**UPDATED, see below**
We have long supported a comprehensive approach to U.S.-Iranian realignment as the only way to put U.S.-Iranian relations on a more productive trajectory. But we do not understand how anyone can think that the Islamic Republic of Iran—any more than the People’s Republic of China—would negotiate its internal political transformation with the United States.
Yet this is precisely what Trita Parsi argues in his new book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy With Iran, blending distorted treatments of both Iranian politics and Obama’s Iran policy into a deeply misleading and agenda-driven account. In the aftermath of the Islamic Republic’s 2009 presidential election (which Parsi assured us, and continues to assure his readers, was “fraudulent”), Parsi was one of the most publicly prominent voices calling on the Obama Administration to take a “tactical pause” from diplomacy (which had not yet commenced). He advocated for such a pause because, he told large numbers of television viewers and Op Ed readers, the Islamic Republic was on the verge of collapse.
Well, here we are, almost three years later. The Islamic Republic is still here. Parsi, for his part, has returned to advocating U.S. engagement with Iran—but only if the Islamic Republic’s internal politics and “human rights situation” are a central part of the agenda. And the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the advocacy group headed by Parsi, tells us on its website that the goal of U.S. engagement should be “a world in which the United States and a democratic Iran”—no mention of the Islamic Republic—“enjoy peaceful, cooperative relations.”
Make no mistake: this is neoconservatism without guns, effectively indistinguishable from the position of Michael Ledeen, who parts from other neoconservatives to side with Parsi and NIAC in opposing military action against Iran, but is ideologically committed to regime change there.
In a war-fevered environment, a book like Parsi’s can make a difference. Recall, in this regard, the impact just a decade ago of Ken Pollack’s The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, which helped to legitimate Democratic support for George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq—and which was dead wrong, analytically and empirically, in all of its major arguments. To be sure, Parsi’s book is not written as a case for war against Iran, something that Parsi says he does not want. But, like Pollack, Parsi advances baseless evidence and agenda-driven analysis. And, in the same way that Pollack’s work helped pave the way for invading Iraq, Parsi’s book—by reinforcing conventional wisdom about Iranian politics and Obama’s Iran policy and counseling bad policy, raises the risk of another disastrous war in the Middle East.
Because Pollack, like Parsi, is not considered a neoconservative hawk, his book did not get the critical scrutiny it should have before the U.S. went to war. Although we like Trita Parsi personally, we are compelled to say what we think is so fundamentally wrong and dangerous about his book. Therefore, we have just published an extended review of A Single Roll of the Dice in Boston Review. Our essay, entitled “The Soft Side of Regime Change: Trita Parsi’s A Single Roll of the Dice”, is available online, by clicking here. We would encourage those interested in posting comments to also do so directly on the Boston Review site; there is a place to do so at the bottom of our article.
****************UPDATE*********************
UPDATE: We have put up with an increasing amount of abuse of this site by Scott Lucas, which a number of people have already complained about in their comments to recent posts. First of all, we ask Scott Lucas to stop posting “comments” that are devoid of commentary but merely repeat his streaming of select “news” items from Iran. It is disrupting the ability of others to engage in genuine exchange, debate, and discussion. If Lucas would like to comment on our site, he knows that he has always been welcome. Curiously, Lucas has chosen, instead, to comment on our Boston Review article on Trita Parsi’s book, not on Race For Iran, but elsewhere. We will respond here to his criticisms of our article, which he has posted on the Boston Review site and in other venues.
Lucas says we have “no support for [our] polemical claims here…apart from the now thread-bare reliance on aging polls conducted with suspect methodology and in the political and ‘security’ environment after the election.” Three points on this.
–First, that the 14 polls we cite are “aging” is irrelevant to what they have to say about the dynamics of Iranian public opinion surrounding an election that itself took place almost three years ago.
–Second, if Lucas wants to claim that these polls’ methodology was “suspect”, he should be obliged to explain what he means by that. When we describe the polls as “methodologically sound”, we mean the following: they had sufficiently large and scientifically selected samples to represent accurately the population as a whole and used neutral, clearly worded questions. Is there anything concrete about these polls that Lucas can identify which would contradict our characterization of them in these terms? We doubt it. As to the polls being done in a repressive environment, if Lucas would read the polls in detail he would understand that the pollsters went to considerable lengths to verify that respondents were expressing their true views. Respondents were hardly averse to voicing criticisms of various aspects of Iranian political life. The polls done after the election showed no bandwagoning effect, with people trying to present themselves as having been with the re-elected President all along. And there is a remarkable degree of consistency across the polls, which is a powerful indicator that people were not lying to the pollsters. If Lucas has something to say on these points that actually deals with polling methodology, he should say it. Otherwise, he is the one being polemical, not us.
–Third, it is simply not accurate that, since June 2009, we have “largely relied on a single source, who is supportive of the regime,” for our information, which has made us “near blind” to current conditions in Iran. This is a cheaply ad hominem statement about us; it also slanders one of our colleagues at the University of Tehran. We have spent the last 12 years listening to and taking seriously the views of a wide range of Iranian officials, who worked for the Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Ahmadinejad administrations, as well as the views of Iranians in a range of professions who, while they may not support every decision or policy of the Iranian government, nonetheless believe in the Islamic Republic. This is what differentiates our work from that of any other Western analyst we know. It is also what has enabled us to be consistently right in our assessments of Iranian foreign policy and domestic politics, including in episodes such as the 2009 election and its aftermath, when most other analysts were categorically wrong—from their baseless assertions of massive fraud to their obviously incorrect predictions of the Islamic Republic’s implosion.
Finally, we want to underscore that challenging the “social fact” of the fraudulent 2009 election, created so cavalierly by Parsi, Lucas, and others, is at least as vital, if not more so, than challenging the “social fact” of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Confronting unsubstantiated claims about a “fraudulent” election gets to the foundations of the case for regime change—which, whether represented by hard militarists like John Bolton or soft regime change advocates like Trita Parsi and Scott Lucas, is ultimately what gets the United States into Middle Eastern wars. This is the same dangerous convergence of the neoconservative right with liberal human rights advocates that enabled the Iraq war. If the argument had only been over Saddam’s WMD, it is not at all clear the United States would have gone to war. The United States does not really care all that categorically about nuclear proliferation; it has certainly been prepared to tolerate that where Israel is concerned. What matters is the kind of regime the United States believes it is dealing with. That is why pushing back about the social fact of a fraudulent election—brought up again now by Trita Parsi as the basis for his whole argument about the Obama Administration’s diplomatic failures—still matters.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
This is a great article, but I think you need to take it one step further. You suggest, but you should outright say that Parsi essentially (and deliberately, I feel sure) advances the case for war whilst claiming to be against war.
hahaha ohhh now it makes sense! lol thanks for the site
I’m not sure the place you’re getting your information, but great topic. I must spend a while studying much more or understanding more. Thank you for wonderful information I used to be on the lookout for this info for my mission.
I have been browsing on-line greater than three hours lately, yet I by no means discovered any attention-grabbing article like yours. It’s beautiful price sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made excellent content material as you did, the net can be a lot more helpful than ever before.
You already know thus considerably in terms of this topic, produced me individually believe it from so many varied angles. Its like women and men are not interested except it is one thing to accomplish with Girl gaga! Your personal stuffs nice. At all times deal with it up!
Fans on facebook are great when you have alot for your fan page! We can help if you need help with promting your fans page.Fast and Cheap!
You may have not intended to do so, but I think you have managed to express the state of mind large amounts people are in. The sense of wanting to help, but not knowing how or where, is something a lot of us are going through.
This design is wicked! You obviously know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!
This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks!
This is the part that gets me, the Savings & Loan bail out was bad but scores of bankers wnet to jail or were fined. This time nothing, not a peep. This is what OWS is about at it’s core, bankers buying off politician-s and politicans shielding the bankers. It’s straight out of the third world, a place we seem to be headed.cheap tera gold
Heya i’m for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to present something again and help others like you aided me.
It seems that the fall of the Soviet Union and the brief interregnum that followed before the Neocons took over the reins of power in D.C., have ushered in a new era in international relations, whereby the Wilsonian ideals first adumbrated in his League of Nations foray have been discredited along with all their international institutions, including the UN, to be replaced by a neo-medieval catch as catch can and devil take the hindmost multipolarity. What remnants of the ancien regime remain serve only as instruments of propaganda for the New Atlantis pole (aka Axis of Weasels).
To wit: this indictment of UN Sec. Gen. Wankee Moon (by a Lebanese personality, to be found on Voitairenet.org) makes it clear why he was appointed to that post in the first place. Excerpts:
[In an open letter published by the Lebanese press, Arab thinker Hassan Hamade lambastes Mr. Ban and his representative Mr. Rød-Larsen, recalling that far from standing up for principles, both are thugs wallowing in corruption.]
How dare you speak of reforms, you, the thief?
You are probably not used to hearing such direct, vivid and true critiques, but you should get the habit of it. On the morality level, you surely are in no position to give reform lessons to anyone. It would be interesting however to benefit from your eloquence about reforms to demand their application at the UNO first. The first step towards accomplishing this matter would be your interrogation by a special investigation commission that would send you for trial to the competent tribunal. The world needs a Nuremberg to judge crimes of corruption and pillage of public assets belonging to the peoples of the world. What do you think?
Public assets which you illegally disposed of, according to Mrs. Ahlenius, belong to the peoples of the world, which governments finance your organization and pay your salaries, yours and all the UNO staff.
Incidentally however, it would be interesting to note that governments that pretend to form a protesting bloc against the takeover of the US on the UNO mechanisms, and who accuse you of acting for Washington’s account, avoid requesting the formation of an investigation commission to examine accusations perpetrated against your person by Mrs. Ahlenius! Roles are reversed and you are now giving them lessons in reforms!
Castellio,
Re: your February 1, 8:53pm post
The terms you used in your comment such as ‘freedom of speech’, ‘deep-state’, ‘the good fight’ ‘assassinations’ instigated a tiny torrent of thoughts in my mind. Even partial explaining of them requires dozens of pages. If I try to summarize them all in briefest possible way I would say my idealistic assumptions drove me again to the realms of subtle melancholy and deep wonder.
Yes these are indeed complex stories. Yet in my view, at times using science we are able to figure out the forces behind the materialization of those complicated events.
I recently in HufPo commented on the work of a talented film director:
.”….I wish he makes a si-fi film about intelligent extraterrestrial beings visiting earth getting bewildered on how ferociously barbaric human being live….fighting with each other…raping, killing …bombing…pillaging….and believing in all kinds of gross superstitions….some also believing they belong to a superior race giving themselves the license for mass murder and plunder of other tribes…….this is like we are living a surreal vicious world even Kafka would’ve been incapable of imagining”
When science tells us all that barbarism and viciousness is instigated by just a few individuals, our gloomy mood starts to morph into a deep wonder…. ..why when the facts are all around us blindness is still so prevalent….and are fatal cancers growing inside the heart of humanity as scholars such as Assimov, Sagan and Chomsky had predicted decades ago?
Interesting discussion over at Pakistan Defence. Lot of Iran hate it seems.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/102717-iran-pakistan-fallout-over-bahrain.html
fyi,
There is no possibility Iran could have prevented the use of a supply corridor for US/UK war materials going to the Soviet Union during the Second World War. No blame to be apportioned.
fyi,
I think Russia and China have indicated they will accept Iranian production of fuel for Bushehr reactors, and probably they would accept Iranian production of fuel plates for TRR etc. I doubt they would welcome a stockpiling of 20% U.
fyi,
Many American leaders wanted both sides to “lose”, and they welcomed the long, bitter struggle.
fyi,
Most Iranian air force pilots were either killed or forced to leave the country.
Sassan,
Based on my limited information, I believe most Iranian-Americans actually support the Leveretts, but like most other Americans they do not have a voice in US politics.
Sassan says: February 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Disapora does not speak for me.
Neither do you.
NO War on Iran actions in 31 cities, Feb 4
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/just-say-no-to-any-more-war-feb-4-anti-war-actions-called-to-stop
All:
An American view of Mr. Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obama-iran-war_b_1250668.html
FYI at 2.51.
Yes. Exactly so.
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm
In 1978, Iran had 3 mechanized/armored divisions.
And they were not fully staffed.
[There were not enough trained manpower for example, to man the Chieftain tanks.
Iran did not have enough educated soldier that could operate its firing computer.]
Iraq, if I am not mistaken, had 21 or so such divisions.
Iranian airforce was not destroyed, to my knowledge, by Iranians.
There were defections as welll as sabotage.
But war was largely a ground war since neither side knew how to use combined-arms effectively.
the late Mr. Hussein, the Indians, and the Axis Powers had predicated their Iran policies on quick Iranian collapse or capitulation.
When that did not transpire, they faced a long hard slog that they wish they could avoid.
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 2:33 pm
yes, Mr. canning, everything was the fault of Iran:
- being neutral but too weak to enforce her neutrality during WWI
- being neutral but too weak to enforce her neutrality again during WWII
- desiring a fair share of her oil wealth that the the Eglish were expoliting
- being too open and too liberal to prevent her government being overthrown at the end of an extended economic siege by UK (Iranians, in order to survive, were exporting pommegranate peels – an ingredient for natural dies)
- being too fed up with Pahlavi government and its dispargement of Iranian sovereignity and Shia religiosity to tolerate it any longer…
And the list goes on.
In regards to the nuclear file; I have stated my opinion.
So far, I have never read any responses or discussions anywhere – over the last 13 years – that demonstrated, in detail, how Iranians would benefit by having no nuclear capability at all.
I do not know what the intentions of the Iraian leaders are in regards to the accumulation of nuclear material in Iran.
Such material is being accumulated in Japan and in Brazil.
And Brazilians have a (classified) Physics Ph.D. thesis on the construction of thermo-nuclear weapon.
Politically, at the moment, is not possible for Iran to leave NPT and to build and deploy nuclear weapons.
That is because of what Iranians have stated publicly and privately in this regards for over a decade.
But, in my judgement, due to the prior historical of Iran, the ability to quickly build nuclear weapons is essential for Iranian security.
US, EU, Russia, China are in effect asking Iran, a victim of Great Power politics, to disarm herself.
Well, those who are asking that should have teh decency to go to war to achieve their aims.
Else, and if they cannot, they should learn to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.
Sakineh Bagoom says:
February 2, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Gavner James is not our enemy, Sakineh Khanum. He is out Sahib and our Naji. He is out Lord and Savior. That is the cross, the burden that he must bear. And so we bear with him and his absurd colonial mindset.
Gavner: anyone ever tell UU have an altitude problem?
fyi,
Are you making it clear you think Iran in fact is stockpiling 20% U, to facilitate enriching to 90% to build nukes?
fyi,
Iran blundered by destroying its own air force, after the Shah was overthrow. Iran blundered by threatending the Gulf monarchies. Iran-Iraq war was result of blunders by Iran. Iran knew Iraq was run by an opportunistic, murderous thug.
Sassan says:
February 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm
According to my observation, the above post was the last time either Agent Sassan or Agent Scotty Boy posted spam. That’s over 24 hours. Also, Scotty Boy said something about the Leveretts putting an end to his spam posts (??) What’s going on? Did I miss something? Did our hosts finally decide to act to prevent this nonsense? If so good for you, Flynt and Hillary. Let’s hope we get another 24 hours of spam-free peace, and another, and another, ad infinitum, (if you’ll forgive the non sequitur).
fyi,
Not long ago, you said that it would not be easy for Iran to build nukes when it says virtually every day it does not want nukes.
In the Guardian Dec. 9, 2011, Sir Malcolm Rifkind is quoted: “Many of us who believe the Iraq war was disgraceful also believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. . . Even Russia and China have supported pressure on Iran.”
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 2:10 pm
My position on Iranian nuclear file is quite clear.
Iran, for the reasons of state security and cohesions, should have left NPT in 1998 after the nuclear explosions of India and Pakistan.
And as the only state since the end of WWII whose civilian and military targets had suffered WMD attacks, Iran had very good reasons to do so.
I really do not care about the opinions of those gentlemen: if tehran is attacked by a 10 kiloton weapon, a million people would die.
Iranian leaders and planners must take care that Iran is not in that situation; unlike the previous war when hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee Tehran due to rocket attacks.
It is clear to me that if Iran had posessed nuclear weapons in 1978, there would not have been any Iran-Iraq War.
Iran is paying the wages of previous historical weakness and strategic muddle-headedness.
The Shia dynamics that I have alluded to is real.
It was the (Fatamid) Shia rulers of Egypt that created the state that became Egypt.
Just like Safavid Shia who created the state that became Iran.
And it was the Shia that defeated Mongols (Fatamids) and Israelis.
Now iraq has become a de facto Shia state aligned with Iran.
There is no other way forward for the Shia and Iran except forward to consolidate their powers.
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 1:58 pm
James,
As I have established, with you acquiescence, UK is an enemy of Iran.
You are a UK subject.
If you continue with your 20% business, I have no choice but ( and ask everyone here to) treat you as enemy of Iran as well.
You decide.
fyi,
The US has continuously promoted China’s relations with Saudi Arabia.
fyi,
The campaign of assassinating Iranian scientists seems clearly a Mossad operation.
fyi,
I think you are well aware a series of major blunders by Mossadeq helped to bring about his overthrow. And many if not most Iranian religious leaders wanted Mossadeq overthrown. There is a programme this week on the Anglo-American overthrow of Mossadq, in London (at the Royal Geographic Society).
Sakineh Bagoom says: February 2, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Yes, first the Americans were trying to get iran to leave NPT.
When that did not happen, they started on the other tracks such as assasinatons.
The aim was to cause an Iranian reaction.
Which did not happen.
US manned airplanes routinely overflew Iranian airspace as acts of provocation – which Iranians ignored.
These were all acts of provocation hoping to create an incident.
I think they (the US leaders) have finally comprehended not only the extend of their strategic containment in the Middle East but alos the extent of China’s rise as the Middle Kingdom.
Chinese are running around the world, unconstrained by any other state, making beneficial relationships with every international actor that so wishes.
And no state actor is foolish enough or powerful enough to predicate good relations with China on China having poor relations with some other state.
Americans have an uphill battle to counter China even at the level of diplomacy and commerce.
And at any moment they can be sucked into anther prolonged war in the Middle East.
And they have very little control over it – they created the combustible mix themselves.
fyi,
William Hague did his best to make clear Britain welcomed a strong Iran playing an important role in the region and beyond.
I think you lack an ability to understand the thinking of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and William Hague.
How would you explain to them the reason Iran wished to treble production of 20% uranium?
I think your hopes of a Shia Power alliance stretching from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush is an excellent formula to assist those who want to overthrow the government of Syria.
settman,
Re: your comment to Rehmat that UNSC demands Iran stop all enrichment, so Iranian enrichment to 20% is unimportant.
The Iranian announcement of a trebling of 20% U production led directly to the latest round of sanctions. Obviously, the enriching to 20% is of great importance.
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 1:53 pm
I have no reason to trust in your assessment of the English leaders.
I greatly distrust them.
I am willing to listen to Mr. Straw, but he is the only public figure in UK that I could trust to be concentrating on the nuclear issue by-itself and in-itself.
My perception of the UK leaders is that they are in with US searching to crush the Iranian power under one pretext or other.
I think Iranian leaders should ignore all these noises and go for consolidation of the Shia Millenail project in the Middle East.
The only physical security that Iran, the Shia, and their allies in 6 countries are going to experience is by a powerful Iranian state.
And I am not even including the Shia in Pakistan or Southern Persian Gulf.
It is all fine and well to try to use the nuclear file of Iran as a wedge to cause them to overthrow their own government (Iran-1953, Chile-1973).
It is another thing when that project of government overthrow will cause the physical security of tens of millions of people jeopradized.
Which is what Axis Powers are aiming at:
Axis Powers wish to be able to use violence against the people and states of the Levant and the Persian Gulf with impunity if these states and people mis-behave.
Iranians now have a chance in 300 years and the Shia one in a 1000 years to prevent that for very many centuries.
No price is too high for achieveing this strategic safety; I should think.
Sakineh,
False flag operation to initiate hostilities? Always a concern. But the considerable rise in tensions in the Persian Gulf owed much to events in Bahrain, Iran’s insistence the Saudis pull their National Guard forces out of Bahrain, Iran’s announcement of trebling production of 20% U, etc.
fyi,
I think the issue of enrichment to 20 percent is more complex than you indicate. For important British leaders like Sir Malcolm Rifkind and William Hague, the Iranian enrichment to 20 percent is what brought on the latest round of sanctions.
Do you agree that Obama did not respond to Iran’s offer to cease producing 20% U, due to domestic political concerns?
R S Hack,
Re: Philip Giraldi’s piece you linked, on Ethan Bronner of The New York Times and his service as a stooge of Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu, expecially by giving support to their claims that “Iran seeks Israel’s destruction”.
I of course agree with you that if Israel attacks Iran, it appears most unlikely the US would not be dragged into the conflict. Any Israeli attack would assume backing from the US.
fyi,
Haass saves the best for the last
”I always believe it is better if you are forced to go into war to do it against the backdrop of where the other side is seen as largely responsible for bringing things to that point.”
So, it is all about (the other side is seen as) perception. False flag anyone?
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm
My prediction has withstood the test of time, hasn’t it.
So the Iranians stated that they were still willing to suspend 20% enrcihment as a trial baloon.
Which demonstrated once again, that the issue is not 20% enrcihment.
fyi,
Let’s remember you said earlier last year Iran would not stop enriching to 20%. You claimed that issue was “over” or “closed”. Then, Iran offered to stop enriching to 20 percent. Correct?
Fiorangela,
Re: Lavrov’s interview on Australian TV. He is right to draw attention to the fact one or more leaders of the insurgents in Libya refused to permit a negotiated resolution of the dispute. And this refusal was reinforced by continuing air attacks on Gaddafi forces, by the west.
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Yes, because you are so attached to your persumptions/assumptions/prejudices/pre-concieved notions that you are unwilling to see the evidence before your eyes.
fyi,
I am confused, because I see it as odd that Haass would not mention Iran’s offer to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent?
Rd.,
You asked what motivated the Washington Post to trumpet Clapper’s suggestion Iran “might strike the UK”, when that comment was based entirely on the so-called “plot to kill the Saudi ambasador”.
The Washington Post should be exploring whether that “plot” was in fact a creation of the DEA and other US agencies.
We should remember that the Washington Post had an excellent reporter who was deeply sceptical about the neocon warmonger claims Iraq was trying to build nukes, etc etc. That reporter’s comments were placed deep in the paper while obvious lies by warmongering neocons got prominent display.
James Canning says: February 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Permit me to observe that your confusion is due to your belief that Axis Powers – Iran confrontation is due to the nuclear file.
It is not.
It is about who is going to rule on whom.
fyi,
Re: Comments of Richard Haass that you just linked. How odd, to me, that Haass makes long statements about the need to “get Iran to change its behavior”, without even mentioning Iran’s offer last year to stop producing 20% U.
Well perceived, Settman. Exactly so… apparently its not a war of aggression if:
a) the dead young women do not have to wear the hijab;
b) the maimed and crippled can access sites like Enduring America;
c) the survivors and their progeny have a chance to go to Disneyland.
And after the war and regime change, there will be photo ops for the new leader with Bibi, and a Nobel prize for Peace to be shared between the pair of them.
War of aggression? No way.
All:
And more extra-territorial sanctions:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/01/canceling_the_mullahs_credit_card
All:
Dr. Haass’s views:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/third-option-iran/p27265
Extraordinarily incoherent!
Scott,
“The links were provided for those readers who can access EA if they wanted verify the original sources for the entries.”
May I respectfully request just a bit more respect for your readers’ intelligence?
I used to check out your website once in a while. With very few exceptions, your sources were not even identified, much less “verified.” You typically justified this by explaining that your sources feared for their lives, which, of course, a reader would have no way of verifying. A reader at the EA website might believe you had knowledgeable, objective sources for what you wrote there, or he might believe you just made up most or all of what you wrote there. He had a third choice: he might get tired of wondering, as many readers eventually do when they read nothing but sensational reports from unidentified sources, and decide to spend his reading time somewhere else — at RFI, for example, as you yourself appear to have decided. (Wise decision, Scott.)
How, exactly, would going to EA enable a reader to “verify the original sources of the entries?” When you cut and paste an EA entry here, you’re providing us no more information than we’d get if we went directly to the EA website and read the very same thing. Are you suggesting that something you post here is “verified” merely because a reader can go the EA website and find the very same words written there?
Scott Lucas,
“Let me be clear: I oppose any war of aggression against Iran. I support human rights…anywhere.”
Interesting that you explicitly say “against…war of aggression against Iran”. Wouldnt it be simplier to say that you are “against war against Iran”? Unless you are pro war?
I thought the Leveretts’ observation of Scott’s first criticism was especially amusing:
“First, that the 14 polls we cite are “aging” is irrelevant to what they have to say about the dynamics of Iranian public opinion surrounding an election that itself took place almost three years ago.”
Had it not been for Scott’s observation, I’d have never even known that polls “aged” at all. I’m not sure what to do with this new-found knowledge, though. If I look back at, say, the US presidential election of 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was elected, I’m still inclined to pay more attention to polls taken around that time — “aged” or not — than to any poll we might take today.
Call me old-fashioned, I guess.
Of course Scott Lucas did not read the polls in detail. He doesn’t like the results. Had they been entirely different, he would have seized upon them.
I don’t mind this denial, but I think he is unjustly attacking the pollsters who took great lengths to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of their surveys.
Scott Lucas,
We are where we are on this site because YOU brought it here.
Happy now – now you can write a book as to how you have been censored by the Leveretts and this is an extension of the Iranian govts own tactics which they picked up, by hanging around them for too long!
Prat! You are more worse then my 12 year old nephew!
Scott,
Let me be clear. The war of aggression must first end before the talk of human rights can have meaning.
Photi,
Let me be clear: I oppose any war of aggression against Iran. I support human rights…anywhere.
S.
Eric,
EA is blocked. RFI is not — it was briefly filtered when all WordPress sites were blanket-blocked by Iranian authorities in 2010 but soon was accessible again in Iran.
The links were provided for those readers who can access EA if they wanted verify the original sources for the entries. I have no problem posting without the links.
EA has about 10 times as much traffic as RFI, so I can assure that trying this was not to “leech” readers. The success would be if RFI grew in its readership.
All this appears to be a moot discussion, however, as RFI has now put any posting of news “into moderation”.
S.
Scott,
Some skeptics on this site (count me among them) suspect you cut and paste long “news” stories from your own web site because hardly anyone goes to your website any more. You appear to be taking advantage of the light hand exercised by the Leveretts here, essentially hijacking this site because your own site has failed to attract much attention.
You assure us, of course, that your motives are entirely noble. You’re merely trying to get “news” out to Iranians who are “blocked” from reaching your site by unnamed but evil Iranian censors. As is your custom, you carefully avoid any explicit claim that your website is actually being blocked. But you vaguely hint at that several times, and those vague hints apparently add up to such a claim (though I’d nevertheless appreciate you being explicit for once). Those news-starved Iranians are left with no access to criticism of their leaders (other than, for just one of many examples, on Mir-Houssein Mousavi’s website, which, judging from my occasional checks and reports of others, has been accessible from anywhere in the world for the past several years despite many claims to the contrary).
I’m left to wonder, of course, whether the “informed debate” at your website is very “informed” after all, if no one participating in that “informed” debate is actually writing from Iran. But let’s set aside my skeptical wondering for the moment, and focus on just this one question for you, which has been puzzling me:
If your long cut-and-paste posts on this website are not for our benefit, but instead are meant to provide truth and light to news-starved Iranians who can’t get to your site, why do you bother including links to your site when you post material here?
Isn’t that pointless for your target audience? Aren’t you merely handing arguments to your skeptical critics who suspect your true motives are accurately described in the first paragraph of this comment?
Scott,
You ignore the very real security concerns the Islamic Republic is responsible for as you weave your narrative of “human rights.” I say one must first bake the cake before he can attempt to put icing on it.
Personally, as a citizen of the United States of America, i have to be real about the fact that my nation is conducting a not-so-covert war of aggression against Iran. Until this fact changes, how could i possibly have much to say about Iranian human rights, other than that my own nation should stop violating them?
Masoud, where does Seymour claim the 15,000? It’s not in the article I pointed to.
And what of the following is, you think, wrong?
“The pro-imperialist position within the Syrian opposition is occupied by the Syrian National Council (SNC), comprising liberals and conservative Islamists, mostly led by emigres with little basis in the domestic grassroots. The SNC is calling for the establishment of “safe zones” Predictably, but not accurately, pro-war politicians and diplomats deem the SNC a more representative organisation than its rivals. The National Committee for Democratic Change, as well as the local coordination bodies, have warned against seeking intervention. Despite vicious repression, they have also resisted moves toward an armed insurgency, perhaps fearing a repeat of the Libyan situation where early gains were quickly reversed by a far better organised state.
Perhaps the greatest problem for any intervention is the resilence of the opposition, despite the killing which the opposition estimates has claimed 5,000 people. The regime doesn’t look as if it is about to collapse, but at the same time the opposition continues to draw enormous crowds and inflict damaging strikes.”
Photi,
Fair enough — can you point to Live Coverage, even before it appeared on RFI, that was pursuing the task of imploding the Islamic Republic?
S.
Masoud, point me to a good article in French or English about Syria… or to a writer whom you feel ‘gets it’ best.
Scott,
Did you start existing seven days ago?
Photi,
“You seem to support the subversion and the eventual downfall of the Iranian government judging by your actions. Your hopes for ‘the Regime’ are implosion, implosion, implosion. And then if not that, then explosions will have to do.”
Read the Live Coverage of the last seven days. Where does any of the presentation of the news point to such a motive?
S.
settman says: February 1, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Very many people are in awe of israel’s military capabilities and likewise discount Iran’s.
They expect Israel to win without meaningful Iranian retaliation and damage.
When it turns outs that Israelis are getting hurt; they will be rushing to UNSC trying to get a cease-fire in place.
Scott Lucas says:
February 2, 2012 at 1:21 am
Scott, even when your motive is openly talked about by you, you still do not openly state it. You are posting your news here because the Iranian government has filtered your site in Iran. I’m sorry, did you say this directly in this post of yours? I don’t think you did.
Why is the Iranian government blocking your site? It seems to me that is the more relevant question. You seem to support the subversion and the eventual downfall of the Iranian government judging by your actions. Your hopes for “the Regime” are implosion, implosion, implosion. And then if not that, then explosions will have to do. Why again is your site filtered in Iran? Perhaps your motive comes standing in the shadow of massive amounts of firepower and the will to conduct the war of aggression against Iran?
The impulse to survive and cohere are among the fundamental characteristics of a state, any state. Tell me again why Iran should respect those who are trying to destroy them?
Empty, thank you for a very thoughtful reply to an earlier comment of mine. Please know that THIS student is not dozing.
__________________
this is relative to nothing in particular. It has always been a favorite.
Sonnet # XXIX
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,
Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts my self almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
-Wm Shakespeare
RE: “On the immediate issue, the information on latest news and developments is posted here because many people, who cannot access other websites because of filters and blocks, are allowed to read RFI.”
An excellent real-time example of “end justifies the means”. Integrity and ethics are oozing from every orifice. It must be making the entire student body proud to be learning such truthful and authentic methodologies.
The article brings to fore and discusses quite a few holes in Trita Parsi’s book. In the process, it is effective in recapping (in one place) and rebutting several key well-established falsehoods about Iran, some of which have formed the premise of Parsi’s book. I have enough understanding about Trita Parsi’s character to know that he would consider “any publicity” (especially negative ones in this context) to be “good publicity”. So, I do not foresee a genuinely critical response that would be rooted in intellectual honesty and integrityby Parsi to Leveretts’ points.
Through a more wide angle lens, Parsi’s current work is very much in line with and in the same direction as his earlier works, especially his earlier book which was based on his dissertation work and the specific mission based on which he founded NIAC. Those who believe Trita Parsi’s first book was authentic and original, I think, they should do a critical reading one more time. The pieces of jigsaw puzzle of Parsi’s socio-political and academic work are aimed to achieve one thing: to further drive home his dissertation adviser’s doctrine that, in a nutshell, “liberal democracy” is the savior of the entire humanity.
Greed, ambition to get ahead at any cost, and lack of scruples to achieve one’s goal at any cost all result in these types of “scholarly” work that is very much out of touch with realities of people’s genuine grievances.
The annualy warmongering meeting – herzliya conference is just a meeting where various israelis wage war threats against it neigbours and lies.
Kochavi: Iran has uranium for 4 nuclear bombs
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=256152
Quote:
“They claim that they are developing the program for peaceful purposes but our intelligence shows without a doubt that Iran is continuing its work on developing a nuclear weapon.”
End Quote.
Really? Why is it then that all intelligence prove that Iran is NOT working on a nuclear weapon? Where is the proof?!
Oil Corporations & US Gov’t to Wield Power in Future Oily Iraq
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/01/31/oil-corporations-us-govt-to-wield-power-in-future-oily-iraq/
And why is this the case, when Greg Palast proved that the Iraq war was about keeping Iraqi oil OFF the market?
Well, because the goal now is to keep IRANIAN OIL OFF THE MARKET! Therefore, the US and the oil companies have switched gears to ramp up Iraqi production to offset the economic impact of the Iranian oil embargo as well as the upcoming Iranian oil BLOCKADE – not to mention the following Iran war.
Of course, if there’s an Iran war, I suspect not much Iraqi oil will get to market anyway. In any event, these moves are more long term than short term. Still, it’s clear that there’s been a shift in the oil companies thinking if they are interested in Iraq’s “swing capacity”.
BBC Peddles War Propaganda
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/12109
I’m shocked…SHOCKED…to learn that the mouthpiece of British imperialism peddles war propaganda…
Pepe Escobar on Fear and loathing in the American Gulf
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak04.html
Quotes
Time to review the evidence. In roughly one month, no less than three US aircraft carriers and their strike groups will be sloshing around the American Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea; the USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Carl Vinson and USS Enterprise, plus good ol’ French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. And yet one more Pacific-based US aircraft carrier can be swiftly dispatched.
Apart from this naval hajj of US aircraft carrier groups, the 40-year-old USS Ponce is being retrofitted into a special ops amphibious hub – to be dispatched to the American Gulf.
The Pentagon’s CENTCOM is fast upgrading the 14,000-kilogram Orwellian bunker-buster monster known as Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), theoretically capable of taking out Iran’s underground nuclear installations.
A certain Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Project – one of those myriad revolving doors in Washington mixing politicians and military-complex types – wants to give Israel some 200 additional MOPs and three KC-135 aerial refueling tankers to “increase the credibility of a military strike” against Iran.
DEBKA-Net is a digital front for Israeli propaganda/disinformation – so it’s essentially untrustworthy. But its latest bombast deserves scrutiny. DEBKA is peddling that the Pentagon is in fast and furious mode in two strategic islands; the paradisiacal Socotra, 380 kilometers southeast of Yemen (where the Pentagon has been building a giant base since 2010); and Camp Justice in Masirah, 70 km south of the Strait of Hormuz, in Oman.
Socotra thus joins key American Gulf nodes of the US Empire of Bases such as Jebel Ali and al-Dahfra in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), al-Udeid in Qatar and Arifjan in Kuwait. It’s crucial to keep in mind the extra 15,000 US troops deployed to Kuwait only a few weeks ago. The Pentagon, predictably, is thunderously mum about the build up in both Socotra and Masirah, and Yemeni and Omani officials are not talking.
DEBKA claims that in two weeks, around 50,000 US troops, flown in from Diego Garcia, 3,000 km away, will be massed in both islands – plus the 50,000 troops already based in the American Gulf. Add to this air, naval and special forces from Britain and France constantly pouring into Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Not enough to launch a ground invasion of Iran – but more than enough for major logistical support in a “no options off the table” (copyright Obama) scenario.
End Quotes
Now what did I JUST say the other day? Fifty thousand new US troops into the region? I was LATE on that prediction! Those returning US forces from Afghanistan, according to DebkaFile anyway, which as Pepe says is untrustworthy, are going DIRECTLY to the Persian Gulf.
But Pepe says:
Quote
DEBKA predictably spins all these developments – not independently confirmed – into Obama’s “resolve to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the course of 2012″, which is absolute nonsense. This may mirror (hysterical) wishful thinking by the Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel, but has nothing to do with the Obama administration’s strategy, which essentially is to impose a “roll over and die” form of “diplomacy” on Iran (sanctions/oil embargo + Pentagon build up in the American Gulf) as a means of extracting an Iranian capitulation in the nuclear dossier.
End Quote
I think he underestimates Obama. I see this deployment as the start of a buildup which is the prelude for lobbying for an international BLOCKADE of Iran once the oil EMBARGO fails.
So while Obama may not attack Iran in 2012 – which agrees with my theory that he’s waiting on a resolution of the Syria and Lebanon issues – this is in line with the plan to start an Iran war later.
Actions speak louder than words, Pepe. If these actions reported by DebkaFile are confirmed, it will be clear what’s up.
Some background on the Iran issue’s impact on Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.
Echoes of war across the South Caucasus
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/NB03Ag01.html
Apparently Azerbaijan and Georgia are being pressured to support a US war with Iran by allowing US bases to be used for it, while Russia is countering by conducting large scale military exercises near those countries.
Readers will recall that it was reported a couple years ago that Israel was attempting to obtain rights to fly anti-Iran missions from air bases in Georgia in return for Israeli military advisers and military equipment to counter Russia. This was never confirmed IIRC, but it seemed very likely.
This is a “must read”, so I’ve quoted quite a bit here, but by no means all.
UN shenanigans on Syria
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak03.html
Quotes
“Viscous nasty business” … “aggressive pressure … by US diplomats”, “ferocious pressure on weaker non-permanent members”, the “type of pressure [that] is very, very difficult for weaker countries … to resist.”
That’s how a former British diplomat at the United Nations, Carne Ross, described last September’s UN showdown over the Palestinian Authority’s bid for recognition for statehood. [1] “This is how power works.” he said.
He might have added “money”, for route to the UN Security Council in the case of Syria this week has been one of bullying, bribery, unprecedented procedural violations at the Arab League, along with media manipulation and significant distortions of reality.
Far from presenting the findings from the Arab League’s monitors report, that report has been effectively shelved in presentations by Arab League secretary general Nabil al-Arabi and Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, the Qatari foreign minister. Why? Because the report effectively supported many of Syria’s positions, and acknowledged that Syria had met nearly all the requirements as set out by the Arab League.
A British official speaking anonymously told the Associated Press that while “the text would stress there are no plans for any military intervention in Syria – though the option would not be explicitly, or permanently, ruled out”. [4]
The report noted its short 23-day mandate found that “many parties falsely reported explosions or violence” which were unfounded; also referring to “media exaggeration” in the “nature of incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents”. The mission noted it had also been the “target of a vicious media campaign” including publication of statements falsely attributed to the mission’s director; and concluded that there needed to be a “commitment of all sides to cease acts of violence, thereby allowing the Mission to complete its tasks and, ultimately, to lay the ground for the political process … a process [that] must be accelerated and a national dialogue launched … in order to create an environment of confidence that would contribute to the mission’s success”. This last recommendation is precisely what is by-passed in the Western-sponsored resolution.
With Qatar at the helm, the Western plan was to set criteria for Arab League monitoring designed to provoke a Syrian refusal. A senior Arab League official speaking off-the-record in December said that the league’s Syria initiative was steered away from its original form by “some of the ministers who didn’t like the direction and started dictating certain ideas that they knew Syria would not accept”.
“The “Protocol” to create a League observer delegation was forwarded with an “ultimatum” in a short time, which we have never experienced in the history of diplomacy at the Arab League … This is needed not only for Syria – why not a plan for everywhere in the region?”. “The whole process was meant to gain a refusal, to move to the second stage of this game,” said the official. [10]
Paradoxically, the very success of the observer mission has been used by the West as further propaganda in favor of Security Council action. The withdrawal of Syrian security forces from cities and towns, as required by the observers, has been used to present a false picture of the opposition ‘seizing’ control of parts of Syria from the army – the presence of a few armed insurgents or insurgent-manned roadblocks does not constitute control.
Pro-regime change commentators argue that “Syria looks more like Libya every day”. [12] If it does, it is because the mainstream narrative on Syria is intentionally constructed to be so – in order to justify the call for external intervention. But this doesn’t mean it is necessarily correct.
As British TV Channel Four’s diplomatic editor wrote last week in relation to Youtube footage showing purported captured Iranian snipers, Revolutionary Guards, no less,confessing, most probably after being tortured, to shooting civilians in Syria: “[this] goes to show how careful we have to be before airing footage we didn’t shoot ourselves, and how cruel and dirty this conflict has become.” [13]
Commenting on a series of recent Facebook polls, and having taken into account the limitations of such polls, even some with between 180,000 to 1 million respondents, Syrian analyst, Camille Oktraji concludes:
[I]n addition to the majority support Assad enjoys, the even larger majority that voted against al-Jazeera, Turkish military intervention in Syria, an Arab boycott of Syria, changing the colors of the Syrian flag or against a UN vote targeting Syria, should be construed by policy makers in Washington and “the international community” that they are interfering on the side of a minority of Syrians and against the wishes of a clear majority. [14]
“There’s no longer any expectation inside the [US] administration”, reports Foreign Policy, “that Moscow will support international action aimed at removing Assad from power, even by non-military means. But the UN confrontation is meant to isolate Russia diplomatically and make it clear that the Arab League and its Western friends have exhausted all diplomatic options before moving to directly aid the internal opposition, if that decision is ultimately made.”
End Quotes
Read that last paragraph again! That is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying – the Russians are being USED AS SCAPEGOATS to proclaim that the UNSC didn’t work properly, therefore the US and NATO had to “go it alone.”
The degree of cynical war maneuvering being done as demonstrated in this article is breathtaking.
In Israel: UN chief argues against attack on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-un-chief-argues-against-attack-iran-133301120.html
Article is more useful when discussing the results of the IAEA team visit to Iran. Apparently enough commitment on both sides was obtained to warrant another visit in three weeks.
Gunmen kidnap 11 Iranian pilgrims in Syria
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_syria
Apparently this is becoming a booming business in Syria…
Ray McGovern on Divining the Truth About Iran
http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2012/02/01/divining-the-truth-about-iran/
Commenting on Clapper and the Worldwide Threat Assessment delivered this week to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Includes a Russia Today view interview with McGovern.
US Group Urges ‘More Credible’ Military Threat Against Iran
http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2012/02/01/us-group-urges-more-credible-military-threat-against-iran/
In other words, under the guise of a “credible threat”, let’s get the troops in there we need to actually START the war…
IDF chief: Iran’s nuclear program must continue to be disrupted
:http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-iran-s-nuclear-program-must-continue-to-be-disrupted-1.410465
Some 200,000 missiles aimed consistently at Israel, top IDF officer says
:http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/some-200-000-missiles-aimed-consistently-at-israel-top-idf-officer-says-1.410584
Quote
“If Khamenei issues a command to achieve a first nuclear explosive device, we estimate it would take another year before that’s achieved,” the top IDF official said, adding that “if he asks to translate that ability to obtain a nuclear warhead, that would take another year or two.”
Kochavi also reiterated the IDF estimate that Iran is in possession of more than 4 tons of low-grade enriched uranium as well as almost 100 kilograms of uranium enriched at 20%.
“If those are enriched more, to a 90% level, that would be enough for 4 atomic bombs,” the IDF officer said.
End Quote
More “Iran is dangerous” vs “Iran is weak” back and forth… See Giraldi’s article on the “weak” part. “Iran can destroy Israel but we can easily knock out Iran…” How anyone can buy this crap is amazing…but it’s working.
Phil Giraldi on Another War on the Cheap
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/02/01/another-war-on-the-cheap/
An Israeli-controlled New York Times reporter argues using Israeli studies that an Israeli attack on Iran won’t cause many problems for Israel.
Gee, propaganda much, New York Times?
Dempsey Told Israelis US Won’t Join Their War on Iran
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/01/dempsey-told-israelis-us-wont-join-their-war-on-iran/
1) I don’t believe it, for three reasons:
a) Dempsey would have to be an idiot. Of course, most Pentagon generals ARE idiots, so perhaps this is not a good reason… But he wouldn’t have said this without Obama’s approval, therefore Obama would have to be an idiot. And while he’s a lot dumber than people think, he’s not THAT stupid.
b) Dempsey – and Obama – has to KNOW that the ISRAELIS KNOW that Obama is in no position to let Israel “go it alone” against Iran. So why would he – or Obama – make such a stupid statement knowing they have no domestic political options to back it up – ESPECIALLY in an election year where the Republicans and the Israel Lobby would CRUCIFY Obama for failing to support Israel right after he stated in his State of the Union speech that the US and Israel bonds were “unbreakable”? It just makes no sense.
c) Dempsey – and Obama – has to KNOW that Iran will respond to an Israeli attack as if the US was attacking. Even if Iran had the forbearance to restrain its retaliation until it could see if the US was planning to attack after a limited Israeli airstrike, the US would be on high alert across the region and the US signal traffic alone as well as the increased presence of US aircraft in the skies would spook the Iranians into assuming the US was about to follow up on the Israeli attack. So it’s likely the Iranians would go for broke the minute Israeli jets showed up in their skies.
Which means it’s IRRELEVANT whether the US would immediately initiate an attack to support an Israeli strike. Iran would force that option almost immediately.
Therefore I suspect this is disinformation, plain and simple. It is a cover story being used to derail speculation that Dempsey was actually there to COORDINATE with Israel on the upcoming Syrian and Lebanon war, or even on an Iran strike.
If as I suspect the intent is to use Israel to finish the overthrow of Assad in Syria, then Israel is likely to be planning to put a SECOND armored division into Syria behind the first armored division which would be targeting Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley.
I suspect the strategic plan is this:
1) One armored division pushes north into Southern Lebanon.
2) A second armored division enters Syrian territory and engages the Syrian military alongside insurgent elements. This has the advantage of providing the necessary ground troops to take out the Syrian military in and around the capitol of Damascus and thus allowing the insurgents to take control of the capitol.
3) The third armored division moves in behind the second, swings east and moves north into Syrian territory up to the flank of the Bekaa Valley and attackd Hizballah there, hoping to create a “pincer” effect.
The rest of the article is a series of “we don’t know for sure” points about both the discussion Dempsey held with the Israelis as well as the “Austere Challenge” war games which are still on hold.
Article making the case that the Iran war is over petrodollars to a large degree. I’d agree that’s involved but it’s not the only reason, of course.
Petrodollar pumping US policy on Iran, backfire looms
http://rt.com/news/iran-attack-us-allegations-243/
I congratulate the Leveretts on their response to Lucas.
Now ban his ass completely, i.e., his IP. He has thumbed his nose at you. He’s deliberately lied about his motivations for posting here. Ban him. He’s is deserving of no consideration whatever.
Then follow up with Sassan unless he agrees to stop posting long, un-commented articles.
Castellio says:
February 2, 2012 at 3:24 am
I’ve already read Richard’s piece on the events in Syria. I thought it was more or less garbage.
I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry when I read Seymour, who is considered an prominent figure in Britain’s radical left, interject without irony that Iran and Syria were ‘ineffective bulwarks’ against Imperialism.
The basic mistake he commits is the same he always commits when talking about Iran, or Imperialist aggression against any non communist state. His emphasis is that his own task, and that of his fellow travelers, is first and foremost figuring out ways they can use the chaos generated by their own governments to aid his ideological analogues in victim countries bring about governments he would approve of.
He doesn’t even have a pretense of shame. He talks about germinating political possibility in Lybia in the aftermath of the events that have taken place there. Yeah, sure, maybe after they’re done lynching black people.
Seymour is bloviating holier-than-though douche bag who think a half hour’s worth of google-ing makes him an expert on the issue of the day, whatever that issue may be. How does he justify siting the strength of the “Free Syrian Army” at 15,000? Their says so? He even sites their boiler-plate propaganda about having a core mission of ‘protecting the protestors’ . I’m actually surprised he didn’t claim all the dead Syrian soldiers were victims of the Syrian regime: shot because they refused to fire on protestors.
Make no mistake, Seymour and leftists like him have a very limited ability to analyze events from a realist point of view. They instead excel in projecting their own mythological or even theocratic expectations of how ‘revolutionary change’ should happen onto societies that bear little or no resemblance to their own. Needless to say, they rarely produce anything useful.
Masoud
Pirouz says:
February 2, 2012 at 2:19 am
Masoud, I’ve washed my hands of those folks.
Good for you Pirouz. I couldn’t tell you for sure when my personal hopes for NIAC were deflated. I don’t think I had any confidence in them at all after the election, but I wonder if I didn’t actually part ways with them much sooner, and on more fundamental grounds.
I think there’s a great distance between you and I in that respect. I think of myself as an Iranian who travels on a Canadian passport, not so much because I am in some way so overwhelmingly Iranian in education or behavior(in that respect, I’m barely Iranian at all), but because I’m so irrevocably disgusted by what passes for Canadian nationalism, and at the same time so overwhelmingly impressed with the way Iran has carried itself in the world, particularly in the past three decades.
I understand that you identify as a patriotic American who is proud of his Iranian heritage. That’s a circle that i don’t think I’d be able to square.
Just about everyone is at some level a bundle contradictions, and it’s only natural that these conflicts can seem simultaneously intractable to ‘outsiders’ and completely shallow and synthetic to ‘insiders’ at one and the same time. Nevertheless, I am willing to go out on a limb in this particular case, and make a diagnoses of just why NIAC has gone so horribly awry, and Trita seems so hopelessly incoherent:
An Iranian-American is a contradiction in terms, and a whole flock of people getting progressively more determined to be included in some kind of ‘political process’ while at the same time forcing themselves to remain willfully blind to that limitation on possible courses of human action, are a disaster waiting happen. In that sense, they’re not very different from cold war communist parties who thought they could be loyal to both Russia and Iran, Monarchists who fancied themselves as loyal to both Iran and the of Pahlavi, or MEK members who though they could be loyal to both the Rajavis, and well, anyone or anything else.
Bush really did frame the problem confronting these hyphenated Americans quite effectively, and though I don’t think he’s usually on the mark, this just might be the exception that proves the rule,”You are either with us, or against us.”
I think you and I are going to be far from the only refugees from the ranks of the NIAC, and that it’s only natural that a ‘competing’ organization will at some point be formed. Let’s hope it’ll be wise enough not to fall into some of the NIAC’s more unfortunate pitfalls.
Humanist says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Re: WT7
The definitive bookon the subject is David Ray Griffin’s. But you really don’t need to read a book to know there is something fishy. All you have to do is to watch the collapse in slomo, concentrating on the black shroud on top which is the housing that houses the cooling towers on top of the building. This roof-top machine-room is in the center of the building, and the center of the building clearly starts to come down perhaps a full half-second or so before the perimeter of the structure itself. That is a clear tell-tale sign of a controlled demolition, wherein the center or core columns are taken out first in order that the building falls within its own footprint. Another tell-tale sign is the controlled demolition “kink” at the top of the building about a third of the way from the left corner. The kink shows the building imploding onto itself (inwards, in other words), rather than coming straight down. A third tell-tale sign are the demolition “squibs” (google it…), and the fourth, of course, is the fact that the building came down at near free-fall speed, as if there were no massive steel columns there to provide any resistance. (The thickness of the web and flanges of the columns at ground level are 4 to 5 inches; that is truly massive.
Another epistemological approach to the question is to watch the building come down, then, to go to google images and google in turn WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5, & WTC 6, and to look at how these building, while physically occupying an intermediate position between the twin towers and WTC 7, were massively destroyed, but nonetheless, were still standing and did not come down at free-fall speed. Then, having seen those pictures, to go back and watch the collapse of WTC 7 again. If, after having carried out this exercise to the letter, you still don’t smell a rat, then I regret to inform you that your olfactory senses are dead.
Masoud, Richard Seymour wrote the book “The Liberal Defence of Murder” dealing with “humanitarian interventionism”. He’s a very sharp writer on this issue.
It’s a book well worth reading, published by Verso. This is how they promote the book:
“A war that has killed over a million Iraqis was a ‘humanitarian intervention’, the US army is a force for liberation, and the main threat to world peace is posed by Islam.
Those are the arguments of a host of liberal commentators, ranging from Christopher Hitchens to Kanan Makiya, Michael Ignatieff, Paul Berman, and Bernard-Henri Levy. In this critical intervention, Richard Seymour unearths the history of liberal justifications for empire, showing how savage policies of conquest—including genocide and slavery—have been retailed as charitable missions.
From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Seymour argues that the colonial tropes of ‘civilization’ and ‘progress’ still shape liberal pro-war discourse, and still conceal the same bloody realities.”
I can’t help wondering if the Leveretts have read it.
Anyhow, Seymour has brought his analytic skills (all too briefly) to the Syrian situation and people might find his thoughts worthwhile. It was posted just over a week ago.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-humanitarian-intervention.html
And a quote from it: “As has become the pattern in the Obama executive, the main vector for this kind of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the administration is Clinton’s State Department. It was by persuading Clinton of the virtues of intervention in Libya that the lib imps – people like Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Anne-Marie Slaughter – won the case for war against its Realist opponents.”
It’s actually quite shocking to read just far Parsi has stooped.
My comment at the globe:
It has been about three years since I’ve paid any serious attention to Trita Parsi.
I didn’t know it was this bad. It’s heart breaking to see just how far he’s fallen. As the Leverett’s say, he’s now virtually indistinguishable the humanitarian interventionists that have reeked so much havoc in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lybia, Somalia, Haiti, Zimbabwe etc. in the past decade alone. One would think they\d be embarrassed that they can’t provide a single instance in which US ‘pressure’ and ‘human rights agendas’ have improved the living situation of the citizens of a targeted country. But they’re not.
There can only be two possible explanations: these people are hopelessly, an explanation I reject out of hand in Parsi’s case, or that this type of advocacy is not meant as good faith effort to educate the public about important foreign policy issues.
I have no idea what motivates Parsi. Maybe he believes he is mainly concerned with influencing the political landscape of his country of birth. Perhaps he believes that such skewed accounts of the diplomatic record will land him a more central role in Iran policy formulation. Maybe he’s just covering for his own mistakes.
Whatever his motivation, I just hope he manages to do less damage than his predecessors.
Humanist… I brought up the name of Paul Wellstone, who was a popular Senator who voted against the invasion of Iraq and was destined to win his upcoming re-election at least partly due to that vote.
The following is from an article originally published in 2002, in the week following Wellstone’s untimely death, written by Dr. Michael I. Niman who taught journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College.
http://www.oilempire.us/wellstone.html
After you finish reading it, you might ask yourself about the cost of high profile independent thought in the US.
“Wellstone now joins the ranks of other American politicians who died in small plane crashes. Another recent victim was Missouri’s former Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan, who lost his life in 2000, three weeks before Election Day, during his Senatorial race against John Ashcroft. Carnahan went on to become the first dead man to win a Senatorial race, humiliating and defeating the unpopular Ashcroft posthumously. Ashcroft, despite his unpopularity, went on to be appointed Attorney General by George W. Bush. Investigators determined that Carnahan’s plane went down due to “poor visibility.”
Carnahan was the second Missouri politician to die in a small plane crash. The first was Democratic Representative Jerry Litton, whose plane crashed the night he won the Democratic nomination for senate in 1976. His Republican opponent ultimately captured the seat from his successor in November.
While an article in the New York Times on Saturday pointed out the danger politicians face due to their heavy air travel schedules, the death of a senator or member of Congress is still relatively rare, with only one other sitting U.S. Senator, liberal Republican John Heinz, dying in a plane crash since World War II. Heinz, who entered office as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War, later emerged as a strong proponent of health care, social services, public transportation and the environment. He also urged reconciliation with Cuba. He died when the landing gear on his small plane failed to function, and a helicopter dispatched to survey the problem crashed into his plane.
One former senator, John Tower, also died in a small plane crash. Tower was best known as the chair of the Tower Commission, which investigated the Reagan/Bush era Iran/Contra scandal.
Another member of a prominent government commission who died in a small plane crash was former Democratic representative and House Majority Leader Hale Boggs. Boggs was best known as one of the seven members of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone when he killed the president. Boggs, it turns out, had “strong doubts” that Oswald acted alone, but went along with the commission findings. Later, in 1971 and 1972, he went public with his doubts. He was presumed dead after the small plane carrying him and Democratic Representative Nicholas Begich disappeared in 1972.
Texas Democratic Representative Mickey Leland also died in a plane crash. In his case, the six-term member of Congress and outspoken advocate of sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, died while traveling in Ethiopia. Another American politician to die overseas in a plane crash was the Clinton administration’s Commerce Secretary, Ronald Brown, whose plane went down in the Balkans.
Anyone familiar with my work knows that I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist. But to be honest, I know I wasn’t alone in my initial reaction at this week’s horrible and tragic news: that being my surprise that Wellstone had lived this long. Perhaps it’s just my anger and frustration at losing one of the few reputable politicians in Washington, but I also felt shame. Shame for not writing in my column, months ago, that I felt that Paul Wellstone’s life, more so than any other politician in Washington, was in danger. I felt that such speculation was unprofessional and would ultimately undermine my credibility. In the end, my own self-interest triumphed, and I never put my concerns into print. Neither did any other mainstream journalist, though I know of many who shared my concern.
When I heard Wellstone’s plane went down, I immediately thought of Panamanian General Omar Torrijos, who in 1981 thumbed his nose at the Reagan/Bush administration and threatened to destroy the Panama Canal in the event of a U.S. invasion. Torrijos died shortly thereafter when the instruments in his plane failed to function upon takeoff. Panamanians speculated that the U.S. was involved in the death of the popular dictator, who was replaced by a U.S. intelligence operative, Manuel Noreiga, who previously worked with George Bush Senior.”
Eric A. Brill says:
February 2, 2012 at 1:59 am
You’re a funny fellow, Eric. You must’ve been something in your court room days. Or, if not in involved in that kind of arena on a regular basis, in conference for sure.
masoud says:
February 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Masoud, I’ve washed my hands of those folks. Today they sent me another (mass) email aday after they they acknowledged receipt of my request to desist.
I’ve told them dozens of times the risk of foreign war they are taking in contributing toward the demonization campaign. They appear to not give a damn, I’m sorry to say.
Scott writes:
“On the immediate issue, the information on latest news and developments is posted here because many people, who cannot access other websites because of filters and blocks, are allowed to read RFI.”
Scott,
This implies that censors in Iran are aware you exist, and care. Are you confident they’re aware of your existence? And that they care whether anyone reads what you post on your website?
Scott,
You appear to be saying — in that vague, deniable way that is your trademark — that people in Iran can’t reach your site but can reach RFI.
If that is what you claim, I’m curious to learn how you get all your first-hand information from Iran, and how you communicate with your sources there. If you can get through to them, and they can get through to you — many, many times each day, judging from all the “news” you collect — do you really need RFI?
I
Eric A. Brill says:
February 1, 2012 at 3:07 am
Regarding the Baruch and the Taxi driver:
I had heard the same story regarding a notable figure avoiding the crash of the thirties, but it featured Ambassador Kennedy and a shoe shine boy. I wonder how many variations of this story there are, and whether it was even about the great depression to begin with.
So Scott admits he’s here to cut himself a portion of someone else’s effort. It’s parasitical Scott.
Well, well, surprise surprise.
Over on Gilad Atzmon’s site (posted January 29th) he has a Real News video on Israel and the tensions within the Russian community. There, as in the US, the “security” question is used to fund the wealthy… and one of the Russian speaking interviewees is clear how this works.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israel-is-disintegrating.html#entry14773013
Mr and Ms Leverett,
Thank you for your response. I look forward to the discussion about not only your analysis of US-Iranian relations and geopolitics, which I value, but also the internal situation in Iran — not only about the 2009 election but also (and, I think, more importantly) about the issues and developments beyond the elections.
On the immediate issue, the information on latest news and developments is posted here because many people, who cannot access other websites because of filters and blocks, are allowed to read RFI.
Although I may disagree with some of the interpretations on RFI, I think the site performs a valuable service, as it is unblocked, in ensuring that those interpretations can be considered. I think the same is true of information on the site.
Best,
Scott Lucas
Khameini Addresses conference of Islamic youth.
Key themes: confidence, perseverance, unity.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/224141.html
Eric, just to be clear, its not contrary views that bother me, its the abuse of a technology designed to encourage conversation and communication being used for purposes of deflection and dominance.
Neo-san:
Everyone is a believer. Belief is hardwired into our syntax:
[I believe that] I am not a believer.[..]
How soon you forget! :) But yes, forgetfulness is part of the Great Cosmic Game, just as children “forget” the best hiding spots in a house when playing Hide & Seek, and go through the motions of searching every room with equal vigilance rather than going for the “best” hiding spots first, in order to maximize the thrill.
Scott Lucas:
The Leveretts put their finger on a fair distinction.
Some people just don’t want you to post here at all but, as you know, I’m generally (not always) opposed to blocking people based on their views. When you express your views, and argue your points, my view is that you’re welcome here.
But you’re not doing much of that lately. Mostly you just paste in long “news” pieces also posted on your own website. While I share others’ skepticism about whether it’s “news,” I won’t quibble with that here. Assuming is it is news, though, why not just post it on your own site and be kind enough to give us a link here, maybe preceded by a brief summary so that we can decide whether to click on the link?
Do you do what you do because no one visits your site any more? Do you want to transform this site into your own site? Does that strike you as fair to the Leveretts? If they did that to you, on your site, would you find that acceptable?
Think about all this, Scott. Consider whether “transporting” your site to this site is really useful and fair to people who visit this site. Even if you don’t care about others, consider whether what you’re doing makes you look desperate to others.
Sassan,
I’m opposed to blocking commenters based on their view, but you do need to stop pasting in whole articles from other sources. Others do that occasionally (though they shouldn’t), but you do it many times every day. You’re copying and pasting copyrighted material, and what you’re doing is flatly illegal.
Read the article yourself (it’s often clear that you haven’t), and quote passages here that illustrate some point you write yourself. But you really need to stop this wholesale cutting and pasting. If you don’t, the Leveretts should block you.
Fiorangela, I think you’ve asked the right question: why do some seek to engender hatred? take pride in sowing it? look forward to its harvest?
They must be the living dead.
I continue to think Sassan should be banned/blocked. He continues to spam whole articles, this time the same spam twice. Yes I scroll through, but there should be limits.
I have to tell you, Sassan, they don’t pay you enough to do this, because assuming you once had a conscience, it was worth more than you’re getting.
Scott Lucas is in trouble.
It looks like CNN is out to corner the market on Iran media prostitution.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-738637
Being a client colonial state is like being between a rock and a hard place.
Thinking about the Arab spring aka Islamic awakening events which we all witnessed in this past year, and consequent related polices adopted by western supported US client states in the region, one would come to think, does support of Egypt’s military junta or Yemen’s Saleh benefit Saudi Arabia’s national interest at home, or is this policy what her own Arab population expects and demands of their own government, obviously the answer based on all pools is a big no.
Same goes with policies adopted by Qatar and Turkey and others on this issue. In case of Turkey one would think how it is that Turkey which up to last year had a great economic, political and security relation with Syria who in her own way is resisting the western colonialism, and consequentially according to polls popular in the streets of Muslim Middle East including Turkey. The question is, really what was it that Turkey suddenly had to turn around her relations with Syria by 180 degrees, if her new Syria policy will not be beneficial to her national interest be it economically, security, or politically in her own streets, and in the streets of the region.
The answer is that this was expected and in a subtle way is dictated to them, regardless if the expected adoption of new policies would further undermine their own government’s popularity at home, or if it really is beneficial or not to their overall national interest and security. I don’t even think the west would need to force these colonial states to adopt the western instigated policies, they probably automatically do adopt the expected western demands, that is, since these governments already know, that a weakened west translates to less western political and military support at the regional level, for them this eventual end game will translates to end of their own tyrannical rules by their own population which they never cared or were allowed to listen too.
Every time I read a piece by Parsi, I am haunted by memories of one particular interview he did in 2009, on Democracy Now! I was quite struck at the time about how anxious he was that Obama should begin negotiations immediately, and wait until after the elections, as many were urging. At time I thought, negotiations have had to wait for thirty years, what’s another couple of months?
Of course, my suspicious darkened in the immediate aftermath of the election. The NIAC, beginning with the night of the election, uncritically posted every wild rumor that came it’s way, and more often than not, that medium was Twitter. This was a sharp contrast with the NIAC’s up until then often sober and reality based press releases and awareness campaigns. Of course, the NED seed money Mr. Parsi received in order to start up NIAC doesn’t help either.
I still believe Parsi’s first book was excellent. And part of me wants to believe that the only reason Parsi’s adopted the rhetoric he’s adopted is to attempt to neutralize, to some extent, quarter’s in the US which are itching portray Obama’s negotiations with Iran as a betrayal of Human Rights, The Green Movement, The Iranian People etc… But honestly, I’m not so sure.
Emma Alberici interviewing Sergei Lavrov on Australian television:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3420041.htm
Recall Hillary Clinton’s delight when Qaddafi was slaughtered.
:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html
later, Clinton said This is the way we will do things in the future.
In contrast, Lavrov said, Libya will not happen again. . . .The African Union agreed to a plan, then it was not carried out and they were humiliated . . .because someone else had a score to settle. We will not be a party to that; we will not pick sides, we will not set preconditions. We will pressure the parties to go to the negotiating table to solve their own problems.
Richard Steven Hack says:
“fyi: “There will be no war in Syria or in Lebanon in which US would be participating.
Axis Powers have lost in Syria. That show is over.”
Well, it sure seems like it’s heating up rather than cooling down. :-)”
====
The best laid plans even suffer from UN-intended consequences;;;
“Qatar’s diplomacy and vast energy wealth has certainly brought it influence. But its widening role brings greater scrutiny and, in parts of the Arab world, growing controversy.
Even among its Gulf neighbours, there are indications now of an element of envy and mistrust, as Al Jazeera’s James Bays reports.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/02/20122116013104364.html
James Canning says:
“Did anyone notice the trumpeting, by the Washington Post, of Clapper’s statement that Iran might strike in the US?”
Preemptive propaganda?? Given the anticipated SL speech this Friday, why are these guys trying to stir the pot even more????
Humanist. You’re touching the third rail.
If we take out the banks and the insurance companies, the following were the tenants of WT7: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, the United States Secret Service, the New York City Office of Emergency Management, with the Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sharing a floor with the IRS.
So offices of the Department of Defense, the CIA, the US Secret Service, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and the S&E Commission disappear and no-one’s interested?
If you travel outside of the US, I mean on other continents, there is more freedom of speech around this event. Many think that Senator Paul Wellstone, who was pushing for answers, was the highest profile person to be hit.
There has been no plausible explanation (other than controlled demolition) given for the building’s sudden collapse at free fall speed.
Mossad? Well, only if Mossad is entwined with elements of the American defense and security apparatus at the highest levels.
RHS says if you knew what happened you’d be dead. There are dead people. You have to accept you might have a short life ahead of you if you want to pursue this. Peter Dale Scott is trying to find a way into the conversation, pointing to the existence of “a deep state” in the US, just as a ‘deep state’ was accepted as existing in Turkey.
If you accept the hypothesis of a “deep state”, one finds that RSH’s cynicism is in itself truthful… but that doesn’t mean that all the different levels of decision making have been corrupted, so good people continue to try to influence various levels of decision making. There remains reason enough for good people to fight the good fight.
Peter Dale Scott usually begins his story with the assassination of JFK, when clearly implausible explanations were given for a number of strange events, and were officially accepted. (The strange events continued with RFK and MLK) He points towards a collusion of the CIA, organized crime elements and wealthy individuals. Most of the organized crime elements have ‘gone legit’, and I won’t tell you the cities where they’re centered, but Chicago and Miami might not be too far off. (It could be argued that what used to be organized crime is now controlling the major city and state political apparatus).
It’s a complex story, and the ideological underpinnings (world outlook) of that collusion (should it have existed) is now rather popular among right-wing Republicans. In the minds of many… not just “so what?”, but “good!”.
Anyway you come at it, though, its been half a century of strange events and chronic corruption which has seriously eaten into the fundamentals of American society and the possibilities for its future.
There have been attempts by the electorate to “begin again”. That’s what led to Carter’s surprise victory and Obama’s sweep. Actually, the desire to ‘begin again’ was also at least partly behind Reagan’s continued success. And that led to… well, Iran-gate comes to mind, and most of the criminals in that were quickly rehabilitated and recycled in Bush’s government.
Tunisian Jew: ‘I’m not stupid to immigrate to Israel’
In 2007, American Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein’s IFCJ offered $10,000 each to 25,000 Iranian Jews to immigrate to Israel. However, only a dozen of them took the bait. The video below shows how Iranian Jews are treated in their own words.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/tunisian-jew-im-not-stupid-to-immigrate-to-israel/
Usual good analysis by “b” on Syria a must read
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Castellio, RSH
Re: WT7
I recall the instant I saw the video of crumpling of WT7 I remembered, in early 90s, reading something in a book entitled ‘By way of Deception’ by Victor Ostrovsky (who defected Mossad, appalled by its immorality and ruthlessness). In that book Victor describes how, during the construction of structures (such as bridges) in the Middle Eastern countries Mossad was capable of planting explosives to building materials such that in case of war the structures could be blown up easily (remotely?).
I’ve always stayed away from conspiracy theories but for me the case of the Building 7 is an exception. Those whose profession is related to Constructions or Materials might agree that the impact of the airplanes caused caused the collapse WT1 and WT2 but same, they would say, can not true for WT7.
Do you know anyone else linking Victor Ostrovsky’s Mossad capers to downfall of WT7? I am overly curios to know more about the other plausible causes.
http://www.voltairenet.org/Russia-and-China-in-the-Balance-of
and
;http://www.voltairenet.org/US-turns-the-page-towards-new-wars
we are our brother’s
keeperenemyOh I didnt know who that Melaine Philips were, googling her I found out she was just another hateful islamophobic propagandist, in line with geller etc.
some other bombastic articles she recently made:
melaniephillips.com/why-iran-will-not-come-to-its-senses
melaniephillips.com/the-other-britain
contact her here
melaniephillips.com/
rehmat,
You missunderstood, I just pointed out that it does not matter if Iran cease 19,75% as someone claimed enrichment since UNSC demand full stop.
Also Israel have gotten alot more than 60+ resolutions from the UN.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
An honest woman asking politicians in the UK if they would support an attack on Iran and note the western double standards toward israeli nukes.
Iraq War Déjà vu: UK warmongers on Iran. Question Time 26 Jan 2012
youtube.com/watch?v=EbAeOYM1ng4&feature=related
The dicthomy, espcially by the warmongering woman is typical. Note first how none respond to the claim that there is no proof of nukes whatsover instead they repeat the same bs we have heard for almost a decade. The islamophobic rant and the awaiting for a messiah. While ignoring that Iran havent started any wars for 40 years would be a proof that they arent hellbent to create a war due religious views, oh no, they clearly forget that Bush invaded Iraq very much because Jesus told him to.
God told me to invade, says Bush
theage.com.au/news/iraq/god-told-me-to-invade-says-bush/2005/10/07/1128562952070.html
Not to mention the christian zionists and lobby supporting Israel and US wars for this very reason.
The argument she uses is the follow:
* Iran is irrational – Israel isnt:
That Israel occupies, annex land and build illegal settlements, that they reject a palestinian statehood, that they reject some hundreds of UNSC resolutions and international law, that they have imposed a blockade leading to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, that they refuse to open up Dimona, a state which have commited war crimes for decades, that they are in constant warfare deliberately killing civilians, that they have invaded all their neighbours (some times multiple times) etc is according to this woman a “rational” state, what a lot of bs!). Compared to Iran who have signed the NPT, who havent attacked any state for hundreds of years and have no nukes compared to Israel.
* Iran threat with genocide – Israel isnt:
Really? When did Iran threat with genocide? Oh you arent meaning the myth of “wipe off the map” are you?
Whats going on in Gaza? West bank? Why is it that palestinians have to leave their homes just because they are palestinians? How come 750000 palestinians not only was pushed out 1947-1948 but was refused entry and was called terrorists?
Who killed almost 1500 palestinians 2009 in the illegal invasion? Who killed almost as many some year earlier in Lebanon? Of which 3 out of 4 were civilians? A rational state that dont commit war crimes?
Updated: United Nations Accuses Israel of Gaza ‘genocide’
nowpublic.com/world/updated-united-nations-accuses-israel-gaza-genocide
Other dicthomies were:
Iran cant have nukes – Israel can have nukes since the whole region want to attack them
Israel can threat others with force – Iran cannot
Iran bring terror – Israel isnt
etc
The usual glorification of Israel. When Israel do it, its called “legit”, and “for security”. Who buys that?!
Note how she try to internationalize the issue and have a constant israeli viewpoint, trying to get western states to wage a war against Iran for Israel, just like Iraq.
What she doesnt grasp is that states arent genocidal, they dont want to be bombed.
settman – How about putting your UNSC shoe in Israeli foot? UNSC has passed more than 69 resolutions against Israel – most of them were vetoed by Israeli poodles in Washington and others were just ignored by the Zionist regime.
Iran, as a member of NPT has every right to the enrichment unless it’s proven in a court of law that the enrichment is for the purpose of making nuclear bombs to counter Israel’s 400 nuclear bombs.
Israel’s Air force chief Ido Nehushtan speaking at the International Space Conference in Herzliya said that Israel is facing growing challenges from it neighboring countries especially from the Islamic Republic and its Lebanese ally, Hizbullah.
“The increasing presence of advance weaponary in the Middle East poses a challenge to Israel’s aerial superirity. This trend is being aided by Iran and challenges the IAF’s aerial superority which is the force’s key advantage”.
In other words, Ido Nehushtan was admitting that Iran’s home-made arms are superior that the most advanced arms, worth $3 billion per year, the Jewish army receives from the US at no cost.
Ido Nehushtan also showed his concern about situation in Syria which is part of American strategy to bring an anti-Iran regime in Damascus. Ido said that despite the turmoil, Syrian army is buying arms from Russia and China. He also asserted that both Hamas and Hizbullah are receiving rockets and missiles from Iran.
Speaking at the same conference next day, Israel Defense Force chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz threat to Israel has intensfied due to instability in the Middle East. He stressed that Iran’s ambitions to acquire nuclear bombs must continue to be distrupted.
“Iran’s nuclear program is a global and regional problem,” he said.
On January 17, 2012 – Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, head of the Israel Occupation Force (IOF) planing department had expressed similar concern:
”If we are forced to do things in Gaza or in Lebanon – under the Iranian nuclear umbrella it might be different,” said Amir Eshel.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/israeli-general-iran-is-damaging-iaf-superiority/
James,
Could you buy something when when you have no cash? No of course not.
Could Iran enrich when they are demanded by UNSC not to? No of course not (from a UNSC view), now why then do you drag up 20% enrichment when the leaders of the west demand that Iran stop ANY enrichment?
Fiorangela,
I think Deepak Tripathi takes the argument too far.
After the First World War, when oil was discovered in Iraq, the US schemed with France to have Turkey recapture Mosul, if France was not given a share of the Turkish Petroleum Company.
The British feared being dependent upon oil supplies from America.
Fans of MJ Rosenberg and his notion of “Israel Firsters” should not miss:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/rosenberg-gets-trita-parsi-call-for-diplomacy-into-la-jewish-journal.html
settman,
I was trying to ascertain if you thought Iran should not have offered to stop enriching to 20 percent. (Assuming approval of IAEA application to re-fuel the TRR)
The Washington Post news alert read as follows: “Iran, perceiving threats from the West, increasingly weilling to attack on US soild, warns US spy chief”.
All this based on Clapper’s refernce to the so-called “plot to kill the Saudi ambassador” in testimony before Congress.
The War Between the USA, EU, China, and India to Control the World Energy Resources Is Being Fought in Iran
James
said…
“Are you suggesting Iran should not have offered to cease production of it? (If IAEA application was put through)”
Didnt we finish this? Or do you deny that UNSC have sanctions on Iran demanding it to stop enriching?
Richard Steven Hack
On the one hand I really get what you are saying, as showing a geographical distribution of opinions would be quite interesting. But on the other hand, it can be easily circumvented for political aims.
I admire those of you who participate with real names. And may join you some time, hopefully soon. However, I value the freedom my anonymity gives me. You see, despite working in europe, I certainly don’t have the freedom to express myself freely. Not without severe repercussions in the work place anyhow. Perhaps even elsewhere.
Did anyone notice the trumpeting, by the Washington Post, of Clapper’s statement that Iran might strike in the US? Headline story, based on the foolish so-called “plot to kill the Saudi ambassador”. Philip Giraldi said Feb. 1st: “Among retired and ex-CIA who have dealt with Iran it is UNIVERSALLY believed that the whole tale is completely implausible.” (amconmag.com/blog)
settman,
Yes, I understand the use Iran will make of the 20%U.
Are you suggesting Iran should not have offered to cease production of it? (If IAEA application was put through)
Cyrus,
I understand the industrial ecconomics angle, that is is inefficient to stop and re-start a production line for 20% U. This does not explain why Iran announced a trebling of production, however.
Cyrus,
Yes, the foolish American blocking of Iran’s IAEA application to re-fuel the TRR led directly to Iran’s enriching to 20%. And try to find a major American newspaper that will point out this fact.
Cyrus,
I did not say Iran was stockpiling 20% U to make nukes. In fact, I personally do not think Iran intends to build nukes, as things stand today.
But there is no question the Saudis pressed the issue of Iranian production of 20% U in excess of needs for TRR etc, when William Hague met with leading Saudis this past summer.
Leader in The Times (London) Jan. 24th: “Republic of Fear”. Quote: “the mullahs’ depradations…extend from stealing the presidential election of 2009 by faking the results, to…” The “stolen” election.
Noah Millman is the writer of the excellent review of Gorenberg’s new book (“The Unmaking of Israel”).
Neo says:
February 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm
All that Sussan Khanoom wants is the appreciation of her IDF idol Gilad.
I mean who could blame her :
http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.patrickallemand.fr/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/shalit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.patrickallemand.fr/%3Fp%3D1035&h=282&w=226&sz=12&tbnid=dFLIjwnfLAeYBM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=92&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgilad%2Bshalit%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=gilad+shalit&docid=TQrk2MU2_SOQxM&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=4LspT46WFoHTsgbEsKTUAQ&ved=0CEwQ9QEwBQ&dur=828
I recommend “Is Israel a Failed State?”, the review of Gershom Gorenberg’s new book, The Unmaking of Israel, in Feruary 2012 American Conservative magazine. Gorendeber is an Orthodox Jewish Israeli, of American origin, who says Israel needs to get out of the West Bank. He argues that Israel has been undermining its own security since the 1967 war, by ill-considered illegal settlement programme.
Cellco
Partnership DBA
Verizon
Wireless 24.sub-75-XXX-X
9.myvzw.com US United States 33.8424 -117.549
^ from class
UU,
Oh I’m heartbroken to note that you forgot I’m not a ‘believer’ :)
but ‘Agent Sassan’ sounds like the right description for sure!
Neo: I wonder if the freak show known as Sassan is using a proxy server to disguise his location.
It would be fun if the Leveretts’ Webmaster would take Sassan’s IP address and track it back. It’s not that hard to find out in what geographical area an IP address is generated from. It’s not hard to spoof that location either. But if he’s too dumb to spoof, it would be fun to prove, for instance, that his posts are originating from an ISP in say, Tel Aviv…
I think blog sites in general should publish their posters’ IP addresses just for such a purpose – to allow everyone to know from where some opinions are coming.
fyi: “There will be no war in Syria or in Lebanon in which US would be participating.
Axis Powers have lost in Syria. That show is over.”
Well, it sure seems like it’s heating up rather than cooling down. :-)
And we’ll see the truth of your prediction within the next six months or so, I’d guess, i.e., a lot sooner than any predictions on an Iran war…
“Yet just how much the world has changed since the end of the Cold War.”
Maybe we are still fighting Bolshevism,
Bibi is like Stalin. He is willing to slaughter his way to dominance and eager to impose his version of moral order — with zionists as the world’s ‘moral leaders.’
In the U.S. he finds his Christian soldiers who will fight and die for his dystopian vision.
Sassan,
I know you much better than you imagine. i have had the pleasure of coming across your game on several occasions elsewhere as well as here. your whole approach to Iran is from an exclusively israeli perspective of far right extraction. And I have never come across a single word of criticism against Israel from you.
that, i admit, is not necessarily a jewish perspective. this only makes your stance even more absurd though.
You appear detached from anything resembling iranian culture. that is clear from your statement: “Iranians in the majority are not practicing Muslims”. This short sentence brings forth so many issues that you are obviously unaware of. here are a few:
- what is your understanding of the term ‘practicing muslim’? can a self-acclaimed atheist with reasonable intelligence ever attempt to decide And proclaim who is ‘practicing’ islam and who is not?
- from the above, i wonder if you see all ‘practicing’ muslims as somewhat fanatical. you know, israeli style of thinking.
- do you have any rational matter upstairs? i mean, really, without any ‘agenda’, it is truly beyond belief that anyone with a sound mind would possibly claim that a country that had one of the most popular revolutions in history and ended up with an Islamic Republic through a nationwide vote would be populated by people who ‘in the majority are not practicing Muslims’.
Sassan, your stance on Iran is a foreign one. You are trying to impose your own preferences on the country. nothing wrong with trying, but stop pretending that it is in the name of Iran or its people, neither of which you have any real connection with. What you are wishing for is more like how you would like Iran to be in the future, modelled on Israel or some absurdly foreign option like that.
and stop using cyrus like a propaganda tool. yes we all know and are proud, but talk about turning the clock back Even further…
Israel sets up elite command unit to strike behind ‘enemy’ lines
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-sets-up-elite-command-unit-to-strike-behind-enemy-lines-6297652.html
Quote
Israeli officials say that any military action must take place by the end of summer to prevent Iran moving more of its nuclear capabilities underground. They also point out that the Western powers which have imposed them are now fully aware of the dangers posed by the regime. Yesterday in Washington, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, told a Congressional panel that Iran may launch terrorist attacks in response to a perceived threat.
End Quote
Richard Steven Hack says: February 1, 2012 at 4:05 pm
There will be no war in Syria or in Lebanon in which US would be participating.
Axis Powers have lost in Syria.
That show is over.
Scott Lucas says: February 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Good, but that is what United States is doing.
She is a negative force on this planet.
Syria crisis: Erdogan steps up Turkey pressure on Assad
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15745199
Erdogan warns of ‘civil war’ in Syria as daily bloodshed continues
:http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/09/187210.html
Quotes
“The situation that has emerged there is right now heading towards a religious, sectarian and racial civil war. This must be stopped,” Erdogan said at a televised press conference.
“Turkey must play a leading role here. A civil war which could emerge would put us in difficulty… and pose a threat to us,” he said.
Erdogan said on Monday that Turkey had begun implementing sanctions against the Syrian leadership, adding that they would increase according to the situation on the ground.
But the Syrian opposition Local Coordination Committees (LCC) rejected the Arab League communiqué and said in a statement that it puts the killer and the victim on the same line, according to Al Arabiya.
The statement called on the Arab League to meet its responsibility towards the Syrian people through the following steps:
-Immediately announcing that the Arab observers have failed in their mission in Syria.
-Referring the Syrian file to the U.N. Security Council, paving the way for imposing a no-fly zone and establishing a safe corridor for protecting the military defector.
-The Arab League should release all evidence proving the presence of armed groups and terrorists among the protesters.
-The Arab League would be held accountable if the Syrian revolution is changed from its peaceful nature to an armed one.
-Syria should be annou7nced a disaster-zone and thus campaigns to deliver relief and aid should be launched at once.
Some Syrian opposition groups hope a failure of the mission might open the way to foreign military intervention like that which helped topple Libya’s Qaddafi last year.
But Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby said that while the Syrian opposition had asked for the case to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, there was no international appetite for military intervention in Syria.
End Quotes
Oh, there’s plenty of appetite…
Fiorangela says:
February 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Fior-
Yes, there is going to be a Shahnameh event in UCLA on March 12 here is the link to the event http://www.international.ucla.edu/calendar/showevent.asp?eventid=9164
The lecture will be by Mahmoud Omidsalar who obtained his Ph.D. in Persian Literature from the Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley, he currently is one the leading research scholars on Shahnameh, and his lectures are informative and realistic in an academic level. Unfortunately I can’t attend since I will be in Iran, the date coincides with first anniversary of my father’s passing away.
With regard to a valuable presentation on this subject on a local library level, I think the best way would be to contact Columbia University’s department of Middle Eastern Studies, may be there lecturers like Hamid Dabashi can make suggestion as what should be focused on.
Please let me know if that helps
Mossad chief held talks on Iran in U.S. visit: CIA
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/31/mossad-chief-held-talks-on-iran-in-u-s-visit-cia/
Quote:
The Central Intelligence Agency director confirmed the meeting and said he was frequently talking to Israel’s leaders, who he said viewed Iran’s nuclear program as an “existential threat.”
“That is part of an ongoing dialogue that has also included conversations that I’ve had with Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu and with (Defense) Minister (Ehud) Barak — the latter almost on a monthly basis in the nearly five months that I’ve been in the job,” he said.
Feinstein cited her meeting with the Mossad director after asking US intelligence chiefs about the likelihood of possible pre-emptive military action by Israel against Iran’s nuclear sites.
US National Intelligence Director James Clapper replied that sanctions would hopefully convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear work but said he would prefer to answer the question in a closed-door session.
End Quote
In short, Petraeus is admitting that Netanyahu and Barak are controlling him, too.
And Clapper wouldn’t answer the question about a probably Israeli strike except behind closed doors.
Makes me REAL confident that “de-escalation” is in the cards…not.
fyi,
“Does your EA WorldView stand for harming all these other people who are not your enemies?”
No.
S.
The latest from Kaveh Afrasiabi on US hypes Iran terror threat again
:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB02Ak01.html
His cited “desconstruction” of the Iran Ambassador plot:
Iran Phobia And US Terror Plot: A Legal Deconstruction
:http://www.amazon.com/Iran-Phobia-Terror-Plot-Deconstruction/dp/1468037773/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328047185&sr=1-1
Unfortunately it’s a book costing $30…
The article I referenced below:
Fighting over Syria at the UN
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB02Ak03.html
fyi: “You are wrong if you think there will be a war.”
Well, we’ll see, won’t we? Sometime in the next four years is my current guess, probably sooner, depending on how Syria and Lebanon turn out and how long it takes Obama or his successor to set up a blockade and move more troops and ships and planes in under the blockade guise.
We could have the Syrian and Lebanon war this year and depending on how all out the parties go at it, it could be over by end of this year or say end of next year. Then another year to get a blockade set up. So we could have an Iran war in as little as two years or three. Could go even faster than that.
What is certain is that the US is pretty much out of sanctions options other than the ones I listed in an earlier thread which aren’t that significant. So the next MAJOR step pretty much has to be either a direct unilateral attack or a blockade to provoke an Iranian attack. Once Iran can’t PHYSICALLY export their oil OR get any food stuffs in except by truck, well, Iran pretty much has no choice but to attack. And once that happens, the US is off the hook because it will claim everything it did up to that point was “legal”.
Which does raise a point. Would a US and NATO blockade require a UNSC resolution. Naturally Russia and China would veto it. But there was a note in an article on Asia Times today or yesterday that noted that around the Korean war there was a situation where the US and NATO specifically organized a way around a Soviet veto.
Here it is”
“Yet just how much the world has changed since the end of the Cold War is evident also from the Western unwillingness to go all the way in confronting a fellow Security Council member. Little mention has been made so far, for example, of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (also known as “Uniting for Peace”), which was specifically designed by the US to bypass a Russian veto at the Security Council during the Korean War in the early 1950s.”
According to Wikipedia:
Quote
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A,[1] the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, states that in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity amongst its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time the General Assembly may meet using the mechanism of the emergency special session.
The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the “Acheson Plan”—was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).[2]
In it, the General Assembly:
“Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto,” …
“Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security,” …
“Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
To facilitate prompt action by the General Assembly in the case of a dead-locked Security Council, the resolution created the mechanism of the “emergency special session” (ESS),[3] which can be called upon the basis of either a procedural vote in the Security Council, or within twenty-four hours of a request by a majority of UN Members being received by the Secretary-General. In procedural votes, the permanent members of the Security Council—the so-called “P5″—do not have the ability to block the adoption of draft resolutions, so unlike substantive matters, such resolutions can be adopted without their consent.
End Quote
Actually I don’t see that helping the US and NATO in the case of a Iranian blockade because the bulk of the General Assembly will be opposed to any blockade of Iran.
But it might apply to Syria if Assad has to kill enough thousands to crush the rebellion. The US might be able to get around a Russian veto in the UNSC by this mechanism of “emergency special sessions” of the General Assembly.
I think we can assume that once the UN has been sidelined in the case of an Iranian blockade that the US and NATO will “go it alone” yet again, as I believe they are planning to do on Syria, blaming Russia for the “inability of the UN to function properly.”
This may be one of the reasons the US Congress is trying to back out of its obligations to various UN organizations over the issue of whether the Palestinians’ state should be recognized by them. If they can sideline the UN and cripple it by refusing to fund it, they and NATO can just ignore it whenever they want.
In any event, I don’t see the UN being in a position to PREVENT an Iran war by any means.
Unknown Unknowns says:
February 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm
friend of mine teaches courses in Photoshop.
that display was at least a graduate degree, maybe a PhD. From MatchBookUniversity.
Castellio: “RSH The wikipedia entry is dishonest”
Of course. Wikipedia also has a section on the “conspiracy theories”. Like I said, I don’t follow that stuff in detail. No one is ever going to find any real “smoking gun” and even if they do, they’ll either end up dead or it will be suppressed in the MSM anyway.
Sibel Edmonds has been offering the MSM a full and detailed expose of what she knows about the treason uncovered in her FBI translations, regardless of the fact that she is gagged from doing so by the DoJ. Not one single MSM outlet has taken her up on it. The biggest story since 9/11 and no one will touch it.
If anyone was behind 9/11, either in causing it or letting it happen, it was Dick Cheney. And I’m pretty sure Israeli intelligence knew all about it in advance. But it will never be proven – unless I run across it during my hacking program in the future. :-) I’m not holding my breath.
Scott Lucas says: February 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm
But this is harming US friends and not Iranians.
I mean, US is disrupting and harming Ukranians, Ceylonese, and others.
Does your “Enduring America” stand for harming all these other people who are not your enemies?
Richard Steven Hack says: February 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm
You are correct the US war with Iran, another war of choice by US, will become, by military logic, a land war.
You are wrong if you think there will be a war.
BiBiJon: “Blockade? Iran has already answered that one: the straits.”
Like I said…war.
Bottom line is war. There is no way out.
The US will run its blockade from the Arabian Sea so as to avoid a surprise attack in the Persian Gulf. That takes care of the Enduring Challenge war game problem.
Then once Iran closes the Strait, we’re on to my strategy of deploying airstrikes and the Marines north and south in the Strait, then once the Strait is reasonably secured, the Navy will “surge” into the Gulf. And then the rest of the war can get on. Meanwhile, the US and NATO will be bombing everything in sight in Iran…
BiBiJon says:
February 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm
And they say Iran sucks at marketing!
I thought it was the Mahdi or the Second Coming of Christ HImself there for a minute, with all those long-stemmed roses. Then I saw it was a piece of cardboard. Sheesh!
Truly nuts. Maybe its an avante guard entry for the Fajr Film Festival: a theatre of the absurd. The Iranian equivalent of Waiting for Godot :D
RSH,
”I don’t think there is a soul here who’s paying any attention to your 20% nonsense.”
I was. Really! I even found a name for it (‘The Pareto principle’). It only afflicts certain group (well only one person) of people.
Fio had a hang-nail that was related to the 20% as well. So, not, not a soul.
Irshad: “if things were this simple then I am sure Syria would have been taken out in 2003-04 by the Bush-Bliar cabal who were salivating from their destruction of Iraq.”
Sigh…You’re making the same mistake people make when they assume Iran won’t be attacked because it hasn’t been attacked YET…
I’ll repeat my standard answer. Things do not work that way. If you think the reason Syria or Iran wasn’t attacked immediately after Iraq because they were “too powerful”, you’re just utterly wrong. The neocons had every intention of doing so, but reality does not follow their desires.
The same reasons I laid out why Iran was not attacked are why Syria was not attacked. And even more so, since Syria is less important than Iran. The ONLY reason Syria is being attacked now is because it is in the way of Israel taking out Hizballah – and more generally because it is an ally of Iran and might – might – join Iran in retaliating against Israel. Frankly I doubt that, but it is possible and Israel has to take that into account just as much as Hizballah.
“their SAM systems are not static targets and are mobile – i.e. they are on the back of trucks”
But their long range radar systems are not – just like in Libya. Israel just recently attacked a Syrian facility while spoofing Syrian radar. The US and NATO can do that just as well.
I suggest you read “Operation Orchard”, the Wikipedia entry on the attack:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
Syria’s air defense system is one of the most advanced in the world, I’ll grant you, according to articles I’ve read.
It won’t matter.
Read this article:
Why Syria’s Air Defenses Failed to Detect Israelis
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2710d024-5eda-416c-b117-ae6d649146cd&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
If worst comes to worst, the US and NATO can overwhelm the system in local areas with massive airstrikes or high altitude B-52 and Stealth bombing, a section at a time. I think this is what they did in Libya – they did a section of the air defense system at a time. They have the numbers of planes and sorties to do that. They have the MONEY. Sooner or later you run out of air defense systems.
Syria has over 200 air defense systems. How many planes and sorties do you think the US and NATO can muster? Look at the order of battle listed in Wikipedia’s article:
2011 military intervention in Libya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed
NATO and the GCC alone had nearly 100 fighters. The article doesn’t count the US contingent, but at least 42 F-16′s were available from a base in Italy. According to one article, “the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance”.
In addition, over 100 cruise missiles were launched from 11 US ships in the Med to take out the Libyan air defenses before ANY air strikes were launched. That was from ONE US submarine…
The US also flew 30 refueling tankers out of the 40 used for the mission.
The total number of US aircraft was alleged to be around 350 by Press TV.
Total losses: Two plus an unmanned helicopter. This despite estimates that Gaddafi’s troops had up to 20,000 SAMS.
One problem NATO had was once the US pulled out of conducting air strikes, NATO was short on planes and short on munitions. This might be a factor in the timing of the Syria war, but I assume the military-industrial complex will be up to the task of replenishing all those munitions at a “fair” profit…
Bottom line: Syrian air defenses will be degraded over time to the point where complete US/NATO air superiority will exist. It may take a week, it may take a month. But 200 air defense batteries will be found and destroyed by probably 100-150 strike aircraft, hundreds of cruise missiles, and of course surveillance from satellite, AWACS SIGINT and Predator drones. Just like in Libya.
“2. Turkey is in bed with US/France/Qatar and KSA to get rid of the Syrian govt – targetting Incirlik – which will probably be used to bomb Syria will be a legitiamte target for Syrias scud missles as well as its Iskendar missle system.”
Which means Turkey will be in the war. That’s assuming the SCUDS are accurate enough to hit Incirlik and cause enough damage to matter. US air bases are BIG. SCUDS can knock out maybe a city block. They’re not going to destroy an air base the size of Incirlik. Of course, they could get lucky and kill a few hundred US personnel. That won’t stop the war.
“Also while we are at it – why not aim a few missles at all those dams”
Not a strategic attack when the guys doing the bombing aren’t Turks…
You really think Syria wants a war with Turkey AND the US AND NATO AND Israel? Really?
The US and NATO don’t think so, either – and wouldn’t care if Syria did. That’s Turkey’s problem. And Turkey will be happy to show Syria that it’s SYRIA’S problem…
Bottom Line: The SCUDS will be seen the minute they come out of their bunkers by the satellite and air surveillance, the launchers will be taken out eventually – and as I said, Syria has NO PLACE TO SHOOT THEM WITHOUT STARTING MORE TROUBLE.
3. “it is easy for Syrian intelligence to set an outfit up with capable people to do their dirty jobs against UNIFIL.”
First of all, UNIFIL has fifteen thousand troops including tanks and armored vehicles. They’re not a SMALL force. They can’t do anything against Hizballah the same way the Israelis can’t. And neither can any Syrian force likely to be mustered in Lebanon OTHER than Hizballah.
Who is Syria going to call on in Lebanon except Hizballah? The SUNNIS? The Sunnis WANT Syria destroyed! So it’s Hibzallah or no one. And Hibzallah is no going to attack UNIFIL as long as UNIFIL stays out of Syria – which it will because there will be no ground troop committed to Syria from Lebanon – only from Turkey, if at all.
“4. The Kurds can play their part in all this to pressure Turkey – this like a mention is a soft raq spot for the Turks.”
And as I said, that will mean nothing to the Turks and nothing to the US and NATO. So who cares?
“5. The Syrian state faces formidablle obstacles but the oppenets to face a formidable alliance – namely at the moment Syria, Iran, Russia, China, India, South Africa – sure most may not come to help Syria openly – but below the surface there will be help no doubt.”
And it will be too little, too late. While supplies can be smuggled from Iran through Iraq across the Syrian border, the level of destruction in Syria will be on a par with Iraq. The bulk of the Syrian military, which are conscripts, will be suppressed about as easily as Libya even though they are ten times the number. It will just take longer.
The REAL question about the outcome in Syria depends on whether the government forces will continue to support the government under a full-scale US/NATO bombardment and for how long. And that also relates to how many insurgents will be produced along the way, and how well they can be coordinated to defend against and attack the Syrian military.
Another question which may arise is whether Israel, in the process of trying to take down Hizballah, might also assist the insurgency by destroying some elements of the Syrian military. Given that some elements of the insurgents are ALREADY near the capital city of Damascus, and given that Damascus itself is very near the Lebanon border, I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel didn’t drop an armored division in there just to enable the insurgents to take the capital. While the insurgents probably won’t be happy about that, I’m sure they’ll be happy to take advantage of it if the Israelis immediately pull out after destroying the Syrian units and and around the capital.
“As fyi mentioned the survivle of Iran (and Hezbollah) depends on neutralising the threats the Syrian state is facing. In the last round of naval war games – senior Syrian generals attended those war games – no doubt they have been given advice on how to deal with the worst.”
With what? The Syrian navy is not the Iranian navy. They have two frigates and 20 missile boats. They’ll be gone within hours – if not minutes – of a US attack. They are certainly in no position to deal with the 11 US Navy war ships that were available in the Med for the Libyan campaign.
“I personally belive in all this the weakest players are the Saudis – the Iranians/Syrians/Russians must do something to pull the faction that wants a peaceful settlement to this bloddy crisi to prevail over the neo-con Saudi wing of the Saud clan.”
Like what? If the Iranians make a move, it’s cause for war. Russia won’t risk a military conflict with the US over Syria.
“let them ship in some mobile shoulder to shoulder sam missles and other advance weapons so the Syrians can play rough and tough themselve – insurgent style (ala Mujehdin in Afghanistan against the Soviets).”
Well, as I mentioned, Libya had 20,000 SAMS (now in the hands of Al Qaeda and probably a lot of them in the hands of the Syrian insurgents…). Didn’t do them much good… Again, it depends on MOTIVATED troops. If the Syrian military can maintain discipline… What am I saying? They’re an Arab army of conscripts…discipline is next to impossible. Only motivated insurgents like Hizballah and troops who are indoctrinated to support the regime like Iran are motivated. It doesn’t bode well for Syria.
Cyrus says:
February 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Sassan – no one in Iran is “marrying off 9 & 12-year old girls” — the age for marriage in Iran is 16 for females and 18 for males.
*
There’s no pleasing these people. The next thing you know they’s come up with some “scientific” finding that the neo-cortex does not finish its growth until women reach the age of 25, and will hike the age of consent up to 25, then wonder why we haven’t followed suit yet.
The point is that its none of anyone’s business what our laws are. Certainly noone who has made it their business to strangle our nation into starvation has any business telling us what we should or should not do.
I’m with Richard: flame his, but don’t engage or humor him. If you can’t ignore the trolls (like me), then flame them. Don’t give these discourteous and inconsiderate a$$holes the courtesey that they do not extend to us or to our hosts.
And I agree with Kooshy: The Leveretts must be doing something right for these two to have suddenly gone ballistic over the last week.
Uncle Weasel says:
February 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm
And they say Iran sucks at marketing!
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1522844
WTFudge??
I thought we ‘Markans was nuts!
James – Iran is not “stockpiling” 20% uranium to facilitate making nukes. Iran needs to make 20% enriched uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor. And the economics of enrichment do not allow a country to start and stop enrichment as needed, but instead demand that a country create stockpile once and use it up gradually. Had the US not interferred in Iran’s perfectly legal refueling of the TRR, Iran would not have had to enrich to 20% in the first place.
Sassan – no one in Iran is “marrying off 9 & 12-year old girls” — the age for marriage in Iran is 16 for females and 18 for males.
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/apr/1174.html
kooshy says:
February 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm
bingo.
kooshy gets the kewpie doll.
By the way, kooshy, speaking of kewpie dolls (or not), was it your post that mentioned a conference about Shahnameh in California on Mar 12? I would very much like to attend. I’ve managed to convince a local library that they should host an event featuring the Shahnameh and other Iranian literature. (The librarian said, Absolutely! You’re in charge!)
All I need to do now is learn about Shahnameh, learn about making a presentation, learn about advertising for a presentation about Shahnameh . . .
All suggestions more than welcome. The presentation is scheduled for Mar 17, but I hope to change it to Mar 24 — my town has a big St Patrick’s day parade on Mar 17.
I made the suggestion to the librarian in the context of Now Rooz, and I want to appeal to children in the community. I chose a Saturday so that parents AND children can/will attend.
James,…
said: “Yes, the IAEA continues to verify no diversion of uranium from civilian nuclear programme.”
Right so why do you repeat the Saudi concern when IAEA report after report show that Iran has no nuclear weapons, have no stockpiles, have no nuclear weapons program?
”
I have said I think Iran can make a deal allowing ir to produce 3.5%-5%U. And you are aware Iran offered to stop enriching to 20%.”
”
Ok that is to denying their right.
”
Israel wants no enrichment by Iran. Therefore, Obama has not suppported Iranian enrichment to 3.5%-5%. This does not mean no deal is possible.
”
Obama have never said that Iran could enrich, he follow previous resolutions on Iran which fobid Iran to enrich.
”
I take it you think Iran is wise to stockpile 20%U, to facilitate going on to 90% down the road?”
Didnt we just made it clear Iran is not seeking weapons? Why then do you insinuate about the 90%? Dont you know why Iran need 20%? Are you rejecting Iran’s claim that it needs it medical reasons?
Sassan – to say that the polls are invalid because they’re conducted in a “totalitarian state” is baloney simply because the same polls showed a significant degree to disagreemen and disaffection. Iran quite simply is not a totalitarian state
Sassan, You ARE aware, aren’t you, little girl, that Jews were prominent members of the Barbary Pirate brigades, incorporated, as they were, into North African Moorish groups as well as Ottoman Turks, with the former, from a time before Moors and Jews together settled Andalusia, and with the latter, from the time first Muslims then Jews were expelled from Iberian peninsula by Isabella & Ferdinand. That having happened, Jews were welcomed by Ottoman Turks, and also dwelt in many Italian cities.
In Italy in that and later eras, most self-respecting — or at least most wealthy Italian leaders — engaged in piracy; it was the thing to do. Andrea Doria engaged in piracy; so did most of Christopher Columbus’s crews. Edward Kritzler expands on this in Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean.
another point — here’s how hasbarats play their game: In seemingly erudite paragraphs and books — like Oren’s — they sling pseudo-historical mud on the sacrificial lamb du jour. Iran occupies that space today and in the assignment from your handlers, sassan. Apparently, soiling the reputation of another conveys a sense of righteousness and moral superiority on the mud-slinger; its more pernicious purpose is to engender hatred of that target group in order to incite the masses — the target audience — to join the “righteous, superior ones,” in heaping violence on the sacrificial lamb. It’s hard to kill a lamb unless a) the persons desired to do the killing are emotionally invested in the weakness, innocence, and perpetual victimhood of another; and b) the lamb/victim is stripped of his ‘humanity’ — or lamb-anity, I suppose. So that’s what hasbarats do when they sling mud at others — at eeeevuull Eyeranian, or those horrible Islamic Barbary pirates.
And here’s what people like me do when we encounter hasbarats like you: We sling the mud right back at ya. We rub your nose in the dog poo on the rug.
You have a defensive strategy for that situation; you cry, “antisemite” or “bigot” or “irrational.” Any slur will do.
The first one is the most potent. But it doesn’t work any more. Facts are either true, or they are false; if a fact is true, it cannot be antisemitic. And for any scenario you lay out to demonize Iran, or Muslims, or Palestinians, there is a fact pattern that will reveal the lie; I will find it; I will expose you AND the lie AND the hate behind it, and I will rub your nose in it. Count on it.
There’s a question that always comes to mind when people like you come around and do what you do: Why do you do it? Why do you try to engender hatred? What is the reward for you in causing other people to hate?
RSH The wikipedia entry is dishonest, WT7 came down on the same day as WT1 and WT2 at freefall speed, exactly as in a controlled demolition, and the owner is on tape saying it was “pulled”, but inspite of that it was dropped out of the Commission’s Report (they simply agreed not to deal with it).
Irshad: I agree that the Saudi government is the weakest link in the collaborating forces for popular repression.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm
As to doubling down, and then doubling that too, Ad infinitum, I just say this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Blockade? Iran has already answered that one: the straits.
Waving my hands about preempting plots, well everyday new defensive weapons are being developed, sold, smuggled, etc. just to make sure whoever pulls the trigger knows it won’t be a cakewalk.
I sincerely think Israel is only adept at attacking defenseless women and children. They are not going to take on Iran other than through megaphone alarmism in NY Times Mag, or the Atlantic once a year or so.
Interested,
Trita Parsi has a piece at salon.com today that argues Obama came close to making a deal with Iran, or at least closer than any other president.
No mention of fact Iran wanted to make a deal in 2002-03, but moron in the White House was too incompetent to go forward.
Scott Lucas
Your behaviour on this website is very immature.
settman,
Yes, the IAEA continues to verify no diversion of uranium from civilian nuclear programme.
I have said I think Iran can make a deal allowing ir to produce 3.5%-5%U. And you are aware Iran offered to stop enriching to 20%.
Israel wants no enrichment by Iran. Therefore, Obama has not suppported Iranian enrichment to 3.5%-5%. This does not mean no deal is possible.
I take it you think Iran is wise to stockpile 20%U, to facilitate going on to 90% down the road?
For sure, one thing that Scott Lucas’s new marching order for interrupting Leveretts and their policy advocacy site RFI proves, is that the establishment, its middle east policy media personalities, and in general the US’s Department of Information are becoming severely uncomfortable with Leveretts and this site, continually challenging them with established facts on the ground like this new post refuting Parsi’s new book.
I read the article with great interest. I haven’t read the book, but Trita Parsi like many others in American policy making circles says what needs to be said in order to gain influence and funding. Actually, I’m pleasantly surprised that the Boston review would publish such material.
Castellio: “RSH, don’t tell me my sarcasm was too dry?”
Yes, it was. I couldn’t be sure. I wasn’t even sure what your post was directed towards.
I’m well aware of the controversy, but I lack the engineering knowledge to parse the data, so I don’t bother. But I have heard that building 7 in particular had absolutely no reason to go down unless it was deliberately “pulled” as they call deliberately demolishing a building. All I need to know is that the guy who owned the building got what, close to a billion in insurance? That’s enough to establish motive…
James,
Are you deliberately running away from my questions?
Please reply to each of them.
Do you deny that IAEA repeatedly have said that no uranium have been diverted for weaponization?
Do you deny Iran the right to enrich?
Do you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
James Canning says:
February 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm
This is a new one you pulled out of the hat – where did you hear or get this idea from?
If its not oh its Irans fault that Saudis will go nuclear because of 20% crap now its Irans fault for Saudis turning against Assad.
James – what planet are you on? what do you smoke to write this things? or is this thet the FCO mandarins belive? if they do – then I say fire them all for been incompetent at their jobs – maybe the money saved from them been fired will help bring the UK deficit down by more then 50%!
Lucas: “No. For readers of EA WorldView who sign in via Disqus, there is no process of approval.”
Then your ass is ours, beyatch! :-)
Canning: “one that seems almost certainly to have arisen partly in response to Iran’s ill-considered decision to treble production of 20% U.”
With that remark, you have officially passed into the realm of either a troll or someone on crack.
I don’t think there is a soul here who’s paying any attention to your 20% nonsense.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Richard thanks for your view points, if things were this simple then I am sure Syria would have been taken out in 2003-04 by the Bush-Bliar cabal who were salivating from their destruction of Iraq.
1. The Syrians learned a big lesson in the early 80s when Isreal invaded Lebanon – the Syrians had their SAMs knocked out as they left them in one area which gave them Isrealis the easy targets to knock out. They learnt and they learnt hard and fast from that episode and have learnt from what happened to Gaddafys and Saddams air defence systems no doubt (they have some clever people there who are observing and analysisng these things) – their SAM systems are not static targets and are mobile – i.e. they are on the back of trucks – so one minute they can be here, the next over there. Yes, Isreali planes were flying over the presidential palace but Putin put a stop to do that when he heard about it by selling the Pantsir S1 system – the Isrealis stopped their muscle flexing in Assads face. They have the S300 system in operation – this will be a formidable obstacle to overcome as the Russians/Chinese/Iranians will be watching this sytem copes in an actual battlefield.
2. Turkey is in bed with US/France/Qatar and KSA to get rid of the Syrian govt – targetting Incirlik – which will probably be used to bomb Syria will be a legitiamte target for Syrias scud missles as well as its Iskendar missle system. Also while we are at it – why not aim a few missles at all those dams the Turks have built in the 1990s – atleast they will get more water going in to the Euphartes river – thereby alleviating some of the drought conditions of some parts of the country (one of the reason why peaople around Deraa and Homs are revolting is because of the drough condition in those areas and a decrease in general wealth and living condition).
If I was Syrian planners I will carefully pick sites to hit that will cause not just actual hard damage but will cause psychological damage to the agressors – so lets say, Turkey = Incirlik and the various dams, Cyprus = the British military base there so the likes of Hague and Canning can go in to shock overdrive, Jordan = a few token missle attacks on Aqaba (for the plucky king supporting the rebels). This should be enough to halt or slow the degradation of the Syrian state. At the same time the Syrians can warn the Saudis that their investments in Beirut will not be safe and that the members of the royal family will be open targets – blow a few of them fat b@stards to proof the point.
3. Richard I never mentioned Hezbollah to attack UNIFIL – I belive Hezbollah can stay out of it – but it is easy for Syrian intelligence to set an outfit up with capable people to do their dirty jobs against UNIFIL. No doubt the alliance of the great and good will shout, scream and vomit that Hezbollah is behind it – but will they really want to start on those nutters? I know Mr AL-Thani will not want that as he knows what this means – Arabs in the future will look back and curse him and his ilks for allowing the death and destruction of Arab lifes and proeprty all for what? The SNC?
The Saudis – they are hated by all Muslims – for preaching hatred and legitimising the killing of fellow Muslims everywhere and anywhere (the Americans seem to have forgotten Al-Qaeda and a certain OBL – go look at how they messed up Pakistan).
4. The Kurds can play their part in all this to pressure Turkey – this like a mention is a soft raq spot for the Turks.
5. The Syrian state faces formidablle obstacles but the oppenets to face a formidable alliance – namely at the moment Syria, Iran, Russia, China, India, South Africa – sure most may not come to help Syria openly – but below the surface there will be help no doubt.
As fyi mentioned the survivle of Iran (and Hezbollah) depends on neutralising the threats the Syrian state is facing. In the last round of naval war games – senior Syrian generals attended those war games – no doubt they have been given advice on how to deal with the worst.
I personally belive in all this the weakest players are the Saudis – the Iranians/Syrians/Russians must do something to pull the faction that wants a peaceful settlement to this bloddy crisi to prevail over the neo-con Saudi wing of the Saud clan.
Russia has done itself and international diplomcacy a favor by acting the way it has been – Mr Lavrovs interview to the Asutralian media and Mr Churkins speech at the UN makes it clear – no to regime change and armed intervention in Syria. Lets hope they keep up with this and if not, before they cave in, let them ship in some mobile shoulder to shoulder sam missles and other advance weapons so the Syrians can play rough and tough themselve – insurgent style (ala Mujehdin in Afghanistan against the Soviets).
BiBiJon: “I mean, and meant to say he has no choice but to de-escalate.”
I’m happy to address that as well.
He has every choice and every intention to not “de-escalate” as I said. He will double down, not “de-escalate”.
There is nothing whatever impeding him from proceeding on toward war. Of course, there are things that COULD derail him temporarily – something could happen with North Korea or Pakistan, as I’ve said before.
Perhaps the Syria war will go badly for some reason, or Israel STILL fail to crush Hizballah despite putting an armored division in the Bekaa Valley. Anything is possible.
But assuming the event immediately and obviously under discussion and lined up for execution over the next year or two come to pass, he has absolutely no reason to do anything but pursue them as he’s been ordered to.
“if you’ve run out of ammunition”
I’ve already specified and history has already demonstrated that a blockade of Iran is the next step. Pray explain how this is “running out of ammunition.” Not to mention the new round of unilateral sanctions the US Congress is preparing to pass.
“and your future plots and maneuvers are being countered before you’ve had a chance to even plan them”
Please detail these excellent and already confirmed results from the specific countermoves you are hand waving about…
“if you are left with a few European aallies and bunch of GC dicatators”
Which is all the US has had since 2003 and I don’t see any change of course yet.
“Public opinion, particularly in the US is a fickle thing, and anyway easily manipulated and/or ignored to fit any exigency that might arise.”
And currently is entirely on board with the notion that Iran already HAS nuclear weapons, let alone has a “program”.
“My point about Iraq, Egypt, etc. was that the Obama admin lost these despite trying VERY HARD.”
And you missed my point completely, which is that the US had NO CHOICE but to “try very hard” since its goals were entirely inimical to what was happening on the ground. These were defeats, yes, but they did nothing to change the US purpose. The ruling elites of the US are still UNDEFEATED and they are continuing with their next plan.
They will be defeated in Iran as well – but it will take another ten years or longer, just as the US was already defeated in Afghanistan – which didn’t stop Obama from doubling down on THAT war, did it?
And you’re still delusional. There isn’t one single sign anywhere in the actions of the West that they intend to stop pursuing war with Iran.
And even if they did, Israel will do it anyway. I notice you didn’t mention them. If you think they won’t act without permission from the US, you’re sadly mistaken. They may very well and the US will support them if they do. Which makes all your musings about Obama and his crew irrelevant…
RSH, don’t tell me my sarcasm was too dry?
If you have time to spare, find an engineer or architect, have them watch the falling of building WT7, explain to them “the causes” (localized fires on various floors) and ask them what they think…
Wikipedia aside…
Essentially, its a moment of watching American history being rewritten, and all within a span of ten years or so.
R S Hack,
Do you think it was wise for Iran to provoke Saudi Arabia into ending its support for the government of Syria?
R S Hack,
I aslo have said many times that rich and powerful Jews, and others, are trying to set up war with Iran, to “benefit” Israel. Meaning, to facilitate continuing ethnic cleansing programme of Bibi Netnayahu. This to you is “blaming the victim”?
R S Hack,
I have said many times there was a conspiracy to set up an illegal war with Iraq and that many of those who conspired to set up that illegal war, are trying to do the same thing with Iran. Surely this is not “blaming the victim”.
R S Hack,
You surely are aware that Iran still has not built any fuel plates for the TRR.
What, in your view, would be the purpose of stockpiling large amounts of 20%U?
Canning: “You are lacking in creative thinking if you see “no way out” for Iran.”
Whereas your thinking is limited to blaming Iran for its troubles and reciting 20% at every opportunity. Very “creative”…
Nitwit.
R S Hack,
I agree with your 12:03pm comments about Dennis Ross, and his function to deliver to Obama the wishes of powerful interests who “support” Israel and want to prevent good relations with Iran. Ross continues to perform this function, but operates out of Winep rather than the White House itself.
Canning: “Ross clearly sees the trebling of enrichment to 20% as strong evidence of a desire to build nukes down the road.”
Ross said nothing of the kind and you’re an idiot to read his mind and try to cite his remark as supporting your idiotic notion that Iran should be blamed for the sanctions by enriching to 20%.
“If Iran in fact does not want to build nukes, then the trebling of production was possibly an effort to do something that would than allow Iran to back off, to enable a resumption of negotiations?”
What part of the need to keep the TRR running in the absence of any fuel sales from the West don’t you get, you idiot?
Iran was offered a deal, they wanted a modification to the deal, the West rejected the deal, Iran said it would go ahead and enrich to 20% since the West wouldn’t deal and so they did.
They enriched to get the fuel the West would not sell them! Get that through your thick head! And once they mastered enriching to 20%, they now enrich both to have a stockpile for the future and possibly to sell to an existing market. Get THAT through your thick head!
Christ, one can get a more rational response from Sassan!
James, Syria is headed towards “open civil war” because of Iran’s actions??
Truly, you’ve lost it, both in terms of what “the civil war” actually is, and who caused it.
kooshy,
“He has to personally approve the comments before they are allowed to be visible to readers, unlike the freedom he freely enjoys on RFI.”
No. For readers of EA WorldView who sign in via Disqus, there is no process of approval.
S.
Castellio: “Are you sure a third building went down, because you can’t find mention of that in these publications from reputable academic publishers. Surely, then, it didn’t happen.”
Uhm, building 7 is what the third tower was referred to, I believe. The consensus of the “conspiracy theorists” is that it was deliberately demolished, not just collapsed.
I thought this was common knowledge that three towers went down.
From Wikipedia:
“Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[68] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC) and 7 WTC were completely destroyed.”
Sassan,
Yes, do check out whether American shipping was obliged to continue to pay protection money in the Mediterranean, after the limited US military operation that is still celebrated today.
R S Hack,
It does look as though Syria is headed for open civil war. A very sad state of affairs, and one that seems almost certainly to have arisen partly in response to Iran’s ill-considered decision to treble production of 20% U.
@James Canning: “Didn’t American shipping in the Mediterranean have to continue paying for protection, after the limited military operation that continues to be celebrated in the US?”
I don’t believe so but I am not sure on that as there were multiple Barbary wars so I will have to research a bit later on today when I get back from my classes.
Have a good day. :)
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:50 am
Richard, the masochist in me loves these exchanges.
I’d like it even more if we could have the same definition for certain terms.
I have misspoken if I conveyed a ‘desire’ by Obama, or a change of his heart, or his demonstrated presence of spine. I mean, and meant to say he has no choice but to de-escalate. The de-escalation is always preceded by some extra escalation window dressing. But, if you’ve run out of ammunition and your future plots and maneuvers are being countered before you’ve had a chance to even plan them, if you are left with a few European aallies and bunch of GC dicatators in the ‘community of nations’ to begrudgingly carry water for you, then it really doesn’t matter what your goals might have been. You have been defeated. The terms of surrender is de-escalation.
Public opinion, particularly in the US is a fickle thing, and anyway easily manipulated and/or ignored to fit any exigency that might arise.
My point about Iraq, Egypt, etc. was that the Obama admin lost these despite trying VERY HARD. It is that extraordinary effort that was put in to reverse the tide makes it a policy failure. Absent all the grovelling, saying Mubarak is not a dictator’, etc. etc. then, yah, you could call it natural flow of things.
If for nothing else but to prod you to dot your i’s and cross your t’s with your imminent war scenario, I still insist the only war is a PR to avoid the bright light shining on defeat. De-escalation is a do or die thing.
Fiorangela: “Ross was part of the team at Center for a New American Security that crafted the tactic of dealing with Iran”
Yes, that entire report was just window dressing. All of these “think tanks” are just PR guys for the ruling elites. They spout whatever they’re told to spout. But the real decision are made by the ruling elites based on their own agendas which are always money and power. Once you had people like Obama, Biden, Clinton and Ross in place – and let’s not forget Rahm Emanuel, who was a straight up Israeli agent – there was NO chance in hell of getting any diplomacy.
As I said before, Obama entered the White House INTENDING to start a war with Iran. Everything he said which disputes that was a straight up lie.
R S Hack,
You are lacking in creative thinking if you see “no way out” for Iran.
ScottLucasisaSpammingIdiot says:
February 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm
I completely agree a “Ghssas” to do to him what he has done to you is best way to make him stop the assault.
I would post articles and analysis on subjects he rarely due to founding from his superiors dares to cover or mention on his site, like some excellent long posts by Fior and Rich.
But he is so scared of that he has to personally approve the comments before they are allowed to be visible to readers, unlike the freedom he freely enjoys on RFI.
Sassan says: February 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm
I rather spend my time interpreting Revelations and not the writings of a man whose moral short-coming are in plain sight.
I think it will be a good idea for you to read Nahj-al Balaqeh of Imam Ali or Isiah, or the Letters of Saint Paul to Corinthians.
“Jefferson” as a source of morality is rubbish.
Sassan,
Yes, Thomas Jefferson wanted to free American shipping from paying for protection. Apparently his wish was not achieved.
Fioragnela,
Dennis Ross was quoted in The Nation Dec. 19, 2011: “The Iranians, by their behavior, have made it pretty clear that they want to have a nuclear weapons program.”
Ross clearly sees the trebling of enrichment to 20% as strong evidence of a desire to build nukes down the road.
If Iran in fact does not want to build nukes, then the trebling of production was possibly an effort to do something that would than allow Iran to back off, to enable a resumption of negotiations?
@James Canning: I did not mean a war of liberation to “liberate” a particular people or country from the grips of their own rulers but rather that Europeans and Americans would no longer be forced to pay ransom and be subservient to the “Barbary” Islamic rulers at the time.
But yes, great point. :)
Kooshy: “In my opinion I think by far this is the most positive interview by Vali I ever heard from him”
Perhaps, I’m not familiar with his earlier work. I was just pointing out that about the only thing he got right was the failure to use diplomacy – and that was in support of the argument that the only options were diplomacy or war. The notion that the whole thing was a made up crisis didn’t enter into it.
But that’s the most important thing to establish in any discussion of Iran. There IS NO basis for either diplomacy OR war – because there IS NO nuclear weapons program. The basis for engagement should be on the GENERAL issue of the West’s relationship with Iran as the Leveretts insist. I don’t think Nasr gets this, or at least he didn’t discuss it here.
“As if I understand him correctly he is emphasizing on a new policy first mentioned by Ayatollah Khamenei a few weeks back, which he said Iran will not sit idle and will answer threats with threats which in reality is same thing that Mr. Khamenei mentioned back 09 in reply to Mr. Obama’s Norooz message which was “if you change we will change”.”
The problem for Iran is that there are few threats they can back up without starting a war. Obama can threaten sanction after sanction – and indeed they’re planning new ones already. Eventually they will come down to an economic blockade – and at that point Iran will have no option but war – which is exactly where the US wants Iran.
There is no way out for Iran. And that was the plan all along. This is why the US didn’t arbitrarily attack Iran at any point up til now (that and the geopolitical and strategic issues I’ve mentioned before). The goal was to box Iran in until Iran has no choice but to strike back militarily. The blockade will do that.
There is no threat Iran can make which will deter the US from war. All the threats Iran can make are why the US will NOT WIN the war (in rational terms.) But none of them can prevent the war.
fyi says: ” “Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this.”
So society determines morality.”
You are misinterpreting this. He simply states that we are social creatures and our morality of right and wrong is INFLUENCED through our interactions with culture and society. There is no doubt society INFLUENCES morality but is not the sole factor.
Mr. Jefferson did not know about genetics BUT our genes give us our predispositions and culture most definitely helps shape them but at the same time – certain “rights and wrongs” such as killing an innocent person is against EVERYONE’s morals unless, 1) They have neurological defects or faulty brain wiring and neural connections, 2) The influence of society and rigid ideology overtaking the biological predispositions(most often seen through religion but can be substituted via other ideologies such as with the case with Stalin). Yes, creating in-groups and out-groups does a magical thing for the propagation of war, violence, and ideology and none is greater than religious dogma.
In reference to your Nazi moral relativism: the Nazis operated in a period of the 20th century in which the moral reflections of societies were enhanced through scientific knowledge and understanding. Hence, as science progressed, being a bigot and genocidal maniac could less and less be resorted simply to the ignorance of the time period in question.
And again, you ignore the fact that in his private letters Thomas Jefferson consistently voiced his disapproval against the policies of slavery. In fact, he wanted to get rid of it (although not in the vehement matter of the great Benjamin Rush).
Fiorangela, I have read a number of good books that predicate their telling of current history on Al-Qaida attacking and bringing down the World Trade Centre. There is never any doubt as to how this happened, and never any mention of a third building falling.
Are you sure a third building went down, because you can’t find mention of that in these publications from reputable academic publishers.
Surely, then, it didn’t happen.
Sassan,
Didn’t American shipping in the Mediterranean have to continue paying for protection, after the limited military operation that continues to be celebrated in the US?
ScottLucasisaSpammingIdiot: Excellent idea. Spam him back. I’d do it but I’m already spending absurd amounts of time posting stuff here to duplicate that effort over there.
Fiorangela: “RSH, Hillary Clinton has already stated quite emphatically that she will leave the State Department at the end of Obama’s first term.”
Wasn’t aware of that.
“Talk circulates that Obama will replace Biden with Clinton. This would position Clinton for a run for president in 2016; she’ll be about 70 years old by then.”
Makes sense. That was probably the deal Clinton made with Obama after the nomination so that Clinton would support Obama – that and get the State posting. Had Clinton continued to snipe at Obama during the election, that would have been bad for Obama. Most of Clinton’s “base” were middle-aged women who were seriously furious that Clinton didn’t get the nomination. If they abandoned Obama under Clinton’s urging, that would have sunk his election chances.
The 2016 elections should be interesting. Obama will be out, Clinton may be the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans will obviously be running some freak show. The problem for the Democrats will be Iran. I am coming to believe the war will begin within the next four years, if not sooner. If it does, it will be ongoing during 2016. If that is the case, the Republicans might be making hay about how the US hasn’t “won” yet, meaning escalation of some sort will be in the cards. The Democrats will on the one hand have the distinction of having a “war President” in office while on the other hand they will be on the defensive over the Republican charges. The country may be ready to shift back to a Republican, not matter how ridiculous the nominee is. So Clinton might not win.
Not that it matters. If Clinton wins, she will double down on the Iran war just as Obama did in Afghanistan. So it won’t matter who wins, the war will go on for another four or eight years…
For more on Adelson and his relationship to Gingrich, there’s an informative interview with Max Blumenthal at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7867
He points out that Adelson and Netanyahu are openly working for regime change in two countries, Iran and the US.
More importantly, perhaps, Max talks about Netanyahu’s support for the impeachment of President Clinton (a sting operation if there ever was one, although Max doesn’t say that), and begins to point to the open collusion of Israeli leaders in American public life, both openly and behind the scenes, with the Republican party.
He also explains how Saban works to keep the Democratic Party in line.
A worthwhile interview.
thank you for the educational explication of elucidating information, sassan. Noooo, I didn’t know that Jefferson actually cut out all of the miracles!! Oh my!
Why don’t you just sign in as Star of David, sassan; everything you write is straight from the hasbara manual or the Israeli playbook.
Ehud Barak reminded us all of US engagement with Barbary pirates when, just by some extraordinary coincidence, he was at a BBC studio minutes after the first tower fell (but not before the THIRD, unattacked tower fell) on 9/11/2001.
Apparently the American people were flagging in their sense of urgency in attacking them Muslims, so Barak’s sidekick, Michael Oren, produced a ‘history’ of US first interaction with Barbary pirates. I’m not going to flack the book. It’s junk history.
@Eric A. Brill: Did I ever claim 9-year old girls specifically are raped and executed? I simply stated that 9-year old and 12-year old girls can and are forced into marriage.
Here is a relevant article that I would like for you to read if you get a few minutes. I think that it would be insightful for you or anyone in understanding the type of people running government and society inside of Iran at the present time..
Law and Marriage of Underage Girls in Iran, Fariba Davoodi Mohajer
Posted by IHRV On January – 17 – 2012
Reza Gholampour, the general director of the Hormozgan registration office, reported of the marriage of five girls under the age of 10 in this province. In 1972, the marriage of girls under the age of 18 and boys under the age of 20 was illegal. However, if a girl under 15 decided to get married, she could submit a request to the prosecutor and the city court would grant its approval. If a man or woman broke this law then they would be prosecuted.
After the revolution in 1981, according to article 1210, the age of marriage for girls was reduced to nine lunar years and girls and boys could be considered mature according to Sharia law. Later, the age was changed to 13 for girls. The last changes in the legal age for marriage also allowed judges to provide their approval. This permits the marriage of girls before 13 years and boys before 15 years of age if parental and judicial approval is granted. Therefore, if a father decides to marry his daughter, even at the age of nine, he can go to court and receive a certificate. This occurs despite the fact that Iran is a signatory to the UN Children Rights Treaty which states that the marriage of children is illegal and an underage person is defined as less than 18 years of age. It is notable that if a parent considers the benefit of the child for marriage, the child is not allowed to annul the marriage after he/she reaches legal age and parental approval is mandatory.
There is no doubt that this kind of marriage is an example of a forced marriage and considered as violence against girls.
The marriage of girls during their childhood prohibits them from receiving education, even an elementary education, and forces them to take on the responsibility of motherhood and homemaking. As children, they have still not reached mental, physical or even sexual maturity. The highest number of miscarriages and deaths related to pregnancies occurs in girls who are married under the age of 19. Specialists believe that the biggest cause of cervical cancer is the young age of pregnancy and marriage and that these girls have an increased chance of contracting an HPV infection.
For women, child marriages are related to poverty-stricken lives for women and early marriage results in turning poverty into a feminine issue.
According to the ISNA news agency, 20 percent of Iranian girls are married under the age of 18. Almost eight percent of child marriages occur in Tehran, 40 percent in Sistan-o-Baloochestan and villages in the suburbs of Isfahan, Kurdistan and Hormozgan. In border regions and small villages, the age of marriage decreases and many families force their daughters to marry even under the age of ten. The family might use the girl as a debt repayment and often after a daughter is born; they consider her as the wife of her future husband and wait until she is mature to marry the boy. Poverty is one reason of child marriage and families force their daughters to marry in return for the money they owe. If a girl refuses the marriage, she might be beaten and many girls commit suicide, self-immolation or escape home as a result of fear.
Some of the causes of child marriage lie in traditions or to ensure the virginity of the young girl. Other causes can include drug addiction among the parents, a lack of education or even if the father suffers from a mental illness. Girls who marry early are often forced into sexual slavery, experience malnutrition, weight loss and a lack of hygiene.
Islam is one of the factors which contribute to child marriage. Shiitism encourages boys and girls to get married at a very young age. Most clerics refer to the marriage of the Prophet with nine year old Ayesheh and consider the legal age of marriage for girls to be nine years of age. The marriage laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran are founded in such religious orders and turn a blind eye on the deep differences between modern society and the time of the prophet. Authorities allow marriage at the age of nine provided a court has granted its permission.
Child marriages can different health or sexual diseases and these marriages can force girls into sexual slavery.
According to the statistics of the social emergency center of the welfare organization of Tehran province, in 2002-2003, 72 percent of runaway girls were between 11 to 17 years of age who were escaping from their families as a result of various pressures.
Some girls, who marry under the legal age, when grown and since they do not have the right to divorce, respond violence with violence, and kill their husbands.
The reason these women turn to violence is that current Iranian laws do not protect them and leave them defenseless towards violence. Forty-one percent of girls, who committed self-immolation in Ilam province, were between the ages of 11 to 19 and chose to die in response to different kinds of violence.
One factor is clear; the Islamic Republic regime is responsible for the marriage of young girls. However, families also have a very important role. We should also consider the fact that cultural and financial poverty create the foundation for these marriages. The government can pass laws banning the marriage of underage girls and more importantly, the government can prevent these marriages through education and encouraging cultural development.
Eliminating poverty can prevent girls from being sold for money. Global foundations which promote children’s rights must always remind the Islamic Republic about the law that allows girls to get married even under the age of 13. The violation of human rights encompasses angles that are not observed by human rights activists in Iran and around the world.
Fathers who sell their daughters through marriage must be prosecuted and all marriages must be officially registered. This is an instance of human trafficking and slavery.
UNICEF in Iran is not taking the necessary actions and measures to address the poor conditions of children.
Therefore, all organizations whether dealing with human rights, women’s rights or children’s rights must make their objections heard by the government of Iran and the UN.
Lastly, the rights of children are not protected in Iran and the legal foundations that were made in the past for the protection of the rights of children and women no longer exist. Therefore, there is no instrument that would allow action against these violations. Often, taking a stand against these violations is considered an element of color revolutions and it leaves young girls and boys in danger of real violence and unprotected.
http://www.ihrv.org/inf/?p=4984
Sassan,
Thomas Jefferson had no wish whatever to wage a “war of liberation” in North Africa. He did dislike the extorting of protection money for American shipping in the Mediterranean.
Irshad: “Richard – what you outline may be a probability – but this plan will have to face a Syrian military that is heavily armed and a critical element of it is actually very well trained, has some sophisticated SAM systems including S300, has Scud missles which are armed with chemical and biological weopans (I read reports that Syria has targeted some of its convetional missles at Turkey – with the other obvious target been Isreal) as well as having some sophisiticated Anti-ship missles. No doubt Iranian/Russian and North Korean military have been training them and will be advising them as to how to deal with this threats.”
I grant you that Syria is not Libya. But that’s about all I can grant you. Israel could knock over Syria within a relatively short period of time. The US and NATO together don’t care about Syria’s ground forces, and the US will achieve air superiority over Syria within a week. The Syrian Air Force can’t compete with Israel, let alone the US Air Force. So it will be gone if it even bothers to fly any sorties.
As usual, the first targets will be the radar installations which are not mobile. Israel managed to penetrate Syrian air space on numerous occasions – even overflying Assad’s palace – and you can be sure the US has been informed of how to do this by the Israelis. So we can assume that the US and NATO will degrade Syria’s air defenses within a week or so sufficiently to make air strikes on Syria’s military forces in general more feasible.
If Syria has antiship missiles capable of reaching US ships in the Med, then those ships will move out of range until those launchers have been degraded. So they’re irrelevant. US air strikes will come from Incirlik in Turkey as well as a carrier in the Med. There is no need to subject US ships to Syrian missiles.
There will be no ground incursions except perhaps from the Turkish side. As in Libya, once can expect US, UK, and French Special Forces and intelligence personnel to be swarming on the Turkish border. The US air base at Incirlik is already coordinating intelligence operations, SIGINT and propaganda for the insurgents, according to Sibel Edmonds contacts in Turkey.
Syrian has nothing to target with its SCUDS at least until Israel moves against Hizballah. By that time, it’s likely most if not all SCUD launchers will be found and destroyed. Syria cannot launch against US sites in Turkey because that will bring Turkey formally into the war and Turkey also has a formidable military.
“Apart from this they also have the so called UNIFIL contingents in South Lebanon from France, Italy and other European countries by the balls – imagine if suddenly a new group – the “Free Levant Arab Army” (I have made this up btw) start a guerrilla insurgency and attack them – especially the French. The French will be busy bogged down there and they will be massacred – all it takes is one suicide bomber like what happened to the US Marines in the early 1980s.”
Hizballah will not attack the UNIFIL units. They have no reason to. Of course, once the war starts, UNIFIL units will get in the way. Once Israel begins attacking Lebanon, those units will be sent back to bunkers or evacuated. They are not expected to control all out war, merely to monitor the border.
Wikipedia has an entry on the UNIFIL force. In 2006, during the war they suffered casualties. You might want to read the article:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon#Conflict_in_2006
“Then we have Iraq and Kurdistan – they can make life difficult for the Americans there too by supporting insurgents attacking US oil companies and the massive US embassy – and especially for the Turks – they can use the Kurdish card agains the Turks – that is their achiles heel – every one knows this including the Turks.”
The Iraqis can attack what’s left of US troops in Iraq, but that won’t go anywhere because most of the forces are locked up inside bases and the Green Zone. The Kurds can’t do anything more to the Turks than they’ve been doing. So they’re irrelevant. And none of that will have the slightest effect on the US and NATO.
“The problem for the Syrians will be how to neutralise the threas from Saudi Arabia and Qatar – short of hiring groups to destroy their leadership there is nothing she can do – that will be a challenge. They have money and they will be using it to prop up anti-Syria elements.”
Correct. The West will supply the arms, the Saudis will pay for it, countries like Libya will supply the men (600 already allegedly), and the West will contribute the coordination and the air strikes.
“If and when the Arab spring reaches Ramallah and Jerusalem” – there will be a lot of dead Arabs in Ramallah and Jerusalem. The israelis won’t play around with the indigenous Arabs. There will be wholesale slaughter and ethnic cleansing off into Gaza and the West Bank… And the US won’t say boo…
“On top of all that Europe is still looking to going down the pan in regards to the credit crunch – can she really afford a major war? I dont think so.”
Sure it can, as long as the Saudis ante up on the side. Besides, as I often state, as long as the military-industrial complex makes its money, it couldn’t care less what happens to the rest of the economy.
“Like I said earlier – Mr Assad needs to be more pro-active and show his muscles – similar to what Iran recently did in SofHormuz.”
Except he has no “muscles”. As I said, if he is willing to do what his father did and kill scores of thousands of people, he MIGHT be able to crush the insurgency. But that alone will provide a casus belli for the US and NATO to attack Syria under a UN resolution that even Russia won’t be able to veto.
So he’s stuck. He can’t kill enough people to crush the insurgency, and if he doesn’t it will expand until the US and NATO have “justification” to overthrow him.
Assad is doomed. Nothing can stop this playing out like in Libya except the direct military intervention of Russia – and I don’t see that happening. It’s too big a risk for Russia.
Ross was part of the team at Center for a New American Security that crafted the tactic of dealing with Iran by making it LOOK like US was engaging in diplomacy when what it was really doing was laying the groundwork for war. In fact, as the quoted passage from the project document shows, Ross created the strategy; other team members filled in background.
When Ross tells the Leveretts that the policy was designed to fail, he is saying, “I designed a policy to make war with Iran inevitable and acceptable to the American people, “Pearl Harbor” by other means.
pdf at :http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/MillerParthemoreCampbell_Iran%20Assessing%20US%20Strategy_Sept08.pdf
“Ambassador Dennis Ross presented a paper on diplomatic strategies for dealing with Iran, and Dr. Suzanne Maloney wrote on Iranian perspectives and potential responses. Dr. Ashton Carter evaluated various U.S. military options, and Dr. Vali Nasr described likely Iranian reactions and other potential impacts. Ambassador Richard Haass considered the challenges of living with a nuclear Iran.”
The reports of the above experts were integrated into the final report that represented “solely the views of” James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, and
Kurt M. Campbell, who wrote the final document. As one reviews the Miller Parthemore report, it appears that Ross was able to filter out of actual practice all inputs other than his own.
This is their executive summary of the “game-changing” strategy:
“[Our proposal] makes the case for the next administration to pursue game-changing diplomacy with Iran, which involves de-emphasizing near-term threats of military action, giving first priority to getting comprehensive verification in place for Iran’s nuclear program, and negotiating directly with Iran on a broad range of issues. U.S. proposals would be designed to be credible to international audiences including the Iranian people. Prior and ongoing consultation with American friends and allies would be critical to the success of this approach.
The case for game-changing diplomacy is based on three key judgments. First, military strikes would at best delay Iran’s nuclear program, and likely cement rather than weaken Iranian commitment to nuclear weapons. If undertaken without broad international support, military strikes would undercut American prestige and power, complicate already challenging situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and make prospects for progress on Middle East peace even more distant. Thus, military strikes should be seen as a highly problematic last resort, to be considered only after all other options have failed.
Second, given the differing interests and views of key players including Russia and China, there is no realistic possibility that the current U.S. position — of applying coercive pressure on the Iranian leadership to cause it to give up its right to enrich uranium — will work. Thus, the United States and the international community should pursue the more limited and urgent near-term goal of getting comprehensive verification in place, while continuing to work to convince Iran that it is in its interests to forego enrichment.
Third, if properly vetted with U.S. friends and allies, a diplomatic initiative on Iran will help build U.S. credibility internationally, while at the same time increasing the likelihood of an acceptable resolution to the nuclear standoff. Depending on the Iranian response, it may also serve other American interests, including stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan and further suppressing al Qaeda. Thus, while its success is by no means guaranteed, game-changing diplomacy is the best available option for the next American president.”
To my knowledge, the Obama administration never pursued “direct negotiations with Iran on a broad range of issues.”
ps. this report has been referenced before on rfi :http://www.raceforiran.com/flynt-leverett-and-barbara-slavin-debate-an-array-of-iran-issues and :http://www.raceforiran.com/why-should-iran-trust-president-obama
Fiorangela says:
February 1, 2012 at 10:20 am
Maidhc Ó Cathail stopped in this morning…
Yeah, right. That’s all we need here: another intelligent commenter who can cut right through the bullshit and tell everyone what a weaseling weasel I really am.
We are not amused!
Sassan says:
February 1, 2012 at 9:58 am
Iran gives up 64% of her massive new oil, in exchange for Russian protection of “regime” in case of Face-Off with opposition – foreign or domestic!
Geeze Louise, Sassan. How many times do I have to tell you: the guys here are hardened. They’re hard core, man. You fling that delusional shit out on RFI, its just gonna make them laugh at your stupid ass. I told you: save that shit for iranian.com!! For these suckers here on RFI, spam the shit out of them, but only from our “respectable” rags like The Daily Telegraph and the Times and shit. You know, OK, so here’s a rule of thumb for you: If the source has a purple mustache from gussling down the Kool-Aid like you enlisted types, keep that shit for iranian.com. If they sip the Kool-Aid from a sherry glass or if they swirl it around in a snifter and put their big shnaazes in to get a good whif of the shtuff before they take a sip, Then and only then is the shit suitable for the RFI audience.
What part of hard core don’t you understand? You have become entirely too high-maintenance, Agent Sassan. Don’t you know how f*ck%ng busy I am??
Fiorangela: You do know that in putting together the “Jefferson Bible”, Mr. Jefferson cut out all references to any supernatural events or happenings, correct?
In addition, you do know that Mr. Jefferson was the first one to take the fight to Islamic fascists (the “Barbary” states of Morocco) in what can be called an “overseas military intervention” or the “first war of liberation”, correct? In fact, it was in response to the Islamic rulers of the “Barbary” states who claimed to be ruled by Allah’s will and divine jurisprudence in taking Europeans from throughout Europe as slaves and if they were not given ransom, they were kept as slaves for the rest of their lives (how long and short that might have been).
One interesting note before I post you an article written by the late Christopher Hitchens on this very topic – the Founding Fathers kept a copy of Cyropedia as it was a MUST READ for all those who aspired for public office.
Here is the article written by Hitch:
Christopher Hitchens
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.
Spring 2007
When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historian—a man with direct access to Defense Department archives—if there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug.
But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801–1805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitles—and some of the dates of publication—make plain, this new interest is largely occasioned by America’s latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.
In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?
Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the time—and probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned “the Christian King of Great Britain” for engaging in “this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers.” The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.
One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.
One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”
Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)
Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.
It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.
However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.
Thus, Lambert may be limiting himself in viewing the Barbary conflict primarily through the lens of free trade. Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic.
There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”
The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10 percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war. From Jefferson’s perspective, it was a good thing that this mood shift took place during the Adams administration, when he was out of office and temporarily “retired” to Monticello. He could thus criticize federal centralization of power, from a distance, even as he watched the construction of a fleet—and the forging of a permanent Marine Corps—that he could one day use for his own ends.
At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.
Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.
Once again, Barbary obstinacy tipped the scale. Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the United States in May 1801, in pursuit of his demand for more revenue. This earned him a heavy bombardment of Tripoli and the crippling of one of his most important ships. But the force of example was plainly not sufficient. In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that, in its provision for a permanent Mediterranean presence and its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war. The Barbary regimes continued to underestimate their new enemy, with Morocco declaring war in its turn and the others increasing their blackmail.
A complete disaster—Tripoli’s capture of the new U.S. frigate Philadelphia—became a sort of triumph, thanks to Edward Preble and Stephen Decatur, who mounted a daring raid on Tripoli’s harbor and blew up the captured ship, while inflicting heavy damage on the city’s defenses. Now there were names—Preble and Decatur—for newspapers back home to trumpet as heroes. Nor did their courage draw notice only in America. Admiral Lord Nelson himself called the raid “the most bold and daring act of the age,” and Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.” (In his nostalgia for Lepanto, perhaps, His Holiness was evidently unaware that the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had attempted to formalize the dues that America would pay for access to the Mediterranean, stated in its preamble that the United States had no quarrel with the Muslim religion and was in no sense a Christian country. Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.)
Watching all this with a jaundiced eye was the American consul in Tunis, William Eaton. For him, behavior modification was not a sufficient policy; regime change was needed. And he had a candidate. On acceding to the throne in Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli had secured his position by murdering one brother and exiling another. Eaton befriended this exiled brother, Hamid, and argued that he should become the American nominee for Tripoli’s crown. This proposal wasn’t received with enthusiasm in Washington, but Eaton pursued it with commendable zeal. He exhibited the downside that often goes with such quixotic bravery: railing against treasury secretary Albert Gallatin as a “cowardly Jew,” for example, and alluding to President Jefferson with contempt. He ended up a supporter of Aaron Burr’s freebooting secessionist conspiracy.
His actions in 1805, however, belong in the annals of derring-do, almost warranting the frequent comparison made with T. E. Lawrence’s exploits in Arabia. With a small detachment of marines, headed by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and a force of irregulars inevitably described by historians as “motley,” Eaton crossed the desert from Egypt and came at Tripoli—as Lawrence had come at Aqaba—from the land and not from the sea. The attack proved a total surprise. The city of Darna surrendered its far larger garrison, and Karamanli’s forces were heavily engaged, when news came that Jefferson and Karamanli had reached an understanding that could end the war. The terms weren’t too shabby, involving the release of the Philadelphia’s crew and a final settlement of the tribute question. And Jefferson took care to stress that Eaton had played a part in bringing it about.
This graciousness did not prevent Eaton from denouncing the deal as a sellout. The caravan moved on, though, as the other Barbary states gradually followed Tripoli’s lead and came to terms. Remember, too, that this was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was not the only European to notice that a new power had arrived in Mediterranean waters. Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):
In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,
Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave
And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.
The song was part of the bad-verse epidemic. But brushed up and revised a little for the War of 1812, and set to the same music, it has enjoyed considerable success since. So has the Marine Corps anthem, which begins: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” It’s no exaggeration to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character.
There is of course another connection between 1805 and 1812. Renewed hostilities with Britain on the high seas and on the American mainland, which did not terminate until the Battle of New Orleans, might have ended less conclusively had the United States not developed a battle-hardened naval force in the long attrition on the North African coast.
The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” (The expression “the United States is” did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)
Oren notes that the stupendous expense of this long series of wars was a partial vindication of John Adams’s warning. However, there are less quantifiable factors to consider. The most obvious is commerce. American trade in the Mediterranean increased enormously in the years after the settlement with Algiers, and America’s ability to extend its trade and project its forces into other areas, such as the Caribbean and South America, was greatly enhanced. Then we should attend to what Linda Colley says on the subject of slavery. Campaigns against the seizure of hostages by Muslim powers, and their exploitation as forced labor, fired up many a church congregation in Britain and America and fueled many a press campaign. But even the dullest soul could regard the continued triangular Atlantic slave trade between Africa, England, and the Americas and perceive the double standard at work. Thus, the struggle against Barbary may have helped to force some of the early shoots of abolitionism.
Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.
And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling, whose poem “Dane-Geld” is a finer effort than anything managed by Francis Scott Key:
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
Kipling runs briskly through the stages of humiliation undergone by any power that falls for this appeasement, and concludes:
It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
Cyrus Safdari on Tarita Parsi’s Zionist propaganda book.
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/
Kooshy-san says: “one can only hope you chose to send the bomb us “Cabi” since if yourself would have embarked on the task asking the baker for” Sanjak” you might have never had the chance to leave the bakery in one piece.”
Sshhhhhh!!! Don’t tell him, Kooshy-san, but when we sent in Agent Sassan into the line of fire, he actually DID go to a sangaki, and not knowing what to say and how to act, and not even having the bare minimum of manners, the shagerd noonvaas actually gave him a lobotomy. But don’t tell him, like I said, cause he still doesn’t realize it. About the only thing he’s good for now is to send him on cyber-missions to places like RFI to see how many suckers we can get to fall for his hokey-doke. He’s doing pretty good, if you ask me, considering… At this rate, I might have him compete for a place in the spastics Olympics (or whatever the PC term for it is nowadays).
I urge the Leveretts to look at this response from Lucas:
Quote
Scott Lucas says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:43 am
[“The reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.” --- This is not a valid reason. It is analogous to a person who sets up a veggie and fruit stand inside a grocery store to sell his product and the reason he provides is that he wants the customers have access to his fruits and veggies, too.]
It is a valid reason if the customers cannot get to the original veggie and fruit stand….
End Quote
This makes it quite clear that his sole purpose for posting here is to disrupt this site and leech links to his site.
Lucas absolutely should be banned from posting here, or at least banned from posting the sort of irrelevant pieces he has been spamming the site with solely to get more links back to his site to improve his Alexa Page Rank. Which, by the way, is really stupid since no one cares about the Alexa Rank and Google would penalize you for these sorts of tricks.
Before your more valuable readers start to desert the site, much as many readers of Usenet newsgroups were forced out of their groups by spammers which caused many active newsgroups to become “wastelands”, you must ban this guy before more people – like this guy Sassan as a new example – start doing similar things.
For Sasan’s eyes only
Nan-e-Sangak aka “Sanjak” in Israel (Mom’s recipe) with titles in ibri for easy reading
http://momsrecipesandmore.blogspot.com/2006/08/blog-post.html
food, baking, baking breads, breads, cakes, cookbooks, cooking, cooking blog, recipes, photography, professional food photography, Israel, food blog, food blogging, gourmet, chef, Jewish cooking, food photography בלוג אוכל, בלוג בישול, בלוג מתכונים, מתכונים, גורמה, מתכוני סבתא, בלוג אוכל ישראלי, בלוג מתכונים אוכל
Voice of Tehran: “Richard , I made some intense search to find the real identity of Sussan Khanoom , here’s what I found”
Heh, heh, that’s one ugly beyatch! Someone get the flame thrower, there are zombies in the neighborhood! :-)
Sassan says: February 1, 2012 at 11:50 am
Pay attention here:
The late Mr. Jefferson, a slave holder whose mansion was so designed to hide his slaves from sight and his bedroom so that he could visit the late Sally H. without being noticed by anyone, cannot define morality and righteousness.
Next, pay attention to the his statements:
“Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this.”
So society determines morality.
Well, then consider this:
NAZIS were moral with respect to their society; they concluded that the Jews were a form of parasitic social disease for their society and proceeded to eliminate them.
NAZIS were willing to let the Jews go elsewhere.
But the Americans, the moral inheritors of the late mr. Jefferson, did not admit the Jews from Germany into US.
The Americans did not want the Jews either.
They acted morally with respect to their society (the new-found god of Mr. Jefferson.
Please, go back and study some more; your head is unfortunately is full of mush.
Arnold says about my Boy, Scotty: “The idea that your website, because it’s yours, deserves this unrequested promotion has a mirror in the view that that anti-government partisans in and outside of Iran, including yourself, without any objective indication of their popular support or legitimacy, should be able to impose their will on how that country is ruled.”
Good catch, Arnold. Its true: hell, if we were interested in letting the towelheads decide their own destinies rather than in imposing our will on them by hook or by crook (I’m partial to hook, but I prefer crook, LOL), then I wouldn’t be paying good greenbacks to Scotty Boy to put up a website in the first place. We’re shitting all over the Middle East, so obviously we’re gonna shit all over RFI. But good catch, as usual, and 10 points for the wordsmithing, Arnold. I say again: are you SURE you don’t want to come over to the Dark Side? I’m telling you: we have a lot more fun over here!
Oh, and Pirouz: Don’t be too hard on that otherwise useless knave UU when it comes to calling me Uncle Weasel: He’s just calling it as he sees it which, let’s face it, is the way it is… I personally take all the titles as a complement, as I see I *really* get under his skin.
Rd.: “the British militarily blockaded the territorial waters and national ports of Iran with the British Royal Navy and prevented Iran from exporting its oil. They also militarily prevented Iranian trade. London also froze Iranian assets and started a campaign to isolate Iran with sanctions. The government of Dr. Mossadegh was democratic and could not be vilified easily domestically by the British, so they began to portray Mossadegh as a pawn of the Soviet Union who would turn Iran into a communist country together with his Marxist political allies. The illegal British naval embargo was followed by regime change in Tehran via a 1953 Anglo-American engineered coup d’état.
Today, a militarily imposed oil embargo against Iran is not possible like it was in the early 1950s“
HOWEVER, IF what you WANT is a WAR for regime change, the a military blockade is the perfect next step after an oil embargo…
The fact that Iran was blockaded once before cannot be unknown to the present Western planners. That and the fact that the Israeli Finance Minister has ALREADY called for a military blockade of Iran makes it clear that will likely be the next step.
A blockade also gives the perfect excuse for moving more troops, ships and planes into the region to support the already intended war while still denying one “wants” a war.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 1, 2012 at 10:46 am
Richard-
In my opinion I think by far this is the most positive interview by Vali I ever heard from him, perhaps he is now more free to say what the he feels since he has left the government, he even confirms Flynt Leverett’s point that in this last 3 years there was only 45 minutes of direct bilateral talks between US and Iran disputing Ross, which if you remember Ross refuted Flynt on this point on their NPR? Debate they held a while back.
I am not suggesting that he has turned around 180D but maybe he is now on 45D trajectory range, if I remember correctly back in 09 after the elections, most of the Iranian origin US based analyst including Vali (which again if I remember correctly he made in a CNN interview) were against a direct dialogue between US and the elected government of Iran.
As if I understand him correctly he is emphasizing on a new policy first mentioned by Ayatollah Khamenei a few weeks back, which he said Iran will not sit idle and will answer threats with threats which in reality is same thing that Mr. Khamenei mentioned back 09 in reply to Mr. Obama’s Norooz message which was “if you change we will change”.
In a way I think he is correct that Iran will retaliate in kind. One must remember that the government of Iran is under a lot of internal public pressure with regard to scientist associations inside Iran no government in world can tolerate this. Basically his audience was the American government saying if you guys want a war you will get one continuing with your state sponsored terrorism as your containment policy.
fyi: Agree with your post of February 1, 2012 at 10:28 am on Syria
“I think they will continue pushing for regime change in Syria, calculating that the Iranians and the Russians will not be able to create a political space for peaceful change in Syria.”
I agree. But I don’t think the insurgents will be crushed. It is easy for the West and the insurgents to keep up the chaos. As long as the dissidents are being supported from Turkey by the West, Assad cannot crush them. This is the same situation as with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As long as they have a “safe harbor” in Turkey, the Syrian opposition can continue to foment violence indefinitely – as long as the money and arms keep coming to them. And the West has no reason to cut off that support unless the general mass of the opposition itself dissipates. And even then the West can continue some degree of chaos.
And as I’ve said, I think at this point that Assad cannot regain control of the situation unless he is willing to do what his father did – kill at one stroke some 20-30,000 people.
And if he does so, that will in itself provide a casus belli for the West to initiate a bombing campaign.
Assad is between a rock and a hard place and I see no way out for him short of Russia declaring overt military support for his regime – which I don’t see even Putin doing.
If I were Putin, I would seriously consider that option. But even so, unless Putin is prepared to immediately send troops, warships and Russian Air Force planes to Syria as a “peace keeping force”, the West can continue to foment chaos until Russia is isolated in the international community.
This is the process which is being done now in the MSM and the UN – isolating Russia as the sole hold out on Syria. Even China is being quiet about it, given its current moves to improve relations with the Saudis and the GCC.
I don’t see anything but a civil war and US/EU bombardment of Syria in its future. There’s no way out of this impasse any more than there is between the US and Iran.
@Scott Lucas AKA The Shah of Spam
You know what, Scott, I think your website readers need exposure to some real facts and insight from those who do not constantly lie and incite war with Iran. As a result, I will be posting, sometime over the next several days, and continuing periodically thereafter, many articles from Press TV on you site. I will be posting under the same name as well just so you do not have any trouble identifying me. Time to test your commitment to free speech since you are such a believer in its unrestricted use and abuse.
Sassan writes:
“While I do agree that the circumstances which I brought forth for everyone’s attention takes place relatively rarely inside of Iran, are you denying that they take place?”
Do you mean: Can I prove that Iranian men don’t take 9-year-old girls as “temporary wives” for a “mere minutes,” rape those 9-year-old girls so they won’t “die as virgins,” and then send those 9-year-old girls to be “hung or to the firing squad?”
No, I guess I can’t prove that negative, Sassan. You, of course, haven’t proved the “positive” – you’ve merely asserted that it’s true. If that’s good enough, then I guess you’ve established it.
Do you think it’s good enough, Sassan?
@Sassan
Your “arguments” and you yourself are a joke, but not a funny one. Do you really think that just posting statements which you can never back up with any concrete facts convinces anyone but your own delusional mind? Funny how despite the fact; accpording to you, the Iranian government is more evil than the Nazis you are able to travel their freely and freely meet with the 95% of Iranians that oppose it. Yes, this shows that the Iranian government is in fact the most evil government on the planet.
What it in fact shows is that you are a pathological liar with an irrational hatred of the Iranian government who has never visited Iran in your life but does visit every Iran related blog or forum and posts either (1) irrational hate or (2) farcically absurd conspiracy theories that can be dismissed by anyone with any actual knowledge of Iran and its people and culture, or indeed any knowledge or reality.
Bring on the response, my guess is it will include one or more of the following:
1. Bold Text
2. Out of context, meaningless quotations by Western political thinkers, scientists, or philosophers.
3. THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN IS THE EVEEELEEESSST GOVERNMENT THAT HAS EVER EXISTED ON EARTH OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE.
4. Statement that you met someone in Iran on your last extended visit that proves that I am an agent of Iranian intelligence or some other disreputable regime supporter.
5. Ad hominem attacks against anyone who does not believe that Iran is EVEEEELLLLL and must be destroyed by the US, or who disagrees with your absurd arguments in any way.
6. Absurd assertion about Iranian government, religion, etc, that anyone with any actual knowledge of Iran knows to be false.
7. Only Sassan in his infinite wisdom knows anything about Iran, and only Sassan has a right to speak for the Iranian people and their aspirations or desires. Anyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong and supports the EVEEEELLLLL Iranian government. ALL HAIL SASSAN, THE NEW SHAH OF IRAN.
Fiorangela: “Faux-Sassan – a Sassan assassin”
Or a “Sassassin”. Sort of how the “Hashishin” became “assassin”.
By the way, I used to read stuff from a guy named Peter Lamborn Wilson, who was a student of Muslim “heresy” – the Sufis, the Ismailites, etc., especially the latter who produced the “The Old Man of the Mountain” at Alamut and who controlled assets in many countries in the region. Very similar to the Japanese ninja in Japanese feudal times.
William S. Burroughs was also fascinated by the Assassin concept.
My favorite saying from those readings, and one which was also quoted by Burroughs frequently was: “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”
Which always reminded me in turn of the Firesign Theater comedy troup, who titled one of their comedy albums, “Everything You Know Is Wrong.”
It took me many years but I finally came to the conclusion that this is almost literally true for almost everyone.
RSH, Hillary Clinton has already stated quite emphatically that she will leave the State Department at the end of Obama’s first term.
Talk circulates that Obama will replace Biden with Clinton. This would position Clinton for a run for president in 2016; she’ll be about 70 years old by then. That would entrench the globalist agenda that Reagan kicked off and to which Bill Clinton gave numerous boosts, with NAFTA, fake attempts at peace between I/P; bombing campaigns in Bosnia, etc.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:27 am
Richard – what you outline may be a probability – but this plan will have to face a Syrian military that is heavily armed and a critical element of it is actually very well trained, has some sophisticated SAM systems including S300, has Scud missles which are armed with chemical and biological weopans (I read reports that Syria has targeted some of its convetional missles at Turkey – with the other obvious target been Isreal) as well as having some sophisiticated Anti-ship missles. No doubt Iranian/Russian and North Korean military have been training them and will be advising them as to how to deal with this threats.
Apart from this they also have the so called UNIFIL contingents in South Lebanon from France, Italy and other European countries by the balls – imagine if suddenly a new group – the “Free Levant Arab Army” (I have made this up btw) start a guerrilla insurgency and attack them – especially the French. The French will be busy bogged down there and they will be massacred – all it takes is one suicide bomber like what happened to the US Marines in the early 1980s.
Then we have Iraq and Kurdistan – they can make life difficult for the Americans there too by supporting insurgents attacking US oil companies and the massive US embassy – and especially for the Turks – they can use the Kurdish card agains the Turks – that is their achiles heel – every one knows this including the Turks.
The problem for the Syrians will be how to neutralise the threas from Saudi Arabia and Qatar – short of hiring groups to destroy their leadership there is nothing she can do – that will be a challenge. They have money and they will be using it to prop up anti-Syria elements.
in regards to Isreal – well have you nitced how quite the lovers of human rights and democracy and freedom have been very quite re: the Palestinians whose lands is further been stolen and its resources lotted, her people are starved, imprisoned, maimed and killed and jerusalem is been judaized as Arabs are evicted and Zionists are allowed to take over property. If and when the Arab spring reaches Ramallah and Jerusalem – then the whole 2 faced scheme of the West will be exposed for what it really is and the whole scam cunravels itself.
What will Cannings VHague will do and say? Billary? Juppe? Al-Thani? King Abdullah (Jordans and Saudis) – they will blame everything on Iran/Syria/kHamas and will call for calm but will do absolutley nothing for them.
On top of all that Europe is still looking to going down the pan in regards to the credit crunch – can she really afford a major war? I dont think so.
fyi is correct when he says these people have nothing to offer but death and destruction for the people of the ME.
Like I said earlier – Mr Assad needs to be more pro-active and show his muscles – similar to what Iran recently did in SofHormuz.
fyi: “Mr. Ross clearly is not a strategist. He is a diplomatic hack.”
I think he might be better referred to as a “diplomatic assassin” or perhaps “diplomatic saboteur.” His job is to eliminate diplomacy as a solution.
It reminds me of the book “Winning Through Intimidation”, by Robert Ringer, a well-known business book from the 1970′s. One of the things Ringer points out is that if you have lawyers involved in your business affairs, you have to keep them on a leash. Because their sole function in life is not to enable deals being made, but to BLOCK deals from being made between yourself and anyone else. In other words, that is their parasitic function which justifies their existence. If you leave a deal up to a lawyer, he will find any number of legal technicalities why the deal can’t or shouldn’t go through.
That was Ross’ function – to transmit orders from Israel and Obama’s political sponsors to Obama on how to make sure no diplomacy with Iran was ever done while making it LOOK like Obama was being “diplomatic.” Ross told the Leveretts this very explicitly.
The American Economy… ??
“For example, according to the government’s own data, payroll employment in December 2011 is less than in 2001. Meanwhile, there has been a decade of population growth. The presstitute media calls the alleged economic recovery a “jobless recovery,” which is a contradiction in terms. There can be no recovery without a growth in employment and consumer income.
Real average weekly earnings (deflated by the government’s CPI-W) have never recovered their 1973 peak. Real median household income (deflated by the government’s CPI-U) has not recovered its 2001 peak and is below the 1969 level. If earnings were deflated by the original methodology instead of by the new substitution-based methodology, the picture would be bleaker.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/01/economic-101/
It is my view that the ‘bible’ that Thomas Jefferson compiled should be the basis for the religious narrative of the American people.
Through numerous “church councils” convened under his sponsorship, mostly in Anatolia, Constantine shaped the notions and writings that emerged from the nascent Christian movement into what became the Christian New Testament.
The Roman church took control of the narrative for about 1300 years, until Francis Bacon challenged the logic of relying on the Church’s authority to ‘prove’ nature; Gutenberg made the texts available to the masses so that they could read for themselves what they were being told to believe. Luther and others took the next step and challenged the Roman church’s authority to intervene between man and “god’s divine word.” Bloody wars ensued over who owned god. Those wars still rage but as skirmishes among the equivalent of non-state actors — charlatans such as John Darby and Cyrus Scofield, who was likely paid off by zionist Samuel Untermyer to shape the New Testament narrative in a way that substituted Israel for Jesus as the epicenter of the moral force of the New Testament, and urged warmaking as the means of attaining armageddon/salvation.
If the United States had followed Jefferson’s lead, as the Frank Church family attempted to do but only after Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman had acted on the basis of a bastardized bible, the United States and the Middle East might have been spared over a hundred years of suffering.
Jefferson perceived that the example of the Life of Jesus of Nazareth “would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.” He compared Jesus with the Greek philosophers, whose views on “duties to others” he found “short and defective:”
“They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.”
and with the “Jewish system,” about which he wrote:
<a href = "http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html" 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.”
Sadly, zionism, although a secular political movement, nonetheless embraces certain selected and bastardized Jewish biblical narratives as the basis for zionist Jewish identity. Myths of religious identity have potency in that they convey a sense of belonging and, as regards the current Christian zionist and Jewish zionist mythologies, that belonging is coupled with a sense of divine choseness or exceptionalism, and with the right to wage war to display that exceptionalism.
Thomas Jefferson was not a warrior. The monuments to Jefferson are his tomb at his home, Monticello, on which is inscribed his tribute to religious freedom; and his “academical village,” the University of Virginia, down the hill from Monticello in Charlottesville. “The Lawn” at UVa is built along the lines of a caravansarie, those places of refreshment and community where travelers and traders from China to Persia to Venice sought shelter in the desert, water for their animals and themselves, and traded the stories of their vastly diverse cultures under the Persian stars.
You are standing on a very shaky ground and you know it.
Sassan,
Respond to my question (9,38). Could you do that please?
fyi says:
“You still have not defined “Evil” and “Righteousness.” ”
I will quote you again from Thomas Jefferson in the same letter he had written to his nephew Peter Carr offering him advice:
“Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the to kalon [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings. The writings of Sterne, particularly, form the best course of morality that ever was written. Besides these, read the books mentioned in the enclosed paper; and, above all things, lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, &c. Consider every act of this kind, as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties & increase your worth.”
fyi continues: “And now you quoate a slave owner and a cheat who could and would not acknowledge his own children.”
Are you seriously trying to make equal comparisons from a time in which we didn’t even know about germ theory and believed in different and unequal races through scientific ignorance?
The aforementioned sentence in itself demonstrates to all what a remarkable man Thomas Jefferson was for his time period. First off: he loved Sally Hemings. And he could not get rid of slavery due to the southern states and their resistance to these proposals brought forth by not only Jefferson and his colleagues (including the so important Benjamin Rush) but Thomas Jefferson felt this to be the blemish of their times in which he was simply limited with his powers and the powers of his colleagues.
Saying this, it is very well known that Mr. Jefferson treated his slaves very well and in fact did something unprecedented of the time: he bought the freedom of all his slaves by the end of his life including commencing throughout his lifetime. And he truly did love Sally Hemings.
BiBiJon: “But, I give him credit for discrediting US mid east policies so thoroughly in 3 years that a Bush n-terms of presidency would/could not have.”
You got that right. Or you would if in fact anyone but else thought so. In reality, the rest of the US believes this lying sack of shit.
“Clinton/Ross (who were brought in ala Abe Lincoln style of bring your adversaries in so you can watch them)”
NO, that is not true. They were brought in specifically on the orders of the people running Obama’s political life – especially Ross and Biden. Clinton might have been brought in to try to “defang her” in case she decided to run again this year. But not the others.
“have lost Mubarak, Ben Ali, Pakistan, and their grovelling to Nuri alMaleki to let US troops stay in Iraq, or their grovelling at Bibi to pause settlements for a couple, 3 months, etc.”
No. They didn’t have any choice about Egypt, Pakistan (which is not over yet), or Iraq. In those countries, the people made the decisions in response to the only demands the US could make in the US wanted to achieve anything as they were ordered to. Given the demands of the US ruling elites, there was nothing else the US government could do or would do except what they did do. The outcomes were unavoidable short of completely eliminating the US ruling elites – which BY DEFINITION cannot be done short of armed revolution or assassination.
As for Israel, they did what they were told to do – let Netanyahu win.
“Surely, no eyebrows will be raised if Clinton follows Dennis through the exit door in the next few months.”
That would only be a cosmetic change. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dennis Ross didn’t REPLACE Clinton at State. In any event, they won’t fire Clinton during an election year. Next year they might as Presidents frequently change personnel in a second term. But they would never put anyone rational in such a position. Completely impossible.
“Whatever it is he desired deep down, Obama faced with policy failure rearing its ugly head from every nook + cranny in mid east, has now left himself no option but to de-escalate, and fast, before even the Japanese start to rebel.”
You are REALLY dreaming. There isn’t one single sign ANYWHERE that Obama has any intention of “de-escalating”. Instead, just like Afghanistan, Obama is going to DOUBLE DOWN on pressuring Iran. Either this year, or next year whenever the Syrian war is over and the failure of the oil embargo is clear, Obama is going to start moving troops into Kuwait and then move more ships and planes into the region and then he’s going to start lobbying for an “international” (read: US and NATO poodles) blockade of Iran’s oil exports.
If Obama wins re-election or even if not, the US will be at war with Iran within the next four year, possibly much sooner.
[“The reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.” --- This is not a valid reason. It is analogous to a person who sets up a veggie and fruit stand inside a grocery store to sell his product and the reason he provides is that he wants the customers have access to his fruits and veggies, too.]
It is a valid reason if the customers cannot get to the original veggie and fruit stand….
Sassan says: February 1, 2012 at 11:10 am
You still have not defined “Evil” and “Righteousness.”
And now you quoate a slave owner and a cheat who could and would not acknowledge his own children.
really!
Rd. says: February 1, 2012 at 10:43 am
Chinese have US where they wish her to be, mired in the sands of the Middle East and incurring Muslim hatred – hopefully for generations.
Furthermore, US has has tried to turn the entire area from the Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean Sea into her sand-box; vigorously opposing the involvement of any other state of combination of states.
Why should the Chinese take upon themselves thuis burden?
They are no stupid.
The Axis Powers still estimate that they can win in this area – although I am not sure what their definition of winning is.
They have to fail and fail big before an international conference is called by them.
Irshad: The Lavrov interview was very good, he handled it very well, dismantling the usual interview attempts to pre-judge the question being asked.
Unfortunately it won’t do the slightest bit of good. The plan is laid out, the play book is known, the end result foreordained. Syria will be under bombardment within a few months, perhaps before summer, perhaps during summer, perhaps later, but almost certainly this year. The West is fast tracking Syria to the UNSC, and once the UNSC is sidelined – very quickly, you watch! – the US and EU will begin openly supporting the dissidents and eventually an aerial bombing campaign will begin.
After or during which Israel will attack Lebanon under the pretext that Hizballah did “something” for which Israel has to “retaliate”. The attack will entire an Israeli armored division entering Syrian territory under the control of the dissidents and with the Syrian military suppressed by US/EU air strikes and will attack Hizballah on their flank in the Bekaa Valley as well as forward up through Southern Lebanon, supported by massive Israeli air strikes on the rest of Lebanon similar to what occurred in 2006.
This is the plan, it cannot be changed or Israel won’t get the Iran war it wants.
Richard , I made some intense search to find the real identity of Sussan Khanoom , here’s what I found :
http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=idf+female+soldiers&hl=fr&sa=X&biw=1067&bih=488&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=-3DnhgXKeaFhnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.moddb.com/groups/female-soldier-lovers-group/images/idf-girls-again3&docid=I6Ih5YY69gBzfM&imgurl=http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/6/5425/Israeli_Army_Girls_04.jpg&w=799&h=526&ei=gmUpT8KcHI7NswaRzLzHAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=387&sig=103086260681688826383&page=7&tbnh=120&tbnw=170&start=112&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:112&tx=104&ty=58
M J Rosenberg weighs in on Parsi’s book http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/new_book_iran_sanctions_only_if_coupled_with_diplomacy_20120131/
Rosenberg’s review is the topic of a thread on Mondoweiss. Those of you whom Weiss has not banned may wish to add your thoughts to the conversation. (Weiss banned me some months ago, right after I mentioned David Irving’s research; it upset Annie.) (is whom the correct pronoun?)
Richard Steven Hack says: “Everyone wants to be liked or at least acknowledged.”
Is that your reason for being on these message boards? LMFAO.
You need some serious help buddy. You seem to have a narcissistic personality based on your behavior so you would immediately deny the problem but you surely seem to demonstrate yourself as an individual with not only a personality disorder, but other psychological issues as well. Get some help buddy.
Eric: “Finally I gave up and came over here, where, of course, there is just one Sassan (I think).”
Tsk, tsk. You have not been paying attention.
We have a Sassan and then a Faux-Sassan – similar to the TV show Fringe, where we have Olivia Dunham, and then Faux-Olivia from the alternate universe. I actually prefer Faux-Olivia because she’s looser than our universe’s uptight Olivia plus she wears her hair sexier… :-)
Richard Steven Hack says: “If we want Sassan to go away, just keep insulting the guy. Don’t engage him, don’t respond to his posts with any statements, just keep insulting him.”
Actually, ad hominem attacks do not do anything to me except to demonstrate and beautifully highlight your ignorance and irrationality to those who value reason and thoughtfulness. I would care about what some self-hating masochistic westerner thinks of me (or for that matter some Hizbolli) because…?
Two beautiful Thomas Jefferson quotes to start out the morning:
“Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear…. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”
-Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government,” and, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Eric: “I’m reminded of a famous story that suggests taxi drivers sometimes get it wrong.”
Ever see the 1983 comedy movie “D.C. Cab”? It’s about a Washington, D.C., cab company which is at the bottom of the line as far as revenues go. The movie starred Max Gail,
Adam Baldwin, Mr. T, Gary Busey (who had the best lines), Bill Maher, Paul Rodriguez, and the “Barbarian Brothers” (a couple of comedic weight lifters). It was utterly hilarious.
I recall a soliloquy which Bill Maher made at one point where he was talking about “the fear”. His fellow driver said, “Death”. And Maher said, “No, death is the little fear.” And he went on to explain how the real fear was that someday things would get so tight and one’s life would be so out of control…that one ended up as a taxi driver.
My favorite line from Gary Busey was: “Hey, you know, Bruce Lee ain’t dead. They got him frozen hard as a carp down in a silo in Chatsworth, Arkansas and they’re gonna thaw him out as soon as the economy gets better.” (Note: The IMDB has this “Memorable Quote” all wrong – I remember it as if it was yesterday, so the correct version is the one I’ve used here.) :-)
Unintended consequences, military wars are known for such. So would economic wars also bring about unintended consequences.. One can surmise the US congress is very capable of thought full planing on how to shoot themselves in the foot.. will this oil embargo eventually lead to the breakup of the petro dollars?
“Oil embargos against Iran are not new. In 1951, the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh with the support of the Iranian Parliament nationalized the Iranian oil industry. As a result of Dr. Mossadegh’s nationalization program, the British militarily blockaded the territorial waters and national ports of Iran with the British Royal Navy and prevented Iran from exporting its oil. They also militarily prevented Iranian trade. London also froze Iranian assets and started a campaign to isolate Iran with sanctions. The government of Dr. Mossadegh was democratic and could not be vilified easily domestically by the British, so they began to portray Mossadegh as a pawn of the Soviet Union who would turn Iran into a communist country together with his Marxist political allies.
The illegal British naval embargo was followed by regime change in Tehran via a 1953 Anglo-American engineered coup d’état. The 1953 coup transformed the Shah of Iran from a constitutional figure head to an absolute monarch and dictator, like the monarchs of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. Iran was transformed overnight from a democratic constitutional monarchy into a dictatorship.
Today, a militarily imposed oil embargo against Iran is not possible like it was in the early 1950s“
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28973
If we want Sassan to go away, just keep insulting the guy. Don’t engage him, don’t respond to his posts with any statements, just keep insulting him.
Everyone wants to be liked or at least acknowledged. If a poster on a site is just ignored and insulted, eventually they decide it’s waste of time trying to be a troll and they leave. But as long as they get ONE nibble from anyone, they keep trolling.
It’s like spammers. These guys in fact are spammers. Spammers rely on the fact that a tiny percent of their viewers actually click on the links. If NO ONE clicked on their links, they would be out of business. But there’s always some idiot who does.
So do not engage Sassan. If you post a message about him, make it a simple one that does nothing but insult his ass in the worst possible way.
The other trick out resident clown has used to post using his handle is also cool, but let’s not go down that path too much or it too will wreck the site.
The Anglo-American Empire is determined to rule the world by taking out one small country at a time until the final showdown with Russia and China which may happen sooner than they think.
Kooshy: “Sanctions v. Negotiations on Iran By Glenn Greenwald Very positive interview with Vali Nasr”
Not really. Nasr did not dispute the interviewer’s DIRECT statment that Iran is “hell bent on getting the bomb”. Also, he appeared to agree that Iran’s intent is to acquire nuclear weapons. He should know better.
Also Nasr suggested, in agreement with Clapper’s statement to Congress, that Iran has calculated that it’s better to make threats now to make Obama back off than to allow the sanctions to be imposed and thus have to worry about a Green uprising and having to try to remove the sanctions by negotiations later.
This presupposes that there is any real risk of an uprising in Iran, which as we know is fairly limited. And the more the US sanctions are applied and hurting the average Iranian, the less the average Iranian will be willing to blame anyone but the US for Iran’s economic condition.
It also presupposes that Iran has made ANY change of direction with regard to its approach to the West. Despite the threats made by various lower level members of the Iranian government to close the Strait of Hormuz, for example, really nothing has changed. The Iranians have ALWAYS said they would do that IF their ability to export oil was blocked (or if they were attacked). While they have always meant this in reference to a blockade, an oil embargo is very similar. But the Iranians know well that the oil embargo, even if it reduces their oil exports, will not stop those exports. Whether and how much their economy will suffer as a result of the new sanctions only the Iranians can tell. But there is no evidence in my view for the notion that Iran has suddenly decided to become any more “aggressive” than they were in the past.
And I certainly don’t buy Clapper’s assessment that Iran will start striking directly at the United States.
Greenwald sensibly quotes the Washington Post’s piece on Clapper’s testimony as well as the article I reference in the last thread about “Al Qaeda in Iran”, commenting that the propaganda was really pathetic.
But this is the sort of thing Nasr is supporting when he makes statements like these.
While Nasr is correct that the US should be following a path of engagement and diplomacy, he is fundamentally wrong on two counts: whether Iran is interested in a nuclear weapon, and whether Iran has become more aggressive toward the US.
I have sent a link to the Leveretts’ Boston Review piece to Greenwald as well as a link to this site. I told him the Leveretts’ piece DESTROYED the notion that Obama ever intended to engage Iran seriously. Perhaps he’ll reference the piece in one of his Salon articles. That would be good advertising for this site.
Blow backs..
“In the final analysis, the sanctions against Iran adopted by EU foreign ministers to please their Israeli partner are backfiring against European companies and employees. “
Meanwhile, the French refinery owned by Petroplus (with 550 direct employees, 400 subcontractors and 1,000 direct jobs created) is about to close, the troubled Swiss refiner having filed for insolvency for its five European refineries, accounting for 2,500 direct employees (Small Crown in France, Antwerp in Belgium, Cressier in Switzerland and Essex and Teesside in Great Britain as well as the Research and Development Unit in Cardiff).
http://www.voltairenet.org/Europeans-first-victims-of
fyi says:
Russia and China setup Iran and the United States for a war.
“A more far-fectched possibility, is an international conference in the Middle East with Russia, US, Israel, iran, Tureky, IraQ, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia to chart the contours of a stable environment there.
However, the United States is not capable of organizing such a dialogue.
“
How about china? A dragon dance in the Negev
seems like chinese have kept uncle sam busy while developing relations with Iran, Persian gulf emirates and now israel.
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/NB02Ad01.html
fyi, it would be a grievous error to dismiss Ross for a “diplomatic hack.” He knows precisely what he is doing, and for whom he is doing it.
Ross was instrumental in involving the US in the first Persian Gulf war; he’s been on the scene to throw sand in the gears of any attempt at gaining sovereign human rights for Palestinians; he’s been part of the machinery that derailed any US effort to engage rationally with Iran; he’s part of the neocon-AIPAC apparatus; he was founding chair of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, whose first agenda item was to investigate the possibilities for Israeli-Chinese relations, in view of the approaching decline of US as a world economic power. (this link to the JPPPI website goes directly to a recent article titled, “How to decide whether to attack Iran.” http://jppi.org.il/news/97/58/Here-s-how-to-decide-whether-to-support-an-attack-on-Iran/ I didn’t see a oiuji board mentioned, but I only skimmed the article.
The last item should provide a clue about Ross’s overarching agenda and loyalties.
Irshad says: February 1, 2012 at 4:49 am
Thank you for posting this interview.
Clearly, the Russians are concerned about a much wider and upredictable war from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean Sea.
They cannot affect the policies of Axis Powers by urging them to return to the negogiating table as the war (soft & hard) against Syria and Iran had been decided last Spring (2011).
What they could do has been the following:
1- Prevent UNSC giving legitimacy to Axis Powers push for regime change in Syria and in Iran
2- Weapons transfers
3- Logistical Support
4- Intelligence Sharing
5- Declaring publicly that they war against Iran will be considered a direct threat against them
It is Axis Power’s choice now.
I think they will continue pushing for regime change in Syria, calculating that the Iranians and the Russians will not be able to create a political space for peaceful change in Syria.
To wit, they Axis Powers and the local Arabs (a pathetic lot) have instructed the Syrian opposition not to negogiate and to escalate as much as they can.
I expect the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to be crushed as a political force; ultimately it cared more about other powers than about Syria.
RSH at 9:58 am — “Faux-Sassan”
a Sassan assassin
Richard Steven Hack says: February 1, 2012 at 9:33 am
Mr. Ross clearly is not a strategist.
He is a diplomatic hack.
Ladies and Gentlemen on RFI (and you too, Scott & Sassan),
We’ve been so busy cleaning the living room rug and dealing with those pesky magazine salesman robocalls that we’ve failed to welcome a new visitor. Maidhc Ó Cathail stopped in this morning, February 1, 2012 at 7:08 am
Welcome, Maidhc Ó Cathail; take some tea — is it hot enough? These dates are from Bam.
Your recent article on Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness, denying his own existence :http://maidhcocathail.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/regime-change-inc-denies-its-own-existence/ was mentioned on Phil Weiss’s website, Mondoweiss, the other day. The video is a hoot, and its closing comment perfect: “Thank you Mr. Perle, you’ve provided entertainment . . .” I wasn’t able to identify all the character in the video, tho I did recognize Jacob Heilbrunn. Heilbrunn strikes me as someone still suffering from seller’s remorse at having decamped from neoconservatism.
Please come again, and often.
Settman: You’re REALLY wasting your time trying to get Canning to admit anything or answer any question directly. That’s not his style. He’s got his agenda and he sticks to it:
1) Blame everything on Iran’s actions, especially enriching to 20%.
The Leveretts clearly show in their article was entirely expected and rational given the West’s behavior and the circumstances of a shortage of TRR fuel.
2) Excuse the UK and EU from any complicity in pursuing a war, based solely on the statements of a bunch of politicians he claims to know personally.
3) Make irrelevant statements and points that have nothing to do with the points under discussion.
4) Ask questions which deliberately misread the statements of everyone else.
Really, it’s an utter waste of time to engage him any more than it is to engage this Zionist freak show Sassan or the smarmy link leech Lucas.
If these three guys got hit by trucks, this site would improve enormously…
Canning: “Clearly Obama blundered by not pushing forward with his effort to improve relations with Iran.”
You didn’t read the frickin’ article at all, did you? It BURIES the notion that Obama ever really intended improving relations with Iran. The quote from Dennis Ross really exposes everything Obama did as a lie.
Get a clue.
fyi,
RE: “Iranians do not have the extensive and developed banking and insurance industry that the Western state have. This strategic weakness is in the process of remediation but will take years, perhaps decades to bear fruit.”
I assess things a bit differently. Because the population more or less has not had to rely on such formal institutions, the majority is still self-reliant. Within a system like the US, inflation could spell disaster because the social network is more or less disintegrated. For example, if a woman in Iran needs to go to work but has a sick child, she could still draw on a network of family members, neighbors, and friends to volunteer their help for which she would reciprocate at a future date. If similar situation obtains in the US, the woman would lose a day’s pay, would be in hell of stress, would experience income loss, and a simple thing could escalate from there on. Now, expand one family to nearly 90% of the population.
That is one of the most fundamental reasons, I believe, that a destruction of families and natural social networks makes populations vulnerable to top-down made disasters of all sorts. It is not accidental that a person at the heart of a “well-developed” city with all sorts of amenities could die of cold and hunger but a stranger in a nomadic desert could survive the greatest hardships and live to tell his story.
Having just read the article, and posted a comment recommending that readers find out for themselves by going to CASMII and this site and researching the articles by Dr. Gordon Prather and journalist Gareth Porter, I can say this was a treat.
This article was beautifully constructed and nailed down every fact with links. Nothing was overlooked.
It was brilliant. Kudos to the Leveretts for producing a work of art in debate!
I see that our resident Zionist freak show Sassan was immediately on the attack in the comments over there. Fortunately our resident clown and Faux-Sassan was also immediately on the attack. :-)
It will be interesting to see what Parsi has to say in response.
Israel: ‘UN textbooks teaches Jew-hatred’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/israel-un-textbooks-teaches-jew-hatred/
“but I will say this: it was a common theme even 3-4 years ago when I was in Iran and last year when I was in Iran for over 8-months, I heard it even more.”
Sassan-
While you were in Iran did you ever try to buy “Sanjak” bread, or perhaps you opted to send your own bomb, bomb cab driver to get some “Sanjak” for you, one can only hope you chose to send the bomb us “Cabi” since if yourself would have embarked on the task asking the baker for” Sanjak” you might have never had the chance to leave the bakery in one piece.
Richard Steven Hack says:
February 1, 2012 at 9:33 am
I am no fan of Obama. But, I give him credit for discrediting US mid east policies so thoroughly in 3 years that a Bush n-terms of presidency would/could not have.
Clinton/Ross (who were brought in ala Abe Lincoln style of bring your adversaries in so you can watch them) have lost Mubarak, Ben Ali, Pakistan, and their grovelling to Nuri alMaleki to let US troops stay in Iraq, or their grovelling at Bibi to pause settlements for a couple, 3 months, etc. Surely, no eyebrows will be raised if Clinton follows Dennis through the exit door in the next few months.
Whatever it is he desired deep down, Obama faced with policy failure rearing its ugly head from every nook + cranny in mid east, has now left himself no option but to de-escalate, and fast, before even the Japanese start to rebel.
From http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2012/01/31/japan%E2%80%99s-iran-sanctions-dilemma/
“Beyond these specific calculations on the new sanctions, the deeper challenge for Japanese policymakers is the domestic politics of the sanctions debate itself. The growing perception in Japan is that cooperation in the sanctions effort against Iran only benefits other economic competitors, most notably China. In 2006, the Japanese government at the urging of the Bush administration ended its petroleum development project at Azadegan, seen to be one of the most promising untapped oil fields in Iran. Almost immediately thereafter the Chinese government concluded a deal with Tehran to take over the development project, ensuring that Beijing would have preferential access to the long-term oil stream that would result.”
Scott Lucas says: February 1, 2012 at 5:43 am
The tax burden in Iran is about 7%.
I think in US it is more than 35% (and higher) depending on the income range.
I think the 20% inflation in Iran is not as damaging as it would be in countries with much higher taxes.
It is painful, no doubt.
The state budget relies on taxes for 25% of its income and the Iranians are trying to increase it.
I think the painful sanctions on Iran by US, EU, Japan, Australia and others have clearly revealed the extent that the world financial system are dominated and controlled by Axis Powers and how they could be used in an attempt to destroy a sovereign state.
Iranians do not have the extensive and developed banking and insurance industry that the Western state have. This strategic weakness is in the process of remediation but will take years, perhaps decades to bear fruit.
I think that the Iranian leaders have to re-double their effort into reforming their economy; less subsidy/populism and more production.
The God-sent Axis Powers sanctions will have the desirbale effect of forcing a generally lazy population – used to state hand-outs – to scramble for maintaining its standard of living.
[You just have to travel to Pakistan to see the abyss that separates the 2 countries.]
I am optimistic that Iranians will repeat and extend their success in armament manufacture, aerospace, nuclear & nano & biotech technologies in the rest of their economy. For now they have no choice.
But it will be the work of at least 10, 15 years to get out of the conceptual confusion of Islamic Economics and incrase productivity and production inside Iran.
Peter the Great provoked many wars with Sweden, her most powerful neighbour, many times and he got trounced well and thoroughly.
Each time, he would say: “Eventually the Swedes are going to teach us how to fight.”
Eventually Russians defeated Sweden.
Likewise, Israelis taught Shia Arabs in South Lebanon how to fight. And those Arabs defeated Israel in 2006.
The United States has been teaching Iran how to fight for 33 years. And Iranians are learning.
When this period of learning is over, Iranians will be even more formidable than before – and I am stating this with metaohysical certainity.
Scott, this really is spam and becoming abusive. Anyone who wants to read all of these reports can go to your website. There’s not even a pretense of maybe being on topic or relevant either to the post or any conversation that is happening here.
Interesting what this behavior says about you, your website and your agenda.
Another website that does not run advertising has an unmoderated and active comments section and you take advantage of that to flood it with off-topic unsolicited messages pointing to your website.
The idea that your website, because it’s yours, deserves this unrequested promotion has a mirror in the view that that anti-government partisans in and outside of Iran, including yourself, without any objective indication of their popular support or legitimacy, should be able to impose their will on how that country is ruled.
What we’re learning from all of your posts is much less your analysis than your attitude about those who disagree with you, regardless of if your view is in the minority.
Sassan,
“1) In Iran you are not even allowed to own a simple handgun.
2) Iranians no longer have the fervor of martyrdom which when once an individual is deluded to that point, is willing to sacrifice their life to extreme ends (as aforementioned with Khomeini sending young Iranian children during the Iran-Iraq war to blow themselves under Iraqi tanks for “paradise” or to even more extreme and truly evil examples as seen in the suicide bombing of buses, night clubs, and shopping malls in which countless of innocent women and children were in itself the means as the direct targets).”
You didnt approach my question instead you rather clarfied that you follow the way of violence and not peaceful activism.
Why dont you if a majority support your views go to Iran to start the revolution?
Where is the difference according to you between Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi arabia, Jordan and other places where demonstrations have occured compared to Iran? Why havent there any been any overthrow in Iran? Why havent there any been any revolution inside Iran?
“I thought I answered your question earlier as I did reply to you. And your question is…? ”
In the last post by the Leverett’s.
Hey, Canning! Get a clue!
Quote
Parsi’s uncritical reprise of White House talking points continues in his treatment of Iran’s decision, in February 2010, to begin enriching to the near-20-percent level needed to make isotopes for cancer patients. The decision, according to Parsi, “fueled suspicions that Tehran indeed sought to build nuclear weapons.” He fails to note that there was then, as there has been intermittently for several years, a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes, including in the United States. This situation supports Iran’s decision to produce them indigenously, under IAEA scrutiny, rather than rely on a market that could not even adequately supply Western countries.
End Quote
Nima’s article linked by BiBiJon made me wonder:
With all the WMDs transferred before the war to Syria (per Clapper falsehood), wouldn’t Syria now be a nuclear weapon (WMD) state and as a result un-touchable?
Photi says:
February 1, 2012 at 9:23 am
“The [demonization] game is plain for everyone to see. It is time to get back to real life.”
Dear Photi, I wish everyone could see. Just the other day a very decent, nice, well educated, and successful fellow soccer dad asked my opinion of the latest news about Iran. As gently as I could I pointed out to him that ALL governments with the aid of MSM engage in propaganda so that even a person like you (fellow soccer dad) don’t bat an eye lid about the severe collective punishment of Iranians with such measures as stopping gasoline imports into Iran. His reaction? Noticeably, it was the first time he had thought what such sanctions if successfully enforced would mean to average Iranian soccer parents and their children.
This part of the Leveretts’ presentation was particularly interesting to me:
Quote
As we wrote in The New York Times in May 2009, three weeks before Iran’s June 2009 presidential election:
In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past ‘diplomacy’ would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.
End Quote
Here we have Ross, who was Obama’s SPECIFIC ADVISOR ON IRAN, telling us that OBAMA would, “IN A COUPLE OF YEARS”, have to order a military attack on Iran citing phony diplomacy that was never intended to succeed!
What the hell more do you need to know about Obama??!!
Obama came into office INTENDING to start a war with Iran! There is the proof, right from Ross’ own mouth!
The only way Obama was NOT going to continue to pursue the course for war with Iran is if Iran’s regime fell over on its own. And depending on what reports Obama was getting from the CIA and the other intelligence agencies – assuming he was allowed to see them and not have them “vetted” by Joe “I’m a Zionist” Biden and Hillary “Obliterate Iran” Clinton and Dennis “We Will Diplomatically Fail” Ross – then Obama HAD TO KNOW that the Iranian regime would not fall on its own.
And again, if Obama has read the 2007 and 2011 Iran NIEs, then he KNOWS that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. If he has any legal advisers at least as versed in reading the NPT and the IAEA Charter and the UN Charter as Eric, then he ALSO KNOWS that the entire course of events regarding Iran at the IAEA and the UNSC are bogus.
I’ll say it again plainly: YES, OBAMA WANTS A WAR WITH IRAN! Period. Full stop. There can be no longer any doubt about that.
settman says: “Why dont you got to Iran starting your secular revolution, since you argue that a majority support your view it would be very easy to start a revolution?”
1) In Iran you are not even allowed to own a simple handgun.
2) Iranians no longer have the fervor of martyrdom which when once an individual is deluded to that point, is willing to sacrifice their life to extreme ends (as aforementioned with Khomeini sending young Iranian children during the Iran-Iraq war to blow themselves under Iraqi tanks for “paradise” or to even more extreme and truly evil examples as seen in the suicide bombing of buses, night clubs, and shopping malls in which countless of innocent women and children were in itself the means as the direct targets).
“Also I still waiting for you to respond to my questions stated earlier.”
I thought I answered your question earlier as I did reply to you. And your question is…?
I have to run in a bit so if I don’t see your response in the next couple of minutes it may take me a few hours to respond. Thx.
BiBiJon says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:35 am
Additionally, it must have took the powers-that-be months to hatch the Ambassador plot, so until they can manufacture something “better,” this plot and the nuclear issue are about their only functioning fear generators for use in fueling their campaign to demonize the Iranian nation.
The game is plain for everyone to see. It is time to get back to real life.
Irshad says: “I am suprised Syrian intelligence are not picking up/off members of the opposition but is given them room to fly here there and everywhere. Passive ressitance will not get Syria anywhere.”
This is what I meant in my previous lengthy post in which I alluded to the fact that many on here have given up their common humanity for fellow Homo sapiens in favor for brutality, oppression, and terror. Quite sad really.
Photi says: “The tragedy with you is that you cannot see it is the Iranian people who are the advocates of Ayatollahs Khamenei and Khomeini.”
Wrong my friend. One thing is for certain: over 90% of Iranian society without a doubt is against this regime and out of the remaining approximately 10%, the most of that is simply due to $$$ and govenrment jobs. This regime has maybe 3-5% of ideological support remaining (if that).
In fact, being for the regime is being against Iran and the Iranian people. Come on Photi…you have people on here being hardcore advocates of the regime including an individual calling himself “Bussed up Basiji” or some crap like that and of course you have such irrational characters as “Unknown Unknowns” drooling over Khamanei. You simply don’t have that among Iranians not only in the U.S. (that’s a given) but in Iran as well. You never find that…
Unknown Unknowns says: “Neo: methinks you are correct. Agent Sassan is likely the
spawn of an ex-Iranian Jewish family, or alternately, of Baha’i extraction. Either would explain his athiesm and his infatuation with that other prat Hitchens.”
Of course, if you are a true Hizbolli and lover of the Khamanei and the Islamic Republic as “Unknown Unknowns” so proudly admits on here (even referring to Khamanei as “our dear leader”) then anything just as bad (and usually worse) than a Jew must be a Bahai. In fact, Bahai’s are not even considered human beings inside of Iran lol…(I am laughing at “Unknown Unknowns” “inadvertent” slip-up of his bigotry for all to see!)
Sassan,
Why dont you got to Iran starting your secular revolution, since you argue that a majority support your view it would be very easy to start a revolution?
Also I still waiting for you to respond to my questions stated earlier.
Flynt & Hillary Leverett:
You are fighting the good fight. God bless you both.
And you are right: its pretty straight-forward at this point: either one is for the recognition of the Islamic Republic and the lifting of sanctions (which are to be used for ACTUAL violations of international law, wuch as those which Uncle Hypocrite has been engaged in over the last few years), or, one is at best complicit in the build-up to a dangerously flammable condition that can easily be sparked into a disasterous war.
One last thing: most of us Iranian-Americans consider Trita Parsi as an apologist for the regime as well. In fact, his organization has had ties with contacts with the Islamic Republic and often times, has been at the forefront for offering excuses for the regime. As of late though with his last couple of CNN appearances, he appears to be now shifting away from his “opinions” but rather being more of a “facts” guy – although, his Twitter and Facebook are always quick to blame the west and America rather than placing the culpability on the regime itself (something I know most of you would absolutely not mind).
Sassan,
The tragedy with you is that you cannot see it is the Iranian people who are the advocates of Ayatollahs Khamenei and Khomeini. Many of the rest of us around here are being dutiful American citizens by pointing out that supporting legitimate popular rule in Iran means recognizing the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Democracy in the Middle East means Islam will be central to the ruling order there.
Quit trying to save the Muslims from themselves.
Neo: methinks you are correct. Agent Sassan is likely the spawn of an ex-Iranian Jewish family, or alternately, of Baha’i extraction. Either would explain his athiesm and his infatuation with that other prat Hitchens.
Irshad says, “but seriously is this guy a professor? If so – of what? Man he must have loooooooots of time in his hand to have turned in to a professional spammer! …
I know he is at B’ham univ. but all this time I thought UU and co. were humouring him by mentioning the prof. thing – but if its real then I am shocked.”
Now you know why the Ministry of Education stopped accepting degrees from my University. (They assume all the other professors are slouches like me and have nothing better to do than to troll RFI. LOL) The truth is I get my grad students to do all the work, just like all the other profs in the great Western dawg-eat-dawg publish-or-perish institutions of “higher” learning.
BiBiJon says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:35 am
BibiJon, thanks for the link. The fact that the absurd Saudi ambassador plot is continuing to be used by US officials reaffirms by belief that the plot was nothing more than manufactured evidence from the get-go.
See, some things ARE still manufactured in America;)
Nima Shirazi:
“The efforts of the U.S. government to spark hysteria about Iranian aggression are increasingly transparent and consistently embarrassing. Reading the Western press, one would think Iran was assassinating American scientists, flying spy drones over our cities, sabotaging our industrial and military facilities, destroying our economy, racing to put nuclear-armed warships off our coast, and threatening us with a table set with “all options.”
Eric A. Brill: It is quite lame when people resort to thinking it is somehow quite “cute” in pretending to be someone else, isn’t it? The only thing about the Leverett site format I think is troubling is that they don’t require site registration. In so doing, anyone can pretend to be anyone else and banning an individual can easily be overcome by using an IP changer or proxy server.
Eric A. Brill says: “I don’t take Sassan very seriously, though I pay little attention to what he writes since it generally falls into one or both of two categories: (1) cut-and-paste articles from other sources; and (2) baseless rants about the “pure evil” of anyone who disagrees with him. ”
To be honest, there are many people on this website that encompass what I would term “having no moral backbone”. For the sake of humanity, I cannot understand how so many westerners can become so blind to their hatred for the west to overlook and neglect the realities of what are taking place in Iran and Syria. In doing so, they lose hold of their common humanity for the plight of fellow human beings and of humanity itself. In so doing, many individuals on this website (not all) have become cheerleaders of Khamanei, Khomeini, and the Islamic radicals inside of Tehran in considering their actions as “completely innocent and rational” and ignore the true evils of this regime. In fact, I will now detail just this an analogous situation in which you do just that in an attempt to dismiss the realities of what takes place inside of Iran in a psychological mental construct to reduce your cognitive dissonance. This is what enables one in losing their common humanity for the fellow Homo sapiens.
Eric A. Brill says: “Regarding Sassan, how can you take seriously, or imagine that anyone else takes seriously, writings like this one from Sassan…”
“We all get carried away in our writing at times, but Sassan makes it rather difficult to take seriously anything he writes.”
While I do agree that the circumstances which I brought forth for everyone’s attention takes place relatively rarely inside of Iran, are you denying that they take place?
The reason why such practices are rare among the Iranian people and Iranian population is due to the fact that it goes against the culture of the vast majority of the populace inside of Iran. You simply don’t see inside of Iran, men who have multiple wives. The individuals who tend to do this are the Mullahs.
Now please tell me, which parts of my argument are false? I will go over each point in some detail to explain them to you if you don’t understand them.
Sassan says: “Iran has become a country ruled by religious and perverse elite whom is allowed to marry off 9 & 12-year old girls”
Yes my friend, Iran has unfortunately become a country ruled by religious and perverse elite whom is allowed to marry off 9 and 12-year old girls. After all, Iran is ruled under Islamic jurisprudence and is simply following the “morals” and model of Muhammad and his companions.
In fact, Khatami tried to change this role but he couldn’t get it past the Guardian Council. Inside of Iran of today, 12-year old girls can be forced off to marriage without court approval, and 9-year old girls simply require court permission. As I stated, this court approval is simply affirmation and not much more than a formality. The only requirement is that the little girl has menstruated. Also, if there is objection from other family members, the court would consider such objections. This is a MATTER OF LAW inside of Iran. So please, do not mock my arguments or points of discussion as I present as a matter of fact if you do not know the law that exists under Islamic law inside of Iran.
An interesting side note as it is somewhat connected to this. I have a family member’s spouse inside of Iran whom I have gotten to know very well. She works in the medical community. She told me of a time not too long ago (about a year ago) in which she was at the hospital and a 13-year old girl came to the hospital with her sister. Her husband came barging in the hospital and ordered that she be taken off the medical equipment connected to her and to take her home. The reason the girl was in the hospital in the first place was because her husband had beaten her so bad that she was bleeding internally. Her husband became extremely hostile and aggressive both verbally and physically to this individual whom was treating the poor 13-year old girl and escalated the situation in using physical force in pushing her and skirmishing with her as she refused to remove the girl from the hospital room (and she was crying this whole time). She had male staff of the hospital hold this individual (the husband) while police were called. When police came, they stated that this was “a matter between a husband and a wife” and that she had no right to interfere. Subsequently, the husband with the assistance and authority of the police removed his “wife” and took her home. Subsequently, a 7-10 days later as it was, she died.
She told me this story as she was crying. In fact, she considers herself Muslim and actually follows Islam to some extent as in partaking in regular prayers and covering herself in front of guests whom are not close family members of her husband or of herself. You see, the regime has lost the support of the vast majority of even those who consider themselves Muslims and practice Islam to some degree. Even the majority of the extreme religious (those extremely religious in their private lives) no longer support the regime.
Sassan says: “a regime whom grants “temporary wives” or “sigheh” dictating basically an unlimited number of “wives” ranging from mere minutes… at the request of the man”
Are you denying this too?As aforementioned, this does not take place to any noticeable degree inside of the Iranian populace due to the fact that it goes against Iranian culture and values.And again, this takes place mostly with the Mullahs.
A “sigheh” is a temporary marriage. What is a temporary marriage? A temporary marriage is a marriage which can range from literally any time period specified in the “contract” which simply needs to be signed off from a Mullah. This “time period” can range from ANY TIME. For example; they can range from anything from 1-hour to 1-day to 30-days to 2-years to 10-years. Simply put, it is the specific period of time specified in the contract (and even that requires no witnesses!). And yes, the permanent wife of yours is not required to be informed or even be given consent. Hence, legalized form of prostitution.
While you can have 7-permanent wives, you can have as many sigheh as the male wants, as long as he can afford it.
Sassan says: “In addition, this is a regime that rapes our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t “die as virgins”. … afterwards they are summarily hung or sent to the firing squad.” ”
While I do not know how prevalent this practice is today in Iran, this was a practice that took place commonly as a matter of policy and since it falls into Islamic jurisprudence, I assume they haven’t stopped such actions from taking place today. How do we know this? Not only have many former top members of the Revolutionary Guards and Basij defected overseas and throughout Europe, this was a practice that took place that was pretty much out in the open and used as a fear tactic during Khomeini’s reign. In fact, this took place with a distantly related cousin of mine a couple of years after the revolution due to the simple fact that she was passing out leaflets and information on a banned political party. She was only 16-years old. In fact, during the 2009 protests, the regime used scripture from the quran in justifying the rapes of our sisters whom they captured from the protests. This is the very perverse and evil nature of this regime whom some on here somehow in their delusions of delusions consider “rational actors” and whom some would not even mind the possession of nuclear weapons.
It is important for us that value some measure of reason and rationality to not see things for how we “wish” to see them but instead for “how they really are”. We must always be open to differing viewpoints and most importantly: the evidence. I am this way in my everyday life in all things that I do but simply put, some people on here who are from the west tend to not appreciate the freedoms and opportunities afforded to us in western liberal democracies due to some of our political ideologies and beliefs. No one wants war, but would you sit silent in seeing people massacred? This is what is happening in Syria. This is what has taken place against the Iranian people the last 30+ years. I have always believed inherently that before even calling myself an Iranian or an American, that I consider myself of the human being, the Homo sapiens. Ultimately, that is what matters as genetically, we are all very similar to one another and can procreate with members of any other “race” or people whom may not look exactly like us. In the grand scheme of things, we are a speck of dust in the vast expanse of the cosmos. There are over 100-200 billion stars (depending on which astronomer or physicist you ask) in our Milky Way Galaxy with hundreds of billions of addition galaxies. These are simply of what we know with facts and evidence (not even mentioning the possibility that many physicists believe in the possibility of multiple universes). And of course there are trillions of planets throughout the cosmos. There are more stars than there are of all the individual grains of sand throughout the Earth. We ultimately and truly are in an era and a time period in which we cannot repeat the stupidity and reckless discard for life which has been the hallmark of human civilization even before humans became “civilized” and created civilization itself. This time, there won’t simply be a setback in humanity but potentially, the deaths of a sizable portion of the human race in setting back mankind epochs and maybe even the end of human civilization itself. For these reasons and more, religious zealots must NEVER be afforded the opportunity to possess apocalyptic weaponry.
To close: I admit the United States and the west have not always had a perfect past. For example, I consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki as probably the darkest moment in U.S. history. I cannot and will not justify the actions against those Japanese civilians, without regard to if it “ended the war early” (as is the argument) or not. I admit that the Europeans and the British were colonialists whom made suffer their imperial subjects. I believe that for some of these reasons some westerners (many on here) have become apologists for this regime as they still think in their ideas, beliefs, and even delusions that the west still “practice imperialism”.
Look at it this way: approximately 40-years ago we had segregation in nearly half the United States. Today, we have a black President. Not too long ago the Europeans were killing one another off through the world wars, now they are joined together through a strong alliance with the European Union. In contrast to Iran: Iran has done something quite unique, a process I term “de-evolution”. The sad reality is that the Iran of 2500 years ago had superior levels of human rights and freedom of the Iran of today.Although this regime has provided one positive thing for the future of Iran in which the Shah would not have been able to: it has driven Islam out of the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the Iranian people.Unlike any of the nations in the region, a free Iran will truly be a secular and democratic Iran that will respect all individuals in society regardless of sexual orientation, biological sex, religion, speech, etc. And even those Iranians who remain religious for the most part favor a secular Iran as they want to keep their religion to themselves rather than having it imposed on society through religious bigotry and ignorance.
Hence, it is vital to judge a nation on not simply history as we can play that history game with EVERY SINGLE nation throughout the world.Ask the question, where are we today and what contributions have we made to humanity?
Remember, even the United States needed the assistance of the French to achieve liberation and freedom from the British.
Islam was flourishing in a time period where Islam for the temporal period had shed its bigotry for one of diverse thoughts and ideas. In this same period, China was flourishing as well. Where were Europe and the west? In the Dark Ages and religious superstition… In fact, the Europeans were NET IMPORTERS of technology! They did not even produce a net export of technology and goods. But then the west was able to put religion in the backburner through the Reformation and Enlightenment periods while Islam dipped into the Dark Ages were it remains for the most part today. My question that I have always pondered but haven’t seem to come up with the complete understanding is, why did this retrograde and retarding force take place suddenly in the Islamic world? I know why it persists: “true Muslims” inherently are not allowed to debate and question their beliefs and their scripture. Christians freely admit they can even hold some doubt in their beliefs from time to time and Jews regularly debate and argue their beliefs and ideas (hence the so valuable contributions provided to humanity via Jewish culture with the great number of Nobel Laureates’ and scientists). Islam dipped back into the obscurity along with their societies, but why when they had come out of it? Truly, no religion is as retrograding and provides limitation to the growth of societies as does the Islamic faith when taken as a belief system in which the government incorporates elements of Islam/Islamic law into government/man-made law.
In fact, I think it reflects in the attitude of some as I will quickly and briefly bring forth as exhibited by Neo’s (and people similar to him) comments when in disagreement with their philosophy/ideology.
Neo says: “folks,
’sassan’ is an iranian jew with israeli nationality. i have seen him using 3 or 4 different names on different sites (like ’semsem’ etc), often with different names on the same site. it is best not to try and block him though. let’s just be aware that he speaks on behalf of netanyaboo, and let him get on with his claptrap.”
Believe it or not, I have a great respect for the Jewish culture Neo. I had brought forth the Japanese in the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it’s anyone to be anti-American or holding resent, wouldn’t it be them? But instead, they are of a great culture which does not hold self-defeating and self-fulfilling prophecies as does with some in the “blame the Zionist” or “blame the Jew” card when ideas or events come up which disrupt some of our preconceived notions.
In fact, I share a similar sentiment with Jewish culture. The Jewish people ever since they occupied the lands of Judea and Samaria, were a people forced from their homes and were forced to live in exile, discrimination, and repression. Sure, Cyrus The Great for a time during his rule afforded the Jews equal rights once freed from the Babylonians but there was no significant time period in which the Jews occupied some land without discrimination and fear as they were the one’s whom were used as scapegoats.
To the testament of Jewish culture, you see the great number of scientists and free thinkers produced to humanity in which human civilization has been enamored with their contributions as this has enabled the growth and advancement of human civilization itself. The most notable and important of all these scientists was the great Albert Einstein. As I have mentioned before, 15-30% of Israelis are believed to be atheist Jews and over 60% of Israelis consider themselves secular. In contrast, what do Islamic societies tend to do with their free thinkers and rationalists? If they voice their opinions on issues such as evolution, they are threatened with death. This takes place in western countries such as the U.K. which was recently the case with a scientist who was Muslim and voiced his support for Darwin. Therefore, those minds who are primed to usher in contributions and insights for the ultimate advancement of humanity have to either limit their creativity and intellectual spirit or are ultimately forced to move to exile.
The reason I mention this is that one of the greatest barriers to the advancement of the people inside of Islamic countries (and even among some westerners in their own lives) is the continuation of blaming the “Zionists” or “Jews” for all their problems. The real problem are not the Jews, but rather elements of his or her culture itself which limits this growth and uses the Jews as scapegoats once again. Hence, a repeating cycle and self-fulfilling prophecy which keeps these societies down rather than advancing for their own people and ultimately for the benefit of mankind.
The reason I mention this is that every time I voice my opinion (either on here or on websites like Al Jazeera) I am immediately called a “Zionist” or some other so-called name that it meant to be derogatory of the Jews. Therefore, I “must be a Jew”. Interesting terms and paranoia of some people on here referring me to such names as “Hasbara” or frequently an “agent” of someone else.
Therefore Neo, while I have no problems with Israel as a state and legitimate entity and sovereign nation, I am not Jewish, was not born into a Jewish family, and do not have any cultural context connected to Jews except to the fact that we have historical ties from the time of Cyrus The Great. This does not mean I am pro-Jewish or pro-Israel, it simply means I am not anti-Israel. And no, I don’t EVER pretend to be anyone else. The only other ID I have used on another website is one of my Twitter account which is something like “sassss”. In fact, I will repeat it one last time: I was technically “born” a Muslim (Iranians in the majority are not practicing Muslims as it is) and am an atheist, a non-believer of any superstitions and irrational belief. Thank you. :)
Correction:
Earlier I posted the following from one of my well-placed sources:
“0917 GMT: Campus Watch. The Ministry of Science and Higher Education has announced that it will no longer accept degrees from British universities.. ”
What the post should have said, of course, is that the Ministry will no longer accept degrees from the University of Birmingham, not “all” British universities…
I apologize for the confusion. And I apologize again for being such a loser, and thank you in advance for your patience and understanding :D
Empty,
“It is entirely up to the grocery store owner to decide how to deal with things. Perhaps there could be a sign that reads, “Restrooms for Customers Only”“.
hahaha, good one brother.
Taxi Driver, starring Hossein De Niro?
====================
“It is quite interesting to note that Iranians inside of Tehran regularly refer to the street names as they were named under the Shah (I just wanted to share that interesting tidbit). As for Hossein, his sentiment wasn’t isolated. He was a very insightful and intelligent man and he simply was expressing his frustration of what not only what he has suffered but what the entire Iranian nation has suffered with the horrors of the last 30+ years. When you are inside of Iran and when you walk around and look deep into the eyes of people, you see that the Iranians of today, particularly the youth, are the definition of what could be called “living zombies”. Educated people with Master’s degrees are forced to driving cabs and the likes.”
So, in a repressive country that public opinion polls mean nothing because of ‘fear’, Hossein De Niro spills his guts to a perfect stranger.
I watched the speeches given by the various representatives of the UNSC last nite – I have to say the Syrian ambassador did very well in countering what Qatars Al-Thani and Arab Leagues El-Araby had to say. It was a good point to ask why the head of the observers mission to Syria was not allowed to come and give a report on the situation in Syria to the UNSC. It shows the disunity and disfunctionalism within the Arab league.
I personally reckon he should have mentioned the fact that not only is Syria facing an internal uprising from some members of the country supported by foreign countries (proof of this should have been given – I am sure Syrian/iranian/Iraqi/Russian intelligence is picking up on these acts) but also that part of Syria is under isreali occupation with Syrian people on that land – where is their rights? What about the Golan? When they mention Syria – do they mean a Syria minus Golan or ALL of Syria?
Also, Syria is hosting over a million Iraqi refugess (thanks to the illegal and criminal actions of USA/UK), large amounts of Palestinian refugees and was a safe haven for over a million lebanese when Isreal was smashing Lebanon in 2006.
This would have put the Western powers and Mr al-Thani and gang on the spot.
The Russian ambasador did well – keeping things fact based – I did not know that a “Salafi preacher absed in Saudi Arabia made it ok to kill the Arab league observers” and also the Russian ambassadors countryside residence was trashed and lotted when Zabadani(?) fell in to rebel hands.
However – hearing Vague Hague, Juppe and Billary – they are slaivating for regime change and will do this with or without regime change.
What will Iran/Russia/Iraq and others will do to ensure Libya does not happen in Syria? I am suprised Syrian intelligence are not picking up/off members of the opposition but is given them room to fly here there and everywhere. Passive ressitance will not get Syria anywhere.
BiBijon,
Thank you for that.
I have to say he is one ugly MF – Both literally and figuratively! TROLL is literally the appropriate name for him. Chats crap! Writes crap! and looks like crap!
It says he is from Alabama – so wonder why he dont haunt MOA site? Been a native an’all.
Scott Lucas says:
February 1, 2012 at 4:49 am
“So what are we getting from the Supreme Leader: defiance, concern, or both?”
Actually Scott, Richard Steven Hack has been making this same argument for several months now. Paraphrasing him, America’s (Israel’s) intent in Syria is to isolate Iran from Hizbollah. When this is accomplished, Israel plans on a redux of what should have happened in 2006, taking out Hizbollah and flattening Lebanon (AGAIN) while they are doing it. Upon completion of this, Iran becomes a much safer target for Israel.
On James R. Clapper Jr., http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2012/01/sound-of-one-hand-clapping-us-tries-too.html
Irshad says:
February 1, 2012 at 6:30 am
“I know he is at B’ham univ. but all this time I thought UU and co. were humouring him by mentioning the prof. thing – but if its real then I am shocked.”
I share your reverence for the ‘professor’ title. But, I think for us it is a cultural thing. In the west, it really means nothing these days as to the conduct.
“Scott Lucas has been on the staff of the University of Birmingham since 1989 and has been Professor of American Studies since 1997. He began his career as a specialist in US and British foreign policy, but his research interests now also cover current international affairs — especially North Africa, the Middle East, and Iran — New Media, and Intelligence Services.”
From http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/acs/lucas-scott.aspx
To drive the meaninglessness of the ‘profeesor’ title, take a glance at this:
,http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2011/12/warped-morality-of-warmonger-why-alan.html
Thank you for this excellent analysis.
It’s not surprising, however, that Parsi represents the “soft side” of regime change. In 2006, his National Iranian American Council (NIAC) received $107,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy, the regime change specialists.
But with former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, once described as “a Reagan point man in Central America’s dirty wars,” on the NIAC’s Advisory Board, there’s nothing “soft” about this side of regime change.
I should correct my statement as follows:
RE: “the reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.”
This is not a valid reason. It is analogous to a person who sets up a veggie and fruit stand inside a grocery store that doesn’t belong to him to sell his product and the reason he provides is that he wants the customers have access to his fruits and veggies, too.
It is entirely up to the grocery store owner to decide how to deal with things. Perhaps there could be a sign that reads, “Restrooms for Customers Only”.
RE: “the reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.”
This is not a valid reason. It is analogous to a person who sets up a veggie and fruit stand inside a grocery store to sell his product and the reason he provides is that he wants the customers have access to his fruits and veggies, too.
It is entirely up to the grocery store owner to decide how to deal with things. Perhaps there could be a sign that reads, “Restrooms for Customers Only”.
RE: “the reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.”
This is not a valid reason. It is analogous to a person who sets up a veggie and fruit stand inside a grocery store to sell his product and the reason he provides is that he wants the customers have access to his fruits and veggies, too.
It is entirely up to the grocery store owner to decide how to deal with things. Perhaps there could be a sign that reads, “Restrooms for Customers Only”.
Arnold Evans says: “So what proportion of Iranians do you think agree with this?”
Arnold, to be honest, I am not sure and frankly, I wasn’t arguing or advocating war (as I believe that war should only be the last resort only if all sanctions fail or to protect genocide and should be led by a broad consensus of the free world – and that under no circumstances should Israel attack Iran) – but I will say this: it was a common theme even 3-4 years ago when I was in Iran and last year when I was in Iran for over 8-months, I heard it even more.
What I found most interesting was the age-group of the individuals whom usually argued such points. I am not sure if you recall but I have mentioned in the past that I believe based on my experience in Iran (I was in Iran for over 8-months last year) that there are more atheists inside of Iran than in the United States. For example, while the youth may not be religious or practice religion in any way, strictly speaking, not many are atheist. The individuals in Iran whom seen to be atheist to a very significant portion tend to be the 50-year old + male who has experienced life in Iran under the Shah in contrast to life in Iran under Islamic rule. These individuals tend to have seen, experienced, and perceived the true nature of theocracy, and have judged religion to be accordingly as what it is. Why do I bring up the atheist insight? Simply because this is the type of people who have experienced the different ranges of Iranian society to make such strong statements except we need to remove the limitation solely to Iranian atheists to even those who have some sort of belief in a celestial dictator (although not religious).
One more thing on this insight:it is important to note though that those individuals who don’t share this sentiment at the very same time would not fight to defend the regime or have any sort of emotional ties or attachment to the regime. They might voice their displeasure but in reality, they wouldn’t “martyr” themselves in contrast to the fervor of Khomeini’s time in which parents would often times send their kids to Khomeini who would use them as suicide bombers in attacking Iraqi forces, positions, and tanks. The religious fervor in Iran is gone. In fact, even inside of families inside of Iran there may be a husband who favors U.S. intervention and a wife who is against and everything is fine together – they simply disagree with the issue at point.
Eric A. Brill says: “I wonder whether your taxi driver was any smarter, Sassan. What makes you think so?”
It is quite interesting to note that Iranians inside of Tehran regularly refer to the street names as they were named under the Shah (I just wanted to share that interesting tidbit). As for Hossein, his sentiment wasn’t isolated. He was a very insightful and intelligent man and he simply was expressing his frustration of what not only what he has suffered but what the entire Iranian nation has suffered with the horrors of the last 30+ years. When you are inside of Iran and when you walk around and look deep into the eyes of people, you see that the Iranians of today, particularly the youth, are the definition of what could be called “living zombies”. Educated people with Master’s degrees are forced to driving cabs and the likes.
To close on this particular discussion: Iranians can go visit Iran as they do for 2-3 weeks at a time but they never really get to experience Iran as it really is with the daily suffering and circumstances of the people. The times I have spent in Iran over the years (I was born in Iran but left when I was young) have truly been invaluable for me, especially last year. In fact, while I was pretty much already an atheist, being in Iran at the age of 16 raised my certainty from 90-95% to 120% of the irrationality and moral weakness in belief.
And one last thing: An interesting observation for me from last year was the fact that although the people were starting to feel the sanctions and what it created, a good 50% at least supported them. And the vast majority of the rest that did not support them didn’t blame America or the west, but rather the regime itself. So, while people in society have independent and differing viewpoints on all sorts of subjects including these, the antagonism was not felt towards America. In fact, Iranians inside of Iran whether in agree or disagreements with specific U.S. policies, positions, or actions were not “anti-American”. That is solely reserved for the hoodlums and fanatics consisting of the Islamic Republic and its henchmen.
Bibijon,
Maybe he is a pscychology student doing a phd on all the folks here?
but seriously is this guy a professor? If so – of what? Man he must have loooooooots of time in his hand to have turned in to a professional spammer!
Profesional. Spammer more then Professor. Scott!
I know he is at B’ham univ. but all this time I thought UU and co. were humouring him by mentioning the prof. thing – but if its real then I am shocked.
Scott Lucas says:
February 1, 2012 at 6:12 am
“the reason for posting [dozens and dozens of 'Live Coverage' and 'occasional Feature'] here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.”
Scott, I think 2 or 3 posts a day would more than suffice. So, come on, fess up. What’s really driving a professor no less, to loiter on the comment section of RFI?
Scott Lucas says:
February 1, 2012 at 6:12 am
..”the reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.”
Scott – if “other” people want to access your information and analysis on Iran then they can go your wesbite – they ndont need to come to RFI to read what you have written on your site. Otherwise what’s the point of having your ow site? If you want to do this, why dont you negotiate with the Leveretts to be a regular contributor on RFI and pay them a fee for this privelege?
I dont see other people who have their own blogs/sites doing what you are doing! I dont see “b” posting his musings here, Anrold or Pirouz etc. They may give the mention of something important/critical here and then but they are no where near like you!
So please stop and keep some self dignity or I may have come down the M6 and pay you a visit in B’ham and tell you in your face!
Irshad,
Of course you are free to skip over the Live Coverage and occasional Feature. While I appreciate the input from regular commenters, the reason for posting here is to ensure that other readers have access to the information and analysis.
Best,
Scott
Dear Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett,
Thank you for all your hard work and in running and maintaining this site.
However I have one problem and its re: Scott Lucas – he is spamming this site with his so called “analysis” of the situation in Iran and not only posting the link but is copy and pasting what he has written.
If I wanted to read his “anaylisis” I would visit his site – I choose not too and come here but Scott Lucas has already filled the comments section with his “anaylisis”. I believe this is wrong and needs to stop.
He has been asked by various people to stop BUT he chooses to ignore these requests. Please do some thing to stop this site turning in to a dumping ground for other peoples rubbish!
I note that he chooses to do this only on RFI and not on other sites such as MOA, uskowi etc. Why is he only doing this here?
I look forward to seen something done about this soon.
Please note: I have no problem of Scott Lucas writing what his views are and interacting with others for e.g. how UU, James, fyi, Empty, Castellio, etc. do. His problem is, he has turned in to a serious spammer advertising his site. Either charge him and earn a revenue for this site or restrict him.
Thank you.
dear Castillio,
If you can get the Leveretts to ban dear “Sassan”, then any lurking Right-wing Christian jingos will be next to get the boot.Angry Arab’s lively blog was finally destroyed by “denial of service” levels of silly sexual banter.Too bad !But an even sadder fate came to its spawn ,”Angry Arab’s Comments Section”. which became a quite exclusive echo chamber, and mutual petting zoo for anti-zionists only: :pretty dull!
Sassan & I may hang around until the Leveretts rule our criticisms as eye-gougeing.
Dear Rehmat.
In 32 years of the Death to America/Israel “resistance” the IRI has managed to kill about 2 -3 thousand Americans ,and Israelis. But over that same period they’[ve murdered about ten times that number of Iranians.Probably the easiest way for the IRI to change that sad ratio would be to stop murdering Iranians.
folks,
‘sassan’ is an iranian jew with israeli nationality. i have seen him using 3 or 4 different names on different sites (like ‘semsem’ etc), often with different names on the same site. it is best not to try and block him though. let’s just be aware that he speaks on behalf of netanyaboo, and let him get on with his claptrap.
Bravo Mr Lavrov!:
________________________________________________________
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 31/01/2012
Reporter: Emma Alberici
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov tells Lateline that Russia will not support any plan which opposes action on Syria.
Transcript
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Now to our interview with the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, who’s in Australia on a one-day visit to celebrate the 70th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Canberra and Moscow.
In an exclusive interview with Lateline recorded earlier this evening, Mr Lavrov explored his government’s ambitions for investment and trade with Australia, and he gave us his views about Syria, warning that regime change doesn’t guarantee that the alternative government is peaceful and democratic.
Mr Lavrov, thank you for joining Lateline. Tell us what brings you to Australia.
SERGEI LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Diplomacy. Well, these days, you know, we really are have our relations on the rise.
The president of Russia and prime minister of Australia met last November in Honolulu on the margins of the APEC Summit, and they decided that the potential of the two countries in trade, economy, investment cooperation and international affairs is certainly not deep enough.
EMMA ALBERICI: Specifically, where is the potential to grow this relationship?
SERGEI LAVROV: The potential is in the economies of the two countries. We agreed that, in addition to agriculture and mining which have been the traditional areas of cooperation, we will move forward in energy, including nuclear energy.
Last year, the agreement of cooperation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy entered into force and is being implemented. The agencies of Russia and Australia in charge of this have exchanged memorandum laying down the procedures for cooperation.
EMMA ALBERICI: For Australia to supply uranium to Russia?
SERGEI LAVROV: Exactly. And the pilot at this stage will take place this year. We also have very promising area like outer space. Telecommunications. Information technologies. In all these areas, the companies are really getting in touch with each other.
EMMA ALBERICI: If we can just move to Syria – the Arab League suspended its monitoring mission over the weekend. It’s called for the UN Security Council to support a move that would see president Assad transfer power to his vice-president, who would then oversee elections. Now, will Russia support that plan?
SERGEI LAVROV: Russia would not support anything which would be actually imposed on Syrians.
The Arab League initiated a peace plan in November which was very straightforward and consisted of three points.
First, end of any violence, irrespective of wherever it comes from, meaning that the opposition must also distance itself from the armed extremist groups.
The second point, the beginning of the dialogue resulted in pre-conditions.
And the third point, no outside interference.
These three elements of the Arab League initiative of last November became the basis for a draft resolution which Russia introduced in the Security Council and which is on the table of the Security Council. We strongly supported the Arab League initiative which was introduced in December to send an Arab League observer mission to Syria, to watch both the government and the opposition and to establish facts about what is going on on the ground.
EMMA ALBERICI: And they’ve been doing that? And they now say the fighting is intractable?
SERGEI LAVROV: They have been doing this, and they produced a report one month after they were sent there, and then the Arab League convened a week ago to consider this report. And adopted a decision which … well, contradicts the findings of the report.
And then this decision was taken to the Security Council, where it is now. And we are discussing it in New York, but we do want to have the report itself on the table. It took us some time and some days to get this done, but now the report is in the Security Council. And we would be guided by the facts.
We would also be guided by the need to avoid taking sides in a situation of internal conflict.
The international community unfortunately did take sides in Libya and we would never allow the Security Council to authorise anything similar to what happened in Libya. Yes, we condemn strongly the use of force by government forces against civilians, but we can condemn in the same strong way the activities of the armed extremist groups who attack government positions, who attack administration in various provinces of Syria, who attack a police station and who terrorise people telling them not to come to jobs, not to come to hospitals, not to come to shops.
It’s impossible to … when you say that government forces must leave towns, but at the same time you watch BBC, you watch CNN and you see that parts of those towns are taken by the armed opposition, are you realistically expecting that any government in this situation would leave the city and leave it to the armed groups? I don’t think so.
So, my point is that the international community must speak one voice. If we want to end violence, irrespective of where it comes from – and that’s the language of the Arab League – then all those countries on whose soil various opposition groups are present, they must lean on those groups, we all must lean on the Syrian government and tell them that you must sit down and stop this. You must agree how your country is going to be run.
We would not pre-judge the outcome, whether this would involve the president of Syria living, or whether there would be some other solution, we went through this in Libya when the African Union – the organisation of 50-some countries, to which Libya belongs – introduced a plan under which the fate of Gaddafi would’ve been decided at the end of the negotiating process as part of the overall package.
It was rejected because some countries outside the African Union said no, no, no, Gaddafi must go before anything else happens, and then we had what we did. The African Union was humiliated, because to throw away an initiative which was aimed at peacefully resolving the crisis just because somebody had some very personal animosities was a mistake, and if we’re going to repeat this in Syria, well, we cannot help it if some people insist on doing something bad.
But we would not be party to it and we would not let the Security Council endorse something like this.
EMMA ALBERICI: You said, “If someone’s going to do something bad”. Isn’t that person at the moment president Assad? He’s has turned his weapons and his army on his own people.
SERGEI LAVROV: Yes, but …
EMMA ALBERICI: I mean, you talk about sovereignty and protecting a country’s sovereignty.
SERGEI LAVROV: Sure.
EMMA ALBERICI: But sovereignty surely shouldn’t be absolute?
SERGEI LAVROV: No, it is not.
EMMA ALBERICI: The international community has an obligation, does it not, to protect people when governments turn their own weapons on them?
SERGEI LAVROV: It is not part of the law. It’s part of the “moral obligation”, if you wish. And yes, I said it a few minutes ago that we condemn strongly the use of force against civilians …
EMMA ALBERICI: But it’s been 10 months!
SERGEI LAVROV: Just as we condemn strongly the armed groups attacking the government offices. The first attack against government in Syria was registered in April. And you cannot say that when government kills people it’s bad, when somebody kills government official, it’s good.
EMMA ALBERICI: Well, in some respects …
SERGEI LAVROV: That’s the problem, because …
EMMA ALBERICI: There is a problem, and it’s a problem of balance. Because of course, the government has a force much greater than unarmed civilians. Clearly, it’s not a relationship of equals. The government obviously has more power if it is backed by the military.
SERGEI LAVROV: Did you watch the TV images from Damascus, from other Syrian cities?
EMMA ALBERICI: Sure, but there are independent observers too who say that …
SERGEI LAVROV: Independent observers in the media. We insist for the media to be present freely in Syria, and the independent observers and the media show the pictures of peaceful demonstrators being accompanied by armed people with grenade launchers, with machine-guns, and they are attacking government offices.
That’s why we want the report of the Arab League observers, the report of the mission which was authorised by the Arab League, to be available to the Security Council and to the international community. I condemn violence anywhere.
EMMA ALBERICI: But the opposition …
SERGEI LAVROV: We have nothing against peaceful demonstrators.
EMMA ALBERICI: The opposition says it wants to sit down and have dialogue, but it just does not want to have that dialogue with president Assad. If he is confident that he has support, why not go to free and fair democratic elections and put himself up as a candidate?
SERGEI LAVROV: You are already pre-judging the outcome of the dialogue. The opposition says we don’t want to negotiate with the current regime. And we don’t want the president of Syria to participate in any elections. The slogan under which the opposition works is “no dialogue”. And this is something which is very different from, say, the situation in Yemen when the eventual deal was negotiated with full support of outside players.
Everyone, Europe, US, China, Russia, the Arabs, they were pulling respective forces in Yemen to sit down and to agree and they did agree eventually. In Syria, the countries where the opposition is based, they’re publicly saying you should not accept any offer for a dialogue. And this is the difference.
EMMA ALBERICI: But the Syrian national council has met your envoy just in the last few days in Paris, is that right?
SERGEI LAVROV: I met with the Chairman of the Syrian National Council in Moscow a couple of weeks ago, and we would be ready to receive him and other groups of the opposition again.
The main thing we want to achieve – and we discussed it with minister of foreign affairs for Turkey, with other friends in the region – the main thing we want to achieve is to bring them to a negotiating table, and to say that they’re not going to do this until president Assad leaves, I think, is a mistake, because he’s not leaving.
EMMA ALBERICI: But is it worth the bloodshed just to keep one person in a position?
SERGEI LAVROV: You answer me now, I will be interviewing you, sorry. They say they’re not going to negotiate until he leaves, and he is not leaving. What are you going to do? Shell him, bomb him?
EMMA ALBERICI: I guess the UN wants to apply more pressure. Perhaps an arms embargo.
SERGEI LAVROV: The arms embargo? You know that the arms embargo was introduced on Libya, you know? And after that, people were bragging that arms were supplied openly. The French Minister of Defence said that yes we were sending arms to the rebels.
You know the hypocrisy is not something which the Security Council should be engaged in.
My point is, if they say we want a negotiated solution they must negotiate with the representative of the current government. I don’t think that president Assad personally is going to negotiate. But there would be somebody from this regime, if they say that we can accept vice-president as the head of interim government or whatever, why don’t they sit down with him and negotiate? And then it would be a Syrian solution, not a solution imposed by outsiders.
EMMA ALBERICI: Is Russia still selling arms to the Syrian regime?
SERGEI LAVROV: Yes, of course. We sell in some contracts and it must be implemented like treaties. The deliveries were done this year.
EMMA ALBERICI: You’re arming one side of the fight?
SERGEI LAVROV: No, we are arming the constitutional government, which we don’t approve of what it is doing, using force against demonstrators, but the arms …
EMMA ALBERICI: But you are picking sides?
SERGEI LAVROV: No, no, no, we’re not picking sides. We are implementing our commercial contractual obligations. The arms we are selling to Syria, they are not used against demonstrators. Those are arms to protect Syria and to ensure Syrian defence.
EMMA ALBERICI: How can you be so sure?
SERGEI LAVROV: Because I know what kind of arms there is.
EMMA ALBERICI: Britain’s UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said only last night said it was glaringly obvious that transferring weapons into a volatile and violent situation is irresponsible, and will only fuel the bloodshed.
SERGEI LAVROV: Yes, so what? That’s his statement.
EMMA ALBERICI: You don’t agree?
SERGEI LAVROV: I know that Britain and the United States and others ship arms in the Middle East, 10 or maybe 100 times more than the Russian does
EMMA ALBERICI: You say they’re hypocrites?
SERGEI LAVROV: I said hypocrisy is not something the Security Council should be engaged in. Look, you said 18 minutes, right?
EMMA ALBERICI: Yes, I’m almost done. The Americans say Iran is supporting the Syrian government with arms and tactics and equipment. Do you share their concerns about that? Is it true?
SERGEI LAVROV: I’m concerned about another thing. I am concerned at what is going on in Syria, what is going on in the region. Some people take in the context of isolating Iran. And if this happens, I mean if this logic prevails, then unfortunately, we will be witnessing a much bigger drama.
What is going on is an attempt to change the balance in the Muslim world. And the rift between Sunni and Shia is absolutely evident. And it is of direct relevance to what is going on in Syria, to what is going on around Iran, to what is going on in Iraq.
Don’t forget about the Kurds, the Kurds in Syria, Kurds in Iraq, Kurds in Turkey.
The people who are obsessed with removing regimes in the region, they should be really thinking about the broader picture. And I’m afraid that if this vigour to change regimes persists, we are going to witness a very bad situation much, much, much broader than just Syria, Libya, Egypt or any other single country.
And we don’t want to make this easy. We’re going to prevent this type of development. And I hope that knowledgeable people, reasonable people understand what it is about and would opt in favour of dialogue and engagement of everyone, not in favour of isolating somebody.
Isolation doesn’t work. People tried to isolate Hamas when Hamas won the democratic free and fair elections back five years ago. So we have the problem now, because the government democratically in that was artificially announced the wrong government.
Now people are trying to isolate Iran, people are trying to isolate Syria, they did try even before this event started. Just to be very clear, we are categorically against civilians to be subject to violence by whoever, but this must be an approach applied evenly to all those who use force in an internal conflict.
And to all those who avoid negotiations, continue provocations in the expectation that somebody from outside will come and help them, it’s not decent. The decent thing is for all those who have influenced on various parts of opposition and the government to say in one voice, you must stop it, all of you. And without taking any part in the dispute, to persuade them, to lean on them, to make them sit down and negotiate, there is no other way.
EMMA ALBERICI: My very last question. 10 months on, 5,400 civilians dead, at what point do you, as a friend and ally of president Assad, pick up the phone and say, “It’s time to go?” In an effort to bring the parties together?
SERGEI LAVROV: We’re not a friend, we’re not an ally of president Assad. We never said that president Assad remaining in power is the solution to the crisis. What we did say is that it is up to the Syrians themselves to decide how to run the country, how to introduce the reforms, what kind reforms, without any outside interference.
That’s why people who say that it is impossible to talk to the regime, I believe they are the reason why the crisis is procrastinating. I am sorry to say this. But if there is no dialogue, then the question means only one thing, that you want a second Libya, and this will be a disaster for the Arab world and for the world politics.
EMMA ALBERICI: Moamar Gaddafi wouldn’t stand down.
SERGEI LAVROV: OK.
EMMA ALBERICI: Eventually brinkmanship eventually must come …
SERGEI LAVROV: President Assad wouldn’t stand down, so your analogy is that force must be used against him from outside.
EMMA ALBERICI: No, I asked when would you ask him to stand down?
SERGEI LAVROV: Whom?
EMMA ALBERICI: When would you support efforts to ask him to stand down?
SERGEI LAVROV: I don’t think Russian policy is about asking people to step down. Regime change is not our profession. Some other countries …
EMMA ALBERICI: Not even if it brings an end to violence?
SERGEI LAVROV: The end of violence could be achieved if everyone tells the people whom they control, the opposition groups on the [inaudible] of those countries, if they want the end of violence, they must tell them, “You all guys, all of you, must drop the slogan which reads, ‘No dialogue’, must drop the slogan of ‘Pre-conditions’ and must sit down and deal with your own people, with your own country being at stake.”
EMMA ALBERICI: Mr Lavrov, thank you very much for your time.
SERGEI LAVROV: Thank you.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3420041.htm
Castellio,
Regarding Sassan, how can you take seriously, or imagine that anyone else takes seriously, writings like this one from Sassan:
“Iran has become a country ruled by a religious and perverse elite whom is allowed to marry off 9 & 12-year old girls. … a regime whom grants “temporary wives” or “sigheh” dictating basically an unlimited number of “wives” ranging from mere minutes… at the request of the man. …In addition, this is a regime that rapes our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t “die as virgins”. … afterwards they are summarily hung or sent to the firing squad.”
We all get carried away in our writing at times, but Sassan makes it rather difficult to take seriously anything he writes.
Castellio, on Sassan:
“The poster who calls himself Sassan is a different kettle of fish. He or she is consistently and willfully disruptive, aggressive, and demeaning to yourselves and others. His or her intent is to dominate the Board in bad faith, and due to the technology itself, she or he is capable of doing so.”
I don’t take Sassan very seriously, though I pay little attention to what he writes since it generally falls into one or both of two categories: (1) cut-and-paste articles from other sources; and (2) baseless rants about the “pure evil” of anyone who disagrees with him.
Every now and then Sassan writes something worth poking fun at or even responding to, but those times are rare. It’s easy enough, as Arnold suggests, simply to scroll past his comments. I do share your disgust for comments that are personal attacks, but one should always consider the source. I’m sure the Leveretts don’t like being called “pure evil” or the “most grotesque of regime apologists,” but I suspect they sleep a bit more easily when they bear in mind who it is that holds that opinion.
I’d like to thank Flynt and Hillary Leverett for writing such a brilliant article.
Pirouz,
As always, I enjoy hearing your personal stories (or stories of family members) about impressions of life in Iran, past and present.
A few others have mentioned Sassan’s comments on the Leveretts’ article in the Boston Review. I confess to having been bewildered as to who was who.
First there was Sassan. Then someone claimed that he was Sassan and that the first “Sassan” was a fraud. Then “Sassan” claimed that the second Sassan was a fraud, but I couldn’t tell whether this third comment came from yet another “Sassan” or instead from the first “Sassan.”
Finally I gave up and came over here, where, of course, there is just one Sassan (I think).
Sassan,
I notice you suggest that the personal views of your taxi driver in Tehran are a good barometer of Iranian public opinion.
I’m reminded of a famous story that suggests taxi drivers sometimes get it wrong. Over 80 years ago, Bernard Baruch, an influential adviser to several US presidents, was riding in a New York city taxi, listening to the driver’s passionate account of his complicated stock trading strategies. Baruch concluded that, if even his taxi driver was so fully invested and enthusiastic about the market’s prospects, it was time for him to take a contrarian view.
The next day, Baruch sold everything (or so the story goes), thereby avoiding the stock market crash that occurred a few weeks later.
I never heard what happened to the sadly mistaken taxi driver. My hunch is that he lost so much money in the market crash that he ended up driving a taxi.
I wonder whether your taxi driver was any smarter, Sassan. What makes you think so?
Real news
Israel: living conditions deteriorate, more money to army
Russians, nearly a quarter of the population, speak about their isolation and economic struggles
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7796
I have to say I very much admire the comments section here as it is. I have no problem scrolling past comments that I rightly or wrongly expect not to be worth my time to read.
This strikes me as important.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Afghan-govt-Taliban-to-hold-talks-in-S-Arabia/articleshow/11694452.cms
Times of India
Jan 31, 2012
Afghan govt, Taliban to hold talks in S Arabia
RIYADH: Afghan government officials and representatives of the country’s former Taliban rulers are to hold peace talks in Saudi Arabia, a Riyadh-based Afghan diplomat said on Monday.
“An Afghan government delegation and a Taliban delegation will hold talks in Saudi Arabia,” the diplomat said on condition of anonymity but he could not give a timing.
The talks in Saudi will be separate from the US-brokered meetings held in Qatar and will be the first such talks to take place in the Sunni Muslim kingdom. Taliban negotiators have begun preliminary discussions with the United States in Qatar on plans for peace talks aimed at ending the decade-long war in Afghanistan. They have also announced plans to set up an office in Doha. A member of the Taliban’s leadership council, the Pakistan-based Quetta Shura, said on Sunday “the idea that the Taliban should have a point of contact in Saudi is pushed by the Pakistan and
Afghan governments”.
Pakistan was feeling “sidelined” from the US-brokered talks, he said.
The Afghan diplomat, however, said there were no plans for a third party to attend the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. “So far, there is no third party that will be present at the talks,” he said.
AFP
موسویان در مصاحبه با ال پائیس سکوت را شکست
راه دیگری جز دستیابی به سلاح اتمی باقی نمانده
http://www.roozonline.com/persian/news/newsitem/archive/2012/january/31/article/-bca45f7433.html
As long as we’re telling stories here, I have one to share.
My Iranian family was sort of like the Larijanis of today, but from roughly 1900 to roughly 1960, spanning generations. That said, my Iranian aunt was on the Iranian delegation to the UN for the International Woman’s year in 1975. It is her, this story relates to.
My Iranian aunt was one of the first to leave Tehran early in 1978 (before the return of Khomeini). She had accurately predicted the fall of the Shah for all the right reasons, and after it happened many in her social circle were amazed by this.
She’s lived in the U.S. ever since and works over at VOA Persian.
Anyway, after decades of being away, a few years ago she went back to Iran and stayed for a few months. She loved it. She had a great time, and was amazed at Tehran’s development, as well as the maturity and awareness of the city’s citizenry. She still dislikes the regime, but I got her to admit her experience was a very pleasant one in current day, Tehran, Iran.
Sassan says:
February 1, 2012 at 1:12 am
He had told me that he could only imagine the day when (in his words) “amoo Bush would drop missiles on their heads”. And he would tell me, “if some of us have to die to get rid of this regime, it is the price we will have to pay.”
So what proportion of Iranians do you think agree with this?
I remember one time in Iran (about 3-4 years ago) in which the taxi driver whom I became friends with and would drive me everywhere told me about his experiences. Hossein was an Iraqi war veteran too and he told me his run-ins with Hizbollis whom would call his wife a “gende” (whore) as he yelled at them once when they were blocking traffic and was subsequently beat down in the middle of the street, arrested, and tortured and was only let go days later when he was released as one person where he was held had “compassion” since he was in “jeppah”. He had told me that he could only imagine the day when (in his words) “amoo Bush would drop missiles on their heads”. And he would tell me, “if some of us have to die to get rid of this regime, it is the price we will have to pay.”
Dan Cooper says:
February 1, 2012 at 12:24 am
Dan, not worth the time to comment on, really.
When people write things like “mullahs” or even “uncle weasel”, I make the mental note to skip their comments from that point on. And I’ve the discipline to carry it out.
So today I stopped “following” the NIAC blog using Blogger. That means when I log on to Blogger, I no longer see when their site is updated with a new post. That’s not saying much these days, however, as their site is now a short rehash of mostly MSM newswires on Iran. This started recently, as for quite a while I was the only one commenting on their original posts (written mostly by NIAC interns). My comments pretty well matched the points the Leveretts have detailed in the expanded version of this RFI post over at Boston Review.
It’s funny, comments are way down at the NIAC site (it’s actually down to zero there), as well as Tehran Bureau and Enduring America. Someone once accused me of being the reason over at the NIAC site, but I only posted one comment per post over there. My explanation for this massive downturn is that many of the commenters, being self-exiled Iranians, had become disinterested when they realized the Iranian government was not going to fall (just as the Leveretts had predicted).
But have you noticed how many comments RFI receives? It has more comments than all the other Iran sites combined- including iranian.com. That should tell you something. So Dan, when someone like the person you’re complaining about adds dozens of comments to RFI, be grateful. Although they’d be loathe to admit it, by actively contributing to the site they are in fact contributing to the success of the RFI – whether they like it or not.
Dan Cooper says:
February 1, 2012 at 12:24 am
Fiorangela says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Due to lack of reasonable arguments, and ability to soundly debate issues surrounding Iran on this forum, it seems likely that Scott Lucas (Professor of American studies) and his paid entourage have been assigned and asked to interrupt one of the only sites that seriously discuss and debates US-Iran policy issues.
Presumably this’s how much one would learn by taking Scott’s courses on American studies. Just imagine a college professor of American studies resorts to high school tactics to interrupt grownup debates due to his own lack of reasoning for debating policy issues that he is supposed to lecture you on.
Once a Kansan salesman told me “one can’t make soup with chicken shit”
Fiorangela says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm
“Sassan, the comments you posted on the Leveretts Boston Review article have all the class of a dog pooping on the rug in the living room”
Yes I agree.
Sassan is also like a dog who is barking louder than he bites.
He is spewing out a lot of garbage and I for one, have decided not read his posts.
Those who would like to join me, please confirm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufdw21ltc-8
Sakineh, I respectfully disagree. Do you remember when there used to be comments at the Angry Arab? Eventually it became impossible, and all comments were done away with. How will this site protect itself from this kind of disruption?
I think Richard Silverstein has learned how to ban when necessary and maintain an active board with genuine disagreement. As have others. I don’t believe its a problem that will just “go away”. It takes a certain amount of work and a clear policy.
Dear Hillary Mann and Flynt Leverett,
You and your husband are doing extremely important work, and I admire and support the efforts of both of you.
The comment board of RFI has its own distinct ebb and flow, and of course it is sometimes idiosyncratic. However, the tone is usually respectful among posters, almost familial in many cases. There is certainly latitude for disagreement and a variety of opinion, which we not only expect, but desire. The poster who calls himself Sassan is a different kettle of fish. He or she is consistently and willfully disruptive, aggressive, and demeaning to yourselves and others. His or her intent is to dominate the Board in bad faith, and due to the technology itself, she or he is capable of doing so.
I ask that you block Sassan.
Best wishes, as always,
Castellio
Castellio says: January 31, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Nah, he/she/it will fade away, just like the previous trolls before him/her/it.
I am writing to the Leveretts to block Sassan, whose behaviour is antithetical to the health of the Board. I suggest others do as well.
There is no reason to condone or accept this type of behaviour. It has ruined other Boards, and is meant to do so. It is better to take action now. I suggest as many regulars as possible write to the Leveretts to suggest that he or she be banned.
Cyrus The Great would be rolling in his grave right now. Iran has become a country ruled by a religious and perverse elite whom is allowed to marry off 9 & 12-year old girls. In the case of the latter, no court permission is required and in the case of the former, court permission is required but it is little bit more than a formality. In fact, this is a regime whom grants “temporary wives” or “sigheh” dictating basically an unlimited number of “wives” ranging from mere minutes, hours, days, or years at the request of the man. In addition, his permanent wife (or wives) is not even required to be notified. Not too many years ago there was a scandal in Karaj in which Mullahs were using this “sigheh” with prostitutes. In addition, this is a regime that rapes our young sisters before executing them so that they don’t “die as virgins”. To force the marriage, they partake in forced sigheh’s against these young girls and afterwards they are summarily hung or sent to the firing squad.
The Leverett’s want us to accept the “legitimacy” of this type of evil? The same evil that has threatened to wipe our other member nations and dabbling with holocaust denying? The same regime that professes their hard work in “preparing” for the “return of the hidden imam” which by their very own definition, ideology, and beliefs means the prerequisite of “reconquering Jerusalem” in a global jihad in which 2/3rd of humanity perishes through death, havoc, chaos and famine? IT is not solely in the national security interests of the United States and Israel to be against this regime, but in the very survival and advancement of humanity itself. This is of particular importance when we consider the fact that we now live in an era of apocalyptic weaponry when mass casualties can take place faster than an eye blink. We no longer face an enemy like the Soviet Union which is absolutely true – but the Soviets didn’t want to bring an end to humanity. This is a regime that actively is run with the inherent ideologies and beliefs of this ultimate end and desire. The Leverett’s consider such maniacs as “rational” actors?? I ask two questions of them: what world are they living in and what type of crack cocaine are they smoking?
BiBiJon says: January 31, 2012 at 8:26 pm
BiBiJon,
I finally found a name for this 20% business. It’s called the ‘The Pareto principle.’
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor scarcity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
So, by this rule, the trebling of 20% causes the 80% war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Pareto on mon ami!
Sanctions v. Negotiations on Iran
By Glenn Greenwald
Very positive interview with Vali Nasr
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30403.htm
Agent 20%, James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former British foreign secretary, said Jan. 24th that the “most dangerous and damaging consequence” of Iran’s “becoming a nuclear weapons state” was nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.”
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.
As Hassan Rohani, a nuclear negotiator in Khatami’s administration wrote:
“A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region. And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends. There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.”
From http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html?iid=perma_share
“This of course gets directly back to the Iranian blunder in trebling production of 20% U.”
Can you explain how it gets DIRECTLY to … ?
And, can you explain why Clapper again today reiterated that US intelligence agencies recon Iran has not made ANY moves towards nuclear weapons? What part of your 20% do you think Clapper is missing?
Some Nazi leaders betrayed by Zionists
“Had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable,” Adolf Eichmann, 1955, published in Life magazine in 1960. The Zionist-regime executed Eichmann in 1961 for ‘war crimes’.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/some-nazi-leaders-betrayed-by-zionists/
Dr. Trita Parsi is an anti-Islamic Revolution and on CIA payrol. Parsi is a resident alien claiming to represent the Iranian-American community in the United States. But as reported in Washington Times, he lobbies for policies favorable toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
As I said before – Washington is not bulling Iran for later’s nuclear program. It’s bully Tehran on behalf of the zionist regime whose leaders admitted a few weeks ago that Iranian support is making impossible for Israel to defeat Hamas and Hizbullah.
What Washington is aiming for in Tehran, Damascus and Beirut – is Libya-type regime change and destroy military resistance to Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/israel-nuclear-iran-makes-hard-to-defeat-hamas-and-hizbullah/
Thank you Leveretts!
For my part, I have never been able to get through any article written by Parsi. I am always too aggrieved when I read him and usually skip to the next paragraph after not agreeing with what he wrote in the previous one. Now, others have confirmed that it’s just not me. Yes, ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is the best way to describe it.
James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Interesting perspective, James; a comparison of Iranian ex pats to Cuban exiles in US who wanted the return of their property.
But what would Iranian Americans achieve if Iran is laid waste by war — again?
On the other other hand, some German Jews such as Erich Mendelsohn, who received an outstanding education in Germany and benefited from mentorships and career opportunities in Germany, then felt forced to flee Germany and reacted by collaborating with the US government to perfect techniques for firebombing entire cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people in their former native land. For some people, that which they cannot possess they seek to destroy.
James Canning says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:23 pm
what rubbish, James Canning.
I have a hangnail. Iran caused it by ______ [fill in the blank] 20%.
Rifkind is what is now broadly acknowledged to be an Israel Firster. His mental processes are stunted by a fixation on zionism — as one brilliant and funny participant at Mondoweiss used to say, “they’re addicted to ziocaine.”
Fiorangela,
Thanks. And yes, I think a Middle East free of nukes is a workable proposition. Israel does not need nukes for defence.
Fiorangela,
The rich Cuban exiles who did so much to prevent normal relations between Cuba and the US, had an agenda that very much included serious financial issues. Perhaps something similar plays a role in the thinking of some Iranian exiles?
thank you for the link, James Canning.
The Guardian article referenced a poll in a recent New York Times op ed by Shibli Telhami. According to that November poll, a convincing majority of Israeli Jews think a nuclear free Middle East is a reasonable resolution to the situation. They are fully aware that Nuclear Free Middle East means Israel gives up its nuclear monopoly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/opinion/preventing-a-nuclear-iran-peacefully.html?_r=1
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former British foreign secretary, said Jan. 24th that the “most dangerous and damaging consequence” of Iran’s “becoming a nuclear weapons state” was nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. This of course gets directly back to the Iranian blunder in trebling production of 20% U.
Richard Norton-Taylor has some interesting comments: “Iran and the US: from words to war”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/31/iran-us-intelligence-war
I agree, Pirouz.
I had high hopes/wishes for Parsi, and like you, gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to “triangulate;” trying to play the Washington game. Like you, I emailed him that his acquiescence to demonization campaign was counterproductive.
I don’t understand what blind spot stands between him and all out support for full Iranian sovereignty, but I suspect that a lot of Iranian-Americans share it. I think it might have to do with deeply embedded Iranian affinity towards Jews, a relationship like that between parent and adopted child. Some of my Iranian-American friends are deeply offended at IRI government statements against Israel.
Pirouz:
“….he[Trita Parsi] is intellectually dishonest.”
well said.
James,
Why would Iran end enrichment? Thats their right
Why do you think Iran must choose between their right to enrich and the risk to be bombed?
I still waiting for you to respond to the 3 questions asked earlier:
Do you deny that IAEA repeatedly have said that no uranium have been diverted for weaponization?
Do you deny Iran the right to enrich?
Do you deny the fact that UN resolutions demand Iran to stop their enrichment?
Ken Pollack is putting on a programme Feb. 2nd on Iran and Syria, and the panel for the discussion has three people from Saban center at Brookings, plus one from WINEP. Winep, the off-shoot of Aipac.
Parsi: in a word, disappointing.
After reading the expanded article by the Leveretts, I wrote Parsi to tell him I no longer wished to receive emails from NIAC. In fact, I no longer want to have anything to do with them.
In the past, I’ve told Parsi he was doing a lot of damage contributing to the demonization campaign. Just about every point the Leveretts make here in their review, I’ve previously pointed out to him personally through comments at the NIAC blog and direct emails. So he can’t say he’s ignorant. We’re left to conclude that he is intellectually dishonest. Really sad how these Iranians self-exiles corrupt themselves into excluding any possibility of being objective and dispassionate, in putting together their flawed and unreliable analyses.
On my American side, I come from a U.S. military family. My great great uncle was in the U.S. Army in WWI and suffered a battle injury in a German gas attack. My great uncle was in the U.S. Army in the European theater and was KIA in the Battle of Bitche. Another great uncle was USN and was injured in battle in the Pacific theater. My uncle served in the Korean conflict in the U.S. Army. I lost my favorite cousin through a battle incurred brain injury in the Vietnam war; he was USMC. We’ve three Purple Hearts in the family, and that’s just a sample of our family’s military history. My point in bringing all this up? As a person of partial Iranian descent, I’ve a unique perspective to share with the Iranian community here in self-exile, on judging how American foreign wars are started. Every step of the way, I’ve given Parsi the benefit of this perspective, but it now appears he has chosen to ignore the risks. I can only imagine that since he is not an American, this perspective is of little use to him. The Leveretts are right, it’s all about regime change for the likes of him, regardless of the cost to Americans and Iranians alike.
Bravo to the Leveretts for underscoring the lack of scrutiny Ken Pollack’s book (promoting invasion of Iraq)received, in the run-up to the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Sassan, the comments you posted on the Leveretts Boston Review article have all the class of a dog pooping on the rug in the living room.
You and your handlers must be very proud of your performance.
“Iran offers to extend inspection by UN team”, by Alan Cowell, in today’s New York Times, is worth reading. It cites several Press TV reports.
settman,
You apparently think the UK and France would seek regime change in Iran even if Iran ended all enrichment of uranium. I very much doubt this is ture.
kooshy,
The neocons did not want a deal with Iran because their object was to promote Israel’s effort to keep much or most, or all, of the West Bank, and they saw Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah as working against the scheme for a “Greater Israel”.
I’m surpriesed that you seem little interested in the reasons the neocons insisted on destroying the Sunni power structure and the secular Baathist government.
Clearly Obama blundered by not pushing forward with his effort to improve relations with Iran. He was handicapped by having advisers who either did not understand the situation in Iran, or ignored it because they were pursung an Israel-driven agenda.
Is not too farfetched to believe soon after invasion of Iraq the American policy planers came to understand that their desired outcome for a uniform control the Middle East by western powers including Iran is not going to materialized soon if ever. The new fact which very early on came to surface was that their actions have actually elevated Iran’s position instead of containing it further.
As result of the joint American British ill researched plans and its consequent implementation in Iraq, the Americans soon came to understand that their actions has fundamentally changed the security and stability of their regional client sates including Israel by making a larger unified Shih resistance in absence of a meaningful Sunni state opposing the new elevated unified Shih opposition who is demanding end of western hegemony in the region.
It is in this time period that some elements of Iranian government thought that the new elevated Iranian position might inspire the American to accept Iran’s sovereign independence in exchange for a broader regional stability but American neocons still in denial of the new facts did not want to accept an independent Iran.
To reverse their blunder and contain the ascendency of Iran and her regional Shih allies in the Arab streets new plans were needed to be drawn up. It’s in this newly emerged political environment that the fallowing new policies are implemented.
1- To elevate a moderate Sunni regional government to funnel the Sunni street sentiments away from being absorbed by Iran and her allies, Turkey was the best candidate since she refused to participate in Iraq, to elevate Turkey to become an acceptable model of resisting western hegemony in the Arab streets she had to mildly protest western regional hegemony and create a real atmosphere of tension with Israel.
2- To create an international crises around Iran to make keep her on the edge and not to be free for taking action in international seen and forums.in this case the nuclear issue was a perfect fit to make Iran a rouge state not fit for international forums on regional issues.
3- To eliminate Iran’s regional allies namely Hezbollah and Syria, Hezbollah was to be eliminated in war of 06 and Syria was to be bought and convinced to move away from Iran, by negotiations initiated between Israel and Turkey.
None of western actions to contain their Iraq blunder materialized in a meaningful tangible way, which continued to drag down the western position in the region, besides its economic cost which soon became intolerable for their economies.
It’s in this end game that a regional awakening on the Arab street made all previous plans and agendas ineffective and the masks no longer needed to be kept. It’s in this newly made environment that Turkey no longer was needed to pertain as a fair broker between the Global Dictatorship and Axis of Resisting western hegemony, so plans once again had to be redrawn with increasing pressure on Iran, and separating Syria from resistance by hard power when no longer was not possible by buying Syria away from Iran due to new regional environment.
@Sassan:
1. Who do you think did these polls? Who paid for them?
2. “That would mean surrendering to evil against every core value vital and inherent in our moral conscience.” You are right. Iran would never do so. Why should the Persians start wars of aggression after lying to and blackmailing their parliament? Why should they have prisoners tortured in Abu Ghraib, Damascus, Cairo, or in secret prisons in Romania, Lithuania or Poland?
Sassan, please don’t bold your “contributions”. You are, unfortunately, visible enough on the site. If you continue to yell I for one will join those seeking to ban you. You can be ignorant, a fool, a corrupted human being, a narcissist, and certainly not who you pretend to be, but you needn’t yell.
The death of Syed Ibne Hasan, who was co-writer of the first Urdu translation of Marx’s Das Kapital… the following is from his open letter after the earthquake in Pakistan of 2005:
“At first I could not understand this cynical attitude and extreme depression. Soon I realised that all feel humiliated. A bureaucratic system of distributing relief goods has been evolved to reduce the people to a kind of beggary. One has to be either a looter or a beggar in order to get food or clothing. Nobody from the government or army reached them on the first two days. They were busy in “Margala Towers”, one of the most expensive residential areas in the capital. It is the only building that collapsed in Islamabad because substandard material had been used in the construction of it. Thanks to common people who are trying to reach everyone.
Many will squeeze money and prosperity out of it. The bus owners charge as much fares as they will. The truck fares have risen many times. When shopkeepers observe that you are purchasing clothes or blankets for the quake victims, they rob you. And our generals and bureaucrats and ministers etc, they will be earning millions. Only a tiny part of the aid that is being received from the international community will go to the people. Our Lions will receive the Lion’s share. Only yesterday a brigadier was caught red-handed selling 4 relief trucks. The government is quick to deny it. What a pity! What shame! These traders of religion; the sellers of human shrouds! Deaths of thousands of human beings will bring them billions of money.
This is the tragedy of Pakistan, or perhaps of all under-developed countries. This is, as Marx has commented somewhere, like France of Balzac’s novels, or perhaps worse than that. We are carrying the stinking carcass of feudal ages with all its decadence, moral decay, self-indulgence, corruption, depravity on our shoulders; added to it is all the greed, an intense, inordinate longing for wealth; a covetous desire for money that always comes with the bourgeois society.
This is Pakistan with its culture and civilization which is the fittest place for dictators to rule.”
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/syed-ibne-hasan-1954-2012/
“U.S. diplomacy with Iran will only work if it is based on acceptance of the other nation as an enduring entity with legitimate interests.”
That would mean surrendering to evil against every core value vital and inherent in our moral conscience. This is a regime which at its policy wants to bring havoc, chaos, and death throughout the world through their “hidden imam” ideology. This is a regime that as a matter of policy, rapes our young sisters in prison before executing them so that they don’t “die as virgins”. This is a regime that is among the most brutal and tyrannical in the world and their end-of-the-world ideology at their very core puts into risk not only the national security of U.S. and Israel, but rather ultimately with the survival and advancement of human civilization.
Bottom line: this regime must go and we must never surrender to evil.
Sassan,
You must accept reality and stop your emotional outbursts.
The polling were optional.
“He never mentions that every methodologically sound poll done in connection with the election showed that Ahmadinejad’s re-election with just over 60 percent of the vote”
Are Flynt and Hillary Leverett this naive or do they think the rest of us are? “Polls” are not scientifically valid and reliable when taken inside of totalitarian societies in which people are afraid to speak their minds and voices for fear of arrest, torture, rape, and execution.
Shame on the Leverett’s for their dubious claims in being true campaigners in support of the evil Islamic Republic regime instead of supporting the plight and aspirations of the Iranian people. You can be anti-war (as Noam Chomsky is) but still support the aspirations and human rights of the Iranian people. Instead, the Leverett’s join the likes of George Galloway in being advocates for the most evil and ruthless of tyrants and radical madmen.
Sassan,
Personal insults in the only thing you have, thats miserable. Instead, prove that Leverett’s are wrong. Could you do that?
Flynt and Hillary Leverett have become surely nothing more and nothing less but the most grotesque of regime apologists and of apologists for pure evil. Shame on them for their lack of any sort of moral backbone.
Is there any excuse in the book they won’t offer to the evil regime which is occupying Iran against the will of the Iranian people? I think not..
I appreciated Parsi’s book on the Israel/US/Iran alliance (http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300120575) however Parsi as others are highly naive and it strucks me that so, from what I know, well read persons dont recognize whats going on.
Either Parsi refuse to recongize that west (US, UK, France in particular) fight to unseat the current leadership or he support this neocon agenda while not admitting it.