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

The Race for Iran


(The cartoon above was typical of the misleading coverage of Iran’s 2009 election. In fact, ballots in Iranian elections are neither physically transported to nor counted at the Interior Ministry in Tehran. Ballots are counted in each polling station, by election officials and candidate observers. The counts are transmitted physically and electronically to the Ministry which aggregates national results. It is the electronic transmission of counts from polling stations that allowed the Ministry to announce results as they came in from the field after polls closed on June 12, 2009. It was compelled to do this by Mir Hossein Mousavi’s public claim he had been informed by the Ministry that he had won—a statement made while polls were still open, Iranians were still voting and not a single ballot had been counted.)


The Arab awakening has revived Western speculation about “what could have been” in the Islamic Republic of Iran if only the United States had provided more tangible support for Mir Hussein Mousavi and the Green Movement in the wake of Iran’s June 12, 2009 presidential election.  Central to that speculation is an account of Iran’s election as one of the great frauds in modern political history.  This account has been promulgated by agenda-driven Iran “experts” in the West, expatriate Iranians with an animus against the Islamic Republic, and major media outlets. Some of us have gone to considerable lengths to point out that the narrative does not have a single piece of hard evidence supporting it.  But the myth of Iran’s “stolen” election maintains its hold over a significant percentage of American and other Western elites. 

Now, the myth’s champions are claiming that their preferred narrative has gotten a new lease on life with the release, via Wikileaks, of Dubai 0249, a cable from the State Department’s “Iran Regional Presence Office (IRPO)” dated June 15, 2009 (three days after the election) and classified SECRET NOFORN (meaning it was considered so sensitive that it should not be shared with foreign governments).  In this cable, which appears over the name of IRPO’s director, America’s Dubai-based Iran watchers opine that “the allegations of widespread fraud [about the Iranian election] have merit”.  This has been heralded by Foreign Policy as “conclusive evidence” that “the Green Movement was right:  Iran’s election was fraudulent”; it has been similarly feted by other pro-Green partisans in the West as providing “sharp, valuable insight into the assessments of America’s best-trained observers of Iran”.   

But the cable does nothing of the sort.  In fact, reading it makes one wonder whether “America’s best-trained observers of Iran” are even minimally competent in basic statistics or their knowledge of the Islamic Republic’s political history. 

The cable starts off with the bold assertion that “the numbers released by the Ministry of Interior, for all four candidates, contravene known voting patterns in Iran’s recent history”.  Really?  What patterns are those?  The State Department’s top Iran-watchers identify three; all, as stated in the cable, are either factually incorrect or grossly misconstrued. 

First, the cable misleadingly compares the 2009 election results with those from the 2005 presidential election.  More specifically, the cable emphasizes the first round of the 2005 election, when former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and then-Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outpolled five other candidates to move into a runoff, over Ahmadinejad’s landslide second-round run-off victory over Rafsanjani.  The cable’s authors posit that “Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, primarily on the back of a strong rural turnout and a significant popular backlash to his principal opponent” [Rafsanjani].  Fair enough, as a description of the second round.  But the authors then claim that only the roughly 20 percent of the vote that Ahmadinejad won in the first round in 2005 should be considered as “his base of support”; from this premise, for the 2009 results to be plausible requires “that Ahmadinejad’s base roughly quadrupled”.     

This analysis is structurally flawed, to a point of outright incompetence.  Viewed through the prism of the first round in 2005, Ahmadinejad’s 2009 tally is bound to seem grossly inflated.  But relying on that comparison is tantamount to arguing that, because Barack Obama won just 38 percent of the vote in a competitive, multicandidate caucus in Iowa in January 2008, he could not possibly have won 54 percent of the state’s vote in the two-man general election against John McCain 10 months later.  Methodologically-sound polls conducted by both Western and Iranian polling organizations make clear that, from the outset, Iran’s 2009 presidential election was effectively a two-man contest, between the incumbent Ahmadinejad and former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.  The much more appropriate and informative point of comparison for the 2009 outcome is with the second round in 2005; putting those two sets of results side by side, one sees that Ahmadinejad’s share of the vote in 2009 (62.5 percent) is virtually identical to the share he took in his 2005 landslide victory over Rafsanjani (61.7 percent).  

Second, America’s Dubai-based Iran watchers claim that the 2009 results departed implausibly from various ethnic groups’ previous voting behavior.  They deem it incredible that, while the ethnically Lori former parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi “gained 10 percent of the vote in 2005 and swept his home province of Lorestan”, in 2009 “he captured less than one percent of the vote nationwide and just 4 percent in Lorestan”. 

But, as noted, the 2009 race was, in contrast to the first round in 2005, effectively a two-man contest.  In particular, the relevant methodologically-sound polling data showed Karroubi’s support in low single digits throughout the campaign, up until the eve of election day.  Just as, on a nationwide basis, many Iranians decided in 2009 not to “waste” their votes on a candidate they did not believe could win, a significant portion of Iran’s Lori community made the same calculation.  A painstakingly thorough analysis of the official results shows that Karroubi, in fact, benefited from an ethnic “bump”, doing five times better in Lorestan than nationally (nearly 25 times better in his native district of Aligodarz).  The bump, though, was not enough to offset diminished support for his candidacy from voters judging that he was going to lose. 

There is also no historical basis to assume that Lori voters “defecting” from Karroubi would automatically turn to Mousavi.  Lorestan is one of Iran’s more deeply traditional and socially conservative provinces; a majority of its voters supported the conservative Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri in the 1997 presidential election, bucking a strong national trend for the reformist Mohammad Khatami. 

Similarly, America’s Dubai-based Iran watchers are incredulous that, in Iran’s three Azeri-majority provinces, the ethnically-Azeri Mousavi “lost two to Ahmadinejad and barely won a third; historically even minor presidential candidates with an Azerbaijani background win these provinces.  It is worth noting that Mousavi lost his home province, East Azerbaijan, despite his candidacy’s significant resonance amongst his fellow Azeri Iranians.”

The level of factual inaccuracy and unsubstantiated analysis reflected in the quoted passage is impressive.  In fact, there is no clear history of Azeris voting on ethnic lines in Iranian presidential elections.  There have been relatively few candidates of Azeri origin, and they have not always fared well among their ethnic kinsmen (e.g., Mohsen Mehralizadeh only carried 29 percent of the Azeri vote in 2005).  The Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, is half Azeri; there is no reason to think that Azeris were looking to cast ballots against “the system”.  (By contrast, this was almost certainly a key factor driving electoral behavior in Sistan-Balochistan, Iran’s only Sunni-majority province, where Mousavi carried a majority of the vote.)  Like Karroubi in Lorestan, Mousavi did better in Azeri-majority areas than nationally, but not enough to offset weak performance elsewhere. 

One wonders on what the assertion that Mousavi’s candidacy had “significant resonance amongst his fellow Azeri Iranians” was based.  We can be sure it was not based on the authors of Dubai 0249 having spent time on the ground in Iran’s Azeri-majority areas taking the pulse of local populations.  We can also determine that it was not based on methodologically-sound polling data, which showed basically what the official results showed:  Mousavi got a bump among ethnic Azeris, but not enough to give him huge super-majorities among Azeri voters. 

Against the Iran watchers’ bald and unsubstantiated assertion, it is important to note that Ahmadinejad had real sources of strength in Azeri-majority areas.  Before entering electoral politics, Ahmadinejad had been a district governor in East Azerbaijan and a populist governor general in Ardabil.  In the second round of the 2005 presidential election, against Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad won substantial majorities of the votes cast in all three Azeri-majority provinces.  In 2009, his margin of victory in Ardabil and East Azerbaijan was smaller than in 2005, and he narrowly lost in West Azerbaijan (where his percentage of the vote was roughly 47 percent).  The notion that Mousavi was assured of victory in all three Azeri-majority provinces was never more than an assumption; it was certainly never grounded in either history or current reality.   

Third, the authors of the cable claim that, given the spike in turnout for the 2009 election, to have won, Ahmadinejad would have to have “captured a significant share of the urban vote and the silent majority—the exact people who stayed home in the past few elections rather than vote for Ahmadinejad or his political allies”.  One cannot be sure what the authors mean by “significant share of the urban vote”.  The official results show that Mousavi, in fact, won the majority of votes in the city of Tehran, far and away Iran’s biggest city (though the results also show he narrowly lost Tehran province, which encompasses less prosperous and more conservative areas outside Tehran’s city limits).  But Ahmadinejad did not have to sweep the urban vote to be re-elected.  He had to maintain the same coalition of the religiously devout, the less prosperous, and those living in smaller cities and rural areas that drove his decisive victory over Rafsanjani in 2005.  The official results show that he was able to do this in 2009, against an opponent who was portrayed, and may actually have been seen in many quarters as representing a moneyed and corrupt north Tehran elite resented by much of the rest of society. 

It was not just reformist city dwellers who came to the polling stations in record numbers in 2009; turnout was up in much of the country.  And it would be fallacious to assume that those who came for the first time (or came back) to polling stations voted uniformly for Mousavi.  If one spends time in Iran, it is not hard to find people (even in Tehran) who voted for Khatami in 1997 and/or 2001 but, by 2009, opted for Ahmadinejad; the best polling data available suggest that Ahmadinejad may even have carried a majority of women’s votes. 

The authors of Dubai 0249 point to the “2007 municipal elections”, when an Ahmadinejad-supported slate of candidates failed to win control of the Tehran city council, as “a snapshot of Ahmadinejad’s urban support”.  This, too, is a grossly misleading piece of pseudo-analysis. 

The municipal elections (which were actually conducted in 2006) indicate next to nothing about Ahmadinejad’s standing as a national candidate in 2009.  Rather, they speak to the tensions generated among high-level players on the conservative side of Iranian politics during Ahmadinejad’s first presidential term, including his successor as Tehran’s mayor, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and the current parliament speaker, Ali Larijani.  In 2006, Ahmadinejad’s slate did not lose to reformists.  They lost to another principlist slate, linked to Qalibaf.  In 2009, though, neither Larijani nor Qalibaf opted to challenge Ahmadinejad’s re-election; the incumbent went into the campaign with essentially undiluted principlist support. 

Overall, Dubai 0249 presents the same set of flawed assumptions, factual inaccuracies, and agenda-driven analysis that characterized other Western assessments of the 2009 election.  Like these other sources of misunderstanding, Dubai 0249 does not contain any actual evidence of electoral fraud. 

On this point, it is useful to recall the following empirically-grounded, incontrovertible facts:  Following the election (actually he started the day before), Mousavi advanced a wide array of allegations about the electoral process which, he claimed, had produced a fraudulent result.  But Mousavi never documented a single one of these allegations. 

He never identified a single one of his registered observers who had been turned away from a polling station (as he claimed “many” of them had been) or not allowed to witness the placing of ballot boxes to certify that they were empty before voting started (as he claimed had happened at “most” polling stations).  Contrary to widespread Western misconceptions, ballots were counted at polling stations, not in Tehran; in 2009, for the first time, the Interior Ministry published the results from all 45,696 polling stations online.  Mousavi never identified a single polling station for which the vote totals published by the Interior Ministry differed from the results attested by his observers on official forms (copies of which were kept by all observers).        

Mousavi’s allegations implied at least two alternative theories of how electoral fraud had been perpetrated: either massive numbers of fraudulent ballots had been placed in ballot boxes (before the boxes’ placement in polling stations and/or when they were allegedly not being properly observed), or the real votes were never counted but replaced by “pre-cooked” results manufactured at the Interior Ministry in Tehran.  If Mousavi’s real aim had been to demonstrate, with actual evidence, whatever evidence he had would have led him to emphasize one theory or the other. 

But Mousavi never had any evidence to substantiate either of his theories.  And, one suspects, his game plan all along was to throw out multiple accusations to discredit the election in public perceptions and marshal sufficient public pressure on Khamenei and the Guardian Council to compel them to annul the results and hold a new election, in a manner that would discredit Ahmadinejad.   That is why Mousavi started alleging fraud even before the polls opened.  And, contrary to Dubai 0249, it was Mousavi, not Ahmadinejad, who first declared victory on election day, while polls were still open, Iranians were still voting, and not a single ballot had actually been counted.  If anyone was out to steal the election, it was Mousavi, not Ahmadinejad.    

Mousavi failed in this enterprise.  But he seems to have made a lasting impression on the thinking of those Westerners who are perpetually on the look-out for a Yeltsin-like figure who will catalyze the Islamic Republic’s transformation into a pro-Western, Israel-friendly secular democracy.  Continued attachment to the myth of the stolen 2009 election matters, because it continues to keep the United States from coming to terms with the Islamic Republic as it is, not as so many Westerners fantasize it might be.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett



  1. Mohammad says:


    I’m waiting. But please, let’s keep the discussion free of name-calling and personal attacks.

  2. Sassan says:

    I am busy studying tonight but I will respond to your drivel within the next couple of days.

  3. Joe says:

    @ Sassan,

    As Mohammad beautifully answered you, I would not write much in response to your twisted mind. Every single scientific evidence is against you and still you have the audacity to personally attack me. This tells more about you and your state of mind. Not only that but also this tells more about the people you claim to represent. As I said the ideology of green movement is based on lie. You and your movement has failed to present a single scientific evidence to back your claims. Further more, Iran is definitely a democracy in the same sense that France is a democracy. You see, there is absolutely no chance that a French Muslim president is ever allowed to reach office. The same way, I do not think it is a bad idea for Iran to stick to Islam when choosing their president. You can compare the same to US of A and other countries. Expecting a Christian or an atheist president to come to office in Iran a nation whose 90% of population is Shia is idiocy. Even Shah never claimed to be an atheist and regularly visited mosques and shrines. In addition to these facts you have to remember that Iranian president is much more powerful than perhaps many western presidents who have to take into account lobbies more powerful than their government. As for supreme leader question, who himself is democratically elected through a parliamentary system (Assembly of experts), I have to remind you that he is not as powerful as you like to imagine. If he was why is all this fuss going around with his little fights with Ahmadinejad and Khatami during their respective times as presidents of Iran. During Rafsanjani’s time actually supreme leader was silent all the time. The supreme leader has very little executive power and if president was powerful, why on earth people like you take so much interest in him and his election? If he is a puppet then your greens should not even have opted to stand in election. Your lies can not get you anywhere. Let science and evidence guide you not your emotions and hatred. Finally, Iran is not only Tehran and afew big cities. 67,000 villages and people who live in them are as much Iranian as you are if not more. You might have contempt for them in your heart but nonetheless, in a democratic system they are equal to you and anyone else. Days are gone when during Shah’s time a foreign delegation had visited a photo gallery in Esfehan and there on the wall hang a picture of rural Iran with people in traditional dresses. The Museum had put an explanation under the photo, saying: These pictures are antiques and Iranians no more wear such stupid clothes. The contempt that pro-western Iranians living in North Tehran have for those villagers borders on fascism. I am sure alot of those villagers voted for Ahmadinejad the only president/ruler in Iran who regularly pays visits to them. Also they might have voted for him just to piissss you city dwellers off. This is called democracy. Learn to handle it. Those who can not accept their defeat in a democracy are only dictators.

  4. Mohammad says:

    (correction of the web link in my previous comment)

    Iranians were not very shy in expressing views in response to the opinion polls which are not in the interests of the IR (*here’s an example* – there are other examples as well).

  5. Mohammad says:

    (To admin: this is just a repost without too many links)

    “I did not find a single person that had voted for Ahmadenijad.”

    Sorry, but as an Iranian who has been living in North Tehran in almost all of his life (including during the election and its prelude and aftermath), that claim makes me very suspicious about your honesty. I’m a university student in a prominent engineering university in Tehran, and while Mousavi’s supporters were indeed more (and also more loud on the average) in the university, I had no difficulty finding students (and not Bassij members) who intended to vote/voted for Ahmadinejad.
    Or maybe you’ve just met people from some limited classes, or maybe the context of your talk or even your “look” (which I guess is similar to a very Western-minded person) made people reluctant to admit they voted for Ahmadinejad in front of you. This is the same experience I had, as all Ahmadinejad’s supporters I asked in the university, were shy in expressing their intention, while Mousavi’s were very loud, expressed their position much more (e.g. wore green wristbands) and often ridiculed the people who professed their intention to vote for Ahmadinejad.

    Also you said before that “pro-Islamic Republic people simply do not exist in the Iranian population and those who do – are typically government agents” which is a very blatant, outrageous mis-characterization of the Iranian people. I have friends who are fervent supporters of the Green Movement, but even they accept that a sizable population in Iran supports the IR. This is not to mention the various opinion polls Western polling agencies have been conducting all these years, and contrary to what you claimed before, Iranians were not very shy in expressing views in response to the opinion polls which are not in the interests of the IR (here’s an example – there are other examples as well). Also I refer you to the section about the accuracy of telephone-based opinion polls in Iran in the beginning of the full report of this WPO survey, which addresses the ‘fear’ question:
    www DOT worldpublicopinion DOT org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php
    The September 2010 IPI survey also asked pollsters to characterize the ‘mood’ of the responding person, esp. when responding to the most sensitive questions. In 85% of the cases, the pollsters recorded that “the respondent was comfortable (at ease) with the entire questionnaire”.
    As an ordinary Iranian citizen (and I’m not a “government agent”!), my intuitive feeling also is against what you described as “police state and authoritarian society” and is more in line with the above arguments against the “fear” hypothesis. That is, while I don’t deny that such feelings may have had an impact in the results of the polls, I don’t think that the impact is – in its worst case – more than 20%, and that’s a cautious estimate on my side. That’s in line with the reported number of respondents in the IPI poll who seemed to be “at unease” in some or most of the questions (15%). You should not extrapolate what you see at certain circles (wealthy and/or well-educated families) in North Tehran and other big cities.
    It should also be mentioned that the polling results released by ALL Western organizations are incredibly consistent with each other and with the official numbers on the “big” questions (esp. the results of the election), no matter when or by what organization they have been conducted. This is while IMHO the “fear” effect should show some significant fluctuation among different polls, esp. before and after the election when the political/security atmosphere was entirely different (this is also what a WPO analysis found: www DOT worldpublicopinion DOT org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/653.php).

  6. Sassan says:

    *in various cities

  7. Sassan says:

    Joe, repeating a lie to yourself to fool yourself only makes you a sheep. You can repeat something over and over but it doesn’t make it true. You sir, are an utter naive idiot. I was in Iran last year for over 8-months and spent time in various studies and among different classes of people – I did not find a single person that had voted for Ahmadenijad. In addition – their elections are not based on “democracy” but on being “Islamic enough” so the own system itself is not a “democratic election” even though the President is a puppet without any real power as the power is in the hands of the head Supreme Terrorist, Khamenei.

  8. Joe says:

    Wonderful and very well written article. The reality is that another operation Ajax was being done in Iran but this time it failed. In the last operation Ajax more than 800 people were killed in Iran to bring down a democratically elected government. At the time Iran’s population was just under 20 million. This time around in 2009, Iran’s democratically elected government was successful to put down a mutiny by a minority to bring down the majority elected government.
    The confirmed death toll was less than 100 in a population of 75 million and it included the mutineers as well as state democracy defenders. This shows that not only Iranian state this time around was successful at defending the democracy against wishes of a minority but also the death toll was much smaller both in absolute and relative terms. Greens were lying from the start and their whole ideology depended on this lie. This is why their number have dwindled to a fraction of what they were as these lies have become exposed. Most Iranians voted for Ahmadinejad.

  9. M.Ali says:

    You are a child.

  10. Sassan says:

    “How many Iranian children do you predict you will kill in the process? How many is an acceptable number to you?

    In a different era, people with as warped a sense as reality as you were committed to state hospitals. YOU are the warmonger.”

    If nothing is done – this regime will kill every last Iranian to keep power. This is the sad reality and with a nuclear weapon and with their maniacal and apocalyptic “hidden imam” ideology – millions need to be killed throughout the world according to their own ideologies and beliefs.

    You are the maniac – who would rather allow tyrants and oppressors to continue the bloodshed and terror of societies. I am proud of the fact that we did not allow Afghanistan to be neglected like we did after the Soviet war (therefore allowing it to be a hotbed for Islamic extremism) and have helped liberate three nations from tyranny and terror. I am hopeful and optimistic that Syria and Iran are soon to be followed.

  11. Photi says:

    As i said Sassan, go fight your own battles. If it is as easy as you say, you shouldn’t need any help, American or otherwise.

    How many Iranian children do you predict you will kill in the process? How many is an acceptable number to you?

    In a different era, people with as warped a sense as reality as you were committed to state hospitals. YOU are the warmonger.

  12. Sassan says:

    “ou came here with a pro-war agenda and you are blaming the Muslims for being barbaric? Over a million innocents have died in Iraq due to “regime change.” Why is human life so cheap for you? How many hundreds of thousands of children died due to the sanctions regime against Iraq in the 1990s? Why do you want this to happen to Iran, supposedly your own people? ”

    First of all – don’t exaggerate the numbers. The numbers are in the 100k range. Saying this, the vast majority of deaths are not from the hands of U.S. troops or U.S. bombs – the vast majority of deaths are from retaliatory strikes from terrorists who do not distinguish civilians from U.S. military personnel. The biggest enemy of the Muslim is the Muslim itself – not any “Jews” or “westerners” – it is the Muslim who kills the fellow Muslim in much greater numbers than the deaths that result from “non-Muslim aggression”.

    In addition, I ask you: why is human life and oppression so cheap for you? Why is it that you would stand idly in allowing the must brutal oppressors, dictators, savage barbarians, and terrorists terrorize their own people while standing idly on the sidelines?? And why is it that instead of blaming the affects of the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s madmen you blame it on the west? It was Saddam Hussein and his cronies who illegally and fraudulently bypassed the oil-for-food program that was meant to help the Iraqi people by filling his fat pockets while allowing the Iraqi people to starve to death. The fact that there are no more sanctions and that Iraqis are now able to decide their own future – is reason enough to support the liberation of Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, hundreds of thousands of people were dying because of his illegal activities to bypass the oil-for-food program in addition to the thousands he was executing systematically and had put into mass graves. More Iraqis would have died under the continued rule of Saddam Hussein than the result of coalition action if nothing was done in allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

    “For you to make the claim that regime change in Iran will be an easier task than what transpired in the Iraq war is so far off the mark it will be hard to take you seriously.”

    “Does anyone doubt the national cohesion present in the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation? Americans will be slaughtered in that war. Make no mistake. ”

    You should down the pipe my friend. First of all, what national cohesion? Iranians hate their regime and are like living zombies inside of Iran. People of all walks of life – from the youth, to the middle-aged, to the elderly. Even people who are devoutly pious and religious hate the regime. 90%+ of the population hate the regime and out of the 10% support, you only have 2-3% hardcore loyalists. The rest of the 7% or so rely on the government for jobs, etc. They are not loyal. This regime is in power because of force, terror, and tyranny. When I was in Iran, in every taxi I would go into they would quickly notice that I was an American because of my American sounding Farsi accent and they would all tell me how much they loved America and how much they wish that President Bush would have helped Iran instead of America. This one taxi driver I became friends with even referred President Bush as “amo Bush” and would tell me of the stories he had to endure in Iran and he was even a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war and tell me stories that you could not even imagine. And to my surprise – the vast majority of 50+ year old male-drivers in taxis tended to be atheist – as they had both experienced life under the secular Shah and life under Islamic rule. You have no clue what the situation is in Iran or the sentiment of mass. They are all living zombies living as a nation of exiles inside their own country. They are not religious like they were before – so the sentiment of “martyrdom” and dying for freedom is not as enticing for them as it was under the brainwashed era of Khomeini. It is not that they want their nation to be attacked, but they see no other alternative. Under the alternative, these barbarians and maniacs will kill every last Iranian to keep power.

    In addition, yes, there would not be any sort of violence in the aftermath of liberation as there has been in Iraq. I don’t see many suicide bombings or sectarian violence. I don’t see Arab Islamic terrorists from other nations wanting to infiltrate into Iranians society or having the capability in importing terrorism inside of Iran. It simply wouldn’t happen. These are the realities inside of Iran – a nation in which the people are no longer religious – and the ones who are religious such as the elderly – are religious for their own sake, not to impose it upon others as has been done under the Islamic Republic of Terror.

    “When Iranian protesters break Iranian laws, does the Iranian government have the right to indict them as criminals? Your rationale for agreeing with the indictments of the Irvine 11 is that they broke US laws. Do you apply your rationale consistently across nations?”

    Iranian protesters get killed, raped, and tortured for the simple reason for wanting freedom. Every nation has a set of laws that must be followed. But the difference is that protestors should not be able to interrupt meetings in an attempt to STIFLE free speech – as with the case with the Irvine thugs. The comparisons are really mute and silly. They had every right to peacefully assemble outside of the event and protest like civilized human beings – not like barbarians in an attempt to stifle free speech. Those Muslim kids felt that the “evil Jew” had no right to free speech and that they had every right to stop him from speaking in an organized event on his behalf.

    “Sassan, Islam in Iran is over 1500 years old. Therefore, Islam is as much Iranian as Zorastarian. 1500 years old is a long time, basically the same amount of time as the “alien” religions in other countries (such as Christanity in many of the world’s nations now, but you don’t hear them complaining). Finally, 1500 years is more than twice the time your dear America has even been in existance.”

    @M.Ali: You are right, Iran has been in a downturn of terror, oppression, and tyranny ever since Islam was infiltrated into our nation through rape, murder, and genocide. BUT, our traditions and cultures are all pre-Islamic (Persian New Years, Mehragon, 4-Shambe sore, etc etc.) and therefore our culture is still rooted with pre-Islamic leanings. The reason why we don’t hear other nations complaining is because those other “alien” religions has taken a secular place and has allowed their nations and people’s to prosper and grow without being forced religion down their throats in an oppressive way. When this was done so over 500-years ago – it was the Chinese and Islamic world which was actually dominant in science and technology; but Christianity was able to finally secularize through the Reformation and Enlightenment periods and Islam did something unique and what I term “de-evolution”.

    Saying this – I am all for cultures and for people deciding what faith they would like to be – but the problem is under the Islamic Republic this is not possible. If I am “born” a Muslim and decide not to be a Muslim anymore – whether to become an atheist, Christian, Zoroastrian, etc.) my punishment as deemed under Islamic law is execution as an “apostate”. There is no wiggle room in regards to this. I have said on numerous occasions – the only positive component of the Islamic Republic over the last 30+ years (although we have suffered greatly under the rule of these brutal barbarians) is the fact that Iranians have been able to experience what life is like under Islamic rule. If the Shah had remained in power, Iranians would not have been able to experience this and would have been “more Muslim in their hearts” – particularly the youth. Therefore, based on my experiences in Iran as I spent considerable amounts of time throughout the recent years – I have seen more and more people have given up Islam completely in their hearts and the one’s who do still call themselves Muslim simply “believe in a god” and they call themselves Muslim but are not religious and do not pray or follow Islamic teachings – in fact, they too demand nothing more and nothing less than complete secularism. This regime has allowed the true face of Islam to be exposed – and once Iran is finally freed in the upcoming years – Islam has no future inside the hearts and minds of a free and future Democratic Iran that values science, rationality, and the rights of free people. I am extremely confident in this outcome that we will surely see in the years to come. Remember – I am not Zoroastrian, but I can value the good teachings of value it has given to our culture of “good deeds, good thoughts, good words”.

  13. M.Ali says:

    Sassan, Islam in Iran is over 1500 years old. Therefore, Islam is as much Iranian as Zorastarian. 1500 years old is a long time, basically the same amount of time as the “alien” religions in other countries (such as Christanity in many of the world’s nations now, but you don’t hear them complaining). Finally, 1500 years is more than twice the time your dear America has even been in existance.

  14. Photi says:


    When Iranian protesters break Iranian laws, does the Iranian government have the right to indict them as criminals? Your rationale for agreeing with the indictments of the Irvine 11 is that they broke US laws. Do you apply your rationale consistently across nations?

  15. Photi says:


    You came here with a pro-war agenda and you are blaming the Muslims for being barbaric? Over a million innocents have died in Iraq due to “regime change.” Why is human life so cheap for you? How many hundreds of thousands of children died due to the sanctions regime against Iraq in the 1990s? Why do you want this to happen to Iran, supposedly your own people?

    For you to make the claim that regime change in Iran will be an easier task than what transpired in the Iraq war is so far off the mark it will be hard to take you seriously.

    Does anyone doubt the national cohesion present in the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation? Americans will be slaughtered in that war. Make no mistake.

    Anti-war is the best position for Americans to take at this point in history, imho.

  16. Photi says:

    So now you have come here to proselytize. Should we be Humanists or should we be Christians? We have had similar discussions about the Humanists’ need to convert others to their cause. I don’t much care for that.

    You made many assumptions about me that are untrue. I do not wish to defend beliefs i do not hold. Please don’t assume so quickly, at least take the time to get to know us a little.

  17. Sassan says:

    Photi, like you care for America? I highly doubt that one so please stop trying to throw the “American” card when it benefits you.

    In addition, Ghaddafi giving up his nuclear program made him appear very weak to his people indeed – a direct result of the capture of Saddam.

    And Islamophobia is a made-up word that truly doesn’t exist. Please tell me, are you Jew-phobic? How about Christian-phobic? How about Islamic societies in which if you are “born” a Muslim you can’t leave your faith and decide what the hell you want to believe. Are they “religionophobia” or some invented creation?

    The facts remain that Muslims in the United States in particular have every right as any other American and are treated with much tolerance. Please tell me, how are Americans or Jews treated in any Islamic country of your choice? “Islamophobia” is simply a label in an attempt to shut down any direct criticisms and discussions on the merits of your faith. For something to be phobic, there has to be an “irrational” fear but it is not “irrational” to be aware that the concepts of Islamic ideology when in practice as demanded by the precepts of Islam is dangerous, oppressive, shocking, and naturally leads one towards a propensity for violence. While I believe all religion to be irrational as it naturally creates “in groups vs. out groups” – the teachings of love, peace, and forgiveness of Jesus compared to the teachings of a religious madmen who only knew the sword, violence, and terror makes a strong contrast to the propensity of peace vs. the propensity of violence in the 21st century. It is no surprise that in nations with both significant Christian and Islamic populations – it is usually the Islamic one acting with violence and all sorts of demands – as most of these Christian populations have been forced out due to the Islamic tendency for violence and absolutism. Islamophobia is a figment of your imagination and again – fortunately world leaders all around the world have learned from the failed policies of multiculturalism and the accommodation of practices/cultural beliefs that we view inherently again women’s rights and human rights instead of assimilation. Fortunately for us in the United States – our Muslims (not referring to Iranians as Iranians in general whether in the U.S., Europe, of Iran tend to be secular and non-religious) tend to not take their religious very seriously and would in fact be considered as apostates or heretics by the most devout of their faith.

  18. Photi says:


    Can someone say delusional? I was wondering how long it would take for the neocons and other warmongers to appropriate the arab spring and credit the Iraq war for inspiring it. your entire narrative is on a daily basis being shown for the pile of bullshit it is. Islamophobia is an invention of the far-right and psuedo left. Why should we listen to you? Your type only wants to get the US of A involved in more illegal wars. Americans have had enough and we are broke. Go fight your own battles.


  19. Sassan says:

    “Nine months in a place you hate so much, you must be a saint to put up with all the good food, nice people and a very civilised culture. I wish you have to spend 9 months in Saudi Arabia for your penance.”

    @Hans: I love Iran – Iran is my love and blood. The maniacs who are occupying my country are not real Iranians and do not represent Iranian values. In fact, they themselves like to claim Arab lineage with their black turbans. They are the ones who are destroying our ancient cities by systematically destroying ancient statues that predate Islam and ruining many of our ancient/historical areas by either building over them, replacing them with their Islamic art, or simply not taking care of the historical sites in ways that historical sites should be taken care of. In fact, Iranians are a good people and are what I call “fake Muslims” in that Islam plays no role in the culture of the vast majority of Iranians any longer – all our holidays, traditions, etc. are all pre-Islamic and the Islamic holidays are no longer followed by the masses. In fact, when Iran becomes free and I have obtained my Ph.D. in my area of study, I plan on moving back to Iran to contribute in the betterment and rebuilding of my homeland. Remember, under the Shah, the dollar was 7-tomans. Now it is 1100-1200 tomans and that is artificial (not free market) and forced by the government by threats and thuggery. The Shah was not perfect by any means – but he at least loved his country and was a visionary – and left his country rather than to use systematic force of bloodshed. These maniacs will kill every last Iranian to keep power.

    “You’ve probably never been to Iran or else you would know the “virgin” claim is garbage (and somewhat racist). The rest of what you claim is not worth responding to.”

    @Liz, I would speak for yourself in seeming to be so wise and benevolent. I have spent considerable amounts of times over the years in Iran and this last time was an excellent due to my age (I am 27 now) as I was there due to the fact that my grandfather had a heart attack – but I had the unique opportunity in spending over 8-months in Iran in experiencing Iran as both an Iranian and an American. Mind you I was born in Iran and came to the west at a very young age but my significant periods in Iran were excellent and taught me a lot and gave me a moral clarity in appreciating and valuing western democracy, liberty, and human rights instead of spitting in the face of our great nation that some on the extreme left tend to like to do as they themselves have no concept of what oppression and tyranny really is.

    As for the “rape” claim; this is not something that is in dispute. This is part of their ideology and in fact – I had a family member – a “cousin” of mine in which she was 16 and this happened to her 20-years ago. IT still happens less – of course – but it still happens. Stonings still happen in Iran (albeit less) but the facts remain that it still happens. Girls can still be forced into marriage at the age of 9 (it rarely happens) but the facts remain that it still happens. You can be in denial – but the fact remains is that Islam allows this – so as to our sisters being raped in 2009′ protests and “passed around” to other Basiji thugs; Islamic ideology and belief allows this as the quran explicitly states that those “slave women caught in battle are your property and treat them as your right hand”. This is the thuggery and savagery of Islamic fundamentalism and ideology.

  20. Sassan says:

    “You are inviting what happened to Iraq to befall your own people. You have nothing to do with human rights, compassion, or liberal ideals. Your eyes are full of blood-lust. You disgust me.”

    Photi, cry me a river. You are the one who seems to infer that according to your moral values it would be perfectly acceptable in still having the Taliban controlling and oppressing the Afghan people – particularly women including stoning. It seems to be perfectly acceptable for you to have Saddam still in power. The world is a better place without these oppressors and tyrants and while world history is never a clean thing – one judges a nation by how much it has progressed into the modern age. The sad reality is that Iran of Cyrus the Great – Iran of 2500+ years ago had more human rights and values by far than the Iran that is under occupation today. In fact, the replica of the Cyrus Scroll is in front of the Security Council doors at the United Nations building.

    Therefore – while President Bush’s mistake was going to Iraq instead of Iran (Iran would have been much easier, people are pro-American/pro-west and secular including the fact that there wouldn’t have been the type of ethnic warfare that took place in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion; and the fact that the vast majority of the terrorists in Iraq were not Iraqis but were Arabs that came to Iraq after the invasion – in a society of Iranians, Arabic Islamists would not and could not assimilate into Iran; in addition to, they frankly hate Shiites and Persians. But at the end of the day – the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. In fact, without the liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the freedom movement that has taken over the Middle-East (particularly the “Arab Spring”) would not have happened. The fact that Saddam Hussein was caught in a hole influenced Ghaddafi to give up his nuclear program in which he looked weaker and no longer infallible to his people along with the other tyrants of the region. While these nations such as Egypt and Libya have a long way to go to show that they will transition to some sort of stable democracy – free nations and free societies don’t resort to terror or oppression in the ways tyrants and totalitarian rulers do. This is the concept of the “freedom initiative”.

    And in fact Photo, for you to think the so called “Irvine” group who acted obnoxiously and like uncivilized animals against the good ambassador clearly demonstrates how far off you are from reality. Ambassador Oren was speaking at a closed event in which these barbarian Islamists at UCI would not allow the Ambassador to make his speech. Events that are closed off and have scheduled of guest speakers do not fit into the concept of “free speech”. If these students wanted to act civilized and protest their beliefs (whatever they may be) I would stand for their right to protest outside or speak (or even interrupt) after allowed the Ambassador to make his speech. But for anyone to watch the video and claim that this was a “free speech” issue is either truly in denial and quite naive and comical; or are so infested with their Islamic ideology that they feel it’s their right to attack the “dirty Jews” as this Islamic mindset is what has enabled the oppression and misery of Islamic societies rather than relying on hard work, self-perseverance, and independence in advancing their societies. But before doing so – there must be a sort of a “Reformation” in Islam by taking away the infallibility of the faith as this is exactly what had to be done with Christianity in order for the west to advance, succeed, and prosper. Religious dogmatism and infallibility is what creates the biggest retarding force for societies and cultures and this is exactly what constitutes the evil doctrine of Muhammadism/Islamism.

  21. Sassan says:

    It is fascinating how some on the far left can deny the facts to them due to their failed dogmatic and ideological beliefs. As for anyone speaking out “in favor of the Islamic Republic on these forums” – pro-Islamic Republic people simply do not exist in the Iranian population and those who do – are typically government agents. It is very well known that the Islamic Republic has employed a “cyber army” to propagate propaganda on message boards and news sections throughout the internet. This can be seen in these threads as well.

    As for the naive westerners who keep citing so called “polls” – do you honestly think that representative data can be garnered by polling done in a police state and authoritarian society such as the one that is occupying Iran? Use a little common sense and rationality. People in Iran are in fear of speaking up due to the fact that they live in the most intolerant, barbaric system of religious zealotry that exists and you think those that would be against Ahmadenijad or the Islamic Republic would voice their opinions as they would in free and western societies such as in the west? That is pure hogwash and nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourselves for swallowing the logic and rationality you so claim you value and throwing it out the window. I suggest instead of following the likes of Nim Chimpsky, Michael Moore, and the scumbag George Galloway – you start reading and admiring a man of true honor and dignity – a man who has consistently stood on the right side of history and truly espouses rationality and moral clarity – the great Christopher Hitchens – so be on the left, but throw away your blinders and face the realities of the world with real solutions and real insight – not the imaginary pug that has infested and taken over your brains and neuronal connections.

  22. James Canning says:


    Sadly, Susan Rice often is full of cr*p in what she says or does at the UN.

  23. James Canning says:


    I think one can be glad Barbara Slavin called attention to the stupidity of the US in not even seriously considering (at NSC meeting) the Iranian offer in early 2002, even if one needs to counter any activity on her part to injure Iran.

    Why didn’t Colin Powell speak up in support of the Iranian initiative, at that NSC meeting? Anyone know?

  24. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    What you seem keen to do, is to assume that US policy toward Iran is monolithic,

    “West Accuse Iran of Violating UN Sanctions on Ballistic Missiles”


  25. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “don’t you think it was helpful for Barbara Slavin to mention the foolish American failure to take up Iran’s proposal for normalising relations, in early 2002? “

    Not when she has intent to promote harm to Iran. You don’t just get to be elevated within the FP circles (CFR) and the US MSM for telling the principled truth.

  26. James Canning says:


    And one might add that a number of rich American Jews admit they feel a little uncomfortable, giving support to a group that welcomes the day all Jews on earth go to eternal hellfire and damnation.

  27. James Canning says:


    I have an excellent understanding of the role the grossly ignorant Christian Zionists play in Republican party politics, and the Republicans have as a result become complicit in encouraging foolish US support for Israel right or wrong.

    Have you ever watched video footage of fat black Americans dancing their “love of the Lord” at an annual covention of the Christians United for Israel?

  28. Unknown Unknowns says:

    By the way (and further to my observation that the twin towers did not collapse but somehow evaporated), the interesting thing that is pointed out in this picture


    is that WTC 7 is missing. What is *not* pointed out is that the rubble from WTC 1 is also missing. 110 Stories of concrete, steel, furniture, mechanical equipment such as elevators and massive central heating and air conditioning units, etc., would have made a pile at least as high as the surrounding buildings. But as can be seen, no such pile exists. Indeed, in other pictures it is evident that the landscape at the footprint is concave rather than convex – there is a crater where the hundreds of billions of dollars of missing gold bullion were stored, only a few hundred millions of which were recovered. So here is yet another pressing question for those who are not yet skeptical of the official ‘pancake collapse’ theory: where did the twin towers go, if they did not end up in a pile of rubble? Hmmmmmmmmm?

    (By the way, I guess I’m going on, and on, about 9/11 – a topic that is seemingly ‘off-topic’. Yet, it *is* the 10th anniversary, and again, I believe that because of the implications of alternate and insufficiently explored theories to US policy, to US policy toward Iran, and to the position of the US in the eyes of the world, these issues are indeed very much on topic.)

    As such, I would ask out hosts to post an article about this very topic here on RFI.

  29. Unknown Unknowns says:

    VoT, BiBiJon, & whoever else is out there and has a pulse when it comes to the most important truths of our times:

    But especially VoT: If you want to follow up on my post of a few days ago regarding possible scenarios of what *could* have happened, the rogue network, was games and drills “going live”, etc., the go-to man and authority on the subject is Webster Griffin Tarpley, who as it turned out, was on Bonnie Faulkner’s show on KPFK in Berkeley a day or two after my post (the fifth edition of his book is out, so he is promoting it).


    The whole of Bonnie’s hour-long show, Guns & Butter, is well worth listening to. I actually saw her yesterday at the Grand Theatre in Oakland where she was hosting the first day in a four-day Bay Area -wide 9/11 Truth Festival. All of her shows on the Pacifica network are excellent and can be found archived in downloadable MP3 format on the KPFK website.

    So anyway, it turns out (after 10 years of research by Tarpley) that there were a stunning 46 military drills and war game operations leading up to and on the day of 9/11/01 that fit in one way or another with the alternate and *prima facie* more likely theory that a powerful rogue network was (and still is, for that matter) at work on that fateful day. Webster talks about his findings in Bonnie’s show of the day before yesterday (9/7/11), linked above.

  30. fyi says:

    James Canning says: September 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    You are trying to absolve the Christian electorate by hiding behind (rich) influential Jews.

    I think you do not grasp the reality of Protestant Christian’s attachment to their fantasy life and the role of Hebrews in that life.

  31. fyi says:

    James Canning says: September 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    The smallness of Iranian power to US power is a reality.

    And Iran is not a threat to US, no doubt.

    Americans know that, but they need to eliminate independent Iranian power as another step in gaining political and military control over 60% of proven energy reserves of the world.

    They will then be able to – in principle – bankrupt Russia and starve China.

    And they could directly then threaten the Russian Federation.

    This will not be allowed to transpire; there are other political forces on this planet that would intervene to prevent that – and they already have done so.

    Iran is an analogous situation, in my opinion, to UK in WWII. The late Franklin D. Roosevelt maintained United Kingdom through Lend-Lease program in order to keep the un-sink-able aircraft carrier off the cost of Europe.

  32. Unknown Unknowns says:

    For those interested to know, World Trade Center Buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6, all of which were closer to the twin towers, and all of which suffered far greater fire damage that WTC 7, and all of which suffered severe *structural* damage as a result of falling girders and columns from the twin towers – for those interested to know, unlike WTC 7, none of these buildings collapsed at free-fall speed (i.e., without any resistance offered by their support columns). This is what WTC looked like at the end of the day:


    The rest look in a similarly disheveled state. All you have to do is google it in Google Images.

    Here’s one good picture:


    For video footage of how fire ravaged WTC 5 in its entirety yet left the building standing, see here:


  33. James Canning says:


    don’t you think it was helpful for Barbara Slavin to mention the foolish American failure to take up Iran’s proposal for normalising relations, in early 2002? And to focus attention on what took place in the National Security Council, when that proposal should have been discussed?

  34. James Canning says:


    Yes, Tony Blair was full of cr*p in his statements to The Times of London. But I do of course agree that if Iran does seek to build nukes, it would greatly increase instability in the ME.

  35. James Canning says:


    Considering that more than half of all campaign finance, for Democratic candidates for US Senate, House, and the presidency, over the past 40 years, has come from Jews, it does seem remarkable you are reluctant to admit that Jewish power in US politics does a great deal to drive American policy toward Iran. Why is that?

  36. Unknown Unknowns says:


    Your recap of the Adam Curtis theme is masterful and eloquent, and shows your understanding of what he was trying to convey at its full depth. Your succinct and eloquent summary prompts me to make three distinctions between these ‘Nightmare Societies’ (LOL) and the nascent one emerging in Islamic Iran.

    1. When you say (after Curtis),

    “Politicians started to see themselves as managers of social discontent rather than purveyors of dreams for a better future. And, eventually hit upon politics of fear as the only tool for maintaining relevance of politics to societies. In this new paradigm, individuals with the darkest imagination who could cause the most terrifying panic would win over voices of reason/evidence/logic every time.”

    I think that (a) all the false-flag terror operations, 9/11 chief among them but also Oklahoma City, the ’93 attempt at bringing down the WTC, Bali, Madrid, London’s 7/7, etc., all these go to prove the veracity of Curtis’ thesis that the ‘free world’ has become a police state governed by using the cattle-prod of fear on its citizenry, and that (b) this horrid state of affairs is apparently the natural evolution of a culture whose political elite believe themselves to be superior to those they govern, and for whom they show nothing but contempt – so much so that the New World Order agenda whereby all the major decisions relating to the integration of societies is carried out without the participation of the governed, is now no longer secret but is out in the open and considered ‘normal’; and (c) that contemporary Iranian society suffers no such insurmountable obstacles and insult to the democratic aspirations of its people, the distinction between the Iranian elite class of clergy and lay people notwithstanding – this is an organic distinction that has developed over a period of centuries with the active participation of the avaam (masses) being not only cognizant of but indeed urging the khavaas (elite; the hujjatollahs and ayatollahs – literally, ‘proofs’ and ‘signs’ of God) to take on leadership roles, from the imamat and pishnamazi (lit. Arabic and Persian equivalents of ‘frontman’) of prayers in local mosques, to judgeships and now – in the absence of the Occulted Imam of the Age – the rest of the political gamut.

    2. The other important distinction that my gaydar picked up on when you talked about Tony The Liar,

    “As always his only defense is that he “really believes the nonsense. Well history is littered with lunatics who ‘believed’ all sorts of things. So what?”

    is that whereas the Islamic Republic’s edifice is grounded on a traditional footing that puts limits on what can and cannot be done in the public sphere, what is licit and illicit (for example, what is licit and illicit in war, which modernists movements such as the Salafists and Takfiris of Wahhabistan do not understand, nor alas our resident fyi; this, incidentally was the impetus to the tension that eventually lead to the rupture of Montazeri from the new order: his traditional orientation would not allow him to sanction certain unprecedented actions, whereas the realities of the new situation at hand demanded that certain ‘expediencies of state’ (maslahat-e nezaam) trump those traditional checks and balances) – so whereas these checks are in place (more or less, as can be see in the case of the late Ayatollah Montazeri), they are completely absent from modernist ideologies such as the neocons, followers of Leo Strauss, whose ship of state, untethered (“at long last!”) from the tethers of tradition, allows itself to achieve its objectives “by any means necessary” in the rough waters of modernity where having lost its anchor (tradition), the means justify the ends while it ‘flounders heedlessly in a flood of confusion’.

    There was a third difference tentatively lodged in the canyons of my mind, but it has become dislodged during the writing and is not coming back to me. I will post it if and when it comes back.

  37. James Canning says:


    What you seem keen to do, is to assume that US policy toward Iran is monolithic, and you also like to avoid inspecting the cracks in the facade. Perhaps it is part of a philosphical approach that favors simple cause and effect and assumes actions of countries are somehow inevitable.

    Iran’s power is tiny, compared to that of the US. To argue that Iran poses a “threat” that the US sees as needing to be addressed, is playing into the hands of warmongering neocons (and some lLiberal” interventionists).

  38. BiBiJon says:

    The Race for America’s sole

    Anyone commuting a long distance probably has heard NPR’s endless 9/11 10th anniversary programming and will be struck by how not one interviewee permits themselves to project their feelings of loss, and horror at the 9/11 tragedy, to the far bigger loss and horror visited upon Afghanis, and Iraqis.

    When UU posted that BBC documentary, “especially part 3” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBTRSUIFY4 I hadn’t found it till today. I think it is well worth the time to watch it.

    The documentary’s message is that politics of “hope”, be it socialist or free-market failed to galvanize societies over 30 years ago. Politicians started to see themselves as managers of social discontent rather than purveyors of dreams for a better future.

    And, eventually hit upon politics of fear as the only tool for maintaining relevance of politics to societies. In this new paradigm, individuals with the darkest imagination who could cause the most terrifying panic would win over voices of reason/evidence/logic every time.

    Societies that stoop to such lows, will ratify a ‘pacifist’ amendment to the constitution. Will it be before, or after committing a monumental crime against themselves and ‘others’?

    The message is very much relevant today. Tony Blair, out of office, but not out of fear mongering business, is agitating for Iran’s destruction:

    Tony Blair calls for regime change in Iran and Syria

    Former prime minister warns that Middle East would be ‘very, very badly destabilised if Iran acquired nuclear weapons

    Imagine the chutzpa. The war criminal’s killing of 100s of 1000s of innocent Iraqi women and children just made the region calm, predictable, and stable …. NOT! Now gets to lecture us about how non-existent Iranian nukes will destabilize the region!

    Really, watch the documentary above to begin to get a sense of the scale of the swindle Blair wreaked over Britisheeple. As always his only defense is that he “really believes the nonsense. Well history is littered with lunatics who ‘believed’ all sorts of things. So what?

  39. Rd. says:

    kooshy says:

    “that Barbara’s changed tone is a tactical move for a reporter visa to Iran,”

    To add to your thought, if such tactical moves were to resonate in some policy circles, could it create the necessary softening for the Syrian knot to un-tangle?

    From Syria: What Kind of Revolution?
    by Bilal El-Amine posted by Pirouz-2

    “As a result, Washington and Paris in particular came to the conclusion that Syria may be the weak link in the chain/ Taking Damascus out of the equation would severely hobble this anti-Western alliance as it would drive Iran out of the heart of the Arab world and isolate the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine from their patrons in Tehran.”

  40. Pirouz_2 says:

    A very brilliant article by Bilal El-Amine. There are very interesting parallels between the various “opposition” movements in the region. The article is extremely interesting in its entirety but the punch line of the article is especially powerful:
    “One can only wish that all the Arab revolutions could be as quick and tidy as the Tunisian and Egyptian ones, but I’m afraid that both the Libyan and Syrian experiences suggest that the coming upheavals will be far more messy and complicated. They will require a far higher level of vigilance on our part to understand exactly what is happening so as not to make the mistake of blindly cheering on movements that may not be much of an improvement over the dictatorships they will replace.
    I would however, slightly reword it and say ‘so as not to make the mistake of blindly cheering on movements that may be far worse thanthe dictatorships they will replace.’
    By the way I have doubts that the Egyptian movement will succeed in making any significant change in the structure of that country (contrary to what the author seems to believe) and also I would not concede any cities to the so-called “opposition” either. Also if I were any member of the progressive sections of the Syrian opposition I would bet that there is a far better chance of any type of “reform” coming under the rule of Assad than there is any such chance if the opposition becomes successful.
    Arnold Evans used to see the Islamists as a progressive force (and he also included Mr. Erdogan in this group), I wonder how he would describe the Syrian and Libyan opposition (both of which are very much Islamic) and the position of Turkey? Progressive? or reactionary?

    Syria: What Kind of Revolution?
    by Bilal El-Amine


  41. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Befarma: even a guy with a stupid English accent knows it! Where you stand on 9/11 is the litmus test of whether your bullshitometer is still functioning, or whether you can’t see the truth even if it is in brought daylight.


  42. Unknown Unknowns says:



    Are you saying that CONGRESSMEN and SENATORS and CHOMSKY (gasp!!) were fooled by this PR stunt?

    Everything Uncle Weasel does is a lie! Don’t you understand that? It is a war on a cosmic scale, the war of al-Haqq vs. al-Baatel, Truth vs. The Lie, Inc.

    And you have to take sides, even if you are going against Chomsky and the whole of that rotten society: it is your soul that is at stake.

  43. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    September 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    “I think it is fair to say that warmongering neocons in the US (and other fantastical supporters of Israel right or wrong)”

    James one question for you, do you also have these kind of warmongering neocon fanatical supporters of Israel in the UK which indeed foreign policy wise is a dependent client state of the US, if you do can you identify them

  44. kooshy says:

    Iran tells UN it will hit back at any attack


    “UNITED NATIONS — Iran warned it would “not hesitate” to hit back at any foreign strike on its soil in a formal complaint to the United Nations over a warning from French President Nicolas Sarkozy.”

  45. Photi says:


    without media distortion and lobbying pressure from liberal zionists, wouldn’t US politicians be more inclined to consider alternative viewpoints?

    though i often do wonder who is wagging who in the Israel/US worlds.

    the zionists do provide great cover for American/Western imperialism.

  46. fyi says:

    James Canning says: September 8, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    It is plain to me that you are going through any number of mental gyrations to avoid admitting that the United States Policy – at least towards Iran – is based on a grand strategic conceptualization that calls for the destruction of the independent Iranian power.

    Dual Containment, Axis of Evil, the 2007 Sanctions, Haranguing of Iran in UAE, are consistent with such a notion over 20 years.

    What you offer as way of explanation for this constancy is the rich Jews in US (the Liberal Zionists in US parlance) and the foolishness of various US leaders and planners.

    I do not find your assertions persuasive; I am afraid.

  47. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says: September 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Yes, dealing with them often is a frustrating exercise in innanity.

  48. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    September 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    yes, but they are not concerned about number. most of these people don’t have anybody left in Iran or at least not close relatives or at best foolishly think their part will be safe.

    Einstein says: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”

    I think he would have revised that to include this group of Iranians had he known this group back then.

    There are of course people with connections with the ones inside the country though. for them it is surely madness.

  49. Rehmat says:

    Libyan rebels threatens Chavez

    French historian and author, Thierry Meyssan in his investigating report says that the Al-Qaeda is a hotbed of mercenaries used by the United States to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Iraq, and now Libya, Syria and Yemen….


  50. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:

    September 8, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    “You do not think Iran should allow Barbara Slavin to visit the country?”

    My dear “jolly” man James, the answer is a positive No., why should she be allowed to go there as a reporter, and just like last time, when she comes back having the credibility of being there and seeing it with her own eyes, she will get to be invited to go to numerous Ding Dong “Think Thank shows” and TV interviews and I can guess she will again twist the facts and will say I was there I saw with my own eyes, everyone hates the government, everyone wants a regime change, and economically the country is going belly up, etc. etc. I already know why she wrote the article, and what she will write coming back, if she ever gets a visa.

  51. James Canning says:


    The illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq was the other side of the coin on which the US so foolishly spurned Iran’s effort to restore normal relations. Neocon warmongers drove both of these catastrophically bad decisions.

  52. James Canning says:


    You do not think Iran should allow Barbara Slavin to visit the country?

    My view is that G W Bush should have accepted the policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group in 2006, and made deals with Iran and Syria, and pulled all US troops out of Iraq asap. Robert Gates and General Petraeus both opposed the ISG recommendations.
    And, of course, Gates and Petraeus (and Hillary Clinton) talked Obama into foolish trebling of US forces in Afghanistan.

  53. kooshy says:

    Reading the new article by Barbara Slavin published in AT today, which the link was posted by BiBiJan (BiBi Khanom thank you) Barbara Slavin is the first person who replied to the questions I posted on this site yesterday. Which I repeat here again

    Question 1

    What do you think was the biggest American foreign policy failure in last decade?

    1-Wrong assessments and a consequential failure of Afghanistan- Iraq wars
    2-Failure to engage Iran for a possible course correction / reformation of the US’s Middle Eastern policy failures
    3-None of the above / no need to answer questions 2 or 3

    Question 2

    Do you think engaging Iran in a meaningful way would have helped easing the American foreign policy impasses in the Middle East, if so why?

    Question 3

    What do you think was the main reason that made the American foreign policy incapable of engaging Iran in a non-combative way?

    Now compare my first question to the first paragraph in Slavin’s new AT article

    “Of all the mistakes and missed opportunities that have characterized United States foreign policy since September 11, 2001, few may have been as consequential as the failure to improve relations with Iran”

    Reading the entire article one will see that she covers the question 2 as well as the question three

    I thought Iran pro commentators of RFI will be the first to reply, but I am willing to venture a guess that Barbara’s changed tone is a tactical move for a reporter visa to Iran, I hope Iranian authorities wouldn’t be fooled by her, this time around, like her last trip she will use her presence to gain credibility for her insertion of facts. برو این دام جای دگر نه


  54. James Canning says:


    I also recommend Andrew I. Kilgore, “Neocons battle against US rapprochement with Iran” (May 2004):


  55. James Canning says:


    You may find interesting Michael Rubin’s attack on the Swiss Ambassador, Tim Guldimann, (in Weekly Standard Oct. 22, 2007). The Weekly Standard is a primary organ of warmongering neocons and other delusional supporters of Israel right or wrong.


  56. James Canning says:


    You asked why Rumsfeld in early 2002 did not want the National Security Council to review the Iranian proposal. Excellent and important question, and all who post on this site are of course welcome to comment.

    Rumsfeld was a “control freak” and may have opposed the Iranian proposal because he had not brought it to the NSC? (Not that he would have brought the proposal before the Council.)

    Did Rumsfeld already have his insane quest for “regime change” in Iraq, Syria and Iran, firmly entrenched in his thinking? Perhaps he was concerned he might have enough trouble controlling G W Bush without complicating matters by allowing the important Iranian initiative to come to the attention of the president. Rumsfeld was already deeply involved in the conspiracy to set up the invasion of Iraq on knowingly false pretenses.

  57. James Canning says:


    Barbara Slavin gives cover the warmongers in the G W Bush administration, and deceives her readers, by saying some in the Bush administration opposed better relations with Iran while Iran “still supported groups opposed to Israel’s existence”.
    Does Slavin actually believe Hamas and Hezbollah in early 2002 “were opposed to Israel’s existence”? I doubt it.

  58. James Canning says:


    The phoney claims about Iran’s election having been stolen, etc., were in fact employed as pressure against Obama. The argument – – complete cr*p, of course – – was that Obama would be rewarding those who had stolen an election, by dealing with them. But you are quite right, that Israel did not want Obama to succeed in improving relations with Iran.

  59. Photi says:

    Political Prisoner Watch, EA style:

    Irvine 11’s trial begins with both sides citing 1st Amendment

    1984 GOT: The first of the six defense attorneys, Daniel Mayfield, addressed jurors with a word written in green: “time.”

    He told jurors about the time Oren took to visit the university and the time the defendants had to plan their protest within the limits of the law. He told jurors the speech was 30 minutes late, independent of the student protest, and that the protest lasted a minute.

    Defense attorney Reem Salahi then recited to the jury what the students had shouted, including, “Michael Oren, propagating murder is not free speech.”

    “The question before you is whether these students committed crimes when they discussed logistics and how to protest Ambassador Oren,” she told the jurors, adding that the students did it “peacefully, albeit rudely, before walking out.”

  60. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    September 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    James, IMO, no, it is not fair to blame the “disputed” election, especially not by Barbra Slavin, who did (and does) much of the ‘disputin’.

    By the time June 2009 elections were being conducted, Israel had already gone into full-spectrum diplomatic and not-so-diplomatic effort to hinge Palestenian-Israeli peace talks, to the US first doing something about the soooooooo-dangerous Iran.

    On May 18th 2009, Netaneeyahu arrived in the White House and re-dictated US policy so Obama doesn’t get any funny ideas about acting above his station — he is only the president of the US after all.

  61. fyi says:

    James Canning says: September 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Thank you for your comments.

    I will think about them and see if I can validate your assertions.

    [The fact remains that European-American Protestant and Jews support Israel.

    And they are willing to bear enormous costs for Israel.]

    I would like to know, in your opinion, why Mr. Rumsfeld did not wish to address the Iranian proposal.

  62. James Canning says:


    The PR scammers of the American people cannot come out and say their object is to put scores of billions of dollars into the pockets of lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, “defence” contractors, in order to help Israel keep most of its illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.

  63. James Canning says:


    I also recommend a quick look at Dick Cheney’s new book. Cheney admits he worked closely with Scooter Libby, Eric Edelman, and other ardent supporters of Israel right or wrong, after the collapse of the USSR, to keep US “defence” spending at the highest levels possible, in part to “protect” Israel. This was one of the greatest scams in American history. And it continues.

  64. James Canning says:


    You might find it worth your while to focus more attention on the civilian head of the defence policy committee that set Pentagon strategy. He was an ardent neocon, and of course Jewish. And he thought the US could overthrow the government of Iraq, Syria and Iran, or force those governments to be nice to Israel and allow Israel to keep most of the illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank.

    He now says he would have opposed the Iraq War if he had known what a catastrtophe Jerry Bremer would create with his utter stupidity (in his role as American viceroy after overthrow of Saddam Hussein).

    He also has close ties to Israeli armaments manufacturers.

  65. James Canning says:


    Iran agreed to intervene with Hamas to prevent terror attacks within Israel (within pre-1967 borders). Israel wanted its illegal colonies in the West Bank protected too.

    Importance of the Swiss ambassador’s effort is that it shows the programme of the fanatical supporters of Israel right or wrong, in the US, is to block normal US-Iran relations in delusional effort to enable Israel to keep many of the illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank.

    The so-called “Grand Strategy” is a PR scam, dreamt up by Pentagon propagandists who work closely with delusional supporters of Israel right or wrong, to deceive the American public about what the real issues are in the Middle East.

  66. James Canning says:


    The deal arranged by the Swiss ambassador called for restoration of normal US-Iran relations, tacit acceptance of Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and Iranian commitment to stopping terrorist attacks within Israel. Israel demanded that Iran also stop terror attacks in the West Bank. This meant Israel was demanding Iran accept illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank, and Iran of course refused.

  67. fyi says:

    James Canning says: September 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Truth is not very relevant here; power is.

    And yes, US National Security Council did not wish to improve relations because of US Grand Strategic aims in so far as Iran was concerned.

    I am not familiar with the Swiss Ambassador’s effort – could you please recount them?

    And to aviod repetition, could u please describe also how those efforts negates and invalidates my central theses?

  68. James Canning says:


    One must gasp at yet another graphic portrayal of the astounding incompetence of Condoleezza Rice, as seen in her handling of the meeting of the NSC where Iran’s offer was presented. Keep in mind she was National Security Advisor to George W. Bush, and she did not report to Donald Rumsfeld. (Barbara Slavin piece in AsiaTimes)

  69. James Canning says:


    Good points about Barbara Slavin and her take on the unrest after the 2009 election in Iran (as preventing Obama from making progress in improving US-Iran relations). I think it is fair to say that warmongering neocons in the US (and other fantatical suppporters of Israel right or wrong) used the “disputed election” to attack Obama in hopes of preventing an improvement in US-Iran relations.

  70. James Canning says:


    Warmongering neocons and other delusional supporters of Israel right or wrong, caused the moron in the White House to include Iran in an absurd “Axis” of “Evil”. Most of the neocons were, and are, Jews closely associated associated with Israeli armaments manufacturers, etc etc., in one way or another.

    The Iraq War was not inevitable. War with Iran is not inevitable. Seeking the truth about the members of the conpspiracy to set up an illegal invasion of Iraq is important, in defeating the effort of many of these same people to set up an illegal war with Iran.

    Why do you show so little interest in the FBI’s monitoring of the conspiracy by Israeli diplomats to use compliant US politicians to feed false information to US newspapers about Iran, in hopes of setting up a war?

  71. James Canning says:


    Are you familiar with the details of the Swiss effort to facilitate restoration of US-Iran relations after 9/11? I think your statement that, in effect, the National Security Council would not even consider a deal, is quite wrong.

  72. hans says:

    @Sassan says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Nine months in a place you hate so much, you must be a saint to put up with all the good food, nice people and a very civilised culture. I wish you have to spend 9 months in Saudi Arabia for your penance.

  73. Photi says:


    You are inviting what happened to Iraq to befall your own people. You have nothing to do with human rights, compassion, or liberal ideals. Your eyes are full of blood-lust. You disgust me.

  74. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says: September 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    The world is filled with fools.

    The dead in Libya are reported today to be 30,000.

    The analogous number for Iran would be 375,000 dead souls.

    More than the entire dead of the Iran-Iraq War.

  75. Persian Gulf says:

    Sassan says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:41 am

    some of my friends, who at the high of the turmoil were highly optimistic about the success of their uprising and of course did not heed to my words at the time, say now that there is no prospect for another uprising anytime soon. not only that, there is virtually no opposition left in the Iranian political scene (I am not sure this is, in its own right, a welcome development or not).

    a few days ago I was telling a close friend that whether or not they are aware that their protest back then actually strengthened the IR (as was expected). otherwise, with the turmoil in the region, there would have been a chance for an agitation in Iran. I told him that wrong and opportunistic move actually discredited the oppositions to the point of total disintegration. he was referring to the small uprising of 1378 and the fact that it resurfaced 10 years later. at least based on his view, we are years away from the point that another uprising could even materialize.

    I told him that in a demographic point of view, the chance of a big revolution is diminishing in Iran as time goes by. in Iran, like everywhere else, young people supposed to revolt. The Iranian population is aging rapidly. for much of 1370s and 1380s ,the average age was early 20s. it stands at 30 now, I guess. the ones supposed to revolt will soon be entangled with the reality of life.

  76. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says: September 8, 2011 at 10:12 am

    I keep on telling you guys: US Grand Startegy calls for the destruction of independent Iranian power.

    That is why the “Axis of Evil” speech was made.

    That is why the US National Security Council did not consider the Iranian offer. And did you notice how everyone in that meeting apparently looked to Mr. Rumsfeld? He was in charge of US Foreign Policy and he was not about to make even tactical concessions to the Reality of the world as he found it – he felt compelled to uphold the US Grand Strategical aim as far as Iran was concerned.

    And the Iranian trial balloon of 2003 met the same fate.

    And, later, in 2009, Mr. Bush was in UAE haranguing Iran – glossing over the days of celeberations in UAE cities after the 9/11/2001 attacks on US.

    All of these, in my opinion, indicate the extent to which US leaders and planners attach importance to the destruction of independent Iranian power.

  77. Fara says:

    Sassan says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:41 am

    “…the international community and NATO will stand side-by-side with the Iranian people…”.

    This clrearly shows that you are not able to see the real picture in NATO’s actions.

  78. Liz says:


    You’ve probably never been to Iran or else you would know the “virgin” claim is garbage (and somewhat racist). The rest of what you claim is not worth responding to.

  79. Voice of Tehran says:

    Sassan says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:41 am
    You wrote:
    “” As an Iranian – and one who has spent considerable amounts of time in Iran (as of just a few months ago I was in Iran for nearly 9-months)””

    Interesting Sassan , so you spent 9 months in Iran . What were you doing so long in that ‘hoard’ of terrorists country ?

  80. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    September 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    as you may know very well, whose Iranians who made noises, and continue to make noise, about election were either aware of the soundness of the election results or indifferent about the election altogether. for them the election was an excuse. I have heard this many times. some of the people I know told me at the time, “Persian Gulf,how come you don’t understand that this is an excuse?”. in that sense, it is not a conspiracy mentality as you might think. it’s called “farafekani”.

    most of the ones who really believed (mostly high educated people) the election fraud notion, astonishing as it sounds, were silent or dared to go to the streets.


    I think apart from Sistan & Balochistan province, Kordistan is also mostly Sunni. even though the whole population is about 1.2 million. Golistan also has substantial number of Sunnies (about 40% I guess).

    the second point is: the ballots were counted in the regions that election time was not extended (the representatives of the candidates and trusted people of the local regions are present). this was the case in every other election in the past. the ballots are counted in the local region where the election is held, then reported to the higher offices (hierarchically till the office of internal affairs ministry). this time, they used a designed software and internet so to add to the speed. in the big cities though, where the election always extend for hours, the ballot boxes are sealed till the end of the official election time.

  81. BiBiJon says:

    IMO Barbara Slavin has written a well-sourced reasonable article over all. However, this tid-bit I found disingenuous.

    “The Barack Obama administration tried to correct course and sought to engage Iran without preconditions in 2009. However, disputed Iranian presidential elections and their bloody aftermath so divided the Iranian political elite that progress on the diplomatic front was impossible.”

    I would remind Barbra that Netanyahu forced Obama to put a one year time frame on the ‘extended hand’ to Iran. Just imagine Nixon/Kissinger telling Mao you have 12 months, and btw no senior level contact. Combined with Obama’s continuation of clandestine operations to try and destabilize Iran, Obama/Ross must have been deemed insincere/incompetent. Still, SL did not shut the door, he offered “you change and we will change too.” The change of US’ attitude Iran got was Joe Biden’s assertion that the 2009 election was fraudulent. Apparently, this too was a “change to believe in”, but, not actually see, feel, or hear.

    Slavin has a perch most Americans don’t have. She ought to ask Rumsfeld/Rice if taking up Iran’s offer would have so much as saved the life of a single soldier, Iraqi mother, or an Afghani child, why wasn’t it even given a hearing?


  82. BiBiJon says:

    Barbra Slavin today is saliating over what could have been.


  83. Rehmat says:

    As the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11 terrorist attack carried out by Israel approaches – CBC is set to broadcast Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s exclusive interview he gave to CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge on The National Thursday Night.

    Stephen Harper, who is listed as an ‘Author’ on Israel Hasbara (propaganda) Committee, has claimed in the interview that the biggest security threat to Canada a decade after 9/11 Islamic terrorism.

    “There are other threats out there, but that is the one that I can tell you occupies the security apparatus most regularly in terms of actual terrorist threats,” Harper said.

    Harper cautioned that terrorist threats can “come out of the blue” from a different source, such as the recent Norway attacks, where a ‘lone gunman’ who hated Muslims killed 77 people.

    Interestingly, Harper avoided to mention that the ‘lone gunman’, Anders Behring Breivik, was a Christian Zionist who professed in his 1500-page manifesto that he hated Muslims and loved Israel – as Stephen Harper does. And surprise, surprise – none of the 77 people he killed was a Muslim.

    In February 2008 – Stephen Harper had claimed that criticism of Israel including from some members of Parliament, is similar to the attitude of the Nazi Germany in WW II against Jews (the so-called ‘anti-Semitism’). I guess, Harper has not read Dr. Bryan Mark Rigg’s book ‘Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers’ in which the author has claimed that 150,000 German Jews had served in the Nazi Army.

    Under Harper, Canada has the most Zionist subservient government in Canada’s history.

    Last year, Canada’s junior foreign minister, Peter Kent, in an interiew with one of Canada’s Israeli Hasbara publications Shalom Life said that Stephen Harper government is ready to throw its full military weight behind the Zionist entity, saying: “An attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada”. Kent’s chief of staff, Norm McIntosh defended his boss by telling the newspaper that “It’s not too far from what the prime minister (Stephen Harper) has said”.

    “Stephen Harper and his immigration minister Jason Kenney who supported Israeli genocide of 1.5 million Gaza inhabitantans during Dec.-Jan. 2009 – are known for their blind support for Israel and their hatred toward Arab and Muslim communities in Canada,” Edward C. Carrigan in The Canadian Charger, Feb. 10, 2010.


  84. BiBiJon says:

    Sassan says:
    September 8, 2011 at 8:41 am

    O.K. So you don’t much like the ‘regime’. Fair enough.

    What do you propose to do with the “eight in 10 (81%) [who] say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected” and rather see change through the ballot box, after your NATO (ex-colonialists’ military alliance) supported uprising by the “13 percent [who] say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the [2009 election] results?”


  85. Sassan says:

    A BIG SHAME ON YOU for you naive extreme leftists who are so blind in your ideology that you are willing to give a pass to one of the most oppressive and terrorist regimes in the world with this nonsense. As an Iranian – and one who has spent considerable amounts of time in Iran (as of just a few months ago I was in Iran for nearly 9-months) the Iranian people are united against this barbaric and illegal regime from the youth, to the middle-aged, to the elderly. This is a regime that rapes our young sisters before executing them so that “they don’t die as virgins” as these “hidden imam” maniacs believe “virgins go straight to heaven”, so to “deny” this to them too. And guess what? We Iranians have no problem with the state of Israel and recognize their existence; our problems are not with the Palestinian-Israeli issue – our problems are with this illegal regime which supports terrorists worldwide including in the Palestinian territories instead of taking care of Iranians back home. Iranians are a good people – our holidays and traditions are Iranian (pre-Islamic); we have heard the hard way the evils of Islamic rule the last 30+ years – but once this regime goes a complete secular democracy that values human rights and freedom is what Iranians demand – nothing more and nothing less.

    The question is not “if” this regime will go but “when” and “how much more blood” will need to be sacrificed. I am confident that the next time the Iranian people rise up en masse once again (in approximately 2-years during the next round of fake Presidential elections in Iran) the international community and NATO will stand side-by-side with the Iranian people in getting rid of this barbaric, brutal, and illegal regime which is not only oppressing and terrorizing the Iranian people – but with the potential for nuclear weapons, poses a grave threat to humanity itself – particularly with the messianic and apocalyptic views of the religious maniacs running our once great nation – “Mutually Assured Destruction” is no deterrent to these psychopaths – this regime with its “hidden imam” ideology wants only one thing: death, havoc, and destruction and the international community must stand together with the Iranian people in getting rid of these brutal terrorists who continue to terrorize the Iranian people daily.

  86. Iranian@Iran says:

    The elections were fair and the only large protest gathering was in Tehran and when those people saw there was no evidence of fraud they quickly deserted the Mousavi camp, leaving a few thousand young hotheads. Just because someone dislikes Ahmadinejad, he has no right to overturn the will of the people and to empower enemies of Iran like the US government.

  87. BiBiJon says:

    Mosen says:
    September 8, 2011 at 2:53 am

    “but what’s most important is the number of people pouring onto the streets (almost a million in several major cities), right after the declaration of regime win, demanding answers to what they had heard, or witnessed or was subjected to themselves at the poling stations.”

    I have to agree. Not only all those public opinion polls before and after the elections showed 2/3 majority support for IRI’s system of government which itself is based on a constitution approved by over 98% in a referendum, we have had the specter of demonstrations, their dwindling numbers, and eventually vanishing to a mere twinkle in Scott Lucas’ eyes to prove the minority status of the so called ‘green’ so called ‘movement’ and demonstrate once again the elections were perfectly legitimate.

    The opposition was fooled by Western media’s wall-to-wall, round-the-clock erroneous reporting of unsubstantiated twitter messages supposedly coming from Iran.


  88. Mosen says:

    Regardless of these statistical numbers and analytical assertions which could very well be true, the Mousavi’s campaign with the Khatami’s support and sponsorship right before the elections (within few weeks prior), took the regime by surprise. The Ahmadinejad camp noticed this and panicked.
    That’s why there were so many reports of irregularities at the polling stations. The counts and not counted is one thing, but what’s most important is the number of people pouring onto the streets (almost a million in several major cities), right after the declaration of regime win, demanding answers to what they had heard, or witnessed or was subjected to themselves at the poling stations.

    Maybe if Ahmadi’s regime would’ve just tried to have the best, cleanest election is years, then truly they would’ve won, but when the dirty tricks got in the election polls, then there’s nothing fair about the outcome.

  89. fyi says:

    Rehmat says: September 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    You should let Mr. Pannetta’s statement go unchallenged.

    He is addressing himself to the Partisans of War in the United States.

    He is counseling them to be patient.

    He is, in fact, indirectly helping Iran and the Iranians in so far as he is giving the War Community in US the hope of Iranian surrender sometime in the future.

  90. Rehmat says:

    Israel-Firster Leon Panetta predicts new riots in Iran

    On Tuesday, Leon Panetta said on the Charlie Sheen TV show that the people behind the 2009 Green Revolution are learning from the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria. “I think we saw in evidence of that in the last election in Iran that there was a movement within Iran that raised those very same concerns that we’re seeing elsewhere. And I think in many ways, it’s a matter of time before that kind of change and reform and revolution occurs in Iran as well,” predicted Panetta.


  91. James Canning says:


    The Emir of Qatar is cruising off the coast of Corfu and other Greek Ionian Islands. Wonderful place for that sort of thing.

  92. James Canning says:

    In an interview broadcast on Portuguese radio & tv, Ahmadinejad said Syria should seek non-military solution to the unrest in the country, through dialogue.

  93. James Canning says:

    The French Middle East envoy, Valerie Hoffenberg, claims she has been sacked because she opposes the Palestinian bid for recognition by the UN.

  94. fyi says:

    MHF says: September 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    There were 40,000 polling stations in Iran.

    There were anywhere between 7 to 9 people present as “moatamed” at each station.

    And then the boxes were sealed.

    Could you please explain or otherwise suggest a plausible manner by which the ballots or the boxes could have been hampered with tp produce Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory?

    The usual Iranian seems very good at conspiracy-mongering and very poor indeed in probable analysis.

  95. Rd. says:

    kooshy says:

    “frankly I haven’t seen any major behavior change on any of the main media outlets in the western world.”

    Challenging the media is good.. but my goodness, this is an example of a supposed liberal, progressive non-mainstream, non-corporate media reporting??? Or whatever you’d like to call ‘em.

    From todays Democracy Now (as in today, not tomorrow)

    Reporting from a ‘Human Rights’ watch who happens to be in Tripoli and somehow, he is the first to go to the intelligence ministry and he is the one who has all the intelligence document which implicates the qaddafi regime in the rendition program. Mind you, the rendition program was the Libyans fault!!!!! Though it is emphasized the role of Musa Kusa, no mention of his close relations to certain western intelligence agencies WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RENDITION program… ;-) ;-)

    And this has to top the hypocrisy, I am sorry democracy now!! When the former AQ are excused as having renounced terrorism;

    common Amy Goodman… which side of the bed did you get up today? on the corp side???

    PETER BOUCKAERT: Well, the Libyan government is known for its brutality, and the people who were rendered

    Amy Goodman – ask you specifically about Abdullah Kanchil, the rebel negotiator, head of the [NTC], the National Transition Committee negotiating team. How did he end up being brought back to Libya?

    PETER BOUCKAERT: Yes. So, Belhaj became the commander of the fighters in Tripoli and is now the chief of the fighters in Tripoli …

    I think it is important to note that he and many other members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group have renounced terrorism a long time ago and have renounced their previous relationship with al-Qaeda.


    and compare it to reporting from Voltaire Network


  96. James Canning says:


    Look again at FYI’s comments, that Libya is nothing whatever like Iran. Gaddafi foolishly “hollowed out” the country by weakening major institutions. Not to mention Gaddafi’s PR blunders after the unrest broke out in eastern Libya. Libya most definitely is not a template, though warmongering neocons, certain delusional Jewish groups, etc etc, would wish it to be one.

  97. James Canning says:


    Do you think Leon Panetta actually believes a revolution in Iran will overthrow the government? I wonder. Interesting comments to Charlie Rose.

    Robert Gates has told Obama that Israel is putting US national security at risk by failing to get out of the West Bank.

  98. paul says:

    Don’t believe me that the US plans to apply the Libya template in Iran? Well then, believe CIA chief now military chief Panetta:


    Granted, you do have to read between the lines of what Panetta is saying, a tiny bit, but please, read the writing on the wall, folks.

  99. James Canning says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    It does seem hard to dispute the fact the Holocaust was used to justify Jewish terrorist activities in Palestine, and terrorist activities by Israel since 1948-49.

  100. James Canning says:


    Yes, a number of very prominent Saudis, acting as individuals or as supporters of one Islamic charity or another, gave financial support to some of the hijackers. The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, is an enemy of al-Qaeda.

  101. James Canning says:

    Elaraby (head of the Arab League) also told Spiegel today that it is “completely out of the question” that there would be another war between Israel and an Arab country over Palestine. I think this is correct. Elaraby also noted that the problem of Israel/Palestine would have been resolved years ago if the US had not failed to comply with its agreements.

  102. Unknown Unknowns says:

    More for masoud:


    I invite you to read the whole interview, but urge you to read the last sentence.

  103. Photi says:

    From Robert Baer, Author and former CIA field officer:


    “Why was Prince Bandar’s wife (wife of former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan) sending money to one of the hijackers? There is also all sorts of funding issues about 9/11 which have never been answered,” Baer said.

    Again, the most compelling argument i have heard so far to motivate a cover-up on the part of the US is in regards to protecting well-placed Saudis. This motivation could be construed (though not by me) as being in the interests of US national security.

    A whole body of unexplored evidence and hostage transcripts exists at Guantanamo Bay. To move the ‘conspiracy’ forward, one strategy would be to get public trials for these POWs or hostages or whatever word should be used to describe those held captive by the US military.

    At the end of the video found at the PressTV article quoted above, Baer does mention he is convinced Bin Ladin did 9/11, but regardless there are still many unanswered questions. (not a quote but that is essentially what he said at the end).

  104. James Canning says:

    Spiegel online today has excellent interview with head of the Arab League, Nabil elaraby, who says the League is doing everything in its power to back the Palestinian bid for recognition at the UN. And he askes: What’s wrong with the Palestinians appealing to the UN?” Perhaps Obama and Hillary Clinton will give us an answer that is true. That answer: rich and powerful Jews in the US oppose the Palestinian bid for statehood. And Democrats need the support of those rich and powerful Jews in the US in the 2012 elections.

  105. James Canning says:

    Obama continues his foolish effort to stop Palestinian bid for UN recognition of independence with pre-1967 borders. PressTV today has brief report on David Hale’s mission: “US envoy in West Bank to stop UN bid”.


  106. James Canning says:


    Are you objecting to the use of the term “Islamic terrorist” for Muslims who intentionally attack innocent women and children, because that activity is forbidden by the Koran? The Israeli propagandists, neocons, et al., want to dupe the ignorant American public into thinking that Muslims are dangerous. So, they have to attach a label to the terrorists that meets this requirement.

  107. James Canning says:

    Voice of Tehran (and UU),

    Yes, that English link is a good one. I like the brief mention of the Iranian MP who said Sarkozy should not talk about Iran while drunk.

  108. James Canning says:


    AFP had a story yesterday you might find interesting: “Qatar’s emir reaffirms support for Hamas”. Sheikh Hamad is quoted: “We support the Palestinian people of Gaza, whom Israel does not like. But Israel now considers that the establishment of a Palestinian state is more dangerous than Hamas.”

    Israel is very agitated by Qatar’s support of Gaza and Hamas. Why do you seem to be hostile to the emir of Qatar?

  109. James Canning says:


    Trend (Azerbaijan) says there was no meeting with the Russian ambassador (by Emir of Qatar).

  110. Unknown Unknowns says:


    Thanks for that link to the English version of Iranian Diplomacy. I had no idea an English version was available.

  111. James Canning says:

    Unknown Unknowns,

    ENI of Italy is taking the lead in restoring oil and gas production and export in Libya, but the other oil and gas companies, from many countries, are keen to restore operations. Let’s hope order is restored in the entire country as soon as possible.

  112. James Canning says:


    I of course agree with you that Israel is determined to block normal relations between Iran and the US. And the scores of stooges of the government of Israel, in the US Congress, make it difficult for the president to improve relations with Iran.

  113. James Canning says:


    We could be certain the Washington Post would harp on Iranis production of 20% U, as a means of trying to continue the newspaper’s effort to convince its readers that Iran is a threat. At least the editorial you linked mentioned Russia’s proposal for staged reductions in sanctions.

  114. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Having read the incredible Mayssan article, I sit in stunned gobsmacked silence contemplating the depths of the evil that is afoot. Here is a man who kowtowed to Uncle Weasel by paying for the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in Lockerbie Scotland, dismantling his WMD programs, giving the Seven Sisters unbridled access to Libyan oilfields, and being the proxy torturer in chief of Uncle Weasel’s Extraordinary Renditioners who were on chummy terms with the good Colonel ‘Daffy, yet all of this was not enough to fill the Belly of the Beast, whose appetite for blood, savagery and wanton destruction was not sated until it turned a peaceful ordered though imperfect society into yet another province of Wahhabistan, wherein Stone Age barbarism will no doubt reign for decades to come.

    Laa howl-u wa laa quwwat-u illa bi’llah.
    As-staghfiru’llah wa atubu alayhi.
    La illaha illa’llah.

    At-Takaathur, The Piling Up, as rendered by the late Muhammad Asad:

    Rivalry in Worldly Increase

    YOU ARE OBSESSED by greed for more and more

    until you go down to your graves.

    Nay, in time you will come to understand!

    And once again: Nay, in time you will come to understand!

    Nay, if you could but understand [it] with an understanding [born] of certainty,

    you would indeed, most surely, behold the blazing fire [of hell]!

    In the end you will indeed, most surely, behold it with the eye of certainty:

    and on that Day you will most surely be called to account for [what you did with] the boon of life!

    And again, as rendered by Arthur J. Arberry

    Gross rivalry diverts you,

    even till you visit the tombs.

    No indeed; but soon you shall know.

    Again, no indeed; but soon you shall know.

    No indeed; did you know with the knowledge of certainty,

    you shall surely see Hell;

    Again, you shall surely see it with the eye of certainty

    then you shall be questioned that day concerning true bliss.

  115. kooshy says:

    Katharine, sorry, I didn’t mean you shouldn’t try and challenge the biased media that we all have been exposed to, you certainly have taken a tremendous honorable task, but frankly I haven’t seen any major behavior change on any of the main media outlets in the western world. Nerveless I do agree everyone should challenge misinformation and propaganda like you have been doing.

    As an example of what I was referring to, here is the latest editorial from the Fred Hiatt’s WP editorial board, see for yourself, do you see any change on their reporting behavior since the apologizing they made for miss reporting on their Iraq agenda, read the comments section please. For this past decade folks like you and me are continually challenging their unsubstantiated insertions without any result. I have arrived to understand that the major media in this country regardless of their affiliations are tasked to propagandize governmental policies and agendas, because of that they are not going to change their reports unless the policies and agendas are revised.

    Editorial Board Opinion

    The undimmed danger of Iran’s nuclear program


  116. Voice of Tehran says:

    @ All
    From time to time you can find good articles on Iranian Diplomacy (IRDIPLOMACY.COM):

    “”Ninth Parliamentary Elections and the Security Challenge Are the foreign embassies plotting another electoral turmoil in Iran?””


    …”” The street protests ensuing the 2009 disputed presidential election Iran, prompted the embassies of many European countries, most important among them Britain, Italy, France and Spain, to take action and support the uprisings by granting asylum to protestors. The behavior of foreign governments and embassies has not changed much since then. Critical remarks by them regarding the 2009 protests are forcefully responded to by Iranian officials. The British embassy, predictably, has played the most conspicuous role, keeping the wounds open by objecting to the treatment of political prisoners, judiciary arbitrations, or the domestic policies of the Iranian government….

  117. MHF says:

    Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett’s writing and analysis regarding the election results in Iran is not surprising, but of course wrong, as usual. They grab at anything in trying to show themselves “correct” in their inaccurate analysis– their life and pay-check depend on it. What else would they do without introducing themselves as Iran experts. And since there are many Iran experts who know what is going on (unlike Leveretts) , they have to be the opposite to be noticed, and hence receive a pay-check.

    First, they are analyzing the “election” results in Iran like an analyst is doing it with U.S. or British election results. Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, have you even considered the real method that elections get rigged: creating number out of the thin air, and Khamenei gangsters have always done, and still doing. Leverrets refer to numbers put out by the interior ministry, as though they were real results– far from it. Those numbers were created by the order of gangsters, and announced by the rest. How do we know this? Simple: there were over 4 million people in the streets of Tehran demanding back their votes two days after the empty “election” results. Considering that Tehran has about 10 million population, about 30% under 18 years age, about 15% above 60, and 50% women, most of whom never participate in demonstrations, almost everyone who could have voted was in the street against the Khomenei and Ahamdinejad. Would you call this anything but massive loss of Ahmadinejad in Tehran? How did he get all those votes? I tell you how: they created numbers at the ministry.

    The rest of cities in Iran had similar arrangements. BTW, this is not out of character in Iran– almost all elections are about selection of the government appointed individuals, and even then, they try to steal votes and provide ministry created numbers. This means that Khamenie and gangsters do not even trust their own selected nominees. What does that tell you?

    Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett must wake-up one of these days. I am sure if they can find a source of pay check for themselves, we could see a major change in their analysis. This could not happen until the gangsters in Iran are driven out. I wonder if Leverrets would become their paid spokespeople?

  118. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Indispensable background on Libya’s CIA/MI6/al-CIA-duuuuuuuuuh nexus from the fearless Thierry Mayssan, hot off the press:


    Money quotes:

    On 26 June 2005, Western intelligence agencies held a meeting in London of Libyan dissidents. They constituted the “National Conference of the Libyan opposition”, bringing together three Islamic factions: the Muslim Brothers, the Senoussi Brotherhood and the LIFG. Their manifesto set forth three objectives:
    – to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi;
    – to exercise power for one year (under the name “National Transition Council”);
    – to restore the constitutional monarchy to its 1951 form and make Islam the state religion.

    And Uncle Weasel was bedding Col ‘Daffy all the while:

    Discovered Files Show U.S., Britain Had Extensive Ties with Gaddafi Regime on Rendition, Torture


    The link is to today’s Democracy Now! Not to be missed.

  119. Rd. says:

    there must have been some unhappy folks!!!

    Qatar Emir survives an attempted assassination


  120. Unknown Unknowns says:

    I continue to appreciate and look forward to your posts. Thanks.

    Between your and b’s excellent posts, it is clear who had the motive and opportunity to bring about the dastardly deeds that lead to so many dead in the wake of the 2009 elections: the ‘people’ who killed Neda Agha-Soltan are the same people who kill Iranian scientists, the same people who introduced cyber-warfare into the annals of military history in the form of the Stuxnet virus, the same people who tried and failed to bring about the “Holocaust” in the wake of the *first* world was, the same people who perpetuate that biggest of lies in the wake of the war of 1939-1945, and the same people whose minions were caught doing a celebratory dance on the George Washington Bridge after the second plane crashed into the second tower, the same people who denied the ministries of Jesus, the Christ, and Muhammad, the last and greatest of God’s messengers, may peace be with them both.

    May God have mercy on their dark souls.

    I think you are right to point out in your excellent post in response to paul’s that so much hullabaloo and emotional hedonism is a sign of weakness and insecurity. But despite my deep desire to think you are right, it does not follow that the war against these evil forces is won. Things are certainly speeding up, though. And God, in His wisdom, will give them enough rope with which they will hang themselves, but methinks the crescendo will probably not happen in our lifetime, nor in that of our children.

    When you’re a demiurge, who can hurry? [spoken with a heavy Yiddish lilt :]

    I hope you are right, and Godspeed to you on your righteous mission.

  121. BiBiJon says:

    b says:
    September 7, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Thanks a lot for that link.

    By way of additional context, let me also point out:

    The 2009 election campaign had started to look way too ‘republican’ for the liking of Israel who could not, cannot, and never will accept US-Iran detente.

    The televised debates which vigorously explored ideology, foreign policy, corruption and elitism; the loud, good natured and unimpeded rallies of supporters of various candidates; issuance of over 500 visas to foreign journalists to cover the elections, etc. was too much to go unsullied by Israel and the western media that reflexively mouths their talking points.

  122. BiBiJon says:

    Photi says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    I think there are a couple of issues that you unduly emphasize.

    Meaning of initial sympathy, and willingness to help

    Frankly, it would have been inhuman not to offer sympathy and help in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. At the time the focus was on the murder of 3000 innocents. USG was regarded as the legitimate voice of the victims. Etc. The initial reactions were necessarily one of sharing the pain, and sharing the effort. In so far as a transnational terrorist entity is abhorred by any nation ‘state’, then there was no contradiction in ALL nation states’ condemnation and cooperation in wanting to remove the scourge of terrorism from the planet.

    Then What happened, and didn’t happen

    The word ‘terrorism’ lost its meaning. It just became a label for anyone, any nation, or even any religion that USG happened not to like. Axis of evil and coalitions of the willing seemed to sprout out of nowhere, with little rhyme or reason.

    Also, the dust had settled, and people had started to examine the 9/11 situation more cerebrally, and less emotionally. Hidden anomalies such as how could anyone under the banner of Islam contemplate, let alone execute a plan to harm innocent civilians in direct contravention of Quranic laws, and still be branded as an ‘Islamic’ terrorist? why was it left to the Jersey Girls to agitate for an official investigation, and folks started to wonder why would the Bush administration resist empaneling a commission to look into the matter until November 27, 2002. (P.L. 107-306 originally required the Commission to report to the President and Congress 18 months after enactment, or no later than May 27, 2004.)

    It is fair to say that while any decent person, or government shares the goal of ridding the world of terrorism. Few would want this worthy effort to be usurped by anyone to advance nefarious selfish agendas.

    Belief vs Knowing

    Iran, like anyone else had taken USG’s word for the events. On top of the murderous injury no one wanted to pile on the insult of casting doubts on USG assertions, nor did anyone had any concrete evidence that something was amiss. I think you are wrong in putting so much stock in who was willing to ‘believe’ what on September 12th. The fabric of humanity was torn the day before. all anyone could do was to empathize.

    Political speech, truth, lies and DVDs

    I have covered this before. There are no such things as provable lies, nor honest to goodness universal truths that politicians speechify. I believe you know that. But, you insist on parsing one (translated) sentence out of AN’s speech and call him a lier. Your persistence on such a narrow point, when the larger point was the countless war dead, is misplaced.


    At this point you know more than I do about the polls. What I know is that a non-trivial, large but not a majority of American have various issues with the official story. Non-trivial in the sense that Bill Clinton owes his presidency in part to Ross Pero’s 20% support. Al Gore lost his election bid in part because of Ralph Nader’s 5% support. So, did Ahmadinejad mean a ‘potent force’, as opposed to a ‘majority opinion’? Who knows, who cares? There is sufficient ‘truth’ there to get away with it in the eyes of his intended audience (which did not include you).

    I suspect, even if AN knew that some other surveys that put the numbers at a majority were clearly outliers, he must have felt on sufficiently firm ground to say what he said.

  123. Kathleen says:

    Kooshy you are absolutely wrong. I have individually and with group pressure been able to get through to host of MSM shows and been able to talk, convince, pressure them into having particular quest on their programs and to address certain topics. Direct experience. Giving up is what most folks have done. Contacting them is key. Spreading the word about their unwillingness to address particular issues and their willingness to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran, Palestinians etc needs to have more light shed on their complicity.

    That is the only way things change.

    Unknown unknowns. I am not surprised. But by bring attention to Maddows willingness to repeat these unsubstantiated claims she has done this far far less. Host of MSM outlets need to know we are not only watching, but will bring attention to their complicity and apply pressure. You are naive if you think this does not work. I have had direct success with this strategy

  124. Rehmat says:

    Danny Danon, the deputy speaker of Israeli Knesset has written a letter to US Secrretary of State, Israel-Firster Hillary Clinton, asking her to impose sanctions against Ankara and list Turkey a terror-supporting state – Israeli daily Jerusalem Post reported on September 2, 2011.

    On September 2, Ankara ordered Israeli ambassador in Ankara to pack-up and leave the country within a week. Turkey also has stated that it’s canceling its military cooperation with the Zionist entity.

    After Palmer report leaked to pro-Israel New York Times, which claimed that Israel was right in maintaining its naval blockage of Gaza Strip and that Turkish boat Mavi Marmara trying to break the blockade on May 31, 2010 – was a threat to Israel’s national interests. Therefore, Jewish commandos landing on the boat and killing nine Turkish aid workers cannot be called a crime but a harsh treatment.

    Last week, Turkish Foreign Minister Dr. Ahmet Davutoglu threatened Israel by saying: “Turkey would take every precaution it deems necessary for the safety of maritime navigation in the eastern Mediterranean”.

    Turkish Prime minister Erdogan has called Israel “a spoiled boy”- While former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said that Turkey is not Israel’s enemy and Benji Netanyahu should try to bring Israel’s strategic ally in the region back to its fold.

    However, all these anti-Israel rhetoric coming from Ankara are for the Arab world’s consumption. In reality Turkey has lost it status of an emerging regional power. US-Israel has succeeding in isolating Turkey from its main allies in the Middle East (Syria, Lebanon and Iran to some extent) and Africa (Libya). Furthermore, with no local arms industry, Turkey remains a US-Israel client state for its Army’s needs.

    Israel, still can exploit its allies among Turkish politicians, judiciary, armed forces and country’s powerful Donmey (Crypto-Jewish)’ community.

    Turkey’s trust in Washington and its policy-makers’ miscalculations and wrong planning has brought Ankara to the present situation where being a NATO member and 90 nuclear bomb on its soil – is unable a extract a simple apology from the Zionist regime nextdoor.

    Ankara’s threat to take Mavi Marmara case to International Court of Justice is not going to work either. Like United Nations’ Palmer panel, the ICJ is also infested with pro-Israel individuals. In fact, it may make Turkey’s position even worse by ICJ producing a pro-Israel report.

    If Ankara fails to mend its relations with Syria, Iran and Lebanon soon – Turkey is doomed to go back to its past subversive status.


  125. b says:

    The Leveretts write:

    Central to that speculation is an account of Iran’s election as one of the great frauds in modern political history. This account has been promulgated by agenda-driven Iran “experts” in the West, expatriate Iranians with an animus against the Islamic Republic, and major media outlets.

    That is correct. But who was behind this. Consider this Haaretz article published on June 1 2009, nearly two weeks BEFORE the election in Iran:
    Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran – Foreign Ministry says goal of the campaign ‘to show the world that Iran is not a Western democracy.’

    Organizing demonstrations in front of Iranian consulates worldwide, staging mock stonings and hangings in public, and launching a massive media campaign against Iran – these are just some of the steps Israeli diplomats have been told to take in the coming weeks. The goal, according to a senior Foreign Ministry official, is “to show the world that Iran is not a Western democracy” in the run-up to the country’s presidential election on June 12.

    About a week ago, the head of the ministry’s Task Force on Isolating Iran sent a classified telegram to all Israeli embassies and consulates, titled “Activities in the Run-up to Iran’s Presidential Election.” It detailed things Israeli representatives should do before, during and after the election.

    It was an organized Israeli government campaign, well prepared, that helped to let the Iran election look fraudulent in “western” eyes.

  126. BiBiJon says:

    paul says:
    September 7, 2011 at 6:23 am

    Looking at the scene, wall-to-wall, neoliberal to neoconservative, it can all look very disheartening and end results may seem like foregone conclusions.

    However, outside the self-advertised, all-powerful, makers-of-reality, the rest of the world are not potted plants, oblivious to dangers, waiting to be mowed down, or fertilized by the jethro tulls of the universe.

    Insignificant victories in peripheral battle fields are celebrated so loudly and hedonistically precisely because of the uncomfortable overall truth: the war, closely behind credibility/legitimacy is being lost.

  127. paul says:

    Canning, I find it interesting that you speak of ‘neocon warmongers’. What about neolib warmongers? Do they not concern you?

  128. paul says:

    I find it naive to the point of absurdity that you continue to speak about the ‘hold that the Iran election myth has on western intellectuals and elites’, as if you were not aware of what was obvious to the casual observer back when the myth first started: that both Mousavi AND the western media (which, as you continue to ignore, are owned by a small group of economic powerholders who share most strategic outlooks, such as opposition to Iran’s continued independence from the ‘American Consensus’) had this myth ready to ‘roll out’ before the election even happened. I myself remember all too well the way the Western Media INSTANTLY hyped the Iran ‘stolen election’ theme, something they have a pattern of doing in a selective way that aligns with the consensus of US power elites (for example, they quickly hyped stolen election allegations in Ukraine, but downplayed them as much as possible when they rose up in Mexico). The Iran stolen election myth didn’t just happen. It was carefully cultivated.

    And you also seem naive about where this train is headed, generally speaking. Why is the Iran stolen election myth continually revived? If you look at Libya, it’s not hard to see why. In Libya, a tiny minority faction was able to seize control of the whole country, because it had the backing of US/Nato military power. An NSA official has already stated what is obvious to all; that this is the template for future US ‘interventions’. The next time the ‘Green Revolution’ rises up, as it surely will do, it is likely that the newly perfected template for ‘regime change’ will be applied.

    This is no mere academic exercise. The Iran stolen election myth is a key piece of geopolitical strategy. The wikileaks cable you cite confirms this. As you point out, it’s rubbish in itself. It obviously wasn’t put out there as a serious attempt at analysis. It was part of a campaign to give life to an idea because it was considered, and is considered, useful, not truthful.

  129. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Unfortunately, most of the so-called “Iran experts” in the U.S are just paid propagandists who don’t analyze but engage in wishful thinking that pleases their institutional benefactors. But what is the point of such an exercise? Does it really help understand matters related to Iran if all you are doing is projecting your own subjective opinion and ignoring the evidence?

    Surely the best analysts and experts are those who recognize that things are not as we they would necessarily wish it but who nonetheless deal with the reality of the situation. You would think so anyway.

    Saying the election was “stolen” over and over again does not make it true.

  130. Iranian@Iran says:

    The cartoon is very racist.

    The US and EU will never learn as long as they continue to listen to their so called Iran “experts”.

  131. Fara says:

    “Italian, Japanese and Tunisian ambassadors to Syria have returned to Damascus after they were recalled by their governments over the unrest in the Middle Eastern country”.


  132. Unknown Unknowns says:


    It is not so much that they or anyone else has been “fooled”. I don’t see the structure of reality to be as simple as this: that there is this truth, and either you are on to it or you are not. There are multiple “parallel” realities interwoven into each other with myriad interstices and facets (hence they are not really parallel in the sense that they never touch). Each person occupies a unique locus in this Net of Jewels. Each locus has its own unique laws or better, long-term tendencies, to use Alfred North Whitehead’s happy phrase. Many or much of these tendencies are shared by each locus, the hearts of the sons and daughters of Adam being microcosmic irises (mardomak) affording a glimpse into the mirrored surface which is God. Each locus is veiled from the other loci by varying degrees of separation, veils which are removed as the wayfarer achieves each of the stations (maqaam) on his or her way down from God and back toward Him.

    To God we belong, and to Him is our Return.

    So, I don’t know if that made any sense to you or not… these are not so much concepts as percepts, so their means of conveyance is usually reserved for poetic language (of which capacity I am not, alas, endowed). But anyway, it is not so much that Chomsky is fooled, as it is that he simply put lives in a different reality. A reality in which one of his roles happens to be that of a Left Gatekeper regarding truths having to do with 9/11, the so-called Holocaust (Reg. TM), the great theft of Palistine by a bunch of Godless Europeans aided and abetted by Hitler, Himmler, and that whole unsavory gang of thugs, etc.

    Wa’llahu ‘alam.

    By the way, there is no controversy any longer about the fact that the 6 million figure was nothing but a lie. 2/3rds of the 6 million was supposedly made up by Auschwitz, which was alleged to have been the killing grounds of 4 million Jews. Scholarly consensus in the 80’s (I think it was) including Jewish scholarship revised that figure down to 1 million, and the authorities at the camp quietly took down the plaque that read 4 million and replaced it with one that said 1 million instead. But of course the 6 million (Reg. TM) was not revised down to 3. Go figure.
    Here, this will tell you more about those facts. Its been years since I read this excellent article. You are in for a treat. Holocaust “revisionism” is really one of the most exciting fields of research.


    Then, once that little core belief has been brought down by shaped charges in a controlled demolition, using the good shtuff, David Irving nano-thermite, then you might want to spend a little time studying the *remaining* third of the holocuast, here:


    Once you realize what a preposterous pack of lies the whole thing is, you can kick back and have a few good chuckles as you read this:



    (This is not addressed to you, masoud, but just a statement of fact: Some sheeple are simply not psychologically equipped to deal with stretching their umbilicus so many standard deviations from the center. Nietzsche, that modern rascal (*rend*), deals with the contrast very eloquently in the section “The Higher Man” (in Book IV of Zarathustra). Highly recommended.)

  133. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    OK, am I missing something?
    How can you watch Iran from Dubai?
    Or, is it like, I can see Russia from my backyard in Alaska? All the reports on Iran from neighboring countries are based on mostly hearsay anyway. He said, she said.
    It goes to show you that the wikileaks can be spun any which way you want.
    Now, Mousavi was the ultimate insider in the Iranian government since the revolution. Has anyone ever been able to connect him to the outside forces? How is it that he went against the current? Where did he get his marching orders? Why was the US so adamant that he was the man?

    Thank you RFI/Babel Fish translation services courtesy of Empty, UU, et-al!

    “The tactic to first define a term and then sell the cure is a very old tactic used by pharmaceutical companies which come up with concocting diseases first in order to make the public more open to purchasing their drugs.”

    Nicely done Empty! It reminds me of when GlaxoSmithKline put out the drug Ropinirole to cure the “Restless Leg Syndrome” (i.e. Couch Potato Syndrome). One of the cures for this disease was listed as: “Stretching the leg muscles can bring relief lasting from seconds to days. Walking around brings relief also”

    ” That is to say, the experience of mingling with, and ultimately being more or less subsumed by, a majority culture, is probably universal. Jewish people have not been uniquely persecuted by the universe.”

    Fio, that is to say that there are Jewish “people.” I think you were the one (or was it someone else) to point us to Shlomo Sand claiming that there aren’t.

  134. Unknown Unknowns says:


    They have been fooled.

  135. kooshy says:

    Kathleen says:
    September 6, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Kathleen – in my opinion, there is no way we be able to change the MSM’s current reporting behavior no matter how many complaining comments we post here and there, especially when it comes to US’s foreign policy. Importantly what is really disturbing is that now days, since the system has become more venerable because of the domestic economic conditions, the same behavior has come to be a norm on reporting of internal events and issues, which again is natural, when a regime becomes unaccountable to her citizens and fears a domestic uprising. (Paulson testimony in congress)

  136. masoud says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    September 6, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    You may have thought I was baiting you the last time I asked this, but I am genuinely curious. Do you believe that people like Noam Chomsky, Finkelstein or even the folks from Neteurei Karta on ‘in on it’ when they talk about the Holocaust? Or do you believe that they have been fooled as well?

  137. Unknown Unknowns says:

    On topic, as usual. The HollowCo$t that Failed :o(


    Six million Jews in Poland and Russia threatened with imminent holocaust: this allegation was appearing in such sources as “The New York Times” — but the year was 1919! Don Heddesheimer’s compact but substantive “First Holocaust” documents post-WWI propaganda that claimed East European Jewry was on the brink of annihilation, regularly invoking the talismanic six million figure. It gives details how that propaganda was used to agitate for minority rights for Jews in Poland, and for Zionism and Bolshevism in Poland and Russia; and demonstrates how Jewish fundraising operations in America raised vast sums in the name of feeding Polish and Russian Jews, then funneled much of the money to Zionist and Communist “constructive undertakings” — including banks, unions, and kibbutzes — rather than to starving Jews. “The First Holocaust,” which includes eye-opening testimony from American diplomats and military attachés stationed in Poland and Russia that contradicted Jewish persecution claims, is a valuable study of American Jewish institutional operations at a fateful juncture in Jewish and European history, an incisive examination of a cunningly contrived campaign of atrocity and extermination propaganda, two decades before the alleged WWII Holocaust.

  138. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Dear Kathleen:

    It amazes me that you continue to surprised by this. That’s why they are there. The work for certain organizations whose owners have agendas, which include – fr whatever reason – the demonization of Iran *whilst feigning “objective reporting”*. Your expecting them not to tout the agenda of their owners (who, after all, carefully selected them through a time-tested filtering process) would be just as unreasonable as to expect Iranian state TV not to have a slant, or any state-owned or privately owned organization for that matter. When someone steps out of line, s/he gets Helen Thomas’ed or Phil Donahued.

  139. Kathleen says:

    MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel and Andrea Mitchell repeated the “Iranian election was a fraud” claim over and over again. As well as most of the host of NPR programs.

  140. Rehmat says:

    A recent study by the Center for American Progress (CAP) has revealed that seven US charitable organization have spent $42.6 million during 2001-2009 to spread hatred toward Islam and Muslims. And who lead this Crusade against Muslims? By far too many Israel-Firster Zionist Jews! For example, Daniel Pipes of Middle East Forum, David Horowitz of FrontPage magazine, Yerushalmi of Anti-Sharia compaign, Pamela Geller, a blogger and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism who claims that Bush, Obama and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are too soft on Muslims…….


  141. Rehmat says:

    Well, every myth has some evil agenda behind it. For example – the creation of the Zionist entity in Palestine is entirely based on a number of myths. I have covered only six of them on the following link.


  142. masoud says:

    Looks like the Arab Spring is paying dividends for Palestinians.


    I believe Turkey is still following it’s strategy of middle of the road-ism. They’ve just come to recognize that today the “middle of the road” involves deploying naval assets to Gaza to ensure freedom of navigation(or soon will). If this pans out, it will be an incredible development. I generally don’t like alarmism, but we are getting to the point where Israel might start to believe it won’t have much to lose by resorting to desperate measures.

  143. Ashkan says:

    {Bravo, and great piece. The myth of the “stolen election” is continuing propaganda for neocon warmongers, trying to injure Iran to facilitate..}

    Watch it now! Noam Chomsky, CPD, Juan Cole, CIA Agent, also spread the Iran election
    ‘fraud’ HOAX. All are US government from who pose as ‘progressives’ or ‘left’.
    They have been exposed to the core. John Walsh has written an article to expose the imposter Juan Cole as CIA consultant and of course an agent who poses as ‘opposition’. There is no left and progressives in the US. Majority are cooperating with the war criminals.

  144. Unknown Unknowns says:


    Exactly. Typical Mashhadi holding back! LOL

  145. Unknown Unknowns says:

    The eyes were supposed to fall underneath the eyebrows!

  146. Unknown Unknowns says:

    aaaaaaaaaaahhh, it messed up the formatting. Ignore the formula! It won’t work.

  147. Unknown Unknowns says:


    I think I need to take a nap. I’ve been losing energy all day and the rate of energy loss is given by

    e=1/2mV ^ ^ 2
    0 0

  148. Reza Esfandiari says:

    I think the cartoon could be seen as being almost racist. It comes from people with a mentality that calls people who live in the Middle East “ragheads” who live in “mudhuts”.

  149. James Canning says:


    Certain Saudis were involved in financing the people who set up the “9/11” attacks. Vanity Fair magazine had an excellent article on this just recently. (vf.com)

    The CIA might have been able to thwart the attacks if the NSA (National Security agency) had not withheld key communications intercepts (of al-Qaeda telephone conversations etc).

  150. kooshy says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:

    September 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Otherwise, in Ibn Yamin’s own Khorasani dialect, he should have added the fifth one


  151. Unknown Unknowns says:


    When I see that they support 9/11 as an American conspiracy


    I don’t think any of us have ever stated that 9/11 was an inside job *as a fact*. Speaking for myself, until there is a proper investigation, I remain agnostic on the issue. That said, I think there are *far* more holes that can be pointed out from afar about the official (box-cutter) conspiracy theory than any theory that posits that certain rouge elements of the USG were to some extent involved or even masterminded it using towelhead Wahhabistani boozer and sex-club frequenting patsies. As such, I do believe that the latter theory holds more water (has less holes), but that does not mean that I know what happened. I don’t and can only guess. I do disparage naive sorts (and I am not talking about you here; you have obviously demonstrated a desire to look beyond the surface) who swallow one retarded conspiracy theory whole (the government’s), only to turn around and ridicule others who are much more well-read on the subject and who hold to a more plausible conspiracy plot given the evidence at hand, or hold that other scenarios are more plausible or much much more plausible (as is the case with yours truly).

    Until there is new evidence to the contrary, I remain,

    Yours Agnostically,


  152. James Canning says:


    Yes, many Saudis (including members of the bin Laden family) were flown out of the US immediately after “9/11”. I see no problem with that. Unless certain Saudis who were involved with financing the attacks, were thereby protected.

  153. James Canning says:


    I do not think the neocons could have pulled off their conspiracy to set up an illegal invasion of Iraq, on knowingly false intelligence, without “9/11”. As opportunists waiting for their chance to dupe the American people, “9/11” was a godsend. But it should be remembered that George W. Bush opposed invading Iraq in response to “9/11” because he said Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. The neocons conspired to get past the president’s objections, and to achieve this they planted false intelligence in newspapers, recycled that false intelligence relentlessly, etc.

  154. Photi says:

    As far as a cover-up, the following is what i find most compelling for a 9/11 cover-up:

    “27) Saudi Connections
    a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the “Bin Ladin Airlift” during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.) “


    They (Bush etc) were likely protecting their “friends” (more like their oligarchic and plutocratic interests).

  155. James Canning says:

    John Feffer, at Foreign Policy in Focus, begins his comments today with: “Peace has never been a particularly popular word in Washington, DC. This is, after all, the home of the Pentagon and the major military contractors, not to mention all the think tanks and congressional lapdogs that lie in the king-size family bed with them.”

    Spot on!

  156. Photi says:


    Do you think the neo-cons needed 9/11 to set-up their illegal invasion of Iraq, or do you think they manipulated 9/11 to their advantage after the fact?

  157. Unknown Unknowns says:

    BiBIJon and kooshy:

    Yes, you are correct, Ibn Yamin’s categories are one short: sheer genius and either doesn’t know it or is too modest to tout it!

  158. kooshy says:

    Question 1
    What do you think was the biggest American foreign policy failure in last decade?

    1-Wrong assessments and a consequential failure of Afghanistan- Iraq wars
    2-Failure to engage Iran for a possible course correction / reformation of the US’s middle eastern policy failures
    3-None of the above / no need to answer questions 2 or 3

    Question 2

    Do you think engaging Iran in a meaningful way would have helped easing the American foreign policy impasses in the Middle East, if so why?

    Question 3

    What do you think was the main reason that made the American foreign policy incapable of engaging Iran in a non-combative way?

    If you care to reply please do in as few words as you can

  159. James Canning says:


    Norman Podhoretz, who is a “founding father” of the neocons (who in turn are mostly Jews obsessed with using American power to “protect” Israel), said in 2008 that “victory” in Iraq would be the emergence of a stable ally of Israel and the US, in the Middle East. The neocons were at the heart of the conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  160. James Canning says:


    Ahmadinejad of course posed a good question at the UN in 2010, but in fact the purpose of the Iraq War was to hijack an entire country, to convert it from being anti-Israel to being a stable ally of Israel in the Middle East. This delusional scheme was at the heart of the conspiracy to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  161. Photi says:


    I read BibiJon’s, Unknown Unknowns’, and Empty’s commentaries with great interest because i find them to have valuable insights into the reality regarding the Middle East and America’s relationship to it.

    When I see that they support 9/11 as an American conspiracy, i have a hard time dismissing their sentiments. I am not yet at a place to ‘agree to disagree’ with them. Also, they still might convince me otherwise.

  162. James Canning says:

    Some of the New York Times story on Shamai K. Leibowitz (and the Israeli conspiracy to set up war with Iran by deceiving American newspapers) is available at

  163. fyi says:

    Photi says: September 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    You are wasting your time with a person who cannot even admit to the Truth of the Laws of Physics.

  164. Photi says:

    here is a telling quote about the revenge mentality of GW:

    “President:“Sounds like we have a minor war going on here, I heard about the Pentagon.We’re at war . . . some-body’s going to pay.”


    And this from the Seattle PI story i linked to earlier:

    “University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book “Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture,” said the poll’s findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.
    “What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn’t seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so,” Fenster said. “Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to.”


    And this from President Ahmadinejad’s 2010 UN GA speech:

    “2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?”

    The ‘conspiracy’ and its perceived veracity seems less centered on the direct events of 9/11 and more centered on the US War on Iraq. To some, the Iraq war seems to prove the conspiracy, to me is just goes to show us so many American politicians are a bunch of unprincipled (and i would say evil) opportunists.

  165. James Canning says:

    The story of the FBI’s monitoring of Israeli embassy communications, regarding effort to set up war with Iran by placing false intelligence in American newspapers, has finally hit HuffingtonPost.


  166. Pirouz says:

    It should be pointed out that this report of “Dubai-based Iran observer” was generated by none other than Ramin, now Director of Voice of America- Persian News Network. What does THAT tell you?

    Fine piece, BTW, Leveretts.

  167. James Canning says:


    The ill-considered, and even idiotic, American response to “9/11” seriously damaged the American economy. I see some logic in arguing that Israel may well have been partially pleased, with the attacks, because it meant pressure on Israel to get out of the West Bank would be postponed for years.

  168. James Canning says:


    We should also bear in mind that G W Bush refused to consult his own father, regarding what to do in the Middle East after “9/11”. G H W Bush would not have invaded Iraq on the basis of what was known at the time of the invasion.

  169. James Canning says:


    I don’t think it even occurred to G H W Bush or Barbara, that G W Bush would become president, until very late in the game. They did see good prospects for Jeb Bush (another son, and governor of Florida).

  170. James Canning says:


    I think Iran would be allowed to produce LEU if it made more conciliatory statements toward its Gulf neighbors, and muted some of the denunciations of Israel that emanate from Tehran.

  171. Photi says:


    “I tend to think people who keep saying he lied, to have an agenda. Share your purposes for this line of comments if you want further replies from me.”

    Fair enough i guess, this is the Middle East, America and Disinformation Central we are talking about.

    It is my contention that speaking truth to power requires speaking the truth. The moral argument in on the side of the IRI, so why misconstrue statistics to show the statistics say something they do not? i keep asking, where is the statistic that shows the majority of the American public think 9/11 was an inside job? I see it as a legitimate question.

    Furthermore, I am also trying to discern exactly what the leaders in the IRI believe with regards to 9/11. Is there a consensus there that 9/11 was an American conspiracy? If so, when did this consensus come about? In 2002 and 2003 the Iranians were helping the Americans arrest al Qaida suspects (so says Hillary Mann Leverett). In 2010 President Ahmadinejad tells the UN “…[t]hat some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.
    The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

    Is the President making this apparently not-so-true observation to suggest anything about the Iranian government’s position regarding 9/11? i brought up the Iranian governments’s assistance to the US War on Terror to demonstrate, that at least in 2002-2003, Iran must have pre-supposed their (al-qaida’s) guilt. If this is not the case, please help me to understand Iranian behavior better then (after all, George Bush did say “you are either with us or against us”; was their behavior concerning the arrest of al-Qaida based on fear of US reprisal?).

    Unknown Unknowns asked me how i could take a position that 1.2 billion of my co-religionists refute. I am left wondering whether or not the Iranian government in fact takes the same position as these 1.2 billion Muslims.

  172. kooshy says:

    A minor addition to my earlier post regarding the Ibn Yamin’s categories and GBJ, aka W

    I do believe that even GB senior knew what category his son GB junior was ranked at, but he wasn’t able to resist the significance of denying the nation of having the second father and son presidency in this new American century, that or he couldn’t say no to Barbara.

  173. ASET says:

    A new wikileaks find:

    “Australia, US plotted to block ElBaradei’s 2005 re-election as atomic energy agency chief”


  174. BiBiJon says:

    From Reza’s CSIS poll link:

    “Former presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani enjoy
    broad popularity. Green Movement, Moussavi, and
    Karroubi are favored by 2535%.”

    Independent polls show large turnout similar to
    official election returns.

    Around 60% say they voted for Ahmadinejad in
    2009 election.

  175. BiBiJon says:

    Thank you Leveretts once again.

    Ahmadinejad is arriving in the US soon. The timing of recycled nonsense about elections is not coincidental.

  176. BiBiJon says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    September 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Please also rank according to your quartet categories where do the following type of remarks fall?

    When a moving object suddently stops, its kinetic energy is converted into heat.

    That energy is given by e=1/2 m V ^ 2.

    In such situations, the material object first melts – then the molten material cuts through all in its path like a hot knife through butter; it melts steel.


    Airplanes were travelling at 500 knots – the kinetic energy is 466 billion joules per kilogram of material.

    The latent heat of melting for Aluminum is 321 Kilo Jules/Kg

    The specific heat is about 900 Jules/Kg/Kelvin

    To raise it to 600 C, is about 540,000 Joules for 1 Kilo of Aluminum.

    So 321000 joules would go into melting one kilogram of Al.

    So total needed is 540,000 + 321,000 ~ 1000 Kilo Joules pr Kg.

    The rest is avialable for melting steel.

    To raise the temperature of one kilogram of steel from 20 C to 1515 C requires

    620 X 1515 = 939 KJ

    There is plenty of energy left to melt things.

  177. Reza Esfandiari says:

    Let’s not forget the International Peace Institute’s Poll (I am surprised the Leveretts are not aware of it):


    It found that 58% of respondents had said they voted for Ahmadinejad and still “strongly supported him.” But it also shows a society divided on many social issues, such as the issue of the morality police (which Mousavi said he would dismantle). Like the other polls, it was completely ignored by the mainstream western media.

    As for the election, Mousavi won easily in the city of Tehran and Shemiran where the bulk of the protests took place. Unfortunately, the election was not for who was to become mayor of Tehran but president of the whole of Iran – all 366 districts.

  178. BiBiJon says:

    Photi says:
    September 6, 2011 at 4:04 pm


    for the last time.

    I know of no politician making a speech and go through sets, and subsets, and sub-sub sets of statistical data, and rarely give shout out for the source of that data. They tend to make a general statement, embellishment and all, as a preamble to what ever point they’re making.

    Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN was of that ilk. His point — it is wrong to start wars that have cost a great many lives before considering who/what/why, and which best course of action is just/suitable — you have said you regard as valid.

    Why make it as provocative as he did? Because, Islamophobes’ cause célèbre is unquestionably the 9/11 tragedy. Having given up on education as a short-term remedy, Ahmadinejad is answering the likes of Tony Blair who knit Iran, “9/11 changed everything”, Iraq fiasco, and al-Qaeda into a seamless call for a war of aggression. He is directly confronting the emotional hot button that Tony Blair and others manipulate to whip up American rage against Muslims, hoping to avert the bombing of Iran until at least his next UN speech.

    I tend to think people who keep saying he lied, to have an agenda. Share your purposes for this line of comments if you want further replies from me.

  179. kooshy says:

    Unknown Unknowns / Empty

    Re the translation on

    September 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    I wonder which one of the four categories in Ibn Yamin’s poem does Mr. Donald Rumsfeld qualifies in, I categorically and surly know where the GB junior fits.

  180. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Cyrus says:
    September 6, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    You are right: the Axis of Weasels is at it again: They want to have the cake of claiming that the system is undemocratic because the vetting process means that the system is not “open” (as if there is *any* system in the world that does not have some form of vetting..), and then they want to eat their cake too by reserving the right to declare massive election fraud when the wrong fully vetted candidate wins.

    Freakin’ eejits.

  181. Photi says:

    *comment meant for the other thread

  182. Photi says:


    Some version of this quote is what i came up against looking for the proper statistics:

    “Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”


    In my opinion, ‘participation in the attacks’ and ‘taking no action to stop them’ are two different opinions which would need to be separated out. Certainly, “taking no action to stop them” is horrific in its own right, but the sentiment does not equate to believing the US government planned and carried out the attacks.

    The negligence (or outright treason, whatever the case may be), and the extent that the American public believes there was negligence, would have to be defined before making definitive conclusions about what these statistics demonstrate.

  183. Cyrus says:

    And of course no one can explain WHY there would be any need to engage in election fraud to keep Mousavi out of office. Mousavi is a regime insider who had been vetted and cleared to run for office; suddenly his supposed election victory posed such a threat to the same regime that they had to resort to massive election fraud to keep him out? LOL!

  184. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Well, you asked, so here is my gloss on the quartet:

    He who knows not and knows he knows not, perchance he will manage to limp home his cart.
    He who knows not and knows not he knows not, in eternal confirmed error shall he remain.
    He who knows and knows not he knows, waken this wretch from his ignorant slumber!
    He who knows and knows he knows, *he* it is who shall master his destiny!

    I don’t think the second hemistitch in the original is important; it simply plays the role of a filler, enabling the wordsmith to continue cleverly to juxtapose the variations on ‘daanestan’ in the first hemistitch (misra’). Because the poem is a lyric and not intended to be laden with meaning, if one does not spend the time to rhyme it in its entirety when translating (while maintaining the clever formula), it fails to titillate and falls flat. But as to the first misra’, I would have stuck to this simple formula:

    He who knows and knows he knows, …
    He who knows and knows not he knows, …
    He who knows not and knows he knows not, …
    He who knows not and knows not he knows not, …

  185. Liz says:

    A very good article. Thank you.

  186. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty: I find Steingass to be head and shoulders above any other Persian to English dictionary out there, despite the fact that he wrote it over a century ago. And of course by now some of the usage has become archaic, which adds to its value. Kinda like having archaic and eating it too :)


  187. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Empty says:
    September 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    From a strictly logical point of view, you are correct of course. But I was not trying to score a point of logic. He started his post with “Once again – “, and being the self-designated class clown, I posted the first thing that came to mind to score a smile or two or perhaps even a chuckle. You of everyone know well the limits of the ambit of logic.

    By the way, the translation of the poem is not mine, it appeared in Wikipedia together with the Persian text. I read the first line and saw that it was not even making an attempt at fidelity to the original, so I didn’t read the rest. Now back to your other post to read your rendition.

  188. Clint says:

    maybe if the shah came back Iran could enrich again….

  189. James Canning says:

    Does anyone think Iran would cease production of LEU if, somehow, Mousavi became president?

  190. James Canning says:

    Bravo, and great piece. The myth of the “stolen election” is continuing propaganda for neocon warmongers, trying to injure Iran to facilitate continuing oppression of the Palestinians by Israel.