group-of-libyans-occupy-libyan-consulate-in-istanbul.html
In classical physics, centripetal force is responsible for the circular motion of a moving mass orbiting around a center, a heart, an inner focal point. Objects that intrude into that orbit (i.e. interfere with the motion) are sure to experience shattering and/or severe damage depending on their mass and quality. There are ways to diminish the centripetal force though by, for example, reducing the mass of the moving object, or increasing the distance between the moving mass and the center (i.e. increasing the radius of the orbit), or slowing down the object (i.e. causing the velocity to diminish). OR, one could try to hijack the center.
This week, the story of Ashura and Kabala, the ever-alive martyrdom of Imam Hussein and his allies fighting against one of the most ruthless oppressors and criminals of the time, has been remembered and celebrated. The mass of people all over the world from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon to Afghanistan to Pakistan to India to Syria to Bahrain to Yemen to Turkey to Azerbaijan to multiple South American countries to the US have taken part, once again but much more massively, in this motion orbiting around a beating heart, a center, and a focal point.
When I read the Washington Post article today about “honoring Ashura in Iran” [see here: ;http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/honoring-ashura-in-iran/2011/12/05/gIQAxnvNWO_blog.html ] it was not until I got to the last few paragraphs that I recognized the approach: forget the “r” (radius of the circle); forget the “m” (the mass of the orbiting object); forget the “v” (the velocity of the orbiting mass). Hijack the “C”, the center, the heart, the focal point. Nice try and over our dead bodies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvMWbdyd3yQ&feature=related
و مکرو و مکرالله و الله خیر المکرین [Translation/interpretation: “they play the game of deception and God plays the game of deception; indeed God is the Most Skilled Player.”]
Rd. “I’m glad I did not join the EU,” the Zionist entity.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/israel-the-rich-parasite-state/
Lobby: ‘Axe Jewish ambassador to Belgium’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/lobby-axe-jewish-ambassador-to-belgium/
Castellio says:
“American speculators caused the bond crisis, hurting the EU; “
—————
seems every time EU tries to get its financial act together there comes another volley…
Ratings agency threatens eurozone downgrade
Standard & Poor’s puts 15 single currency members on “credit watch negative”, including top-rated France and Germany.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/2011125235017906316.html
Esquire/Gav’na James,
Please see below and response, as it seems you are ignoring this native!!!!
Irshad says:
December 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm
@Squire James Canning,
Squire James, please read James Hibb at armscontrolwonk and tell us what your thoughts are, as even he says the problem is NOT IRans nuclear programme (be it 3.5% or 20%) but regime change:
http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/500/who-wants-diplomacy-on-iran
Please dont ignore my request as you failed to reply to my earlier post.
Also, watch Empire on Al Jazeera which was on today about Irans nuclear programme. Maybe Squire can inform V-Hague that what the Persian Gulf and wider ME needs is a new inclusive security architecture that meets Irans legitimate security concerns instead of threathening them (prof. Adib-moghaddem says this).
Ta esquire!
Fiorangela says:
December 5, 2011 at 10:28 pm
The west and Jews in Israel and the US are putting in place measures intended to cause the starvation of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza and in Iran –as was done in Iraq.
This is sick.
It is a sign of a morally depraved society.
———————————-
Bless your heart a thousand times that your humanity shines through your sincere worries. Gaza, and Iran will resist, and turn the tables on them just as Iraq did.
The evil vazirs, UK, France and Israel have hoodwinked the emperor by playing to his vanities. The story is old, and timeless: the vazirs’ true character will be discovered in the nick of time.
Back to the extent of the destruction of Iraq:
“Denis Halliday, former Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq: “Uncomfortable although it is, (we have) to face the unthinkable, that is, the existence of US policy to end – to terminate – established United Nations card-carrying sovereign states. In the case of Iraq, this policy required US military terrorism, infrastructural destruction and human massacre to create malleability. Malleability, that is, of an intelligentsia focused on sustaining a complex society, and a timeless and intricate culture both essential for the various peoples of Iraq to recognize their unique identity and hard won sense of nation. The (case of) Iraq shows that removal, or enabling the killing of such academic, scientific and established citizens was deemed necessary for state-ending.”[21]
from http://www.truth-out.org/educide-further-destruction-iraqs-higher-education/1322935430
The Sea-Monster of the Caspian.
http://luftwaffeas.blogspot.com/2011/11/lun-class-ekranoplan.html
For Gavner James immediate attention
Your excellency the U20% Gaverner would this just released news, from one of the major Persian gulf monarchies (consider a virtual colony) set aside yours and Billy Hague’s worries with U20% enrichment that you continuously claim it worries the Persian Gulf Arab states, If in case this just out news, will subside your grace’s worries, a tiny brake with regard to U20% worries would be much appreciated by the board’s subjects.
Emirates leader discounts fear of Iranian bomb
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/05/world/meast/iran-nuclear-uae/index.html
“Dubai, United Arab Emirates (CNN) — The leader of the United Arab Emirates discounted concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran in a CNN interview Monday, saying Tehran would find the ultimate weapon to be of little use.”
This one’s for kooshy and, of course, for His Gavnership:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0upcOXfYigM/TtomonsWq9I/AAAAAAAAD6c/avTgloUWkdw/s1600/13900906190512703_PhotoL.jpg
Like I said, James-sahib: how now, brown cow?
OH, and in response to your earlier question regarding Her Majesty’s Government’s role in the fostering of all things Wahhabi, the best piece on that is your fellow countryman Professor Hamid Algar’s essay: *Wahhabism: A Critical Essay*. Highly recommended.
It finally dawned on me.
It the 20% stupid!
An unusual approach taken by Tanaka Sakai…
http://japanfocus.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3655
“U.S. global policy-making has also been dictated not only by Israel but by the United Kingdom. To the U.K., the 40-year-long Cold War was a long-term strategy to fortify its alliance with the U.S. with the objective of confronting the Soviet Union. After the Cold War, the U.S.-U.K. alliance controlled the world through financial markets. Today, however, as the U.S.-U.K. financial system continues to break down, Obama’s emphasis on Asia means a shift to prioritizing Asia over the U.S.-U.K. alliance, and this is not good news for the U.K.
The EU is in the midst of a Euro crisis. American and British speculators are trying to crush the euro, their potential rival, to protect the U.S. dollar as the key international currency. Financial integration of the euro zone, which would strengthen the EU, is needed to stave off the ongoing crises. The EU, centering on Germany, has been battered by the U.S. and U.K. in this crisis. Therefore, after the current crisis the EU will reduce its dependency on the U.S. and strengthen its collaboration with countries like Russia, which are anti-U.S. and geopolitically important to the EU. Just as Europe was going through this transition Obama unleashed his “Asia First” announcement, which is virtually a declaration of a “Europe Second” policy.
The United States was traditionally an “Atlantic country.” This time, the U.S. has announced that “we are a Pacific country.” To Europe, this means that the U.S. will not emphasize Europe as before. American speculators caused the bond crisis, hurting the EU; the EU in turn is likely to think: “If the U.S. is not going to emphasize Europe, we won’t emphasize the U.S., either.” NATO, the Europe-U.S. military alliance, will lose its importance, too. The end of the NATO mission in Afghanistan in 2014 will likely be a turning point.”
Pirouz:
Now that I am back home, should I stop referring to your beloved government as Weasel before or after the bombs start falling on our heads? Never mind; the question is rhetorical.
Perhaps you can comment on this instead:
When I heard about the UAV that was brought down, it occurred to me that it could not have been shot down and sustained “minimal damage”. So I thought that the only way it would have been salvaged was that it was landed. Then my mind wandered back to articles that I had read during the Stuxnet affair which stated that this foray into cyber warfare set a dangerous precedent, that similar tactics could and would be used against Team Weasel in the future, and that as a matter of fact, there is already one such virus resident in the control systems of the Predator drones which they can’t get rid of. They wipe the drives clean (reformatting them), and it pops back up, etc.
So I’m thinking that the only way that this story can be true is for the Iranian military to have taken control of the UAV and landed it. I know this is unlikely, but if it is true that the drone has been salvaged “with minimal damage”, it is more likely, and even much more likely, than the alternative scenario, namely, that the drone was shot down and crashed from high altitude but somehow, miraculously, survived “with minimal damage”.
The possibility is lent credence by the fact that the Iranian sources state that they “captured” the drone (rather than stating that they shot it down).
*
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/261051/20111205/iran-claims-capturing-u-s-spy-drone.htm
“… a story ran by the Washington Post had hinted that the UAV may have been captured and not shot down by Iran when it wrestled control from its remote pilots based in America though the use of computer virus.
That suggestion runs in parallel with an earlier confirmation issued by the United States Air Force in October that a virus had infected its computer system at Creech Air Force base Nevada, where most of the spy drones are based, according to Yahoo News.
ISAF’s statement gave credence to Tehran’s revelation when it admitted that “the operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status.”
*
,http://www.dailytech.com/Computer+Network+Controlling+UAVs+Infected+by+Computer+Virus/article22960.htm
Computer Network Controlling UAVs Infected by Computer Virus
“A virus was found by the Host-Based Security System on computers used in Nevada at the Creech Air Force Base. In particular, the virus remotely logged keystrokes of computers used by pilots controlling Predator and Reaper UAVs conducting missions in Afghanistan.
“We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” an anonymous source noted. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”
Creech senior officers are now receiving daily briefings regarding the computer virus, but operations appear to be business as usual.
Both Predator and Reaper drones are actively flying in the Middle East, and there are no immediate plans to ground the unmanned fleet until the issue is resolved.
It’s unknown if this reported keylogger was intentionally placed on the computer network, but it’s an extremely serious matter. There is hopeful optimism that the relatively common keylogger was simply accidentally placed on the network — but that also is an issue that must be appropriately addressed.”
Stephan Kinzer has written an article in the Opinion Pages of NYT’s Sunday report entitled “Iran’’s First Great Satan Was England”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/irans-first-great-satan-was-england.html?_r=1
Stephan is the type of American many Iranians love to like. He shines as a likeable, honest, empathic person who has the rare quality of respecting other cultures and putting himself in the place of America’s adversaries. In my view he is intelligent enough to reach farther than the norm and understand for every action there IS a reaction. Unlike majority of Americans he can scape the hubris of Americanism realizing that “if there was no Biritish/American1953 coup, if there was no creation of Savak by America and Israel , if there was no mass murder of Iranian resisters by Savak, if there was no ruthless plunder of Iranian wealth (mostly by Americans) etc etc…..then there was no American hostage taking.
Stephan knows that event happened simply because what America did to Iran. Else Iranians, because of their turbulent history, have the potential of being good friends to all including the American people.
His curiosity takes him to Iran. There he is exposed to a culture which puzzles him further. In back of his mind he must have thought what if the situation was in reverse and it was Iranians who had done all those awful things to defenseless Americans? What would have been then the reaction of Americans after regaining their independence through an extensive revolution? I am sure he must have thought in such a case Iran and Iranians would’ve been, in Hillary Clinton’s words, totally annihilated.
Knowing there were tens of thousands of Americans in Iran, he must have asked “how many Americans were killed during the entire course of the revolution?” The answer would have surprised him more finding out only a few army personnel were killed by MEK the fanatic ruthless cult which would executes its own members if they quit, the group that now, some American officials are trying hard to take them off the list the terrorists.
Stephan Kinzer’s “All the Shah’s Men” is probably the most sympathetic book written about Iran in the last 3 decades. Regardless of the fact that the book contains a number of (major) unintentional factual and conceptual errors Iranians understand him. Facts aside, his depiction of Iran is so close to what Iranians expect from any decent Westerner. And politics aside, in odd ways he talks and sounds like many popular old time Iranians.
That is maybe the reason majority of the Iranian progressives feel affection for him, love to like him, or in Iranian subtle ways, like to love him as a respectable member of the foe (a foe that could be converted to a friend).
I think with the same spirit he wrote All the Shah’s Men he has written the above mentioned article.
In that piece too, he tries to understand the ‘anger’ of Iranians, so one can not see any harsh criticism of Iran for breaking the basic international laws and standards. There he is way softer on Iran than the progressive Iranians themselves are on that lousy incident that surely damaged the position, distinction and credibility of Iran for a long time to come.
I am hesitant to shed more lights on horrendous events that has shaped the relation between Britain and Iran, since firstly civility dictates avoiding opening the old wounds and secondly at the moment Iran has a more pressing problem ie dealing with Israel and its allies. I strongly believe, now that the war party has unprecedented power and influence, all the antiwar entities should concentrate on stopping any new war, especially the unnecessary war with Iran. The latter is because in case the Israeli/Western side was rational and fair the existing problems (such as the nuclear issue) could’ve been easily solved in a few days making the claims for absolute necessity of war absurd in the extreme .
Yet for the sake of completeness I think it is relevant to mention the following:
Just in case the Stephan or the readers of this post want to know more on history of British / Iranian relations they could start with following two books by M.G.Majd. Both are based on declassified American Archives:
1- Great Britain and Reza Shah, the Plunder of Persia 1921-1941.
2- The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia 1917-1919.
For further study there are numerous websites in English dedicated to recording and analysis of past and present history of Iran.
There are also quite a few Farsi books which are essential for understanding the present day events in Iran where those events are analyzed from the perspective of foreign domination . Books such as ‘The history of Free Masons in Iran’, writing or books about the role of clerics in helping the British Empire (and in 1953 coup) are all ‘must read’.
I can’t help remembering during the American Hostage Crisis a group of Iranian leftists had no doubt the whole debacle was orchestrated by foreigners using their local stooges. At the time I was very skeptical until many years later I read parts of Garry Sick’s book entitled “October Surprise”.
Now if someone tells me the recent attack on British Embassy is also orchestrated by the foreigners, I’ll be far less skeptical. Because in this critical time when ‘plot to kill the Saudi embassador’, ‘the fraudulent IAEA report’, ‘Britains extremely harsh sanctions on activities of Iranian Central Bank’, ‘the visits and interviews of Ehud Barak’, ‘the attack on British embassy’ even ‘stealth extremely valuable drone in the hands of Iranians’ are all happening in the same time.
relevant to nothing on this topic —
Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement” provides endlessly fascinating glimpses into Jewish provocations of Germany for the sake of advancing the zionist project in Palestine –
example #1. (page 209)“On July 19 [1933] . . .the [British] Joint Foreign Committee held its decisive session.. . .
Laski . . . read a classified briefing based on an interview with Gen. Jan Christian Smuts, deputy prime minister of South Africa. Smuts, formerly of the British Imperial War Cabinet, was, together with Chaim Weizmann, mainly responsible for the Balfour Declaration. Although not Jewish, Smuts was one of Zionism’s most important supporters. On condition that the press not be informed, Laski revealed that Smuts was “optimistic as to the future of the Jews in Germany.” . . .Laski mentioned some important developments in Germany, adding Smuts’ personal advice: “Take the long view of the situation,” do not allow “discretion to be overridden by sentiment,” and remain strongly opposed to an organized boycott. 7″
The premier topic before the Joint Foreign Committee was whether to pursue a Jewish-led crippling boycott of Germany, intended to “crack” the Germany economy, exacerbate already widespread unemployment and financial distress and ultimately topple the German government.
Smuts, of such importance to the zionist cause that Black calls him second only to Weizmann in achieving the Balfour declaration, says, “don’t do it!” Jews have an “optimistic” future in Germany.
There did not have to be a war in Europe!
Samuel Untermyer, Rabbi Stephen Wise, and Winston Churchill bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the second war in Europe in the 20th century.
Black’s extensive discussion in “Transfer Agreement” of the Jewish boycott of Germany and the mind set of the people who inflamed the boycott and the “Hitler crisis” — against much sound advice and opposition from prominent Jewish groups and leaders, is prologue to the behavior of many Jews and Jewish organizations and the non-Jewish influence-shapers drawn into their orb with respect to Iran. Similar to the language used by Eric Larson in “In the Garden of the Beasts,” Edwin Black uses inflammatory and hyperbolic, but non-specific language to describe treatment of Jews in Germany in 1933.
Larson uses the phrase Jews in Germany were “persecuted” at least 24 times in “In the Garden of the Beast,” but the only specific acts of “persecution” he cites are those decrees that Jews may not write for several general circulation newspapers but only for Jewish newspapers, and constraints on Jewish employment in predominantly Jewish-owned major department stores. Both are certainly objectionable, but they scarcely rise to the level of “terror” that call for a scheme whose goal was to starve the German people.
Edwin Black writes: “The Third Reich’s campaign of social, economic, and political terrorism against Jews was endless. During June 1933, the chain of anti-Jewish government decrees was itself overshadowed by numberless unofficial acts of repression. For example, Jews were no longer allowed to advertise in the phone book or rent stalls in the Frankfurt markets, and were terminated en masse from hundreds of German companies. Even companies owned by Jewish principals could no longer withstand the popular demand to fire all Jewish employees.”
Certainly a terrible situation, but bear in mind that due largely to actions of Jewish councilors to Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, Germany was forced to pay astronomical reparations for the first war, and to bear the major destabilization brought about by hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic — run largely by Jewish principals; and cope with worldwide depression, as well as the real effects of the boycott imposed on Germans by Jews, and all of this with the present memory of the deaths of some 750,000 Germans from starvation due to Allied blockade imposed in 1916-1917. What would any person do but lash out at one’s tormentors?
Jews are working from a very similar playbook in attempting to starve Palestinians and Iranians into submission.
Forget the fricking 20% enrichment.
The west and Jews in Israel and the US are putting in place measures intended to cause the starvation of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza and in Iran –as was done in Iraq.
This is sick.
It is a sign of a morally depraved society.
Nasser says: December 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Yes, I believe Mr. Khamenie.
Fun piece: “A Boob Named Bibi”
http://takimag.com/article/a_boob_named_bibi#axzz1fi8Adqlr
Quote: “There are hordes of blinkered American Christian Goyim who’ve been mind-tooled into venerating a religion/ethnicity/political system that places zero value on Christians and all other Goyim. . .”
Rehmat,
You are welcome. On a deeper level, I would suggest Prince Faisal is saying that Israel can in fact be distinguished from its neighbors (re: danger of nukes). But of course he wants Israel to get rid of its nukes.
Sassan says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:14 am
“There is no moral equivalency to the rule of law and justice in a country like the United States and one under rule by the Islamic Republic.”
This statement betrays your indoctrination! Dear Sassan, if you knew the first thing about the meaning of moral equivalency you would know that actions are deemed “good” or “bad” based on their intrinsic nature and not on the basis of whether they are performed by Iran or the US. Read George Orwell!
James Canning – So you’re saying that like Hillary Clinton, Prince Faisal too believes that Israel is NOT in the Middle East!!
Thanks for proving that onlt idiots read NYT.
Qatar: The new ‘western policeman’ in Muslim World
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/qatar-the-new-western-policeman-in-muslim-world/
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
Thanks. I agree Iran was wise to make the offer to cease producting 20% U provided the US or another country supplied the plates.
Obama administration was foolish to block Iran’s IAEA application to buy the fuel plates. This stupidity seems to have been caused by Hillary Clinton.
And yes, the economics of Iran’s enriching to 20% and building the plates are unkown, but I assume buying the material would have been better on strictly terms of cost.
James:
Since you cant adress the question and dodge it just adds to the fact that you cant provide sources for your claims, you are making things up. Your credibility have been hurt by this.
James Canning,
RE: Either Karl thinks Saudi Arabia does have serious conerns about Iran’s enriching to 20%, or he thinks this is an invention.
Do you know why in hypothesis testing we set up the default hypothesis as “null”? Karl doesn’t have to prove his “null”. YOU have to disprove his “null”. Quite simple.
For those who did not read Maureen Dowd’s piece in NYT when she visited Prince Faisal al-Saud in Saudi Arabia. Prince Faisal told her: “God help us if we see countries with atomic weapons in the Middle East.” March 6, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07dowd.html?ref=saudalfaisal
Empty,
Why is Karl “dodging” my question? Either Karl thinks Saudi Arabia does have serious conerns about Iran’s enriching to 20%, or he thinks this is an invention.
James Canning,
It’s not polite to dodge Karl’s question. Be a nice man and open your fist.
My last post was addressed to James Canning.
James Canning, you asked: “Do you think Iran made a good move when it offered to cease production of 20% U?”
(a minor addition to your question: Iran offered to cease on condition that it was guaranteed supply of the fuel)
All in all, yes. Mainly because it exposed US duplicity. In fact it was an ingenious tactic.
However, only the Iranian planers could best answer whether it was a good move economically (ie if buying from the US is really more efficient than producing the fuel domestically).
According to Ahmadinejad (if I remember correctly) Iran preferred to buy the fuel rather than produce it locally.
If the US had accepted the offer then Iran would have “won” (economically and politically). If the US renegaded on the deal, Iran would have “won” (politically but not economically).
Kind of obvious that Obama panicked. Really.
Re my previous questions
http://www.raceforiran.com/the-iraqization-of-americas-iran-debate-mohammad-javad-larijani-and-the-mainstream-media#comment-62757
TheDonkeyInTheWell says:
November 23, 2011 at 4:55 am
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.
“I think Gaddafi’s own blunders brought him ruin. And I think he had concluded that trying to build nukes etc was too dangerous.”
- No doubt he was a moron. But you cannot dissuade suspicions of many statesmen now that this was planned by the West all along and perhaps if his actual WMD capabilities were more ambiguous we wouldn’t see such adventurism from the West.
- Gaddafi gave up trying to build nukes because he did not have the capacity to do so. Period. So in return for concessions on his nuclear program, which weren’t concessions at all, he thought he received something substantial in return; normalization of relations with the West. He was wrong.
“If Saudi Arabia had nukes, and became seriously unstable, that obviously would not be a good thing.”
- Fear mongering nonsense. Saudi Arabia does NOT have the scientific technical capacity to build nukes. They can’t even run Saudi Aramco without foreign assistance.
James you always make it sound as if one could snap his fingers and have nukes in their possession.
James Canning says:
December 5, 2011 at 7:08 pm
“Perhaps you will define a “person of significance”? You claimed no one of any signficance cares what Saudi Arabia thinks about any given issue. And you are talking about a country that buys scores of billions of dollars of weapons.”
James, where is the section in Louvre, the MET, or Tate that once in a while has showing of Saudi art/cultural treasures? I have traveled lots, and am yet to come across even a Saudi restaurant.
They buy arms because if they didn’t they won’t be propped up. If they’re not propped up they will be toast. When you have no choice, then your opinions are, well lets say they are interesting.
James, this last time I confront you with this. People ask you what is your BBEF because you keep on keeping on raising 20% U non-issue without so much as a single article in the MSM even, and then your response:
“Are you suggesting I’m not a vegetarian?”
Well, no. I am suggesting you’re a vegetable.
James:
Again, dont try to run from the questions.
“Have you considered I might know things that are not readily available on the internet or that cannot be linked?”
Finally! Where are this information available then? Provide sources.
Empty,
Please identify the “illegitimate offspring” of the US and the EU (and Canada) that you see in the Middle East?
Karl,
Karl thinks Saudi Arabia is not concerned about Iran’s enriching to 20%. True or false?
“game” rather
Empty,
I would like to see the US largely out of the Middle East. Yes, this is one of my hopes, but not something I expect to see soon.
James:
Dont ignore my question.
“Have you considered I might know things that are not readily available on the internet or that cannot be linked?”
Finally! Where are this information available then? Provide sources.
James Canning,
RE: Are you actually claiming I cannot provide support, available online, to support my statement that the Saudis are deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme – – especially about enriching to 20%?
You know the came “truth or dare”? Consider this challenge “truth and dare”. بسم الله.
Empty,
Zero threat. I ask what might happen if Pakistan comes unglued.
Empty,
I get the idea you would enjoy seeing Iran frighten Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, etc etc? Some of the richest countries on the planet.
James Canning,
RE: But would you compare those events to the catastrophe that would result if a “loose nuke” were exploded in a major Iranian city?
Again, is that an inside information or a threat?
RE: Surely the way forward is to get all nukes out of Middle East.
Yes. Let’s get the US-UK-NATO and their illegitimate offspring out of the region. How can we help you do that?
Empty,
Are you actually claiming I cannot provide support, available online, to support my statement that the Saudis are deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme – - especially about enriching to 20%?
You are aware, I assume, that 20% can be a way-station to 95% U.
BiBiJon,
Perhaps you will define a “person of significance”? You claimed no one of any signficance cares what Saudi Arabia thinks about any given issue. And you are talking about a country that buys scores of billions of dollars of weapons.
James Canning,
RE: “Have you considered I might know things that are not readily available on the internet or that cannot be linked?”
After being cornered, you pull a “Sassan”?
Empty,
Yes, serious health issues stem from events you outline. But would you compare those events to the catastrophe that would result if a “loose nuke” were exploded in a major Iranian city?
Surely the way forward is to get all nukes out of Middle East.
James, and Karl,
Sorry to butt in. Could not help responding to “I am curious if you actually doubt Saudi Arabia’s deep concern about Iranian production of 20% U.”
I for one, hugely doubt that the Saudi’s are concerned about 20% U. I further doubt that there is any basis for such concern. I also, strongly doubt that anyone of any significance gives a rat’s arse what Saudi’s think. Folks are just happy the Saudis finally reduced their funding of madrasahs in Pakistan preaching deathly hatred of infidels to young kids.
So, James, show us your private stash of documents proving my doubts baseless. Or, else admit, YOU are personally aggrieved by 20% U, and pretending to have support for your opinion from Saudis.
A little bit of honesty will go a long way. Come on, spill the beans. What is YOUR beef?
Nasser,
I think Gaddafi’s own blunders brought him ruin. And I think he had concluded that trying to build nukes etc was too dangerous.
Gaddafi should have turned power over to Saif al-Islam, last year or even earlier. He might well have avoided the events of this past year.
If Saudi Arabia had nukes, and became seriously unstable, that obviously would not be a good thing.
James Canning,
RE: I think Iran faces more danger from potentially “loose nukes” in Pakistan, than it does from US, Britain, France. Zero chance, practically speaking, of use of nukes by them on first-strike basis.
1. Logically, who is more likely to engage in a given behavior: someone who has never behaved in that manner or someone who has an established pattern?
2. Define “tactical nuclear weapon” and list the countries who have used it.
3. Is Britain a NATO member?
A. NATO aircraft rained more than 30,000 DU shells on Kosovo during the 11-week air campaign. About 10 tons of the debris were scattered across Kosovo.
B. The used amount of radioactive atoms of DU weapons dispersed into environment in the real wars was far beyond that of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is estimated that in the First Gulf War, 320 to 800 tons of DU were used, scattering indeed 14,000 to 36,000 times more radiation than in Hiroshima. In the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least 500 tons of DU shells were said to be dropped.
C. while most of the radiation released by the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had very short half-life periods, DU has an extremely long half-life of 4.5 billion
years. Dose amount of DU will last in the same level of as ever even after tens of
thousands years. Residents in the DU-affected area will have to live forever, for
generations to generations, under threat of radiation.
D. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. To date, a total of 2,000 tons have been generated in the Middle East. In contrast, approximately 250,000 lives were claimed by the explosions and radiation released by the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
E. Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased by seven times. More than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict.
[Multiple sources used.]
So, James Canning, are you suggesting that Pakistan is more frightening to Iran than the US, UK, and NATO? Based on what logic?
James Canning: December 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I am not being facetious when I say I actually do agree that possession of nuclear weapons is potentially dangerous to the country possessing them. But look at how Col. Gaddafi ended up.
Now many statesmen might draw the conclusion as I do that it would be even more dangerous not to have them. The Western powers have created a Geopolitical climate where it would be irresponsible for independent powers not to possess nuclear weapons to guarantee non intervention in their affairs.
Also I think the dangers of loose nukes from Pakistan or the danger of such nukes falling into terrorist hands have been greatly exaggerated.
The greatest danger Iran faces is potential aerial bombardment of their country akin to Desert Storm.
James:
“Have you considered I might know things that are not readily available on the internet or that cannot be linked?”
Finally! Where are this information available then? Provide sources.
fyi: December 5, 2011 at 4:41 pm
You say that the concern for nuclear proliferation was/is just a pretext. I do agree with that.
Do you think this is partly because the West doesn’t have enough respect for Iran’s technical ability that they find it implausible that Iran can field credible deliverable nuclear weapons in the near future? I refer you to the earlier I link I posted regarding Iran’s ballistic missiles capability.
What do you think of Mr. Khamenei’s statements regarding Iran’s stance towards nuclear weapons?
Karl,
Have you considered I might know things that are not readily available on the internet or that cannot be linked?
I am curious if you actually doubt Saudi Arabia’s deep concern about Iranian production of 20% U.
Nasser,
I think the primary danger from nuclear weapons, as practical matter, comes from “loose nukes”. After collapse of USSR, there were a number of rather scary incidents etc concerning nukes stored in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
US has had its own frightening moments, with its own nukes.
Col. Gaddafi noted that nukes are dangerous for the country that has them.
I think Iran faces more danger from potentially “loose nukes” in Pakistan, than it does from US, Britain, France. Zero chance, practically speaking, of use of nukes by them on first-strike basis.
Soviet Union achieved its own demise, partly by blundering into Afghanistan. Huge losses to morale etc in that country were suffered, and having piles of nukes did no good whatever.
James:
“I am trying to establish if you contend that Saudi Arabia is not strenuously opposed to Iran’s enriching of U to 20%. Simple question.”
Why do you keep ignoring my question?
Herman Cain is out of the quest for Republican nomination for president. on Nov. 2nd, CBS News reported that Cain said China was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Apparently he was unaware China has had nukes for decades.
James Canning,
Are you arguing that nuclear weapons doesn’t increase a country’s security or prevents foreign intervention? There has NEVER been a large scaled military conflict between two nuclear armed states.
James Canning says: December 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Endless nuclear proliferation is now inevitable.
After the war against Yugoslavia, use of WMD against Iran, the Pakistan & Indian Proliferation, the War against Iraq (2003), and constant threats against Iran there is no strategic scope left for non-proliferation.
You cannot go and keep on fighting wars of choice – under any number of guises for Middle Class people – and not to expect a reaction.
James Canning,
Would you provide a historical example from the past 200 years (any example you believe to be fit) when there is a cordial, mutually respectful, and equal relationship between Iran and England? Specify the period (it doesn’t matter how brief, just an example).
@Squire James Canning,
Squire James, please read James Hibb at armscontrolwonk and tell us what your thoughts are, as even he says the problem is NOT IRans nuclear programme (be it 3.5% or 20%) but regime change:
http://hibbs.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/500/who-wants-diplomacy-on-iran
Please dont ignore my request as you failed to reply to my earlier post.
Also, watch Empire on Al Jazeera which was on today about Irans nuclear programme. Maybe Squire can inform V-Hague that what the Persian Gulf and wider ME needs is a new inclusive security architecture that meets Irans legitimate security concerns instead of threathening them (prof. Adib-moghaddem says this).
Ta esquire!
BiBiJon says: December 5, 2011 at 5:51 pm
For the Europeans to send armies to Iran, they need ships.
Their ships need to be in Persian Gulf.
Once they are there; they are targets.
In regards to missiles; you need hardened silos and hidden fortresses so that they can be continusoulsy fired.
I cannot answer your question regarding size of munitions etc.
That is specialized knowledge and I do not have air-war expertise.
Iranians do not have to attack oil installations even.
All they need to do is to cause enough damage for maritime insurance rates to go up to affect shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Posession of nuclear weapons in fact prevented the wars among the antagonists that you mentioned to escalate to the point of state-destruction.
The lethality of those wars were therefore contained.
Tehran is a great nuclear target with the moutains reflecting the shockwave and heat of a nuclear blast – just like Seoul.
That threat has to be taken into account by Iranian planners, I should imagine.
If Iranians had a credible nuclear deterrence, there would have been no threat against them – certainly no journalisc threats.
These are the wages of weakness; material, technological, scientific, intellectual etc.
All throughout the Cold War, the Russians were selling gas to Europe while Americans were selling them grain.
The Europeans, in my opinion, suffer from two things:
50% think that they are morally superior to the rest of mankind – you can easily sense it among the European tourists and travellers in Iran.
The other thing is that very many European are very very uncomfortable with religious government. And they consider everyone who was out last night for Imam Hussein a damn benighted fool.
Nasser,
As FYI observed just today, the US threatened the Soviet Union in 1973, regarding intervention in the Sinai on behalf of Egypt. USSR obviously had many nukes at the time.
fyi,
Chances of Nato military intervention in Syria are quite low.
Iraq, Lebanon and Iran will be trying to help the Syrian government carry out financial dealings, some imports and exports, etc.
James Canning: December 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I am not sure I understand your question. I said that US or France or UK cannot seriously militarily threaten countries with credible nuclear weapons. They only pick on defenseless countries.
In my conversation with fyi I wondered if Iranian leaders and leaders of other independent powers are coming to that conclusion. I think there has been a serious reluctance on their parts to admit this but recent Western and particularly US actions might have driven this home for them. I have always wondered if this technology is 60+ yrs old why don’t more countries go for it; especially those like Iran that are under constant threat.
James Canning says: December 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Iranians could protect Syria from NATO military intervention.
Twenty years after the collapse of USSR and the Axis Powers haev brought us to the point that we – on the undeveloped side of the world – have to take action from their wars of choice against US.
Damn them all to Hell.
fyi says:
December 5, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“Iranians do not have munitions that could be replacement for nuclear weapns.
US has special categories of weapons – based on Internet resources – that obviates the need for (tactical – as far I can guess) nuclear weapons.”
fyi, again thanks, and again sorry to bother you with follow ups.
Agreed on the capacity of munitions. But size of a munition has to correspond to the size of the target. True if Iran aimed to wipe out a city, then it would not be doable. But if Iran wanted to lob a missile or two on a daily basis at some oil production facility of an ally of an aggressor, then what size munition would she need?
Possession of nukes did not deter US, Russia or China from engaing one another in a very costly, bloody and deadly embrace in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (1980s), etc. I do not follow the logic that if Iran had nukes in the low 10s and could reliably target European capitals, that that somehow would deter Europeans from acting out their visceral hostility towards Iran.
Lets say today, do you think Paris would calibrate their rhetoric, and be more delicate with their pronouncements of collective punishment on Iranians if Iran had nukes? Given US/Russia/China example above, isn’t your argument rather ahistorical?
fyi,
You appear to have evolved into a proponent of endless nuclear weapons proliferation. A surer way to bring about the ultimate catastrophe is hard to picture.
fyi,
There may well be some logic in looking to Iran for political inspiration, to some degree, but one must wonder whether Sunni Arabs are likely to do so.
fyi,
Explain how nuclear weapons could enable Iran to support the government of Syria, when that government is almost entirely threatened from within?
Nasser,
Are you actually claiming that the weapons of the US do not offer a credible military strike capability, in absence of nukes?
fyi,
I continually find myself surprised to read a statement from you that in effect says fears of consequences of an Iranian bomb has little to do with the dispute between Iran and the US. And you have a fixation on the notion of “master” and “servant” as applying to the strategic situation.
I think Iran can be vigorously hostile toward Israel, and not suffer any attack from the US, or even fear such attack, provided the vigorous hostility toward Israel consists of words and not a direct attack on Israel by ballistic missiles. In absence of programme to build nukes.
Humanist says:
December 5, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Coming from you, it is praise indeed. Thank YOU for taking the time.
fyi,
Nixon did not want Soviet Union intervening in the Sinai on behalf of Egypt, during 1973 Arab-Israel war. Nixon should have forced Israel out of the Sinai and avoided the war.
Karl,
I am trying to establish if you contend that Saudi Arabia is not strenuously opposed to Iran’s enriching of U to 20%. Simple question.
The Western Zionist poodles held a conference on Afghanistan in Bonn on Monday which was boycotted by Taliban and their old ally, Pakistan. Both Ben-Obama and Israel-Firster Hillary Clinton had asked Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardar to attend the conference. However, after NATO’s killing 26 Pakistani soldiers last month, Zardari could not dare to accept the invitation.
Representatives from several dozen countries attended the conference. However, to a great shock to Israel, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi attended the conference on Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s invitation. He pledged Iran’s financial support for Afghanistan. But he denounced the proposal that some western troops may remain in Afghanistan after US-NATO withdrawal in 2014. Tehran has already donated $600 million to Afghanistan for various reconstruction projects.
Hamid Karzai demanded a bribe of $10 billion per year for the next ten years to look after western interests in the region.
“The Afghan people do not wish to be a burden for a single day longer than is absolutely necessary,” he said. “But to make our success certain and our progress irreversible, we will need your steadfast support for at least another decade.”
Hillary Clinton in her speech indicated that Karzai’s demand was a “bargain“.
“The United States and our international partners must remain committed to training, advising, an assisting Afghan forces, even as we continue to go after those who are unwilling to end the conflict or who are engaging in acts of terrorism,” she said.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/bonn-conference-on-afghanistan-without-taliban/
James:
“You missed the point of my question. Do you claim Saudi Arabia is not strenuously
opposed to Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%?”
You have not responded to my question.
Nasser says: December 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I do not disagree with that analysis.
But Anmericans also are Champions of Jews; they put their nuclear forces on the state of alert in 1973.
A war between Iran and US is not desirable for either Iran or for US.
But if that were understood by US leaders and planners, why are they behaving the way they do?
Nasser says: December 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I do not think they are willing to do much.
They do not have the manpower to occupy other states.
40% of US Army and Marines armored mechanized assets were in Iraq at one time.
Do you think US could occupy Iran? Or South Africa? Or Brazil?
I really do not believe that non-proliferation was their main concern; as they lost in Iraq their belligerence against Iran increased.
If non-proliferation were their concern, US could make a deal with Iran:
US will supply nuclear fuel for Iran in perpetuity – giving up a Sovereign Right.
Iran, in turn, would give up the sovereign right of enriching uranium.
Nuclear proliferation was never the issue, in my opinion.
Look at the latest issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: now they are picking on Iran’s supposed biological weapons capabilities.
The late Mr. Mussolini once stated that there are 2 kinds of countries” Master and Servant.
That is the US-EU problem with Iran – Iranains do not want to be “nowkar”.
I think I had posted this in the past. A re-run every once in a while might be okay.
“The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and think and reflect too seldom.
We have multiplied our material possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life; we’ve added years to life, not life to years.
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We’ve conquered outer space, but not inner space; we’ve done larger things, but not better things.
We’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We write more, but learn less; we plan more, but accomplish less. We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait; we have higher incomes, but lower ethics; we have more food yet more hunger and less appeasement; we build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication; we’ve become long on quantity, but short on quality.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall people, and short characters; steep profits, and shallow relationships. These are the times of wars and domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw away relationships, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom.”
–By Someone
fyi: December 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm
George Friedman of Stratfor has predicted that no attack on Iran is likely to occur because of Iran’s capacity to disrupt energy supplies and shipping (even temporarily) in the Persian Gulf. However, the creation of crude nuclear devices (not weapons) without credible delivery means; ala North Korea could actually precipitate an attack.
Do you disagree with this analysis?
I think the Iranians share this viewpoint. There is no evidence that they have genuinely committed to acquisition of nuclear weapons. Though I agree with you that it would be irresponsible for them (and other independent powers) not to do so in order to ensure the viability and survival of their state. Western powers really have pinned em against a corner.
I suppose I am asking how much violence do you suppose western powers are willing to inflict or endure to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons and keep their monopoly on credible violence.
So many times when I read fyi’s answers to some questions, his rather unique method of reasoning has a familiar ring to it for me. After much digging, I finally found out why. Here is a health questionnaire from back when….for your enjoyment, fyi.
+++++++++++++
Health Questionnaire
Q: I’ve heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true?
A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that’s it….don’t waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that’s like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of vegetable slop.
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have a body, and you have body fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular Exercise program?
A: Can’t think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain…..Good.
Q: Aren’t fried foods bad for you?
A: You’re not listening. Foods are fried these days in vegetable
oil. In fact, they’re permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?
Q: What’s the secret to healthy eating?
A: Thicker gravy.
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy? Hello….. Cocoa beans… Another vegetable!!! “It’s the best feel good food around!”
Well I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets. Have a cookie… flour is a veggie!
One more thing … “When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and salt.”
+++++++++++++++
BiBiJon says: December 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Iranians do not have munitions that could be replacement for nuclear weapns.
US has special categories of weapons – based on Internet resources – that obviates the need for (tactical – as far I can guess) nuclear weapons.
BiBiJon,
I was browsing bibijon.org. As someone who intensely appreciates the good parts of the Iranian culture I thank you for having such an interesting blog.
I hope you keep on expanding it. I learned quite a few things just by browsing it for a relatively short time.
fyi,
Thanks for that response, I have a follow up question.
“Really, do you think if Iran had the capacity to bomb EU capitals, they would be making these threats?”
If Iran had the ‘conventional’ capacity to destroy, and keep destroying targets in The Persian Gulf, would that also count as a deterrent? Indeed, is that exactly what is deterring people?
How do nukes in the ‘low 10s’ compare to the not-so-hypothetical ‘conventional’ deterrence scenario above?
All,
Please watch Al Jazeera,s Empire, which is on now about Irans nuclear problem. It has Prof Adib-Moghaddam, Dilip Hiro and others on it.
Also fyi – thank you for your answer. Its appreciated.
Congratulation Iran for jamming the drone, this will save countless lives and make future wars using “superior” air power a distinct past. My experience especially with The Institute of Geophysics, affiliated with the University of Tehran and the intellectual people working on seismic projects 27 years plus years ago says I am not surprised. I have mentioned in my previous post about drones falling of the sky in Somalia remember. The Ninth wave is still in focus. Iran is safe as of now.
BiBiJon says: December 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Iranians will need no more than low 10s.
Even UK does not have that many.
But besides the actual weapons and the means to deliver them, Iranian must build hardened communication, command, and control systems that are highly redundant and survivable.
They also must develop a nuclear doctrine and make it known to others.
The strategic aim os to deter attack on Iran or intimidation of Iran through CBW attacks as well as Nuclear attacks.
It also gives Iran the ability to protect her allies in Iraq, Syria, Afghanisatn, and Lebanon.
Tactically, the idea of surgical strikes etc. will be put to rest.
Two things are behind such considerations:
1- CW attacks on Iran during Iraq-Iraq War.
2- Nuclear tests of India and Pakistan in 1998
Iran must be able to ensure that she is left alone to concentrate on her development and her allies.
Threats to Iran come from countries whose human development index in less than 10.
This is just a game for them – they will kill a few tens of thousands of Iranians and then will go back and feel sorry for themselves; shell-shock (PTSD) etc.
US-EU Axis are making sure that every state wishing to puruse her own interests concentrate on nuclearization.
Really, do you think if Iran had the capacity to bomb EU capitals, they would be making these threats?
Power is devolving from US, EU, and Russia to the rest of the world.
You have to be ready for the much more dangerous world that is being born.
fyi,
Can you expound on how possession of nuclear weapons will help Iran? If you would, quantify your answer with:
a few bombs will achieve this
a dozen bombs will achieve that
30-40 bombs will achieve the other …
James Canning says: December 5, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I am not suggesting that they (Sunni Muslims) mindlessly follow Iran.
I am suggesting that it will be a good idea for their thinkers to think things through and apply Reason to both Revelations and the Historical Moment.
Be that they follow Iran, it could help them a lot.
But they cannot, even if they wanted to.
You see, there is nothing like the 200-year old Shia Doctrine of Ijtihad in Sunni Islam.
Just ask a Sunni Doctor of Religion how the blood money of a non-Muslim could be equlaized with that of a Muslim.
James Canning says:
December 5, 2011 at 1:48 pm
What I wrote:
———–
“What I find hilarious is the claim that UK’s hair is on fire because of some alleged Saudi concern about such and such. Please give us a break! Since when does a 1000 year old democracy with an imperial past where the ‘Sun never set’, and who has contributed as much to humanity as she has plundered it …. would look to a 60 year old state so artificial that she is named after a family?
It hasn’t escaped my notice that major powers (US/China/Russia), and emerging economies, are playing a high-stakes geostrategic game, of which middle east is only one part. I am certain, once the dust settles, the new world order will have absolutely nothing to do with Saudi efforts, or wishes. If the final settlement is no more KSA, then poof she disappears from the page of time, no great shakes, hardly anyone will notice if artificial countries of the middle east had their borders completely redrawn every 60 years or so.”
What you ask:
———-
“What countries in your opinion, in the Middle East, are “artificial”? Which ones in your view should have their borders re-drawn?”
Should be? Who said should be? I know this is your typical style injecting a far-fetched, random meaning into what had been said, that people interested in a genuine discussion would not.
Borders get redrawn all the time. Entire new states get created all the time. So, obviously ‘things’ happen.
Other than Egypt, Syria, Iran and Turkey which country in the middle east is depicted on any map older than 3 OR 4 generations? Should they be changed? I don’t think so. Is there any guarantee that they won’t? No. Would the historical/cultural/political fabric of humanity be shredded if god forbid Kuwait ceased to be an independent country? In the scheme of things, such a dissolution will have less significance than your average fortune 500 company mergers, spin offs, etc.
James Canning says:
December 5, 2011 at 1:45 pm
And, you write:
————–
“Are you not aware that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have backed or supported the demonstrators etc in Syria? You claimed they were trying to “reverse” the Arab Spring.”
According to you the shamelessly repressive, utterly unelected, and totally unrepresentative despotic regime currently propped up by the West to brutally rule KSA, together with Qatar is busy supporting democratic aspirations of the Syrian street?
Are you aware you have a screw loose?
James Canning says: December 5, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Japan is a restricted representative syetm.
Rule of Law is also weak -
I recommend superb article by Todd Purdum in January 2012 Vanity Fair Magazine (“One Nation Under Arms”). Purdum gets at the heart of the corrupting of the Republic being achieved by “defence” contractors and their numerous stooges in the US Congress, the tens of thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, etc. in Washington and across the country, etc.
Karl,
You missed the point of my question. Do you claim Saudi Arabia is not strenuously opposed to Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%?
Glenn Greenwald has good comments about the vicious propaganda campaign being waged against Iran.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/04/george_orwell_on_the_evil_iranians/?source=newsletter
fyi,
What is your assessment of democracy as observed in Japan?
I think there is a “gut instinct” on part of Sunni Arab Muslims not to follow a model presented by Shia Iran.
But I can remember that, decades ago in the US, some Roman Catholic priests and nuns would do what they could to discourage young Roman Catholics from mingling socially with non-Catholics.
James Canning says: December 5, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Someone or some thinkers must describe how the alien notions of representative government, personal liberty, freedom (of political speech/organization etc) and rigths of individual as an autonomous moral agent (so Endowed by God) are to be reconciled with Islam.
The late Mr. Khomeini had his answers: Ijtihad, Islamic Republic, State Expediency, Melliyat, Vali-e Faqih.
This was a Shia response that broke with a 1000 years of Muslim intellectual history.
I would like to see an equivalent Sunni response.
Without it, there is no chance for durable reform in Muslim polities.
As for why Tureky is not a model, I explained my view here to Irshad when he asked me.
[The first time that the word "democratic" was used in a print publication in Europe was in the early 17-th century in a Dutch publication - "Demokraten". From there until the late John Locke's "First Treaties on Government" more than 50 years had elapsed and another 120 years before the creation of the Constitution of the United States.
During this 200 years, the European thinkers were actually thinking and laboring to address very many conceptual issues having to do with representative governance and the rule of law.
I do not see anything like that among Muslim thinker.
There is Khomeini and then there are all his detractors who are lazily positing the European models as being normative.]
James:
“Why are you so reluctant to say whether you believe Saudi Arabia does, or does not, strenuously object to Iran’s enriching to 20%?”
Because that what you have claimed numeorus of times.
Raad,
On the previoius thread you said Saudi Arabia does not want Israel out of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. This is an amazing contention.
What do you think the Saudis should do to force Israel out of the occupied territories?
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
I haven’t located your question you referred to today. Please pose it again if you do not mind.
fyi,
You do not see a certain affinity for Arab countries toward Turkey, simply because of shared history and Sunni religion?
fyi,
The German Empire had as many Roman Catholics as Protestants. Being German culturally did not mean a person was one or the other.
Belgium split from The Netherlands on religious grounds. But the state was half Dutch-speaking and half French-speaking.
BiBiJon,
What countries in your opinion, in the Middle East, are “artificial”? Which ones in your view should have their borders re-drawn?
BiBiJon,
Are you not aware that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have backed or supported the demonstrators etc in Syria? You claimed they were trying to “reverse” the Arab Spring.
James Canning says: December 5, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Not so.
The definition of citizenship in Turkey is based on European models that were based on the creation of essentially mono-lingual, monom-cultural, and mono-religious states.
One could look at WWII as the final effort by European states to eliminate the last vestiges of the “Alien” Jewish presence.
That is why Kurds/Pontic Greeks/Armenians were considered aliens reiligion/culture/language was different than that of the “Turkish” Nation.
This has also been in Iraq under the Ba’ath and Syria.
Now we come to the pattern:
Turkey: massacared Armenians, massacared Kurds, expelled Potic Greeks, waged many wars of agression during the last 150 years
Turkey is supposed to be the role model for the Arabs who themselves expelled Arab Jews and others.
While – Iran – the country that:
saved very many of the Aremnians in 1905 from deathm, rapine etc.,
that saved its former citizens of Jewish descent from death during WWII,
that was host of the Polish refugees during WWII,
that accepted the largest number of refuggess (both in absolute and relative terms) during the last 33 years,
which did not expel anyone based on ethno-linguistic background,
which has not waged a war of agression in 150 years
is supposed to be dismissed as being an inapplicable model to other Muslim states.
Iran-e Mazloom!
Arnold,
Your Dec. 3 5:29pm post linked Tom Friedman’s Feb. 17, 2002 NYT piece touching on 2002 Saudi peace plan. I had said the moron in the White House failed to endorse that plan. My statement was correct: G W Bush failed to endorse the 2002 Saudi peace plan.
TheDonkeyInTheWell,
Do you think Iran made a good move when it offered to cease production of 20% U?
Karl,
Why are you so reluctant to say whether you believe Saudi Arabia does, or does not, strenuously object to Iran’s enriching to 20%?
fyi,
Yes, of course, a person who is an “Iranian” may also be Armenian, or Jewish, or Persian, or Arab, or Azeri. Etc.
A person who is a Turk, by virtue of being a citizen of Turkey, can also be a Kurd, or an Armenian, or an Arab. Etc.
Do Jews live with ‘animal fear in Muslim states’?
On December 2, 2011 – Russian Pravda published an article by Yuri Sosinsky-Semikhat, entitled Animal fear of Jews in Arab states, which looks like a page from Israeli ‘Hasbara Handbook’……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/do-jews-live-with-animal-fear-in-muslim-states/
My dear Mr James Canning, have I in some way done you wrong? If you feel that I’m guilty of such a crime, then I must assure you that it is the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding and quite the exact opposite of my humble and utmost sincere intentions.
I can only presume that this is the situation between us as you overlooked, perhaps accidentally in your haste, my last comment (in the post preceding this one). And now I see that you direct your grievance to fyi although I was the one responsible for the statement of uk being a pretty cool guy, not afraid of anything, but 20% Iranium.
(If my statement in any imaginable way could be taken as attributed to fyi then I must convey my earnest apologies to fyi as this was not any attempt of me to associate you with such a ridiculous and rubbish statement)
If you would please reply to my last comment addressed to you Mr James Canning, I’d be more than happy to explain why the uk is so awesome!
So where were we fyi.
Although you’re back in Iran once again, I do see you point now.
Yes, I doubt you’d find a head of police in the west that would openly state that a new rule will be enforced without political backing (“legislation”).
However, things work a little differently in the west. There will be no such declaration. The head of police would eg arrest those men on the basis that they’ve broken some other law. You also have the “interpretation” of laws and ordnances. You’d be quite surprise how creative bureaucrats can be.
You implied there is a Muslim envy behind the problems in Iran. What on earth makes you think that the “Jante law” or western tradition of exceptionalism (all the way back to Aristotle and his “barbarians”), racism and violence (from Greece and Rome to Iraq) isn’t somehow affecting the “rule of law” in the west?
This brings us to your degrees. How are these degrees determined? Must you not first be aware of the problems in order to determine their quality?
If someone disappears or is wrongfully imprisoned in the west, how many people would care?
Assange is an excellent example. This is without doubt a political trial. Now, if Assange wasn’t famous, or just an ordinary citizen turning to the courts to plead his case of being innocent, who would have cared? Most people would probably not even have noticed. The news would have no reason to report it. However, if he was in a non-western country he would be hailed as a hero for standing in the face of injustice and evil (and someone would cite him as an example of the lack of rule of law). In the west he would at best simply be dismissed as a “querulant” person (http:// wikipedia.org/wiki/Querulant).
But even the qualitative determination is a problem. Your usage of “degrees” implies that this is a rather vague transition. Eg
- Who/How is it determined that unjust laws or the lack of just laws in a country are better or worse than another country. (eg do all Muslims agree with your feelings on the veil?)
- Who/How do you not only measure but also value legal systems in relation to each other in time and space?
The problem here is simply that it becomes far too subjective.
You said this:
“You have no recourse, there is no legal authority to whom you can complain about this type of arbitrariness.
Those who want to run a business in Iran can cite even more such cases of arbitrary regulations and really mean-spirited regulation designed and enforced to humiliate a man who is trying to make a living.”
The thing here is fyi, that the exact same can be said about certain western countries –and undoubtedly all of them if one cares to looks into matters–but as I mentioned above, things work a little bit differently here.
The law in the west states that it protects your work, home, and family. So when you are wrongly accused of being a bad worker in order to take your job away from you, or a bad tenant in order to take your home away from you, or a bad parent in order to take your children away from you–all in accordance to the law, with all the “recourses” available–which is more humiliating? In Iran at least everybody knows you’re innocent. In the west, you’ll be another homeless “loser” in the streets.
I’ll tell you this much, it’s unbelievably hard to prove injustice when the courts fabricate the court documents and protocols.
I dare to say that you, like most foreigners, and sadly many westerners, still haven’t understood how the “law” works in the west. The bad/good news is now that more and more people lose their jobs, and become frustrated as they join the lower ranks of their social order, they’ll experience firsthand the “rule of law” as it steamrolls over them.
Now, let’s for the sake of argument say that the problem is not as “wide spread” as Iran (I’ll defer that to our visitors from Iran to comment), but the point I’m trying to make is this.
How many people in a society have to be abused before “the rule of law” can be deprecated? 50? 100? 100 000? 6 000 000? Or must they be of a specific group? Muslims? European? Jews? Africans? Or is it enough that you must personally know them before their troubles become of “relevance” in order to constitute that “degree” in difference?
I’m sorry but the examples I’ve cited are far too serious to allow a country to call itself a nation that is ruled by law. The use of the phrase “rule of law” is thus nothing more than a slogan, like “democracy” and “human rights”, used to imply some universal expectation of a state (all states must have them), but the same time relative (oh, yes there are problems in the US/UK/Scandinavia, but oh well they’re still better than looser country X), but then again absolute (forcing women to wear veil is wrong and unjust, allowing partying and owning satellite dishes is right).
If people believe they live in a state of rule of law then there is no reason for them to change things as they are.
I’ll have to end it here. I apologize if you feel I’ve still haven’t understood your position.
James Canning says: December 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm
In Iran, Armenians are considered Armenian Iranians.
But who is Iranian: any one with Iranian citizenship.
But there is no ethnic group called “Iranian” nor is there an “Iranian” lanaguage.
There is Persian ethnic group whose language has been the official language of the states over the last millenia.
There is nothing like what obtains in Turkey or in Syrian ARAB Republic.
“Fear of Iran? It is not fear of Iran, it is hostility towards Iran that drives Western policy.” Jonathon Steele of the Guardian
http://rt.com/news/syria-assad-west-steele-053/
Also for your attention:
Dan Hodges described as “a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest” writes about the ‘peace movement’, and refers to the traction Mehdi Hasan’s piece in the Guardian a couple weeks ago has garnered in the attack Iran debate. Hasan argued that “If you lived in Iran wouldn’t you want the bomb?”
,http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100121665/iran-why-we-need-a-start-the-war-coalition/
I repeat my request for the resident commentators to help me understand what it is Iran is supposed to do with a clutch of nuclear weapons, that it could not do with hundreds of conventional missiles?
Notice how the corporatized/owned/corrupt media are now hyping claims of election fraud in Russia. No doubt there was election fraud, but the larger pattern is impossible to miss: the media hype such claims of fraud wherever there is a regime that the US wants to pressure or overthrow.
Sakineh Bagoom says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Further to:
Missing 20% frontal lobe can be replaced with a rat’s arse. But, does anyone give any?
===================================================================================
Yes, yes, and yes. The distinctly shaky sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf are awash with money, and are spending lavishly on a counter revolution to reverse the Arab Spring. The only reason that they ahven’t been ordered to do so, is because the shaky sheikdoms’ butler mentality is so attuned to the master’s wishes that ‘orders’ are not necessary. The political cover is the manufactured bogeyman: Iran. Combined, let alone individually, these shaky sheikdoms have inverse proportion of money as they do credibility.
What I find hilarious is the claim that UK’s hair is on fire because of some alleged Saudi concern about such and such. Please give us a break! Since when does a 1000 year old democracy with an imperial past where the ‘Sun never set’, and who has contributed as much to humanity as she has plundered it …. would look to a 60 year old state so artificial that she is named after a family?
It hasn’t escaped my notice that major powers (US/China/Russia), and emerging economies, are playing a high-stakes geostrategic game, of which middle east is only one part. I am certain, once the dust settles, the new world order will have absolutely nothing to do with Saudi efforts, or wishes. If the final settlement is no more KSA, then poof she disappears from the page of time, no great shakes, hardly anyone will notice if artificial countries of the middle east had their borders completely redrawn every 60 years or so.
As to Iran’s isolation, it is a number’s game. For Iran, KSA may be a loss, but Argentina is an offsetting gain.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/us-iran-argentina-idUSTRE7B408T20111205
Following day-to-day news can be very distracting from grasping the more important bigger picture.
اولاًقرار نیست که همه چیز یکباره عوض شود ، قرار نیست انقلاب دیگری رخ دهد ، سخنی کارشناسانه است که میگویند یک نسل دو بار انقلاب نمی کند .
ناگفته نماند که از زمانی که آقای احمدی نژاد وارد صحنه سیاسی کشور در سطح ملی شده اند هر چند وقت یکبار یک انقلاب رخ میدهد! پیروزیشان در انتخابات ریاست جمهوری رایک انقلاب خواندند، نهم دیماه مجدداً یک انقلاب دیگری رخ داد ویک نشریه هم در حد و اندازه آن وبا همان نام منتشر میشود، در همین چند روز پیش هم با حمله به سفارت انگلیس انقلاب دیگری اتفاق افتاد!
از این قبیل انقلاب های یکبار مصرف اگر عبور کنیم، همانطور که در بالا عرض کردم قرار نیست انقلاب دیگری رخ دهد ما طرفدار اصلاحاتیم واصلاحات یک امر تدریجی است وصبر وحوصله وبردباری نیاز دارد،
مسئله اصلاحات فراتر از قضیه انتخابات است که چند نفر از اصلاح طلبان به مجلس بروند یا نروند، نه با رفتنشان به اصلاحات ضربه می خورد ونه با نرفتنشان اصلاحات به جلو میرود آنچه مسلم است اصلاح طلبان در انتخابات سال جاری مجلس با تابلوی اصلاح طلبی وارد نخواهند شد، این را همه مردم میدانند، حاکمیت هم همانطور که پیشتر نوشتم از اصلاح طلبان عبور کرده است واز حضور آنان در انتخابات استقبال نمیکند وحاکمیت هم اگر یک کار خوب در باره اصلاح طلبان کرده باشد همین است که راه را برای ورود اصلاح طلبان به چنین مجلسی بسته است، واما افراد مستقلی که به تفکر اصلاح طلبی باور دارند عرایض ما را هم شنیده ودیده اند وهم اوضاع کشور را می بینند وهم خطر هائی که کشور را تهدید می کند بهتر از من می دانند با همه این احوال اگر خود تصمیم بگیرند که در انتخابات شرکت کنند ما آنان را ملامت نمیکنیم ومخالفت نداریم .
مردم اما تا کنون نشان داده اند که از ما رشیدتر وهوشیارترند وبهتر از ما همه آنچه را که عرض کردم میدانند، آنان خود میدانند که با چنین انتخاباتی چگونه برخورد گنند .
آخرین نکته این که فرصت انتخاباتی برای کسانی که میخواهند وارد انتخابات شوند تمام شده است تأیید آیت الله جنتی وحتی اگر نامه فدایت شوم هم برای اصلاح طلبان بنویسند دیگر نتیجه ای ندارد چون فرصت تمام شده است . البته این تنها یک سوء ظنی بود از بنده در باره آیت الله جنتی والّا من میدانم که دامن آقای جنتی منزّه است از این که اصلاح طلبان را برای ورود به مجلس وحتی برای ورود به بهشت تآیید بفرمایند.
برای انبساط خاطر جناب جنتی ضرب المثل جدیدی شنیده ام که خدمت دائم الوجودشان عرض میکنم : ( دو چیز در این دنیا باقی میماند یکی نام نیک، ودیگر آیت الله جنتی).
Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities: A net assessment
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/irans-ballistic-missile-capabilities/launch/
It was obvious even before the Iran election that the US political establishment and media were working up to a huge election fraud hype campaign. This became even more shamelessly obvious when the hype began rolling out INSTANTLY the evening after the election. The whole thing was just so patently obvious, that there is simply no way to think that folks like Juan Cole and Jim Lobe just innocently got it wrong. They had to be in on the game.
Now I’m not saying that the Iran election wasn’t fraudulent. But there was no MORE reason to think it was fraudulent than there often is. To give a pretty direct example for comparison, there was a very real coup in Honduras at the same time as the supposed election coup in Iran that likely didn’t happen, and there was little to no media hype over that very real Honduran coup. Then Honduras had an election just a few months later that was clearly fraudulent, with only candidates who supported the coup allowed, and with widespread abstention demonstrating that the populace in Honduras did not accept the election, and yet Western political and media establishments almost uniformly praised the blatantly fraudulent Honduran election. That comparison made it very clear to anyone who cared to see it that the Iran election fraud hype was at best, highly insincere, if not mostly fake.
So we need to understand that there is great cynicism afoot when folks like Lobe and Cole jump on a hype bandwagon that is all too obviously rigged up.
As I see it, Mousavi, Rafsanjani, and other socalled moderates represent what could be called a pro-western wing of the Iran establishment. It has to be understood that “pro-western” here means that they want to collaborate with western political and commercial establishments. Put bluntly, they want a piece of the pie. These are basically the same HIGHLY BRUTAL AND CORRUPT people who ran Iran in the eighties and not only drenched the country in left wing blood, but also apparently collaborated with Mossad and the CIA. THEY ARE NOT NICE PEOPLE. And it’s quite ironic, sickeningly so, that the supposed ‘left’ in the West feels weepy and mushy about them; as I understand it, Moussavi had a field day crushing lefties, back in the day. He certainly wasn’t running a democracy back then.
And we can be quite sure that they are collaborating with the CIA and Mossad and other western entities right now. I believe that the Mousavi/Rafsanjani/’moderate’ faction is behind recent bombings in Iran. The US warplan for Iran is surely very similar to the warplan for Libya, only on a much larger scale. The plan, I believe, is for the ‘moderate’ party, which appears to be a minority in Iran, not a majority, to seize power, with the US suppressing opposition within the country, mostly from the air. They’ll probably try to fine tune this technique of war in Syria before they unload it on Iran.
Persian Advocate posted an interesting cooment on Richard Silverstein’s site, at
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/12/03/roger-cohens-appalling-endorsement-of-likudization-of-u-s-foreign-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-276096
This is the gist of it:
“Richard, a good level of scrutiny should be applied to anyone who supported the “Green Movement” that came to be known in Western media.
(1) The real Green Movement was led by Mir Hussein Moussavi, a figure of the establishment. It was the Leader that gave the confirm on showing the debates on TV before the election and allowing people to fill grandstands in accordance with their candidates’ colors or banners. This was an attempt by the Iranian government to reform from within.
(2) This outpouring of democracy was immediately seized by foreign powers as a quick means to orchestrate a succinct, but poignant campaign, to conflate the nuclear issue with the human rights issue in Iran, while creating momentum to overthrow the Iranian government against the will of the people.
(3) The people of Iran have been explicit along all sociopolitic strata: GTFO OF OUR BUSINESS.
(4) Iranians sit on trillions and trillions worth of various reserves and a highly crucial geostrategical terrain the size of UK, Germany, Spain and France so foreign powers will never listen to #3.
So, in furtherance of #2, the blitzkrieg was executed like a “shock and awe”. Green websites and rallies sprouted up internationally, all rooted to the same offices in Israel, Germany and the UK where the MEK has bases (perform HISTORICAL whois searches on a few and you will be able to get beyond their clumsy means of concealing themselves via common registrar anonymizers). “Dissenting Iranians” sprouted up everywhere on the internet that did not sound like Iranians to many people, including me. Lies were published and people believed them, but Iranians, even in the diaspora, did not. Eventually, this led to a self-invoked implosion of the Green Movement by Iranians at home and abroad.”
Is this analysis/experience shared by people on this board?
BiBiJon says:December 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Can someone (other than 20%-James) tell me where the hell does KSA fit into the scheme of things? I mean, if you defy the US, you’re going to worry about KSA?
OK, I’ll try to give it a shot. US is bankrupt and cannot spend any money on new initiatives (remember the hullabaloo over the cost of bombs over Libya?). This is not to say that she doesn’t have hardware that is already paid for. However this does not mean that she cannot spend her colonies money (KSA, and Qatar come to mind). KSA, Qatar are rich because of US protectorate-ship, so as to pay back their masters, they have to lube the gears of the empire, if you will. KSA buys hardware that she has no use for and will rust in the sand after a few years, but in doing so enriches the US defense contractors. KSA spends money to destabilize Syria because her master said so. Qatar on the other hand pays for Libya. On, and on and on and …
So, as the famous quote goes: “follow the money.”
Imran Khan – Can he save Pakistan from doom?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/imran-khan-can-he-save-pakistan-from-doom/
James Canning – You got to be joking. Saudi Arabia has been talking to Israel since 1948. Now, it’s preparing groundwork for USrael to attack Islamic Republic.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/israel-us-saudi-alliance-against-iran/
Up to 20% missing from a frontal lobe can be replaced easily with a rat’s arse
==========================================================================
“are you contending that the Saudis do not object strenuously to Iranian production of 20% U?”
What am I missing here? Iran insists on doing NPT/safeguards condoned, activity. She does not allow the US/Russia/China/EU to wield veto over her “unalienable” rights. She has been quite willing to suffer the inconveniences of that defiance so far.
Can someone (other than 20%-James) tell me where the hell does KSA fit into the scheme of things? I mean, if you defy the US, you’re going to worry about KSA?
I wish people would not respond to this nonsense. James has already squirted way more commentlets about the 20% non-isssue than all neocons on the planet combined.
Indeed neocons themselves have moved on.
http://www.lobelog.com/danielle-pletka-%E2%80%98the-biggest-problem%E2%80%99-for-the-u-s-is-iran-not-using-nukes/
James:
Again, your link didnt provide the information you claimed, why dont you adress that?
“Saudi to Israel: Return to 1967 borders”. Nov. 5, 2010, Prince Turki al-Faisal says “Israel must return to its pre-1967 borders as a precondition for talks with Saudi Arabia.”
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/11/05/Saudi-to-Israel-Return-to-1967-borders/UPI-85141289007710/
Karl,
Again I ask you: are you contending that the Saudis do not object strenuously to Iranian production of 20% U?
James:
I dont see any statements nor any information on meeting. I dont see any 20% statements by saudi reps.
Karl,
William Hague was discussing what he and the Saudis had discussed, and one serious issue was Iran’s trebling of production of 20% U.
Are you claiming the Saudis do not object strenuously to Iran’s production of 20% U?
From Majalla magazine Nov. 17th: Prince Turki al-Faisal voiced Saudi Arabia’s opposition to any Iranian nuclear weapons programme and called for Iran to join SA, “and support, by deed”, achieving Middle East free of nukes.
Prince Turki also is quoted: “When I was watching Mr. Netanyahu lecturing Mr. Obama in the Oval Office [last May] on what Israel will or will not do, I was flabbergasted by the audacity of the man.”
http://www.majalla.com/eng/2011/11/article55227674
James:
Yes, like I said, your links provide no information on the 20%-statement from saudi arabia.
Karl,
Did you read the AFP piece that appeared in the Australian?
Are you claiming the Saudis do not object strenuously to Iranian production of 20% U?
“Saudi prince warns Israel not to attack Iran” (Nov. 16th): Prince Turki al-Fasal said that an Israeli attack on Iran “would be foolish and to undertake it I think would be tragic.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149805
James:
Again, your links provide no information on 20% from saudi arabia.
Arnold,
Aid you read the AFP piece that appeared in the Australian? This was clear enough, it seemed to me, that William Hague and the Saudis discussed Iranian enrichment to 20%, the trebling of production capability, etc.
Are you claiming Saudi Arabia is not concerned about Iranian production of 20% U?
Humanist,
I would say that moral, humanitarian or religious grounds amount to the same thing. Iran declined to use weapons that it had available, and that were being used against Iran by Iraq.
kooshy,
Thanks. I applaud Iran’s success in building the fuel plates. (Assuming they work properly.)
Fiorangela says:
December 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm
“Eric Brill — any comment on this?
http://mondoweiss.net/images/2011/12/hillary.jpg ”
Nice one Fiorangela, A picture is worth a thousand words
For Gavner James attention may we all rest with the U20%
Iran Produces N. Fuel Needed for Tehran Research Reactor
“TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian experts managed to produce fuel supplies for the Tehran research reactor after enriching uranium to the purity level of 20%, sources announced on Sunday, adding that the home-produced fuel plates will soon be loaded into the reactor which is used for producing radioisotopes for medical use.”
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007276179
If in turn you Gavnership kindly relay the message to the Saudi colony and the distinguished foreign secretary to not worry it will be most appreciated
Another reason why Iran cant trust US/EU.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/12/eu-slaps-further-sanctions-on-iran/
What have caused this horrendus politics by US/EU? Not just the fact that US/EU collaborate with terrorists but also how hated the terrorists are by the average iranian that US/EU claim to care about?
These irrational steps just proves how little US/EU know about the region and what a big backlash it generate. Just compare this if Iran would harbour Al-Qaeda members.
“Meanwhile, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on Thursday called for a “satisfactory outcome” in the complex relocation of 3,400 Iranian dissidents due to be expelled from a camp in Iraq.
As EU foreign ministers prepared to discuss controversial efforts to close Camp Ashraf north of Baghdad, Ashton said she had held talks on the issue both with US authorities and with UN officials monitoring Iraq’s closure of the camp. Camp Ashraf has been home to members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) since the 1980s. But Iraq is intent on closing it by year’s end in what PMOI leaders say is a plot designed by Tehran to eliminate the dissidents.
“
James,
On reasons why Iran didn’t avenge Iraq’s WMD assaults:
Don’t you think for policy makers in Israel (or US) it shouldn’t matter what kind of reason was behind Iran’ avoidance to retaliate with WMD. I think, in that argument the ‘type’ of reason ie moral, humanitarian or religious is in lower level of importance. What really matters is their enemy used WMD on them, they could do the same but they didn’t.
Voice of Tehran,
Thanks for notifying me of my mistake. Reading my previous posts I always find different kinds of blunders usually grammatical ones.
In my present long comment there are quite of few obvious ones too. Most important one is instead of “aboriginal lens” one should read “analytical lens”.
Thanks again, I’ll always appreciate correction of my errors especially if they are conceptual errors