America and the Middle East: It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again


Strikingly, today, February 11, is both the anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Iranian Revolution over the U.S.-installed Shah and anniversary of the 2011 overthrow of longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (another American puppet)—surely the high point of what so many came to call the “Arab Awakening” or “Arab Spring.”

For the occasion, Al Jazeera has published Hillary’s latest Op Ed—see here; we also append the text below.  In it, Hillary argues that, in their approach to Egypt’s (now aborted) revolution and other manifestations of the Arab Awakening, Washington elites seem to have learned nothing from their predecessors’ destructive and counter-productive response to the Iranian revolution.

As long as Washington clings to the murderous illusion of its hegemonic “leadership” in the Middle East, it needs cooperative autocrats to facilitate its imperial project.  This means that the United States cannot endorse moves toward truly representative governance in the region.  For any regional government accountable to its own people and not to Washington will pursue foreign policy independence.

As Hillary writes, “Putting US strategy in the Middle East on a more positive and productive trajectory will require Washington to accept the region on its own terms, to deal straightforwardly with all relevant (and authentic) actors, and to admit that trying to coercively micromanage political outcomes in Muslim-majority societies isn’t just incompatible with claims to respect popular sovereignty—it is unsustainable and counter-productive for long-term US interests.”  Until that happens, the bloody and self-damaging results of America’s Middle East policy will continue to mount.

As always, we encourage you to post comments both here and on the Al Jazeera Web site.

America and the Arab Awakening:  Déjà Vu?

by Hillary Mann Leverett

Three years ago, Washington experienced its own dose of “shock and awe”—the PR phrase used to sanitise its brutal invasion of Iraq—when hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary Arabs took to the streets to demand the overthrow of leaders more interested in Washington’s approval than that of their own peoples.  But American policy elites’ professed surprise was primarily a function of their own self-imposed amnesia and delusion.

No one in Washington seemed to realise or care that Egyptians forced their pro-American dictator from power on February 11, 2011—32 years to the day after the Shah of Iran’s military conceded to the will of the Iranian people, giving birth to the Islamic Republic of Iran and bringing down a pillar of American dominance in the region.  On the eve of Iran’s revolution, as a deep and abiding thirst for independence was sweeping through Iran, President Jimmy Carter toasted the shah, in “great tribute…to your leadership and to the respect and the admiration and love which your people give to you.”

Thirty-two years later, US foreign policy elites seemed to have learned little.  When similar revolutionary fervour threatened another pillar of US dominance in the Middle East—Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak—the Obama administration appeared to be following the example of its 1970s predecessor.  Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed that Mubarak wasn’t “a dictator” because he was an American ally and a friend of Israel—thereby highlighting that the only way an Arab leader can be those things is by being a dictator.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already declared “President and Mrs Mubarak to be friends of my family.”

But with security forces marauding through Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square, killing nearly 1,000 people by the time Mubarak finally resigned—and drawing more people to protest, instead of repelling them—alarm set in among Washington’s foreign policy elite.  Could the US really lose the Egyptian pillar it had so assiduously co-opted after its Iranian pillar was tossed out in 1979?

When Washington finally understood that Mubarak’s days were numbered, as Carter had finally understood with the shah, the Obama administration tried to orchestrate a “transition” to Mubarak’s reviled intelligence chief.  Omar Suleiman was the man responsible for “rendering” Egyptians to be tortured for the CIA and for collaborating with Israel to keep the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza under siege.  When that did not work, Washington set out to co-opt and then abort what it termed the Arab Spring—a Western phrase meant to depict movement toward secular liberalism rather than toward participatory Islamist governance.

Unchanging foreign policy

Mubarak’s departure brought into uncomfortably stark relief a reality that US policymakers had denied since the overthrow of the shah thirty-two years before. US efforts to use cooperative autocrats—autocrats willing to facilitate US military aggression, to torture alleged “terrorists” (their own citizens) for the CIA’s benefit, and to tolerate a militarily dominant Israel engaged in open-ended occupation of Arab populations—to promote American hegemony over the Middle East were unacceptable to the vast majority of people there.

As protests unfolded in Egypt, large numbers of demonstrators in Yemen demanded that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh—a major US counter-terror collaborator—resign.  Three days after Mubarak’s removal, large-scale protests paralysed Bahrain—home of the US Fifth Fleet—underscoring the threat to America’s regional hegemony even more dramatically.

US foreign policy elites were not just concerned about a precipitous erosion of the US strategic position in the Middle East.  They also worried about what the spread of popular demand for leaderships accountable to their peoples, not to Washington, would mean for the hegemonic house of cards the US had imposed on the region.

It was clear—and has become ever clearer over the past three years—that the majority of population in the Middle East want to vote for their leaders and to have a voice in decision-making on issues affecting their daily lives and social identities.  But they also want that to happen in an explicitly Islamic framework – not in some secular, liberal “Spring” context, divorced from their identities and ability to assert real independence.

When given the chance to express preferences about their political futures, Middle Eastern Muslims do not embrace the sort of secular liberalism that America might be able to countenance as an alternative to pro-Western autocracy.  Rather, they vote for Islamists espousing the integration of participatory politics and elections with Islamic principles—and with a commitment to foreign policy independence.

Thus, in early 2011, Washington was anxious that the Arab Awakening would ultimately benefit the Islamic Republic of Iran.  For the Islamic Republic is the Middle East’s only political system that, since 1979, has actually tried to integrate participatory politics and elections with principles and institutions of Islamic governance.  It has also been an exemplar of foreign policy independence, embodied in its consistent refusal to submit to the imperatives of a pro-US regional order.

Three US goals in the Middle East

Faced with these risks to its hegemonic ambitions, the US could not simply declare its opposition to popular sovereignty in the Middle East.  Instead, the Obama administration crafted a policy response to the Arab Awakening that had three major goals.  In the course of pursuing these goals, the administration—with strong bipartisan backing in Congress—has imposed even more instability and violence on the region.  It has also set the stage for further erosion of the credibility and effectiveness of US policy in a vital part of the world.

The Obama administration’s first goal was to prevent the Arab Awakening from taking down any more US allies.  To that end, the administration tacitly (but happily) acquiesced to the Saudi-led military intervention in Bahrain on March 14, 2011 to sustain the Khalifa monarchy.  As a result, the monarchy continues to hold on to power (for now) and US naval forces continue operating out of Bahrain.

At the same time, Washington’s support for suppressing popular demands for political change there through Saudi Arabia’s armed intervention has helped fuel a dangerous resurgence of sectarian tensions across the Middle East.  This, in turn, has given new life to al-Qaeda and similar jihadi movements around the region.

The Obama administration’s second goal was to co-opt the Arab Awakening for US purposes, by showing that, somewhere in the Middle East, the US could put itself on the “right” side of history.  So, when Saudi Arabia offered the Arab League “cover” to intervene in Libya and arm anti-Gaddafi rebels, President Barack Obama overrode objections by his defence secretary and military leaders to order US forces into action.

On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council narrowly adopted a resolution authorising use of force to protect civilian populations in Libya.  In short order, Team Obama distorted it to turn civilian protection into coercive regime change.  The results have been disastrous for US interests and for the region:  Worsening violence in Libya, a growing jihadi threat in North Africa, a dead US ambassador, and more polarised US relations with Russia and China.

The Obama administration’s third goal was to show that, after the loss of pro-Western regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and near-misses in Bahrain and Yemen, it wasn’t just authoritarian regimes willing to subordinate their foreign policies to the US that were at risk from popular discontent.  In particular, Washington wanted to demonstrate that it was also possible to bring down regimes with clear commitments to foreign policy independence—and, in the process, weaken not just Iran’s strategic position but that of Islamists across the region promoting participatory Islamist governance.

Soon after unrest started in Syria in March 2011, the Obama administration saw an opening, declaring that President Bashar al-Assad “must go” and goading an externally supported “opposition” to undermine him—if not bring him down. It was clear from the start that arming a deeply divided opposition would not bring down the Syrian government.  Nevertheless, Washington joined with its so-called allies in Riyadh, Paris, and London in an almost desperate attempt to roll back Iran’s rising power.

Almost three years on, Iraq, as well as Iran, have been hurt by this misadventure—but the American and the Syrian people have paid a much higher price.  Washington has paid in terms of its regional standing, intensification of the regional resurgence of violent extremists, and further polarisation of relations with Russia and China; Syria, of course, has paid with over 100,000 Syrians killed (so far) and millions more displaced.

More recently, the Obama administration’s tacit backing for the military coup that overthrew Egypt’s democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood president in July 2013 has removed any residual doubt that the US, intent on clinging to its hegemonic prerogatives in the Middle East, can endorse moves toward real democracy in the region.  Putting US strategy in the Middle East on a more positive and productive trajectory will require Washington to accept the region on its own terms, to deal straightforwardly with all relevant (and authentic) actors, and to admit that trying to coercively micromanage political outcomes in Muslim-majority societies isn’t just incompatible with claims to respect popular sovereignty—it is unsustainable and counter-productive for long-term US interests.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


336 Responses to “America and the Middle East: It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again”

  1. fyi says:

    The Leveretts:

    I think it would be useful to articulate a vision for the future of the United States relations with the Muslim World that is devoid of the rancor and enmity currently obtaining – especially within the United States where hatred for Islam and Iran permeates large social strata and very many geographic regions.

    To wit; one could suggest – as a goal of US Foreign Policy – to recapitulate her position among Muslims at the turn of the last century; a friend of all and an enemy of none, and an enabler of development aide and ideas.

    Recently, Mr. Qalibaf observed that “we have been a developing country for 50 years.” I believe that is the major concern of all these societies, to get out of the poverty and squalor of the past centuries. US could aide them.

    This would require the United States to settle the war in Palestine. If she is not capable of doing so, then she should strive to reach the parameters of a Cease Fire – the HAMAS Hudna – perhaps.

    The current US policy has no positive content when it comes to the over-riding concern of the people of the Middle East – development. Her policies, “Destroy Syria to Develop her Later” are just insane.

    At some point in the future, Iran could be exporting rugs to US and importing passenger airplanes.

    That should be the end goal of US policy and not a security-heavy policy that is unsustainable either in the short or long term.

    [EU states, unfortunately, to the extent that they never oppose US policies seriously, are only enabling a hegemony-addicted Mad King to use more of the same drug.]

  2. fyi says:


    An Israeli view on the Iran Nuclear Deal:

  3. Fiorangela says:

    The Gulf and Iran: New Realities, New Strategies

    “. . .not all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are on the same wavelength. Oman has adopted a neutral approach, while playing the role of facilitator in US-Iran relations when it hosted preparatory diplomacy for the nuclear deal. Qatar is vying to position itself as a key regional and international player. The UAE is confused and has sided with Saudi Arabia, while also attempting to ease its own tensions with Iran. Saudi Arabia has intensified its proxy wars against Iran, feeling both threatened and betrayed by the recent US-Iran rapprochement. . . .”

  4. James Canning says:

    I continue to see the effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad as a way to weaken Iran’s strategic position, in case war comes to the Gulf. But Iran would surely be a stronger “rising power” if the sanctions were lifted. Which Obama appears willing to accept.

  5. nico says:

    Canning says :

    “Empty claimed that Europeans should not have created colonies in the New World 500 years ago without “approval” of various tribes etc that lived in the New World. No suggestion whatever as to how this would have been accomplished.”

    You are right.
    Right then should the native have had deterrent means the colonization would have not occured.

    Surely every and all countries should get nukes immediately right now in order to avoid such immoral principle you support and which led to Syria plots, Lybia, Irak, Afghanistan and so on and on and on.

    Smith is correct on that point.

    You are the thugish example of the worst kind of materialistic and immoral thinking.

    No surprise.
    You have no ethic, no morality, no principles.
    Sure. For you history has no direction.
    You have no goal and no aim beyong yourself and what you consider as your due.

  6. Fiorangela says:

    MUSCAT Feb 10 2014 “Iran will invest $4 billion in the industrial port of Al Duqm and will also implement a number of mega projects in the Sultanate as part of the deep-rooted relationship between the two countries, indicating that the port will be a connecting link between Iran, Gulf States and several Asian Countries. This was stated by Ali Akbar Sibawaih, the accredited Ambassador of Iran to the Sultanate, during a press conference yesterday. . . .”


    “MUSCAT — The new Oman Railway Company SAOC, which will oversee the implementation and operation of the country’s national rail network, is envisaged as a dynamic and forward-looking organisation with a world-class outlook, but guided by a strong mandate to drive localisation and in-country value development.
    According to Oman Rail officials, the wholly government-owned entity will also serve as a strategic enabler where, given its pivotal role as a national railway organisation, will be expected to leverage the nation’s rail system to drive socio-economic development across the breadth of the country.
    Abu Timam Grant Thornton, a leading accounting and consulting firm providing assurance, tax and advisory services to privately held businesses and public interest entities, has been contracted by the Omani government to study the organisational design and structure of the new national railway company.”

    The USA invests in war.

  7. Karl.. says:

    Great article as usual Leverett’s. Wish to see Leverett’s on MSM debating with lindsay graham or rob menedez or why not even obama!

    Yes regime change will always be there against Iran, US havent learned anything. I guess in 2015 or late 2014 there will be some great push for this by american/europe.

  8. Fiorangela says:

    fyi says:
    February 11, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Words not heard in the MEPC panel discussion:

    –rule of law
    –jus ad bellum, jus in bello

    = = =

    The panelists anguished over the “unspeakable” suffering in Syria, which caused me to think of Madeleine Albright. I wondered if the calculation is that Syrian deaths are at only one hundred- to two hundred-thousand; Albright’s benchmark is 500,000 children. So if you really want this war to be over, you people of Syria, and for the USA to stop sending weapons to the people who are killing you, line up your babies. C’mon c’mon, don’t dawdle.

    Jonathan Swift

    = = =

    Speaking of Albright —

    Gareth Porter’s book, “Manufactured Crisis,” debunks nearly every point David Albright made in this panel discussion.

    It is terrifying to think that my country’s posture in the world is in the hands of people such as those who spoke on this panel. Cordesman had some lucid points to make, but for the most part, the panelists appear to have abandoned any sense of moral values, and instead, are afflicted with what Thomas Fleming called A Disease in the Public Mind.

    Although it was difficult to point to a home run for especially disturbing and detached from reality comment, Richard LeBaron, former U.S. Ambassador to Kuwait, touched the most bases with this:

    “I mean, I’m one of those people who, you know — I joined the Foreign Service in the fall of 1979, you know, so I remember the hostages. I remember it vividly, being up in the middle of the night and the State Department’s operations center trying to get a few of my colleagues out of Tehran. That’s scarred on the memory of a lot of Americans. When they think of Iran, a lot of them in my generation think of the hostage crisis, and that’s the only thing that comes to mind. They don’t think of ancient Persian cultures. They don’t think of Isfahan or the history of Iran. They think of recent historical events that have all been negative.

    So I think changing that environment is critical to deciding whether we’re dealing with credible partners; you know, whether those partners can get over the neuroses that — the political neuroses that’s been created over the last 30 years by a pattern of distrust and demonization. And I think that’s — for the Gulf, in a sense, that’s important as well because they’ve demonized as well. And Saudi Arabia is viewed as an enemy by the Iranians, so getting over this politics of demonization is critical.”

    I agree that “changing the environment of demonization is critical to deciding whether we’re dealing with credible partners.”

    One step in that change process that LeBaron might consider would be brushing up on the more recent history of Iran; “Going to Tehran” offers some insights, such as this passage:

    “Iranian leaders … used the hostages as bargaining chips to trade for an American commitment not to attak or subvert the Islamic Republic. And that is what they got, enshrined in the very first article of the Algiers Accord . . . “The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”59

    Even as the accord was being negotiated, the United States was betraying its spirit. The CIA knew in advance of Saddam’s plans to attack Iran. . . .Washington did not try to stop the Iraqis because, then vice president Walter Mondale explained, “We believed that this war would put further pressure on the Iranian government.”60 In fact, in the months before the invasion the Carter administration explored possibilities for closer ties to Saddam’s government.” [p. 49]

    If LeBaron is really interested in deescalating demonization, he might reflect on the numbers of Iranians (and Iraqis) who died in that war; he might do some research and discover that USA corporations supplied Saddam with 650 000 tons of chemical precursor, as well as intelligence to Iraqi forces to enable them to drop deadly chemicals on Iranian civilians.

    When I travelled to Iran, the Iranian woman in the seat next to me on the flight into Tehran was returning home from a visit with her brother in a hospital in Germany. He would never leave that hospital, his lungs were too scarred from having been attacked with chemicals. He is but one of about 50,000 Iranians who were permanently scarred by that war that the US administration participated in.

  9. James Canning says:


    Richard LeBaron wants to beat that dead horse yet again? The “hostage crisis”. Caused in large part by blunders by the Carter administration.

  10. James Canning says:


    No “push” for regime change, if Iran makes a deal with P5+1.

  11. Fiorangela says:

    There were more shameful displays in the MEPC conference.

    One of them is hidden behind the words (in the transcript) “cross talk”.

    Earlier, an Iranian person in the audience said this:

    “Q: My name is Hassan; I was born in Tehran. I’ve been in America since 1960; I’ve seen many presidents and many relationships going up and down during these times. Ever since the Iranian revolution, for some reason, America has decided to kind of write off Iran and neglect the population and their desires. I just heard by some of the speakers comparing Iran and Arabia as two big countries. Arabia has only five or 10 million people; Iran has 85 million, and Arabia has lots of people coming in to perform certain things, but anyway, I think, when there is a dispute or disagreement in any kind, if you’re not honest enough to express your grievances and ask the other part their grievances, then, you know, you will not be able to go anywhere.

    Dr. Albright said that Iranians are — cheated, or they did lots of things, and they made 20 percent plates to do their reactors, and all they had to do, ask the world community to sell to them, well, they did, and nobody sell to them, and that’s what they did. Now, this event or this conflict will come to an end, either we like it or not, and if the (ultimate ?) is the attack on Iran, people over there are getting ready to receive such an attack, but nobody is welcoming war, and sometime, you know, we have to be very careful when we keep threatening. The options are on the table — not only us — the Israelis also.

    If we could have done this five years ago, 10 years ago, or even a month or two months ago, we would have done it. So what this impression gives the other people in that part of the world is our impotence. We say something; we cannot follow through. And I’d like to know if, six months from now, the demand that is made to Iran of dismantling their program is not met by Iranians because they have a stiff opposition inside of Iran right now, what are we going to do?”

    Cordesman responded to the question at the end of the comment by noting that the administration had to deal with the US Congress [earlier, a panel member said that unlike the US president, Rouhani does not have freedom to act] which, he speculated, would impose more sanctions.

    The Q and A segment continued, and at the very end this —

    “DR. MATTAIR: By the way, a former questioner said there were about 5 million people in Arabia. For the record, it’s more like 25 million. What’s the population of Saudi Arabia?
    AMB. FRAKER: Close to 30 (million) now.
    DR. MATTAIR: Close to 30 (million.)
    (Cross talk.)”

    In that Cross talk, the Iranian audience member requested permission to respond.

    “No” was the answer.

    = = =

    “So I think changing that environment is critical to deciding whether we’re dealing with credible partners; you know, whether those partners can get over the neuroses that — the political neuroses that’s been created over the last 30 years by a pattern of distrust and demonization. . . .”

  12. James Canning says:


    You may know that Saudi Arabia has millions of foreign workers, and that the government is trying to send many of them home. Causing serious labour supply problems in KSA.

  13. Rehmat says:

    Iranians mark 35 years of Islamic Revolution

    Yuram Abdullah Weiler, an American political critic and journalist who converted to Islam in 2003, in an Op-Ed at Tehran Times said: “US leaders advocating regime change should learn from Saddam who, expecting weak resistance when he invaded Iran in 1980, found the Iranian people united against him. The time has come for the US to recognize the Islamic Republic, which, no doubt, will continue to show its remarkable resilience well into the future. To US officials: The Islamic Republic of Iran is here for good – get over it!”.

  14. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 11, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    We will never know if that is what the Iranian audience member wished to say.

    A major theme in “War and Peace” is the complex set of simple human interactions, personalities, exigencies that converge to make war a reality. Dostoevsky insists that great leaders do not start/make war; Napoleon did not make war, and he certainly did not produce victories, tho he may have been responsible for the decisions that resulted in defeat.

    The collection of men in that panel, and their hateful and know-it-all attitudes, are the stuff that wars are made of. Napoleon was a strong personality who, if he had had advisors such as that collection of Tin Men and Scarecrows, would have been able to reduce them to a pile of rust and rags. It’s not certain that Obama has that strength of character, or, more disconcerting, if he actually shares their vision.

    — In analyses of the Cuban missile crisis, students of organizational psychology pointed to the phenomena of “Yes men” and group-think — no personalities in JFK’s orb had the ability to put their careerism on the line in favor of truth-telling.

  15. Fiorangela says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 11, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    ” Dostoevsky insists that great leaders do not start/make war; ”

    That may be true, but Tolstoy wrote “War and Peace.”
    mea culpa

  16. Karl.. says:

    UK dictator king prince charles to visit his dictator kings in qatar, saudiarabia.

  17. BiBiJon says:

    “Is the eight hundred pound gorilla of Capitol Hill really weakened? On its way out? Was AIPAC always a bit of a paper tiger, which could be blown away as soon as an American president set his mind to it?”

  18. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 11, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    CSIS and MEPC both receive funds from Saudi Arabia.

    They cannot and do not honestly and clearly discuss Saudi Arabia or other Arabs – you have to read in between the lines.

    To wit: you can see that Dr. Cordesman clearly articulates the need for Iran to field nuclear weapons for reasons of national security imperatives of the Iranian state regardless of her form of government.

    Saudi Arabia is not a country in the sense that Iran, Turkey, Romania, France and Egypt are.

    None of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf are real countries that posses a national ethos.

    There is a tribe running the show in Saudi Arabia, another one in Yemen (the Houthi Shia – the nastiest tribe there) and so on and so forth.

    [During the 20-th century, the independent power of tribes in Iran was destroyed.]

    As long as US planners and leaders are unwilling to admit that they are in a religious war with Islam on behalf of the Jewish Fantasy project in Palestine we will have no improvement in the relationship between Axis Powers and the world of Islam and Iran.

    This will outlast our lives, I should expect.

  19. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 11, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    After writing a few paragraphs, which turned out to be self-therapy, I was reminded of the following article discussing Glen Greenwald’s talk in December:

    The summary on RT captures the essence of my response. Rather than be surprised by the expression of amoral and unethical views by our public officials, our media stars, or our talking heads, we should instead be surprised when they espouse views that are moral and ethical! As Glen Greenwald makes the point, US and British officials routinely lies to the people and media.

    A healthy distrust of the officialdom would have made the selling of the Iraq war, the Libya war, the Syria war, … more difficult. As human beings, it appears that we are wired to begin at the “trust” side of the scale. And, perhaps this is a healthy assumption for the vast majority of our encounters. Yet, it would seem to me that empirical evidence suggests the alternative: when evaluating any statements of officialdom – politicians, media rock stars, talking heads – we, as human beings, need to (and have yet to) train ourselves to start from the “distrust” side of the scale.

  20. James Canning says:


    Those trying to “sell” a military intervention for the US in Syria have obviously faced a good deal of opposition. The current instability in Libya helps to explain some of the strength of opposition to US military intervention in the civil war.

  21. James Canning says:


    Aipac continues to wield great power within the US Congress, and its ability to prevent Obama from pressuring Israel to get out of the West Bank.

  22. James Canning says:


    The Prince of Wales works continuously toward fostering better relations between Muslims and Christians. And he does a great deal to help young Muslims in Britain get started in business etc etc. His trip to the Persian Gulf is a good thing.

  23. James Canning says:


    Napoleon Bonaparte “did not make war”? In fact, he made a very great deal of war, for many years. At a terrible cost to the people of France.

  24. Kathleen says:

    Thank you Hillary Mann Leverett.

  25. Karl.. says:

    Problem is that no one care besides iran (and sometimes syria), name me one other country which take a stance against israel and us policies against them?

  26. fyi says:


    Yet another attempt to start the war in Syria:

    First Syria and then Iran….

    It is relentless….

  27. James Canning says:


    what “stance against Israel” do you think countries should have? That what is needed is getting rid of Israel? Or getting Israel out of the West Bank and Golan Heights?

  28. James Canning says:


    Interesting report (dealings at UN on Syria), that you linked. But I think Obama does not want to intervene in the Syrian civil war.

  29. Karl.. says:

    netayahu to visit america again.

    Prepare for new threats against Iran in march.

  30. Fiorangela says:

    The Latest United States Sanctions Against Iran: What Role to the WTO Security Exceptions?

    George-Dian Balan*

    ↵* Teaching and Research Fellow, OSCE Academy, Visiting Lecturer in Law, Vietnam National University, Attorney-at-law, Iaşi Bar. Email: d.balan at osce-academy dot net.


    “The US initiated the sanctions campaign against Iran at the end of the 1970s for national security reasons. The most significant step was arguably taken years later by the Clinton administration, by enacting the famous Iran and Libya Sanctions Act in 1996. Because of the extraterritorial effects of these sanctions, the European Commission reacted promptly, putting the matter on the table at the same time with the Helms-Burton claims, the latter becoming the first formal WTO request for the establishment of a panel related to security exceptions. Since 2006 the landscape has been changing and the UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions culminating with Resolution 1929 of June 2010. The United States’ implementing measures go beyond the Security Council’s mandate and some of them can be characterized as secondary sanctions. After a short overview of the possible violations of WTO law there follows a thorough analysis of the potentially available justifications. One of the key questions is whether a WTO Member can justify economic sanctions in excess of the UN mandate by using a unilateral defense in addition to the obvious multilateral justification.” [abstract. full article behind paywall or institutional access]
    © Oxford University Press all rights reserved

  31. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 13, 2014 at 10:47 am

    These are all fine legal points if there existed an underlying jus.

    There is no such jus; Americans and Russians damaged it during the Cold War and US and EU Proceeded to kill it during their unilateral moment – 1991-2008.

    Appeals to WTO, NPT, the Charter of UN by weak states such as Russia, Iran, Arabs, African states only are useful as diplomatic and propaganda operations.

    The reality is that there is a military alliance of 1 billion people that does not care about the Law.

    Russians understand that and they also understand that they cannot fight that alliance except at the strategic level.

    Nor can they fight China, except at the strategic level.

    So, they go about invoking International Law to constrain the exercise of power by Axis Powers.

    It is a charade in so far as the Axis Powers are still willing to abide by the institutions of the Peace of Yalta.

  32. Fiorangela says:

    New York Times
    http slash slash www dot nytimes dot com/2014/02/12/world/middleeast/anniversary-of-islamic-revolution-in-iran dot html?_r=0

    Cries of ‘Death to America’ as Iranians Celebrate 35th Anniversary of Revolution


    * * * * * * *
    The Vancouver Sun Vancouver British Columbia
    Tuesday Apr 23 1940 The Canadian Press

    ” ‘War to Death Against All German People’
    LONDON, April 23. — War to the death against the whole German people and not merely against the Nazi regime was urged today by Alfred Duff Cooper, former First Lord of the Admiralty.

    Mr. Duff Cooper spoke before the Royal Society of St. George in place of Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty. . . .”

    “Now this series of crimes which have made a horror of Europe are not the crimes of one man, nor are they the crimes of a small band of criminals,” he continued.

    “Let us not underestimate our antagonists. It is wishful thinking and it is dangerous thinking to believe we can drive a wedge between the German government and the German people.

    “We must accept no soft words or specious promises as we did when they came whining and grovelling to Versailles,” he said, “but must defeat the German people in battle.” . . .

    “Once more St. George is mounted on his charger. His adversary, his quarry, is the most vile that he has ever gone out to destroy.”

  33. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 13, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Massacres of civilians had been a true and tested method of ensuring domination on subject people; from Eastern Asia to Western Asia and during historical times.

    When the late US Grant was destroying Vicksburg with his artillery barrages – murdering non-combatants – he was only practicing a well-known practice in the Art of War.

    Likewise the late General Sherman during his March to the Sea – he would have been tried as a war criminal had he not been a victor.

    And WWII was ended in the Pacific by the massacre of the civilian population of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

    Axis Powers, in fact and not in theory, must be prepared to use thermonuclear weapons against others to establish their power.

    We shall see – in the coming years and decades – if they will revert to this practice.

  34. fyi says:


    A former US diplomat on the Iranian Revolution:

  35. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 11:49 am

    I agree with your post on February 13, 2014 at 10:56 am. What Karl Rove referred to (in coded language, calling it creating realities at will) enables the powerful to practice “alternate” version of justice – whatever that is.

    With respect to use of Thermonuclear war, as a last resort to exercise power, perhaps. However, evidence is accumulating that the exercise of power in the future will be through highly refined “internal strife” tactics. Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Ukraine,… these are test grounds for refining highly effective methods to debilitate the government apparatus via well-armed, well-organized smaller groups.

  36. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Let us take your observation an apply to Iran.

    There are reports of 12,000 Chechens and another 14,000 Arabs and another 7000 European, Pakistani and others fighting in Syria.

    [Muslim fools who are fighting Axis Powers’ war for them against other Muslims…]

    Now let us envision a case in which tens of thousands of such fighters are sent to Iran through Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with their bases of support safely in Pakistan and in Turkey.

    Turkey is a NATO member and Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state.

    Thus Iranians, in the absence of credible military force to confront Turkey and Pakistan – either one or both – will be forced to fight a decades-long war of attrition inside Iran.

    That is untenable and its only remedy is for Iran to be nuclear-armed and be ready to deal with such threats at the strategic level.

  37. James Canning says:

    The Wall Street Journal today has an interesting report from Shiraz.

  38. James Canning says:


    Do you think Britain should have made a deal with Hitler in early 1940? And allowed him to destroy the Soviet Union, exterminate many millions of people, etc etc?

  39. James Canning says:


    Russia’s position regarding Syria and UNSC resolutions is hardly a “charade”.

  40. James Canning says:


    Netanayhu may agree to lower the noise level about Iran, when he visits Washington. But he is doing his best to force Obama into allowing Israel to scr*w the Palestinians even harder.

  41. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 13, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Russia cannot fight a conventional war against Axis Powers as they are currently organized in NATO.

    Neither can she fight a conventional war against China.

    Axis Powers and China have more than 10 times the population of Russia and many times her GDP.

    While conceivably Russia could wage limited and short duration conventional wars, a repeat of WWII against Axis Powers or China is out of the question.

    Any war against Russia will become a strategic war whereby Russia and her enemies will target each others cities.

    MAD, in other words.

    Now, everyone understand this and the Axis Powers are willing to abide by the terms of the diplomatic charade of International Law etc. since they are not prepared to wage a thermo-nuclear war against Russia.

    But Iran lacks the strategic capabilities of Russia and therefore cannot find any protection or succor under that charade – NPT, UN Charter, etc.

    [Those things are for the weak-minded Arabs and Africans.]

    Now, all of this could change; Axis Powers could dismantle NATO, they could renounce nuclear weapons and abide by the terms of NPT etc.

    But, until that time, Iran and other states such as her are best advised to take all necessary measures to protect themselves, their allies, and their interests.

  42. James Canning says:


    There is virtually zero chance of war between Russia and China, or between Russia and the EU (or Nato).

    The biggest problem for Russia over the longer term, in my judgement, is maintaining the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

  43. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 13, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    So says Mr. James Canning – “Only the dead have seen the end of war” – Plato.

  44. James Canning says:


    I am sure you are aware of the substantial reductions in numbers of nukes, by Russia and the US, over past two decades or more. More progress on this front will be welcome.

  45. fyi says:


    From The Guardian of UK:

    The newspaper is speculating that 2015 might be the 1st year in 100 years that Britain, with her diminished armed forces, is not at war with the world — one part of the world or other, at any rate.

    The time-line below gives a graphic recap of all the wars Britain has been involved in since WWI, and some of you may be surprised to see that it has been pretty much non-stop…

    Some of those conflicts have long since been completely forgotten, such as the intervention in Iraq…in the 1920s, or the fighting in what is now Indonesia, post-1945, in a futile attempt at helping the Dutch to regain colonial control.

    The long Afghan campaign may appear as futile, perhaps, in 50 years’ time, and once all Western troops have pulled out.

    There is no doubt that the top brass of the British armed forces feels that ‘a good war’ once a year or once every two years is a minimum to keep the forces battle-ready.

    Where’s the next one going to be?

  46. James Canning says:


    Yes, there will be conflict of one sort or another, here and there, far into the future.

    Surely you do see the challenge faced by the Russian Federation, due to “adverse” demographics, etc etc. (In maintaining territorial integrity of the RF)

  47. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 13, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    As I said; war against Russia will be a thermo-nuclear one.

    But not so for the Axis Powers’ War against Iran, as long as Iran is not a nuclear-armed state.

  48. James Canning says:


    I can assure you the “top brass” of Britain’s armed forces to do welcome conflicts.

  49. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 13, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Population growth is rebounding in the Russian Federation.

  50. BiBiJon says:

    Proxy gorilla warfare … thermonuclear annihilation.

    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    I need a few more dots before I can make that leap.

    So Iran tells Pakistan keep your salafis to yourself, or we’ll nuke you. Pakistan says, either we have no control over the salafis, or that it is a state policy we are willing to defend, even if it means nuclear war.

    It is obvious that the nuclear rung on the escalation ladder does not exist. In the situation you describe, Iran is better off being able to threaten supporting insurgents inside Pakistan and giving them a taste of their own medicine.

  51. James Canning says:


    Your apparent expectation of war between Russia and the US is rather wild, in my view. Both countries have many interests in common.

  52. James Canning says:


    Iran will not have a war with the US, unless Iran in effect insists on one.

  53. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 13, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    You live in dreamland:

    Pakistan to Iran: Stop supporting the insurgent or we will nuke your ABC city…..

  54. James Canning says:


    There is ZERO chance Iran will have a nuclear war with the US. Danger from Pakistan comes from possible “loose nukes”.

  55. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 13, 2014 at 2:22 pm


    Only the revolt of the English people saved Iran from the coming war with US – after the one in Syria had commenced.

  56. James Canning says:


    You overlook the cultural problem: the Muslim population of the Russian Federation is growing relatively much faster than the Slavic Russian Christian population. And many millions of Central Asian Muslims are relocating within Russia.

  57. James Canning says:


    I agree the vote in Parliament helped to derail a foolish attack on Syria by the US, after the Aug. 21, 2012 CW event.

    But Obama does not want war with Iran. Provided Iran does not rry to build nukes or get too close.

  58. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 13, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Joe Cirincione’s book, “Nuclear Nightmares,” discusses the terrifying lack of accountability in the USA nuclear stewards.

    The chapter titled “Exploding Budgets” offers poll data showing that a majority of planners and politicians favor a reduction in spending on nuclear technology, but the chapter also notes that

    “The ability of security officials and policy makers to make smart budget decisions is complicated by the failure of the government to track total spending on nuclear weapons programs. There is no comprehensive accounting for these systems.” . . .[A 2012 study by the Stimson Center] estimated that the United States spends about $31 billion each year on the missiles, bombers, submarines, and warheads that compose America’s offensive force.

    “In addition, the government spends about $10 billion a year on anti-ballistic-missile weapons . . .about $9 billion a year on environmental clean up and health costs related to the manufacture and maintenance of nuclear weapons; . . .$6 billion a year on working to secure nuclear materials & weapons in other nations . . .$1 billion a year on nuclear incident management.” [p. 78, “Nuclear Nightmares”]

    nb. In that same year, 2012, Iran’s entire military budget was $6,297,000,000

  59. fyi says:


    A few young people without outward conformance to Islam:

  60. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    The value of the “remedy”, nuclear weapon, in the circumstance you describe, is not entirely clear.

    Would Iran threaten Pakistan with nuking them? With one, two, three,… strikes? A dense city? Would Pakistan take such a threat seriously? Should Pakistan act preemptively? Considering the potential fallout in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, which are places with a large American and British contingent, would other actors stay out?

    Suppose after a few exchanges, Pakistan gives up. Would that end the insurgency in the northwest or Iran? What happens with the vacuum of power in Pakistan and the large desperate population on the border of Iran?

  61. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    It may well be the world Professor Wilensky described:

    “Human beings don’t have the appropriate engineering for the society they developed. Over a million years of evolution, the instinct of getting together in small communities, belligerent and compact, turned out to be correct. But then, in the 20th century, Man ceased to adapt. Technology overtook evolution. The brain of an ancestral creature, like a rat, which sees provocation in the face of every stranger, is the brain that now controls the earth’s destiny.” h/t escobar

    But, a question remains. In that rodent world of yours. Why did Pakistan bother with all the hassles of barely controllable salafis waging a low-grade gorilla war in Iran? Why not threaten to nuke ABC, or else, and get whatever concessions they wanted?

    As you promote this nonsense as the ‘real’ world, you give every reason/motivation to your ‘axis powers’ to play whack a (nuclear) mole. And, I guess that is your intent.

  62. kooshy says:

    Jay says:
    February 13, 2014 at 5:44 pm
    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Jay in my opinion in case of Pakistan FYI is right and unfortunately that’s a biggest threat to Iran, that is if a non controlled non state actor get a hold of Paki nukes, but you are also right in case of crazy Jahadis nukes are of no use, it’s use or threat to use will not stop them, if it did, they wouldn’t have attacked Russia or US.

    In my opinion NATO will never attack any country with nukes, simply there are too many countries with too many consequences there, to be able to make a strategic decision of such.

  63. kooshy says:

    I also should add, in case of a Jahadi non state actor taking over Paki nukes there are multiple more danger for US,EU, Russia and Arab monarchs than there is for Iran, just guess who will get nuked first before Iran is even threaten.

  64. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    February 13, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    I do not disagree with the varied nature and unpredictable scope of threat posed by Pakistan.

    I question the effectiveness of the remedy – precisely due to the nature and scope of threat.

    While I understand the lure of possessing the “ultimate” weapon, and admit that I have not offered a solution of my own, I do not see Nukes provisioning the “clean” solutions which is their lure.

  65. James Canning says:


    Sensible thoughts, re: Pakistan. And nothing is being done about the uncontrolled growth of the population of Pakistan. Which virtually guarantees instability.

  66. James Canning says:


    Fantastic levels of spending, on nukes, by the US. Even though the numbers of nukes have been reduced considerably. A bit grotesque.

  67. James Canning says:


    Yes, I agree: fantastic levels of spending, on nukes, by the US. Even though the numbers of nukes have been reduced considerably. A bit grotesque.

  68. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 13, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    Wars are fought on an escalation ladder.

    Pakistan has many more steps than Iran.

    That is all.

  69. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 13, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Dr. Wilensky is wrong; the chief difference between wars before 20-th century (excepting US Civil War) and those of 20-th century was the industrialization of warfare; and the attendant ability to destroy all life on this planet.

  70. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    “Dr. Wilensky is wrong; the chief difference between wars before 20-th century (excepting US Civil War) and those of 20-th century was the industrialization of warfare; and the attendant ability to destroy all life on this planet.”

    In what way are saying anything different to what late prof. Wilensky had said?

    Answer this. Why would a nuclear weapon state bother with silly proxy wars, when they can go straight to demanding surrender from a NNWS with threats of nuking them?

  71. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    Herman Kahn’s notions of escalation control (his 16 rungs of the ladder) do not apply in this situation.

    In tactical use of nuclear weapons, escalation control applies if, among other conditions, objectives of the tactical use are well-defined and objectives are limited – that is, if one is willing to accept the consensus in scholarly writing on this subject. In the scenario of our discussion involving an Iran-Pakistan conflict, where a highly fluid backdrop defines the context, one would be hard pressed to articulate well-defined objectives – making the requirement of “limited” unsatisfiable.

    In the case of two “abstract” enemies in a generic war, the “more rungs of ladder” argument holds advantage. However, in the specific scenario of concern, a layout of meaningful escalation control policies must be evaluated before it can be accepted as one that is practicable.

  72. Empty says:


    RE: Answer this. Why would a nuclear weapon state bother with silly proxy wars, when they can go straight to demanding surrender from a NNWS with threats of nuking them?

    Well, I could think of several reasons:

    1) Like many other decisions, one would chose to take the most drastic measure last. For example, if you’re in financial trouble, you wouldn’t sell your house first. You would first try to sell other less significant assets then, if unsuccessful, you’d move to sell your largest asset.

    2) Threats to use nuclear weapon was already done with regard to Iran by H. Clinton. It did not yield results. US would be stupid to continue to threaten that way without actually delivering it. The threat itself becomes worn out and useless.

    3) With Iran, holding the 2nd largest gas and oil reserves in the world, they can just use enough nuclear bombs to beat the population to submission without credible threat emerging AND not be so contaminated with radio-active that it would take them decades for the area to be “safe” for them to step into it and rip the benefits of their wars.

    Of course, the reasons I listed could also be used to argue why nuclear weapons are simply outdated as a means to achieve anything of substance.

  73. Empty says:

    …would choose, rather.

  74. Empty says:

    …reap, rather! This one was a good “mis-spill”!

  75. Empty says:


    Well, while I’m at it, let me finish it off by saying that it is “querrilla warfare” though gorillas do have warfare too but Dian Fossey knew more about that.

  76. Empty says:

    Last but not least (I have to correct this one since it affects the meaning)….

    “they CANNOT just use enough nuclear bombs to beat the population to submission without credible threats emerging AND the land/sea not be so contaminated with radio-active material that it would be “safe” for them to step in and reap the benefits of their nuclear bombardments.”

    [Note to self: proofread, proofread, proofread, then press the submit button.]

  77. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 13, 2014 at 11:42 pm

    I think Iranian planners must assume that any war initiated against Iran is aimed at regime destruction.

    Thus all attacks against Iran are strategic in nature – including the recent combined Financial/Economic War of US & EU against Iran.

  78. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:25 am

    I agree! In fact, it is the strategic nature of the goals of Iran’s adversaries which weakens the argument for nuclear weapon development by Iranian planners. Volumes of analysis on the viability of MAD as a strategic doctrine suggests a minimal relative parity requirement for MAD to apply. Assuming that Iran begins a secret sprint toward this relative parity today, how long do you think it would be before Iran would achieve such state?

  79. BiBiJon says:

    Regarding Aaron David Miller’s “It’s Iran, Stupid” h/t fyi
    The real, unspoken reason America won’t get involved in Syria.

    As per Daniel Larison:

    “if the administration’s Syria policy had really been so constrained by a desire to reach a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue, it is hard to believe that Obama would have ever seriously contemplated military action in Syria in the first place, much less made a concerted effort to sell Congress on the merits of its proposed “limited strikes.” ”

    My hunch is that there’s no way Obama did not know the public sentiment regarding a Syria bombing, no matter how ‘unbelievably small.’ Hence, one plausible explanation for the charade of pretending to push for bombing Syria, was to expose AIPAC’s lack of sway over the Congress. This has little to do with Iran. On any policy matter, Obama’s ability to leave a semi-respectable foreign or domestic legecy requires cutting AIPAC to size. That is what transpired.

  80. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    You are wrong.

    Mr. Obama as well as other denizens of Washington DC “…did not know the public sentiment regarding a Syria bombing”; they lived in a bubble.

    This was not a feign; Syria first and Iran second – there was no question in the thrust of US policy.

  81. Jay says:

    BiBiJon says:
    February 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    That Obama did not know is implausible.

    With reliable certainty, I am informed that every morning this president is presented with the latest poll numbers on his top 5 domestic, and top 5 international, policies.

  82. nico says:

    The US war on Syria is past history. It was neocon supremacist wish and wet dream that will never be realized.
    The attack on Syria has been deterred once and for all.
    It is the result of the US weakness as well as the global balance of power shifting for good toward east.

    The next war if it ever happen would be a world war with China, Russia qnd the shia crescent against the axis of imperialism and takfirism.

    No doubt about that.

    The US thrust for war with Iran has been aborted in Syria ane it is a sign for a wider and irreversible decline.
    As 2008 has been the signature for the beginning of the end of western financial hegemony.
    The 2013 pathetically aborted Syria war was the sign flr the beginning of the end of unaccountable, barbarous and supremacist US warmongering in the ME.
    That is finished.

    The ones calling themselves cold analysts lf international relation should have had recognkzed that reality.
    But that is not the case. They are still in their 2001 idiotic paradigm with the US being the only world super power in the midst of their unilateral moment.

    Sure the US are arrogant and delusional and imagine themselves as in a situation before.
    Someone should whisper to them : pssst that is finished.

    But no. You have Iranian immigrated in US propogating idiotic neocon and delusional BS.

  83. BiBiJon says:

    We’re all in a bubble, but we fail to see our own

    fyi says:
    February 14, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Expounding a theory on the basis of everybody wrong, but me …. everybody mad, but me … and everybody is a religious zealot, except the enlightened me …

    leaves me grasping for any straw of rationality on this thread.

    I would still like an answer to the previous question. Why wouldn’t a NWS nuke Hamadan as a demonstration, and then demand unconditional surrender if Iran wanted to save Esfehan, and Shiraz, instead of all the drawn out palaver with supporting insurgencies etc?

  84. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Russia says Syria aid draft groundwork for military action

    This part of the draft makes that clear:

    “The draft resolution condemns rights abuses by Syrian authorities and armed groups, and demands that Syrian forces stop all aerial bombardment of cities and towns as well as the indiscriminate use of bombs, rockets and related weapons.”

    In another part of the article:

    “The draft aid text, obtained by Reuters, expresses an intent to impose sanctions on individuals and entities obstructing aid and if certain demands in the resolution are not met within 15 days of its adoption. It does not threaten military action for non-compliance with council demands and makes no reference to provisions of the U.N. charter covering the use of force.”

    So, supposedly there is no Chapter 7 language as there was in EVERY previous US resolution. Nonetheless, the demand that Syria cease its military operations is obviously a non-starter and intended to set the stage for a “justification” of military intervention in the future – which is clearly in the cards in Obama’s view.

    Fortunately Russia is on the ball and this resolution will go nowhere in the UNSC.

  85. BiBiJon says:

    Jay says:
    February 14, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    And, furthermore, the Noble peace laureate, having already cheesed off much of the Democratic base with unkept campaign promises, surely would loath entangling himself in yet another war, this time with Russian and Chinese fleets close by, and crossing Hezbolah and Iran’s red lines, all for the sake of an “unbelievably small’ show of force.’

    It is more plausible that the whole thing was a charade. He saved himself from having to say UK and France are trying to deceive us into a war. And, he got AIPAC to publicly flex muscle on an immensely unpopular issue.

  86. nico says:

    What about Germany ?
    Well it does not look that good… Contrary to some urban legend.
    Again, the economic crisis is not about a specific country. All western countries are hit.

  87. kooshy says:

    nico says:
    February 14, 2014 at 5:52 pm
    “Again, the economic crisis is not about a specific country. All western countries are hit.”

    Is it surprising, or is it a coincident that the western financial crises started in the same year and or in same time period as when the western countries assuredly and painfully realized that their imitative to recolonize and reshape Western Asia was totally a failure and perhaps list for foreseeable future. That is when they begin to admit that Iraq and Afghanistan wars of few T dollars were a total waste. What do you think of that, do you see any connections relations there?

  88. James Canning says:


    Many people in the US and the UK saw the illegal invasion of Iraq as idiotic, before it took place. But the effort was not to create a “colony”.

  89. James Canning says:


    Germans save about 10% of their incomes. This tends to lower retail sales, other consumption etc etc. But it can be taken as an indicator of strength, not weakness.

  90. James Canning says:

    Jack Malvern had an interesting piece in The Times (London) Feb. 7th: “17 million pound Apollo statue mired in Gaza power struggle”. Six-foot bronze, in superb condition, from between 5th century BC to 2nd century AD. Found recently.

  91. James Canning says:


    A number of Russian security experts say ensuring Iran does not build nukes is their country’s highest priority. North Korea is also obviously a worry.

  92. James Canning says:

    fyi, BiBiJon,

    Obama was not keen to hit Syria with a few hundred cruise missiles. But he believed he needed to defend the so-called “red line” (re: CW), to ensure Iran did not think he was lacking in resolve on the nuclear dispute.

  93. James Canning says:


    It seems clear Obama himself is willing to accept a much stronger Iran, under its current government. Provided Iran makes a deal with P5+1 and adheres to it.

  94. James Canning says:


    No “escalation ladder” for Franco-Prussian War. Prussia was “all in” from day one.

  95. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    You don’t say. Really? Where did you pull that one out of?

  96. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    “to ensure Iran did not think he was lacking in resolve on the nuclear dispute.”

    Gav James

    There is something about Brit bull shit that is always amusing, specially ones that your honor comes up with. This last one is of special quality that can only be made in UK.

  97. nico says:

    kooshy says:

    “That is when they begin to admit that Iraq and Afghanistan wars of few T dollars were a total waste. What do you think of that, do you see any connections relations there?”

    I think that there is no direct connection.
    Maybe the western ME campaigns brought a speeding up in the crisis timeline.
    And maybe those campaigns diverted western attention on the financial crisis to come.

    IMO the underlying reasons for the crisis are the following:
    – western political and ideological degeneration with the extremists ultra/neo liberal views being implemented unwisely and in an unbalanced fashion
    – financialization, job off-shoring, destruction of the nations are the consequences.
    – capitalism lead to imperialism to gain captive markets and cheap resources and deny thay to one’s competitor.
    – paradoxically free trade / capitalist system is the best way for countries to be interdependent and avoid war. It is also the best way to distribute resources based on common accepted ules (fair or unfair is not relevant).
    – In such system there is no future for western people. The western average wages will inevitably be lowered and eastern people wages will inevitably be increased.
    – that structurally is deflationist and suicidal policies with pressure being put on wages, boosting social inequalities. Only debt has been compensating for the loss of western purchasing power and related nations loss in tax revenue.

    – such macro policies will inevitably lead to more inequalities, more job loss, more cut in wages ane western collapse and social unrest with change in political landscape.

    Just read the idiot franch politician accusing the German politicians to reduce wages in Germany to remain competitive …
    While the free trade with China and other low cost economies is the source of world trade unbalance through social, environmental and wages dumping.
    The German are only adapting to the realities of the neo liberal macro policies paradigm : lower the wages, destroy social safety network, free trade and oligarchy led economy and eventually impotent politicians considering that economy dogma is more important than political action.

  98. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “A number of Russian security experts say ensuring Iran does not build nukes is their country’s highest priority. North Korea is also obviously a worry.”

    My highiest priority is for Canning to Shut the F### Up.
    My highiest priority is for Canning to stop flooding this site with obvious supremacist BS.

    Who cares about my priorities and my opinions ?
    What my priorities and opinion are worth ?

    As goes the saying, priority or opinion is like an AH. Everybody has one.

  99. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    “to ensure Iran did not think he was lacking in resolve on the nuclear dispute.”
    Well he certainly bungled that one didnt he?

  100. Don Bacon says:

    The wars have certainly not been “a waste” to those who have profited from them. On the contrary, they are happy to see their bank account statements each month.

  101. Don Bacon says:

    nico says:
    February 15, 2014 at 3:13 am

    I don’t know where you come from, but this is a US blog site and in this country we enjoy, or try to enjoy, free speech. That’s FREE__SPEECH. That means nobody has to “shut up.” Nobody except yelling FIRE in an auditorium, like that. Nobody else.

  102. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 14, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Then those Russian experts are fools; the more nuclear-armed states are in the world, the more secure would be the Russian Federation against Axis Powers and China.

  103. nico says:

    Don Bacon says:
    “I don’t know where you come from, but this is a US blog site and in this country we enjoy, or try to enjoy, free speech”.

    Defending free speech but you saying that I should shut up…
    Who are you to judge what can be said or not ?
    You are maybe offended. I do not care a whit.
    My sensisitivity is different than yours, and I feel offended all day long by Canning statements.
    I feel it as racist and supremacist embedded in nice words, sophistry, hypocrisy and dual standard.
    Maybe you are not shocked by Canning sophisic statements.
    Maybe you even share his opinion.
    If not, then maybe (only maybe) you should be “yelling fire” to the US administration policies.
    As for the US free speech, do you mean like in the MSMs ?
    You know the ones collaborating with neocon warmonger and other US exceptionalists.
    The MSM which are held in the hane of few oligarch and big companies.
    Like in the US where there are only 2 “official” political oligarchic parties sharing power for centuries.
    Please spare me your grandiloquent posturing.

  104. nico says:

    Don Bacon says:
    “The wars have certainly not been “a waste” to those who have profited from them. On the contrary, they are happy to see their bank account statements each month”

    And maybe you even benefited from those war directly or indirectly througy the economic growth it generated.
    You even maybe support those wars directly by voting for republican or democrat. They are not that different anyway.
    Or indirectly by supporting, believing and adhering to the great US “democracy”.

    So what is exactely is your issue with those wars ?

    You are not even “yelling fire” about it or their proponents !
    Like a true supporter of US “democracy” and freedom of speech.
    Or alternatley like a good boy respecting big daddy.

    You know big daddy Bush jr. The one who stole elections like in a banana republic through fraud and vote rigging and who is a war criminal not threatened by the US “democratic” justice to this day.

    No “yelling fire” about Madeleine Albright either ?
    And her proponents like Canning having such great view of western exeptionalism and civilization.
    You know it was Saddam fault anyway.
    And might makes right.
    History has no direction.
    That is because of the fallen states of Man.
    And so on.

    No “yelling fire”
    Sure.You do not.

  105. fyi says:


    Axis Powers are now arming anti-government forces with MAN-PADs and anti-tank missiles; Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the enablers.

  106. fyi says:

    Don Bacon says:

    February 15, 2014 at 10:15 am

    I agree with you.

  107. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    You will have to pose your question, in this instance, to the leaders of Pakistan or other nuclear-armed states.

    The fact remains that the possession of nuclear weapons will give Iran people a security that they had not enjoyed for at least 100 years, perhaps even 500.

    You are, in effect, arguing that Iran does not faces and will not face any threats that she cannot handle with her current capabilities.

    I completely disagree.

    If I am wrong, Iran will be in a comfortable place from the point of view state security and cohesion.

    If I am right, Iran will be secure.

    If you are wrong, millions of Iranians will die and Iran will be no more.

    I submit to you that I am the prudent one.

  108. nico says:

    fyi says:
    “I agree with you.”

    What his greatness is caring about ?
    That is certainly due to the fallen states of Man…
    Ahah !

  109. fyi says:


    In the Halls of the Mad King; ostensibly secular people supporting the religious agenda of an alien people….

  110. James Canning says:


    The Aipac stooges in New Mexico want to congratulate Israel for subverting the national security interests of the American people.

  111. James Canning says:


    You are delusional if you think Iran could achieve “security” by trying to build nukes. Full stop.

  112. James Canning says:


    Most Russian security experts see the greatest danger to Russia as stemming from militant Islam. This is a primary reason Russia, and China, want to ensure Iran does not build nukes. And getting rid of North Korea’s nukes is also important.

  113. James Canning says:


    I do not agree with you that Obama’s failure to attack Syria after the Aug. 21st CW event, indicated a lack of resolve concerning ensuring Iran does not build nukes. If that is what you have said.

  114. James Canning says:


    Interesting comments by Gregory Jones, in his testimony before the House committee last month. That you jist linked. Suggesting his belief Iran will not agree to a very substantial reduction in the number of centrifuges it operates to enrich uranium.

  115. James Canning says:


    Do you understand that by advocating Iran proceed to build nukes, you are pressuring Obama in effect, to give stronger support to the effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad?

  116. Karl.. says:


    I agree with you this obvious troll have no reason to post on this site.

  117. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    February 15, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    “You will have to pose your question, in this instance, to the leaders of Pakistan or other nuclear-armed states.”

    I thought you had a direct line into Pakistani thinking when you wrote on February 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm: “”Now let us envision a case in which tens of thousands of such fighters are sent to Iran through Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with their bases of support safely in Pakistan and in Turkey.”

    Then you retort to the suggestion that Iran could easily do the same to Pakistan, by saying Pakistan will nuke Iran’s cities A,B, and C. Which made you sound like an authority on Pakistan’s soul.

    Now suddenly you have lost your insights into Pakistani thinking, strategy, etc. Shame. It was only just beginning to get interesting.

    As to the rest of what you say, you are right. Iran needed to, (and has done) demonstrate a capability to go nuclear in short order. That capability has beed attested to multiple times by James Clapper, the DNI chief.

    But, you are wrong to fear-monger, and try and elicit emotional, visceral responses to imaginary existential threats. None logically exists. And when you go into the realm of irrational, suicidal, and mad, then there is no defense against such, with or without nukes.

    I submit to you your line of arguments are singularly imprudent.

  118. Karl.. says:

    Did obama bow for the saudi and jordan dictators as usual?

    Presstv: Obama threat syria.

  119. Karl.. says:

    Yup and now UK began to threat Syria too.

    Soon obama will threat Syria with attacks again. And this time he will probably do it.

    This also shows that a peace with Iran isnt possible, US cant simply be trusted.

  120. Don Bacon says:

    It’s not news that the US is threatening Iran and any of its allies, especially Syria.
    Iran refuses to kowtow to the US and Iran enjoys some ME hegemony, and the US can’t stand for that.
    So there will be threats.
    In fact there have been threats for many years.
    It’s not news, and it doesn’t worry Iran.
    The SL knows that the U.S. intends to overthrow his government, and Iran is prepared for any such foolish attempt.

  121. Don Bacon says:

    Karl.. says:
    February 15, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    nico I agree with you this obvious troll have no reason to post on this site.

    One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

    That’s not Canning. He tries to engage everybody on many topical subjects.
    Personally I don’t engage at that level, and you don’t have to either.
    Take it or leave it.
    In any case Canning is not a troll, much less an obvious troll.

    So you can go back to posting your presstv blivets and see who reads them.

  122. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    Do you think Obama is only pretending to want a deal between the P5+1? I doubt that is what he said to Hollande in Washington during the state visit.

  123. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    February 15, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    FYI and his warm up act Smith both know that the MAD (mutual assured destruction) only works when the 2 sides are calculating responsible state actors, MAD against a suicidal Jihadi terrorist will not work, this everybody knows. For years US through her supported terrorist groups MLK and her client states, likes of Israel tried to portray Iran and her ruling elected officials as crazy suicidal terrorist mullahs that they want to make nukes as a threatening tool to force everyone to convert to Islam if not they will destroy the world. Iran worked and acted hard against this super power propaganda, Iran really worked hard to show and prove to word that she is a calculating responsible actor perusing national interests.

    After that unsuccessful campaign to mark Iran as a terrorist suicidal country perusing a nuclear bomb program to destroy the world, some have decided to work this on reverse meaning to precipitate that Iran need and therefore is illegally making nuke. This new campaign to mark Iran as a rouge state is against national interest of Iran and has to be continually confronted.

  124. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 15, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    If Russian & Chinese analysts consider Iran to be part and parcel of the so-called “Militant Islam” then they are clearly clueless of what is going on in the Muslim World.

    Their analysis when it comes to Iran, Islam etc. is flawed and must be discarded.

    As for Mr. Obama becoming more determined to overthrow Mr. Assad’s government; let him try.

    For what has he not tried so far?

    Would the plebs in UK support him this time?

    I think not.

    Here is my advice to you – UK’s policy of being on the right side of the United States has reached its end.

    That policy, which made sense in 1948, no longer makes sense in 2018 when a Mad King – whose unrequited love for all things Israel – make him susceptible to manipulations by others.

  125. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    February 15, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    The fact remains that nuclear weapons have kept the peace in Central Europe, in the Korean peninsula, and soon, God Willing, in the Middle East.

    Which parts of the invasions of Iran in WWI, in WWII, overthrow of legal government in 1953, Iran-Iraq War, Axis of Evil, and the present war in Syria and the financial/economic war against Iran and Syria you do not understand.

    The world belongs to those who can defend themselves, by all means necessary.

  126. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    February 15, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    You have to fight propaganda by facts on the ground.

    And even if you succeed in demonstrating that Iran is governed by the Holy Saints, once Axis Powers decide to attack Iran they will do so and no one can do anything about it except Iran.

    I advise you to think less like feeble-minded Africans and Arabs and think as a man who could and would be attacked at any moment.

    I agree with Mr. Richard Steven Hack – Axis Powers, specially the United States with her love for Israel, will attack Iran at the first opportune moment.

    US strategic understanding with Iran must entail Iran as a nuclear-weapon state; the time for Iran as a threshold nuclear weapon state passed on 21 August 2013.

  127. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    February 15, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    “The time for Iran as a threshold nuclear weapon state passed on 21 August 2013.”

    You very well know the time for a direct attack on Iran passed in 2007; the proxy wars will remain and will be on going on both sides, as long as US and her allies cannot come to term with a strategic understanding / Agreement with Iran. The good news is that, so far, US and her allies have lost each and every proxy war with /against or in Iran’s region including Afghanistan , Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and yes Syria, and yes the mother of all the very hoped for sectarian war. If all this happened without having a tested reedy to deploy nuclear device, why Iran should change the sentiment and facilitate a possible world conscience against her and portray herself as an untrusted MAD state like US, UK, France, KSA, Israel. Being stubborn is just a mode it’s not a job, and can’t be treated as such, with that in mind you sound like RSH.

  128. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 15, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Don Bacon, Do you think Obama is only pretending to want a deal between the P5+1? I doubt that is what he said to Hollande in Washington during the state visit.

    The US, as the SL has correctly stated, is committed to overthrowing the Iran government and installing its own puppet government, as before. The US was dragged into this nuclear negotiation, and is now doing what it can to disrupt it. For example, the US is not adhering to the terms of the agreement by not allowing a resumption of the EU automotive activity in Iran

    Agreement para 4. Auto Industry and Associated Services
    Pursuant to the Agreement, the United States is to suspend “sanctions on Iran’s auto industry” and “associated services.”

    Many French industrial representatives recently visited Iran. Peugeot in particular, experiencing plant closings and employee layoffs, is anxious to get its Iran business back.

    Obama, during Hollande’s visit: “Businesses may be exploring — are there some possibilities to get in sooner rather than later if and when there is an actual agreement to be had?” Obama said. “But I can tell you that they do so at their own peril right now. Because we will come down on them like a ton of bricks.”

    What is Obama saying?
    –There is no “actual agreement” yet.
    –All US sanctions are still in effect.
    –Any company who defies US sanctions will be punished.

    So Obama is not adhering to the November agreement, although Iran is doing so. That’s a great indication that Obama doesn’t want a deal, and is working instead for regime change, not only in Iran but in its ally Syria (where the US intentions are more obvious).

  129. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    February 15, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    On the face of it, your comment above seem to be not entirely in agreement with your comment (kooshy says: February 13, 2014 at 6:07 pm), in which you seemed to take issue with inapplicability of MAD to the Pakistan situation. Nonetheless, your comment regarding the parameters within which MAD is functional is in agreement with the majority of scholarly writing in this area.

    Historical precedents are useful guideposts, but they are not repeating stories in which merely the actors change. Analysis of life events devoid of the content of their dynamic backdrop tend to fail in practice. For example, as we speak, the same dynamic forces that transformed France, England, US, and multiple other centers of power – namely economic forces – are hard at work. Just as France lost its “coins” to England the power shifted in Europe, and just as the British economic power faded in the light of US rising productivity, a transformation toward China becoming the dominant economic power is underway. In ten years, the US will be a “different” power, as will China, Russia, and Iran – in relation to each other, the relative changes of power will represent drastic shifts.

    In my view, US and allies have these ten years to achieve their regime change. “What is the right deterrent for this ten year period” is the question for Iran. And, again, in my view, for practical reasons, this deterrent is not a nuclear weapon. Although, threshold capability is needed.

    Pakistan is a problem for Iran, but it represents a much larger problem for the US. Indo-Pak rivalries will be fought in Afghanistan for the next ten years. Uncontrolled nukes in Pakistan are more likely to be aimed at US bases in the area than at Iran. Iran’s major problem is likely to be the control of terror and drug activity on her southern border. To this end, Iran has been making progress – again through a creative and non-traditional approach.

    The “right” deterrent for Iran is: a) to raise the cost, and lengthen the duration, of any potential war, and b) create strong buffers against proxy war fighters. Iran’s war fighting doctrine, and her weapons development plans seem to suggest support for this line of thinking.

  130. Don Bacon says:

    Pakistan and Iran share a common enemy, which is the U.S. CIA fomenting disruption in Balochistan, a large ethnic area to the south shared by both countries. Solving this problem will require cooperation, as well as domestic inclusion of Balochistan’s people. Whereas Iran-Pakistan cooperation is probably possible from Iran, it’s more difficult in the corrupt Pakistan government which somehow seems willing to contribute to domestic instability in its own country, e.g. CIA drone strikes.

  131. Richard Steven Hack says:

    WSJ Report: Saudi Arabia to supply US-paid Syrian Insurgents with Anti-Aircraft Missiles

    This clearly supports Obama’s intention to continue the conflict at ever higher intensities until he can “justify” a military intervention for whatever reason.

  132. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Iran is currently and as we speak deterring its main strategic threat which is US and Israel without active nuclear weapons.

    The Americans are/will not attack because the Iranian response would end the US as we know it. This is the real, actual and military reason why the US will not attack and will not allow Israel to attack.

    The notion that the US could/would attack but isn’t because of its own assessments is wrong and is rooted in ignorance about the military “facts” as they exist in US, Iran and region.

    Pakistan is not a strategic threat to Iran nor will it be in the foreseeable future, Pakistan’s primary strategic opponent is India and its main backer is China- which would not allow the situation in Pakistan to get out of hand to the extent that it or any actor in Pakistan would “existentially” threaten Iran.

    “The world belongs to those who can defend themselves, by all means necessary.”

    Again just to remind everyone, that the person pontificating like this was sending books from the US to Tehran University Library, while we were defending ourselves with whatever we had. As he says himself, he didn’t want to “waste” his life in Iran.

    fyi has no clue about real military and strategic matters in Iran and uses historical analogies to cover up for this serious flaw.

    The strategy of the UK/US- and those Iranians that love them and desperately want to be part of them- has always been to create divisions between Muslims and Muslim nations- especially larger and more populous ones such as Iran, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan.

    Imam Khomeini’s (ra) strategy has always been to promote Islamic unity to counteract this western strategy- as fyi would say a “positive” vision of the future versus a negative, fear and warmongering one.

    The fact that neighboring states have multifaceted relations which include common interests as well as clashes of interests goes without saying. The issue is in what environment these relations are managed.

    An amateur chickenhawk armchair general (sorry field marshal) would begin by saying that Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt are all potential existential threats to each other and then try to manage the relations from there on. This approach is not “prudence”, it is the epitome “hemaqat” and “bi-orzegi” (I promised Empty not to say “kos-kholi” so I won’t).

    A “professional”- nay, an “aqel”- would begin by saying that because of strong religious, historical, cultural, regional and economic reasons and ties, these countries are potential brother and sister nations working together to increase the safety and welfare of their populations which can only be done with security cooperation and mutual understanding and that evil nations from outside the region and ummah and terrorists supported by these and their stooges in the ummah are the ones that are the potential threats to all our safety and security.

    Thank God Iran is led by professional, aqel leaders- with PRACTICAL experience in war and peace and diplomacy and nation-building. Guess which approach has been adopted by Iran and has been effective and productive? Guess which approach led Erdogan to come back to Tehran with lowered head and admit to failure in Syria? Guess which approach has allowed us to have good relations with both Islamists AND military in post-coup d’etat Egypt. Guess which approach has allowed us to develop strategic depth in Pakistan like few other countries in the world?

    Not mention the good-will and sense of brotherhood it has engendered among normal folks in our fellow Muslims countries which itself is maybe the most important thing (yes of course that assumes that Islam is important to you in the first place, which is not the case with certain armchair field marshals).

    Do I need to even mention Iran’s strategic power and dominance in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria?

    So as everyday, we thank Allah (swt) that we have the best, most competent, aqel and- dare I say- most “prudent” leader on the face of the planet.

    We pray that we will always remain within the boundaries of his guidance and that we become shahid in defending our religion and beloved nation by any means necessary if it should become necessary, not that we waste of our life in the pursuit of “happiness” of the dunya.

  133. Smith says:

    These are imbeciles. Game theory considers even animals as rational actors. Anything or anyone who has an interest in the game, is a rational actor. These imbeciles are repeating the western/israeli propaganda here. The fact remains that MAD stands even against takfiris and even against animals. The rest is propaganda being promoted by the imbeciles here.

    Just take the case of Syria. The takfiris cannibals fighting there are not irrational actors. They are rational in their own way for their own interest in the game. So are their supporters in London, Riyadh and Ankara. If Syria was nuclear armed, it could very well warn Riyadh and London to stop sending cannibal zombies into Syria or else.

    The non-state actors in Pakistan similarly are being supported and controlled by outside forces which are rational. Their aim is to turn Pakistan into an anti-Iran state. Just days ago, a Saudi supported group infiltrated into Iran and kidnapped five Iranian soldiers. Iran being a non-nuclear state can not raise a non-state actor inside Pakistan and take revenge for destabilizing Iranian territories. Since escalation with a nuclear armed neighbor while one does not have nukes is not a decision.

    So Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will continue to foment unrest inside Iran with impunity, while Iran will have to just keep looking on. The same is with US-Iran. The same is with Turkey-Iran (Turkey still has 90 nuclear weapons as part of a NATO “sharing” program). And even Russia-Iran (historical enmity exists to this day).

    When I first raised the matter of Pakistan here, all the imbeciles here went crazy. But now every one can see that Takfiri forces are on the rise in Pakistan and these takfiris are not anti-US or anti-Indian at all. They have a single mission. Destruction of Iran. And in these conditions and while US keeps threatening Iran with nuclear weapons, a non-nuclear Iran is a sitting duck.

    Without nuclear weapons, Iran will not survive.

  134. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 15, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    See my last comment.

  135. Smith says:


    See this:

    Even if they implement Syria strategy and send in takfiri cannibals from Pakistan, Turkey and across the seas, Iran can not escalate. Since its opposing forces are nuclear armed. And very rational too. So much rational that they even can wage a fourth generation warfare across several countries at once.

  136. nico says:

    Don Bacon says:

    “What is Obama saying?
    – There is no “actual agreement” yet.
    – All US sanctions are still in effect.
    – Any company who defies US sanctions will be punished.”

    Not true.

    1 – The US unilateral and extra national “sanctions” (rather call it international economic terrorism or international blackmail) is for the most part still in effect but are in accordance with the “interim” agreement.
    The ridiculously small portion of Iran money agreed to be unfrozen is being released.
    Direct flight to and from Iran by foreign flag company is re-starting.
    The S&P insurance and services are being re-activated.
    However the US extranational thugish economic blackmail still applies to Oil export, Frozen asset, nuclear activity and so on..

    2 – You have no information whatsoever that the Obama adress to Hollande specifically applies to Automotive industry

    3 – Obama speak about an “actual agreement” meaning the “final agreement” in opposition to the “Interim agreement” . Unfortunately Obama is correct.
    As far as business is concerned a 6 months or even a year long “interim agreement” cannot be considered as an “actual agreement” with enough visibility to make proper investments and deploy “actual” efforts to cement the ground for future business relations.

    The huge french delegation visiting Iran was ridiculous in a kind of desperate move to catch up while the traitorous Sarkozy and Hollande policies were against France interests for the last few years.
    That delegation was also totally unconsistent with France idiotic position in Syria.
    The issue with traitors and unprincipled people is that they are unconsistent.

  137. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    “These are imbeciles…”

    Bah, bah afarin- what a beautiful way to start the post bache mo’men.

    Do please tell us more about Islamic ethics…I really miss you your posts on ethical matters.

    Suggestion: If you insist on insulting and name calling, first make a rational argument- politely- then at the end as a rhetorical device end with a sentence like “only imbeciles would not understand this…”

    Even insulting has ethics…

    “So Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will continue to foment unrest inside Iran with impunity, while Iran will have to just keep looking on. The same is with US-Iran. The same is with Turkey-Iran (Turkey still has 90 nuclear weapons as part of a NATO “sharing” program). And even Russia-Iran (historical enmity exists to this day).”

    Are you sure? I mean are you saying this based on actual, real knowledge of Iranian capabilities or are just projecting and hypothesizing?

    I know, it was a trick question because if you had actual, real knowledge of Iranian capabilities vis-a-vis said nations, you wouldn’t have said what you said.

    So let’s summarize the possibilities:

    1. You have no clue about Iranian capabilities vis-a-vis said countries.
    A. You are just projecting and hypothesizing about what is/will/could happen. In this case your opinion is as valuable as any other- even of people with IQ’s lower than 147 (and no penis as M Ali explained to you based on “scientific methodology”).
    B. This topic and forum give you an anonymous platform to live out your ogde and mental problems in public, without actually doing anything about them.
    C.You are a frustrated greenie/Rajavi intestinal parasite/closet-case who…see 1-B

    2. You do have a clue about Iranian capabilities vis-a-vis said countries.
    A. Are a mental case that is being used by enemies of Iran and Islam to further their cause- in other words a “tool”- which you know, has to be devastating for you when one has an IQ of 147 and is intellectually superior to the usual “imbeciles” one is surrounded by.
    B. see 1-B
    C. see 1-C

    Two little history lesson’s about Iran’s capabilities in Pakistan for the ignorant:

    OK listen up kids…

    1. Once upon a time there were evil godless Russians fighting the people of Afghanistan and the Americans were supplying the mujahedeen with weapons. One smart American had the genius idea of sending the mujahedeen this thing-ama-jig which you put on your shoulder, shout “Allah-u-Akbar”, press the trigger and miraculously a rocket-thingy flys up into the sky and hits any helicopter or low-flying plane flying over you. Wow!

    Well, the mujahedeen were being supplied from Pakistan and the Americans would send these wonder weapons there for storage in Pakistan before it was shipped on to the fighters.

    At the time, Iranians were fighting a war with the evil Saddam and the US didn’t want Iran to win against Saddam and so it imposed all sorts of sanctions and barriers for Iran to get weapons.

    Then one day, the American officers based in Iraq who were helping Saddam got a strange piece of news (called “intelligence” kids) that some of the Iranian soldiers were using this miracle thing-ama-jig that you put on your shoulder and shoot down helicopters and low-flying airplanes.

    The American officers were confused. How did these get in the hands of the Iranians? We just recently shipped these secretly to our “friends” in Pakistan and they are all takfiris who hate the Shia Iranians? What’s going on? We need to figure out what’s going on, dammit!

    So they sent some secret agents to Pakistan to talk to the big general who was in charge of Pakistan- who was allegedly anti-Iran. He promised to follow up and ordered his top generals to find out how these weapons had left the storage and gotten into the hands of the Iranians.

    A few days later, suddenly a huge blast was heard all over the city were the main military storage of the Pakistan army was located. Oh no! The whole storage facility has blown up! What an awful “accident”!

    And so kids nobody every found out how those things got into the hands of the Iranian soldiers…and they lived happily ever after…THE END.

    2. Once upon a time there was a ferocious war between the Iranians and the evil Saddam. Saddam had recruited a bunch of “imbeciles” from Iran led by a walking piece of turd called Rajavi. These intestinal parasites agreed to help the evil Saddam fight their homeland in exchange for eating Saddam’s bodily waste as meals on a daily basis.

    The war dragged on and on and it wasn’t going well for Saddam and his intestinal parasites. So one day one of the superhuman genius American officers that were stationed in Iraq had the genius idea of sending some of these parasites to the “US-friendly” nation of Pakistan so that they would establish a guerilla army there and open an “eastern” front in the war. Oh yeah! What a great plan kids!

    So Saddam, the Americans and the walking turds gathered the best parasites and shipped them over to Pakistan and put them in “safe-houses” ALL OVER Pakistan to wait for the day when they would start the “eastern” front.

    The night before they were supposed to get together and begin “infiltrating” into Iran, suddenly ALL OVER Pakistan the doors of their “safe-houses” were kicked in and a bunch of Iranians stormed in and killed or captured every last one the turds. Wow!

    Of course the “anti-Iranian, takfiri pro-US” Pakistani government had no cooperation in this matter whatsoever (nudge nudge wink wink).

    Kids, the moral of these stories is: shut the fuck up when you have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about and don’t listen to exile chickenhawks on issues related to self defense who fled their country when it was at war instead of staying and “defending themselves by all means necessary”.

    …and they lived happily ever after…THE END.

  138. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon

    Yes he is a troll, someone who provocatively try to disrupt this site, obviously since you talk about him, you have already lost.

    Whats wrong with Presstv? Actually if you read Presstv you would have known that US nor Syria dont like the threats against them at all. Weird huh?

  139. Karl.. says:

    *should be Iran not the “US”

  140. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “Scientific” study concludes:

    Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People

    Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.

  141. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 16, 2014 at 2:07 am

    You do not need to convince me.

    Axis Powers remain entrenched in Pakistan and in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, and Azerbaijan Republic.

    US has pre-positioned weapons and materiale in southern Persian Gulf and US & UK have their other systems ready in Diego Garcia.

    Iran has not been able to prevent the war in Syria – that would have been a true measure of deterrent power.

    Any way, the world changed on August 21 of 2013 when the strategic ambiguity of US – in regards to destruction of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah became clear.

    The fact remains that 30,000 Muslims are fighting in Syria, trying to destroy a Muslim country’s government.

    One has to note that these fools have no interest fighting Israel.

  142. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 15, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    Best way to wage a war is to stop it before it begins.

    Iran lacks the strategic deterrent to do so at the present time.

  143. fyi says:


    An Iranian assessment (in Persian)by Mr.Kamalvandi:

    We read:

    “می دانیم آنها در سیاست در گذشته خیلی کار کرده اند حد یقف آنها هیچ جایی نیست و تاجایی پیش می روند که اگر بتوانند ما را از بین ببرند”

    Roughly: “If they could, they would destroy us.”

  144. kooshy says:

    “Jay in my opinion in case of Pakistan FYI is right and unfortunately that’s a biggest threat to Iran, that is if a non-controlled non state actor get a hold of Paki nukes, but you are also right in case of crazy Jihadi nukes are of no use, it’s use or threat to use will not stop them, if it did, they wouldn’t have attacked Russia or US.”

    “I also should add, in case of a Jihadi non state actor taking over Paki nukes there are multiple more danger for US,EU, Russia and Arab monarchs than there is for Iran, just guess who will get nuked first before Iran is even threaten.”


    You perhaps miss understood my 2/13 post, what comes above is what I wrote on 2/13 post you thought is not entirely conforming to what I wrote on 2/15. On 2/13 I agreed with fyi that Pakistan is a danger to Iran but not in same context that he always present Pakistan as a threat to Iran, which is a foreign controlled (like Turkey or KSA) state actor. As I have continually mentioned Pakistan danger for Iran and everybody else on the planet is if and when a non-controlled suicidal jihadi takes over the very thinly stable Pakistan, for which in that case MAD to them is meaningless, but I also believe in that case as I mentioned before there is more danger for others than is for Iran.

    Iran has been sucseful protecting her independence and revloution for 35 years , she has alo been able to expand her influence in her majority Sunni region, considering what has been happening and how much has been changed since iran’s revloution this is a big sucsses, she has sucessfuly detered the west and has continuely increased her startgic gains and inflence.
    The way I understand Iranian history, which is totally connected and made by to geostratgic position of Iran, because iran is in the cross road of old world east to west (Asia to Europe) north to south ( centeral asia to northern africa), is that throughout history Iran has survived by vartue of balance of power, meaning she being the ultimate pize (old world’s trade depot) she lets/wins when her enemies/invadors fight out each other and wear each other out like what happened in Iraq, or is happening in afghanistan , or even what I see as the final game in Syria. She always plays the 2 sides aginst each other to create a balancing athmosphre to continue surviving.

  145. fyi says:

    Don Bacon says:

    February 15, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    The Great Powers, through recent history, prefer to get other states to do their dirty deeds for them.

    This is a major Lesson of History.

    We witnessed how Cambodia curried favor for US and what happened to her.

    We watched Pakistan in Afghanistan for 30 years nary with any benefit to the Pakistani state or the people of Pakistan.

    We are watching Turkey carrying the load for Axis Powers’ in Syria, in Iraq, and against Iran.

    We could also consider that the Ba’ath state in Iraq and the Monarchical Iran were fools in a war that was not theirs.

    We have 8 million people in Syria who are refugees thanks to US, EU, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

    These local states who carried the load for US and EU are also candidates for future war against Iran and allied states and people.

  146. Fiorangela says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    February 16, 2014 at 3:26 am

    “Even insulting has ethics…”

    made me laugh

    = = =

    Does anyone know why the Greeks lost the ability to write for so many decades ~1000 BC?
    So much of communication in the USA is by video/television, and “tweets” have replaced coherent essays for expressing thoughts logically & effectively. Is USA on the path to a Dark Age of literacy?

  147. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    February 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    You are misreading the Iranian history.

    The Safavids created an Empire and a State that disintegrated due to civil war.

    [They also revived the ancient and honorable appellation of Iran – Eran Shahr of the late Sassanid period.]

    The civil war persisted for decades as the various Qizibash and non-Qizilbash tribes fought for power.

    The Qajars were the winners of the civil war – specifically the late Aqa Mohammad Khan – who succeeded in recapturing much of the former Safavid territories.

    But the internal weakness of the state – largely due to low rate of capital accumulation – persisted.

    The neutrality policy or negative balance was not successful since the internal strength to enforce that neutrality did not exist.

    Had Iranians possessed nuclear weapons in 1941, their country would not have been invaded in a war that was not theirs.

    Had they had the internal cohesion & military strength of Turkey, they would not have been invaded in 1941 either.

    A policy of neutrality predicated on International Law has been a failure for Iran.

    That policy, in my opinion, must be discarded in favor one based on military deterrence.

  148. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 11:06 am

    I take your first statement as self-evident.

    I appreciate your personal opinion as presented in your second statement.

  149. James Canning says:


    You appear to argue that Iran should have prevented supplies from reaching the Soviet Union, from Britain and America. If Iran had been sufficiently strong. German armies in Azerbaijan may not have been such a good thing for Iran.

  150. Karl.. says:

    Sachs on Syria, similar to LEverett’s analysis.

  151. James Canning says:


    Are you actually claiming the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia, leading to the deaths of millions of Cambodians, because the government of Cambodia “curried favour” with the US? Nonsense.

  152. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    All documented in “The Side Show: Nixon, Kissinger and the destruction of Cambodia” by William Showcross.

  153. James Canning says:


    Iran lacked sufficient funds, to alleviate the severe financial crisis in Syria that led to civil war. And this lack of sufficient funds owed a very great deal to the nuclear dispute. Correct?

  154. James Canning says:


    Clearly, a very large number of French companies are keen to enter the Iranian marketplace. You doubt it?

  155. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 16, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    It was not our war.

    The best for Iran was for the war among Euro-Americans and Russians to continue indefinitely – say a 100 years.

    Germany never harmed Iran – she was the only European state that was willing to help Iran develop heavy industries prior to World War II.

  156. James Canning says:


    Give me ONE example of how I try to “disrupt” this site. ONE EXAMPLE.

  157. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 16, 2014 at 1:34 pm


    The fact remains that US decided to wound Iran through Syria.

    Iran was powerless to do prevent it – the military means to warn Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to cease and desist was not available to Tehran.

    Nor Iran had the internal strength to harm Turkey in retaliation for what she was doing against Syria.

    As it turned out, the initiation and continuation of the war in Syria has actually benefited Iran; it gave birth concretely to the Shia Crescent – something that Iranians could not have brought into existence by themselves due to the absence of resources.

  158. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    What is the basis of your claim the CIA is fomenting unrest in SE Iran?

  159. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    I think you are wildly wrong, to think Obama is only pretending to seek a deal between P5+1 and Iran.

    Many Aipac stooges in the US Congress, however, do want to block a deal between the P5+1 and Iran, and to prevent an improvement in relations between Iran and the US. To “benefit” Israel.

    Some people posting on this site think the sanction will go away if Iran refuses to make a deal.

  160. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    February 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Your response makes clear that there are many areas of agreement.

    Pakistan is a danger – to many; neighbor and non-neighbor. Countries other than Iran should be more concerned about Pakistan. MAD is ineffectual in the case of danger from Pakistan. Iran has been making significant progress towards protecting herself on various fronts using alternative defensive strategies. There are perhaps nuances which we may not agree on. We will let that be for now.

  161. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    February 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Axis Powers want to continue the agony in Syria and to wear down Iran, Russia, and the Syrian government.

    That is their diplomatic and military plan.

    Since the war is not fought on their soils and is funded by the Arab enemies of Iran and Syria, they have no incentives to end it.

    Furthermore, the Russians, having calculated that the 14,00 Chechen there to be better dead and then to be back in the Russian Federation could go on with the continuation of the war in Syria.

    As long as the Shia and the Sunni are doing the killing and the dying, neither Russia nor the Axis Powers have any reasons to help end the war.

    Only in the event that their pet fantasy in Palestine is threatened would there be a re-examination of the Syrian policy by Axis Powers.

    From the point-of-view of Iranians, I surmised that they expect the war to end by the government victory in 18 more months.

    Between now and June of 2015 we should expect then multiple attempts by Axis Powers, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to escalate and prevent the victory of Mr. Assad’s government against the anti-government forces.

    I suppose the Shia Crescent planners are aware of all of this and will act accordingly.

  162. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    February 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Sanctions against Iran will never go away in any time frame that would make any difference to Iran – 40 years or so.

    World War I was the watershed in European history.

    Iran-Iraq War was also an analogous watershed that separated Iran from the wider Sunni World and planted the seeds of the Shia Crescent.

    The Axis Powers political/military/diplomatic/financial war against Iran and her allied states and peoples also was a watershed that separated Iran as well as the Shia from Euro-American world for generations to come.

    All these wars, were predicated on quick victory and return to normalcy and business-as-usual.

    When that did not happen and the wars dragged on, the pre-war normalcy, indeed the pre-war situation – became unobtainable.

    In all 3 cases, the pre-war world – or the relations among the states prior to the war – disintegrated.

    US, EU, India, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia cannot recreate the situation that obtained prior to 2001.

    We are going to be in a permanent state of transactional hostility for the next few decades.

    My last word on sanctions; they will erode as the world economy further changes….

  163. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Pakistan actually has followed a policy of balance between China and USA.

    The results are there for everyone to see.

  164. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 12:44 pm


    Just by what you wrote as examples, it shows that in 1941 Iran survived by balancing the super powers around her, making Truman throwing the Russians out and then Iran sending Ghavam to play a friend, than again the only reason UK never dared to colonize Iran was because Iranians always played the Russian card even though they knew that the Russians had already carved out a big chunk. Even if look at the invasion Mongols Iran at the beginning survived by playing the Mongols against the Arab Abbasids ( Khajeh Nasir) and then making the Mongols Muslim Iranians .Dos it sound familiar to you using facilitating some macho un cultured non-civil army invade and destroy your enemy so you can revive your lost scientific cultural influence. Then gain few centuries later same thing happened where else in and to Iraq.

  165. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    February 16, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    There was no Iran in existence during the Mongol Invasion.

    And you are putting an entirely too rosy a view on what the late Khawje Nasir Toosi’s accomplishments.

    The fact remains that millions of men, women and children were killed by Mongols or died due to starvation and disease during 2 generations – 47 years.

    Their lives were worth something and the destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate was not worth the rape of thousands of girls – some pubescent some not – by the Mongol soldiers in front of their parents.

    The relative independence of Iran was not the result of the Iranian leaders’ machinations; rather it was based on a joint understanding reached between the late Joseph Stalin and the late Harry Truman.

    This understanding was later abrogated unilaterally by US during the Oil Nationalization campaign in Iran.

    We do not need a repeat of the late Dr. Mossadgeh or the late Mr. Qavam’s foreign policy – in as much as we do not need pious Muslims such as the late Shah Sultan Hussein – with all the outward symbols of conformance to Islam – to lead Iran.

  166. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    “That policy, in my opinion, must be discarded in favor one based on military deterrence.”

    FYI, military deterrence is the policy.

    We are militarily deterring the US and Israel- without active nuclear weapons- and that’s why they don’t attack us. Get it?

    When the SL says “they can’t”, that’s what he means. That’s why he specifically says if Israelis make a mistake, we will flatten Tel Aviv and Haifa. Get it?

    In your esteemed opinion, does Iran have the conventional capability and strategic intent in case of attack of flattening the said cities or is the SL bluffing?

    (Hint: Has both capabilities and intent in case of attack).

    Please tell us what you think on this matter.

    As usual, you confuse capabilities with intent.

    Allowing the US to attack Iraq, Afghanistan directly and Syria and Lebanon through proxies has been of immeasurable strategic advantage to Iran.

    Military deterrence by Iran would have been the wrong strategy in these cases. Same with US attack on Iraq 1991. At that time some of the reformists in Iran argued we should support Saddam in a war against US.

    What fools.

    Keep your day job.

  167. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “We do not need a repeat of the late Dr. Mossadgeh or the late Mr. Qavam’s foreign policy – in as much as we do not need pious Muslims such as the late Shah Sultan Hussein – with all the outward symbols of conformance to Islam – to lead Iran.

    Oh please indulge us…who should lead Iran?

  168. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    How will Iran “flatten” tel aviv? More, why? This is not realistic at all.
    Tell me exactly how it will be carried out.

    And even, if, what do you think would happen with Iranian cities, facing the whole western world with the US? You dont think iranians cities will be “flattened” too?

    Sure iranians have one kind of deterrence but not a bulletproof-one, thats why the threats keep on.

  169. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    “The fact remains that US decided to wound Iran through Syria.”

    I say, but you should add at the same time also to wound Russia, since 3 years of continued persistence protection of Syria by Russians shows, she is as important for Russia as is for Iran, she is the only Arab allied of both Russia and Iran.

    Then you had said
    “Iran was powerless to do prevent it – the military means to warn Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to cease and desist was not available to Tehran.”

    And today you wrote to your warm act
    “Iran has not been able to prevent the war in Syria – that would have been a true measure of deterrent power.”

    Ok as per what you recommend Iran was powerless to prevent the war in Syria because Iran did not have the right detergent (we all know you mean fielded nuclear weapons)

    But not having enough military means is not true in the case of the Russian they have all the military means and more than Iran can ever get in next few decades, if so why is it that Russians with all their nukes and weapons could not prevent the proxy war in their prized only allied Arab state of Syria where Russia’s only foreign and Mediterranean base in warm waters exist.

  170. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 16, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Don Bacon, What is the basis of your claim the CIA is fomenting unrest in SE Iran?

    Purely circumstantial. With US wanting regime change in Iran, the CIA would be irresponsible not to be fomenting unrest given the circumstances, and there are reports of CIA involvement across the border in Pakistan.

    Sistan-Balouchestan, AKA West Balochistan, is a Sunni-dominated province, AKA West Balochistan, annexed in 1928 to Iran in the Reza Shah Pahlavi era. The population comprises the Baluch who form a majority in the province, followed by the second largest, the Sistani Persians. The province today is the most underdeveloped, desolate, and poorest of Iran’s provinces, and reportedly there has been repression from Tehran. Iran is seen as an “occupier of West Balochistan.”

    Chabahar is one of the Iranian ports located in the province bordering the Arabian Sea. It borders Oman Sea with ideal position for transit of cargo go land-locked countries of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. The US has been promoting a New Silk Road but certainly wouldn’t want its entry point to be in Iran.

    We have much more evidence of US involvement in Pakistan’s largest province Balochistan, next door.

    –In March 2011, The Peninsula, Qatar’s leading English language daily, revealed that the “CIA is indulging in heavy recruitment of local people as agents (each being paid $500 a month) in Balochistan

    –For US congressional support, there is US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, AKA “Hero of Balochistan” — “As you may know, I have a resolution I submitted following hearings last year. This resolution basically says that the people of Balochistan have a right to control their destinies through the ballot box and we support a referendum for them to decide whether they stay part of Pakistan or not,” he said.

    –Pepe Escobar: Islamabad is convinced that the CIA, the Indian intel agency RAW, the Israeli Mossad and the British MI-6 have been actively conspiring to get some sort of Greater Balochistan to secede from the central government.

    –Sibel Edmonds: Over the long term, the CIA has an interest in keeping the strategically important Port of Gwadar in Balochistan out of China’s influence. Over the short to medium term, the CIA also has an interest in supporting Jundallah, also known as People’s Resistance Movement of Iran (PRMI), a violent organization that claims to be “fighting for the rights of Sunni Muslims in Iran.”

    I smell CIA collusion with Saudi Arabia.

  171. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Don Bacon, I think you are wildly wrong, to think Obama is only pretending to seek a deal between P5+1 and Iran.

    Apparently one has to either accept that US wants regime change in Iran, or not. I accept it, and so believe the US doesn’t want any deal on anything with Iran. That’s consistent with US performance over the past fifty years, given that the US hates Iran for a number of concocted reasons, not only nuclear. There’s also the bogus ‘world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism’, human rights, and by the way you can’t trust them and they talk funny.

    Apparently you think the only issue is nuclear and there can be a deal. There is no evidence of either being true, however, but plenty of evidence that nuclear isn’t the only issue and that no deal is remotely possible. The US got Shanghaied into these ‘negotiations’, doesn’t accept the November agreement and won’t accept anything except capitulation from Tehran, which would be its death-knell and so it won’t happen.

  172. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    SL said that if Israel attacks, Iran will flatten Tel Aviv and Haifa.

    You don’t believe it?

  173. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    Obama himself strongly supported the interim deal (P5+1 and Iran), even while under heavy attack from fanatical supporters of Israel in his own party.

    Obama wants a deal, obviously. If one can be achieved.

    You seem to equate Aipac and other extremist groups in the US, with the US itself.

  174. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    Correct I dont believe it just because of the questions I posed.

  175. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “And even, if, what do you think would happen with Iranian cities, facing the whole western world with the US? You dont think iranians cities will be “flattened” too?

    Oh my God, SL and all the rest of us didn’t realize that responding to an Israeli attack would bring in the west! Gee Karl, thanks for warning us about something we completely failed to take into consideration.

    What would we have done if you hadn’t told us this amazing thing! SL surely was not aware of this when he so non-chalantly threatened to flatten TA and Haifa.

    Note to self: Redo whole “Response to Israel attack” thing in light of new amazing info provided by Karl.

    (How was that? Did I sound “shocked and awed”?)

  176. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “Correct I dont believe it just because of the questions I posed.”

    You’re entitled to believe what you like.

    We won’t know for sure until it happens, will we?

  177. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    February 16, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    As I stated before, wars are fought on an escalation ladder.

    Iran did not have and does not have the escalatory capability.

    Neither does Syria.

    That is why a proxy war against Syria could be fought based in Jordan and Turkey.

    If Syria (or Iran) had all the necessary military means, Syria could have declared war against Turkey and Jordan and started to bomb targets inside those 2 countries; in effect, to take war to them.

    Alternatively, she could have invoked her defense treaty with Iran and the two of them could have waged a combined war against Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

    Neither Iran nor Syria have that level of military power – that is why both remain subject to threat of such proxy wars.

    It is not just absence of nuclear weapons, it is also absence of sufficient intermediate level arms to make retaliation a possibility.

    As for Russia, the war in Syria is not as much a threat to Russia and she lacks the logistical ability to wage a war so far away from her borders.

    At most she could send 3000 soldiers to Syria – which would not make any material difference to the outcome of the war.

  178. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    Well unless you and SL are suicidal “flattening” tel aviv hopefully will never happen.
    Surely you dont belive Iran have anything to put against western forces+israel?

  179. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    February 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Don Bacon, Obama himself strongly supported the interim deal (P5+1 and Iran), even while under heavy attack from fanatical supporters of Israel in his own party.

    Where do you get Obama’s “strong support” for the interim deal? I commented above that he’s obviously NOT supporting it.

    Obama is not adhering to the November agreement, although Iran is doing so. That’s a great indication that Obama doesn’t want a deal, and is working instead for regime change, not only in Iran but in its ally Syria (where the US intentions are more obvious).[February 15, 2014 at 10:36 pm]

    But that’s consistent — Obama never supported it.
    Obama, Saban Center, Dec 6, 2013:
    –But what I’ve consistently said is even as I don’t take any options off the table, what we do have to test is the possibility that we can resolve this issue diplomatically.
    –what we’ve done in exchange is kept all these sanctions in place
    –we’ve turned the spigot slightly and we’ve said, here’s maximum $7 billion out of the over $100 billion
    –a comprehensive, verifiable, diplomatic resolution, without taking any other options off the table if we fail to achieve that.
    –if at the end of six months it turns out that we can’t make a deal, we’re no worse off, and in fact we have greater leverage with the international community to continue to apply sanctions and even strengthen them.
    –when people ask, why should we try to negotiate with them, we can’t trust them, we’re being naïve, what I try to describe to them is not the choice between this deal and the ideal, but the choice between this deal and other alternatives.
    –the best way for us to assure it is to test this diplomatic path, understanding that it’s not based on trust; it’s based on what we can verify.
    we will continue to contest their efforts where they’re engaging in terrorism, where they’re being disruptive to our friends and our allies.

  180. Don Bacon says:

    By the way, Obama’s standard modus operandi particularly and especially on Iran is to claim that: Gosh, I sure tried, but they haven’t responded to my benevolent entreaties. We good, they bad. So now we have to tighten the screws some more.

  181. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    This statement is woefully inadequate in describing the situation.

    Relationship between states must be analyzed by balancing and evaluating the totality of the inter-relationships between all relevant parties.

    The apparent intent of Pakistan to balance, if correct, is relevant only when it is evaluated in the context of Afghanistan, India, China, US as a minimum.

    Several recent credible analyses have outlined the danger of Pakistan – one that you appear to summarily dismiss.

  182. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    34 years of infantile pseudo-socialistic anti-capitalist economic policy has crippled capital accumulation in Iran.

    [The financial war of EU-US against Iran clearly demonstrated how the absence of developed capital markets in Iran contributed to her geopolitical weakness.]

    Thus Iran does not have the wherewithal to offer Pakistani state and people a generous program of economic cooperation and development; first renting Pakistan and then cementing her to Iran.

    Poverty is not a virtue in geopolitics; Pakistan has to run to China and US – reprising what Iran was doing between 1948 to 1973 – begging for aide.

  183. ataune says:


    Two things are almost certain.

    1- A US hot war against Iran will have a much worse outcome for the belligerent than all her wars in the Middle-East. It will cripple her, both militarily and economically for 2 or 3 generations to come;

    2- The US is playing in a “minor league” by directly challenging the regional power in South-West Asia. This is not a judgment on Iran’s capabilities but on the US political shortcomings. She is, geopolitically speaking, in a lose-lose situation vis-à-vis her direct challengers, Russia and China. She has realized this fact since her political defeat in Iraq at least. That’s the reason she is de-escalating now and trying to do it by displaying a wining face.

    Your analysis of this issue is missing entirely the point because you are assuming that the US is fighting a religious war in the region on behalf of Israel. She is not. America is looking for her interests. But, as the Leveretts put it so elegantly throughout their works, because of the multitude of interests and lobbies engaged in the American political arena she is not capable of adjusting the targets of her foreign policies. Iranian leadership have grasped this fact since long time ago and is running a quite intelligent policy against it. Almost the same can be said about China and Russia.

  184. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    Given Obama’s obligation to pander to the Israel lobby to a very considerable degree, his comments at the Saban Center of Brookings, that you quoted, support my contention Obama strongly backs the interim agreement, and that he wants a permanent deal.

    Fears on the part of some, who opposed the interim deal, that it would tend to erode sanctions, obviously have some basis as seen here in the simple fact a number of people posting on this site claim the sanctions will collapse even if Iran fails to make a deal.

  185. James Canning says:

    @ataune – – The US invasion of Iraq was idiotic. But where is the “political” defeat? Huge self-inflicted economic injury, to the US. But it surely was in the best interests of the US that it was forced to pull all troops out of Iraq.

  186. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    I think you are anticipating what Obama would say, if a deal is not achieved. (“Iran bad, US good” etc etc.)

  187. James Canning says:


    Russia’s concerns about Syria are largely in the area of self-defence. Worries that Islamic insurgents will use Syria as base of operations for attacks in the Caucasus etc.

  188. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    February 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    To your number 1, that might be true but the people doing the dying would be Iranians – in their hundreds of thousands. And then there would be the destruction of 2 generations worth of infrastructure in Iran.

    To your number 2, US has no strategic interests in the Persian Gulf that she could not achieve by strategic understanding with Iran. That she has refused to so since the time of Mr. Rafsanjani’s presidency attests to the depth of the religious-inspired animosity in US towards Iran.

    US policy cannot be understood without reference to the religious sentiment and the unrequited love for Israel in the United States among the Protestants – in my opinion.

    Mr. George Bush declared the enemies of Israel to be enemies of the United States, Mr. Obama has not changed and neither would his replacement in the White House.

    The sooner we accept that we are in a religious war – waged chiefly by the Mad King on behalf of the Jewish fantasy project in Palestine, the sooner we might be able to do something about it.

    As is, the Harper’s Ferry incident is closing but the much larger war is yet to commence.

  189. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    You see fyi, whenever you get cornered and have no answer to direct questions challenging your agenda driven theories, you end up resorting and hiding behind BS which is your classic poet who runs of rhyming words mode. Like this generality BS you are replying me with “As I stated before, wars are fought on an escalation ladder. Iran did not have and does not have the escalatory capability. Neither does Syria”
    If you had though enough or didn’t have an agenda you would say Iran just escalated sending the Hezbollah in, and defeat the allies against Syria at some strategic towns. But that wasn’t what I asked and you side stepped, with using this BS “As for Russia, the war in Syria is not as much a threat to Russia and she lacks the logistical ability to wage a war so far away from her borders. At most she could send 3000 soldiers to Syria – which would not make any material difference to the outcome of the war.”

    Firstly, my direct question was why Russian nukes were not able to save Russia’s most prized allied state from a declared direct proxy war by US and her allies, since the only way Russia was able to save Syria was through her veto in UNSC (as long as there still exist some respect for that) and not her nukes, you may argue nukes can give you a veto seat at UNSC but you know that is not true.

    The second questions is if Russian modern advance nuclear armaments weren’t able to save Syria from being destroyed why you think Iranian kinds could have, if so how much more than Russian kind of nukes Iran needs to have of her own to deter war against her and her allies.

    By the way, these 2 questions reminds me of Ahmadinejad’s questions about the holocaust, you don’t have the answer for them, simply you can’ttherfore is natural to go for BS and try to change the subject when you get your back against the wall. By the way if you are going to persist and continue with your theory of nukes brings security you need to fell these gaps including the major gap of threatening non-nuclear actors like suicidal jihadist with nukes how safe and secure that makes you like in case of US in 911.

  190. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    February 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    “Well unless you and SL are suicidal “flattening” tel aviv hopefully will never happen.”

    Karl on this blog you have read what ayatollah Khamenei had said in this regard many times on this site.

    She specifically said if the Zionist regime does the wrong thing (of attacking Iran) IRAN (not him) will level TA and Haifa (no more street orgies for warm up act)

    Now knowing what Iran said will do in case she is attacked by Israel, don’t you think, if Israel try to meet Iran’s only condition she is the one who is the suicidal party here.

    Look strategically Iran has no fear of Israel none zero zilch, but Israel is right to consider Iran as a survival threat just because ultimately Iran’s rise will limit Israel freedom of action in Iran’s region. This mutual condition with regard to rise of Iran makes Israel and US’s ME regions postures coincide.

  191. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    What “ethno-centric” Karl can’t fathom is that when SL says Iran will flatten TA and Haifa, SL and Iranian military leaders have taken into consideration the possible reactions to such a response- and they say it despite that!

    He unfortunately doesn’t understand what that implies (hint: it’s not anything getting flattened in Iran).

    These guys can’t fathom the thought that Iran could fight them directly- who would have thought! A bunch of camel jockeys and towel heads!

    (Never mind that half our population are crazy-ass Caucasian Turks and willy mountain Lurs…”huge balls” if you know what I mean.)

    SL usually doesn’t issue threats or speak loosely. Isn’t the very fact that he says this so clearly and open evidence that as far as Iran is concerned “all options are on the table”?

    Also notice how fyi completely avoids mentioning the little history lesson about Iranian strategic depth in Pakistan when discussing “escalation ladder” other such delusions because that would mean acknowledging Iranian capability to not only “escalate” but more so to “destabilize” Pakistan. All of it without nukes!

    Also notice that he has nothing to say when it is pointed out to him that the best thing that has happened to Iran has been the US misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and by proxy Lebanon and Syria.

    You see that’s the difference between professionals and armchair field marshals.

    Again, we thank God for the leadership of Ayat. Khamenei and the military leaders- all of them- who didn’t leave Iran when it was invaded and who defended it and who didn’t waste their lives.

    As far as quality of human resources and commanding officers- the Iranian military is the best in the world- nobody even comes close.

    The western armies always said that this issue is their distinction, but if you read what Hagel has been saying recently about US military that seems to be in the past as well.

    As you said, clearly the ones that are delusional (and suicidal) are those who don’t understand that Iran can flatten TA and Haifa and manage the global strategic fallout of an ensuing war.

    As far as Iranian capabilities, check this out:

  192. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Isn’t she beautiful…

  193. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “Brig. General Jalil Zandi (Persian: جلیل زندی‎) (1951–2001) was an ace fighter pilot in the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, serving for the full duration of the Iran-Iraq war. His record qualifies him as an ace and the most successful pilot of that conflict in the air combats, and the most successful F-14 pilot ever.”

  194. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    To point out challenges is of value, but solutions to challenges must be evaluated on their merits. Nuclear arms as a solution to the scenario you are posing has little to no merit.

    First, let me suggest that the Cold War literature on escalation, as exemplified by Herman Kahn, is deeply flawed because it rests heavily on rational choice. Rational choice will be in short supply – certainly once the nuclear threshold is crossed, but even before that in the case of Pakistan.

    Were you to entertain a light reading of EXCOMM transcripts from early in the Cuban Missile Crisis, you would know that everyone, including JFK and RFK, were in the state of pre-Apocalyptic madness.

    Furthermore, as noted in the new edition of “On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios”, Kahn’s own writings stress that the “escalation ladder” concept is a metaphor, a device to help think through the complex range of possible and difficult choices. It is not as a linear model of how nations might behave in a conflict involving nuclear weapons. Kahn, like many other RAND theorists, was more entertained by the mental mastery of models – as has been pointed out by Lynn Eden.

    Proponents of nuclearization seem to have their solution at hand and continue to search for a problem to solve. When I suggested that your earlier statement was woefully inadequate, I was pointing out that the nuclear solution seems to have been arrived at through the process of “let’s grab the biggest gun we can get our hands on” – if you have ever shot a gun, you would know that “grabbing the biggest gun” solution often leads to hitting everything but the target!

  195. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Don’t waste your time with him. He’s read a few books and thinks he’s got it all figured out.

    He’s a chickenhawk armchair pussycat who would crap his pants if they told him to go fight.

    He feels guilty for not defending his country when it was his time and now he want’s to overcompensate.

    As ataune pointed out, Iranian leadership- all of them having actual and real experience of war, peace, diplomacy, nation-building- have recognized US “madness” for what it is and have responded to it very intelligently over the last decades.

    Long-term net result is Iranian strategic rise- regionally and globally- and US strategic fall.

  196. Karl.. says:


    Yes I have heard it, its called propaganda. I still wonder if either you or BIB (bussed in basiji) could answer first what Iran would gain by this and specifically 2, how it will be done.

  197. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    February 16, 2014 at 11:04 am

    I know. If one thing that has come out of all these bloodshed is the fact that salafis are strategic assets of US and they will be increasingly implemented across the region to neutralize Shias every where. There is a massacre and genocide going on against Shias across the region.

    I was just trying to crystallize though, the kind of bi-savad idiots that we have. They come here and regurgitate Israeli/Western propaganda or the Cold war disinformation stories, regarding the proven Game Theory on the completely unscientific excuse of “irrational behavior” (its nothing new though; these same sisfudiks during the cold war used to claim that deterrence with China will not work either using the exact same words they are using now here).

    What these retard bitches can never understand (since they have never read game theory) is that nuclear weapons are effective at preventing bloodshed on massive scales. Against Americans, Londoners and equally against Pakistanis and Salafis/Takfiris/Wahabis. This is the beauty of mathematics.

    By the way, a Pakistani journalist had said that the various insurgencies going on inside Pakistan are on such a scale that at the very minimum it costs a billion dollar to run them (even the most staunch anti-Iran salafi taliban needs to eat too and they need money for that beside buying ammo). These very well known financiers are another point in the game theory that can be engaged with nuclear weapons for deterrence.

    But then these bitches (some of them even living/hiding behind the thick nuclear shield of US) claim that deterrence will not work for Iran since they are brown. It only works for Americans, Russians, British… and Israelis. Iranians should fight with stones and clubs. This is the essence of these pathetic corrupt hypocrites “rational”.

    By the way, look at the Basirat. I was the first one who came here and said this deal is a dead deal. While every one of these cargo cults and their cronies came here and defended the deal. And now even SL is revealing and teaching this to these bi-basirat corrupt, cargo cult, cowards:

  198. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    February 17, 2014 at 4:19 am

    They do not have neuronal capacity to answer your question. You are wasting your time with them. There is rhetoric in politics. These should not be confused with scientific facts and reality. Rhetorically, Iran’s a perfect political model free of all corruption and vice. Scientifically it is the opposite. Both are correct in their place. One is the rhetoric of politics, the other is scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Answer to your first question is: nothing. The only thing a country with Known Capability to flatten a couple of cities gains (emphasis on known capability) by showing such an intent as per game theory is a solid deterrence of the said action happening to itself.

    Iran does not have such known capability. Note that as per game theory even if Iran has a couple of North Korean nukes stashed away, it will not matter, since it is not a known capability and therefore useless for the purpose of deterrence. Game theory rests on the assumption that all the players know your capability full well. Secret cargo cult magical miracles will not do in game theory. Just like prayers will not do when standing infront of an electric gun.

    Answer to your second question is: As per cargo cult it will be done by act of “magical miracle”. Typical of cargo cults.

    Iran when still had hundreds of almost brand new top of the line (for their era) fighter jets could not flatten quarter of an Iraqi city, let alone couple of them (Note that from engineering economics point of view fighter bombers are much much more efficient at delivery of warheads/bombs than missiles are, since they can reused again and again by reloading them).

    In order to flatten a city, a force on the order of say a few megatons is necessary (depending on the size of the city). See this for example:

    Iran’s airforce is almost non-exitent anymore with functions at bare minimum since it can not buy any more fighter planes. And it can not build any by itself too, chiefly because Iran still can not manufacture afterburnered turbofan engines say in 100-150 KN range.

    The only weapon it has is missiles which carry a warhead of 1 ton. That is one ton. It will take one million such missiles to carry out a one megaton strike. Iran does not have one million missiles. While Turkey has 90 nukes, Pakistan has 120 nukes, and Israel has upto even 400 nukes, Iran just might have a few thousand missiles, which is laughable in comparison.

    Just to put things in perspective, a solid fueled missile like Sejjil has an expiry date of 10 years (due to solid fuel degradation and composite engine fatigue). To keep a force of one million missiles, would necessitate mass manufacturing 100 thousands of them every year. Even at a miraculously cheap rate of a million dollar per piece (the true cost is upward of ten million) it would need an annual budget of 100 billion dollars just to have the equivalent force of one medium sized nuke.

    You can never deter nuclear weapons with conventional weaponry. In analogy it is worse than a sword man going to war with a modern airfoce. It is futile to even talk about it.

    Nuclear weapons are so destructive that they become deterrent. Conventional weapons only can form intermediate arms. That is all.

  199. Smith says:

    Some tiny sense in a cargo cult society:

    Unfortunately even this minuscule sense, they develop after they are out of ministry. When they are in the ministry, they are doing as the cargo cult does. Worshiping French and Japanese and Americans and Malaysians etc etc.

    God forbid the day, Iran builds something like DARPA or NIH or Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory or Bell Labs, or etc etc.

  200. nico says:

    Interesting pov from the SL. He has been rarely (never ?) proven false.
    He is statement is rather definitive. (Maybe due to translation misinterpretation ?).

    Him being usually prudent in his statements it is leading to be pessimistic.
    Or maybe it is only politicking ?
    I rather tend to opt for the first interpretation.

    “I have said before … I am not optimistic about the negotiations. It will not lead anywhere, but I am not opposed either,” Khamenei told a large crowd during a visit to the northwestern Iranian city of Tabriz, according to IRNA.
    “What our foreign ministry and officials have started will continue and Iran will not violate its (pledge) … but I say again that this is of no use and will not lead anywhere.”

  201. Smith says:

    Pakistan is too busy with its own internal insurgencies so much so that they are not even talking properly to Iran. What are you waiting for? Go in, escalate. They only have 120 nukes and you are just the most demonized nation on planet. I mean would anyone even care if things escalate and Tehran gets nuked (US and Saudis would probably sigh a relief as they used to do when Saddam was using WMD’s on Iranians):

    By the way, the crown price of Saudi Arabia is currently in Pakistan for talks about regional and defense issues with Pakistan demanding free oil from Saudi Arabia. One wonders if Pakistan has raised the issue of Iranian soldiers with Saudi crown prince, hahahah?

  202. Smith says:

    Saudi Arabia is buying 13 billion dollars worth of composite armored, highly maneuverable infantry fighting vehicles for its border protection force.

    What Iran is doing?

  203. Smith says:

    Another opportunity for Iran to make money:

    At least if you do not have the intellect, the smarts, the intelligence, the brain to develop brand new medicines, then copy and sell them. People around the world really need these meds, at a quarter of that price. You are under sanctions, already. Atleast make some money.

    But then these corrupts do not even have the brain to copy and mass produce it. All they love to do is suck the French and beg them to come and give them 20 year old French cars.

  204. Smith says:

    The internal dirty games of Pakistan using non-state actors:

  205. Smith says:

    Iranian air force still needs spare parts for its 50 year old fighter planes from anywhere even if it be Israel:

    But never invest in R&D. After all Iran has a large population of smugglers and corrupt rentiers needing be fully employed by state and private sector. What Iran will do without them?

  206. Fiorangela says:

    Wall Street Journal

    Iranian Bank Sues U.K. for $4 Billion Over Business Lost to Sanctions
    Follows British Supreme Court Ruling That Government Illegally Applied Measures
    Benoît Faucon
    Feb. 15, 2014 4:25 p.m. ET

    LONDON—Iran’s largest private bank, Bank Mellat, is suing the U.K. Treasury for some $4 billion in compensation for what it alleges was lost business due to British sanctions against Iran.

    A spokesman for the U.K. Treasury said he couldn’t comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

    In a filing on Friday with London’s Commercial Court, which was… [paywall]

  207. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    February 16, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    You still do not seem to understand; Syria, Iran, and Russia do not have the intermediate capabilities to wage a war against the machinations of Axis Powers.

    USSR disintegrated from the within due to the rot of a once vibrant political agenda; no amount of military power could prevent the disintegration of the state when its institutions have decayed.

    As I said, Iran and Syria could not escalate – at a minimum they should have bombed the sites of the logistical support for the anti-Syrian forces inside both Turkey and Jordan.

  208. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    February 17, 2014 at 1:12 am

    Not all of them were mad; JFK was and Americans got rid of him.

    The man to whom we all owe our lives is the late Nikita Khrushchev – a sane and a very smart man.

    If you look at the period of the War of Cities during Iran-Iraq War, you can discern the strategy of escalation that the late Saddam Hussein was using against Iran.

    His use of chemical weapons, supported to the hilt by US, UK, France, USSR and many other European states caused the collapse of Iranian morale at the front as well as internally as hundreds of thousands fled Tehran and other cities lest they be bombed by chemical weapons.

    I would guess that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Iran had she had them at that time.

    Had Iran possessed nuclear weapons in 1980, Iran-Iraq War would not have occurred.

    Had Iraq initiated that, a tactical nuclear strike at select troop concentration point would have ended the war quickly.

    300,000 Iranians would have been alive today.

  209. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    February 17, 2014 at 6:28 am

    I think Pakistan has 50 weapons and Israel 10 or 12.

    These other numbers are bandied by Western analysts to frighten Iran or Arabs or Indians….

  210. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    February 17, 2014 at 9:29 am

    Look body like I wrote you if you insist to use (at least on this site) your nuclear security theory , you need to fill the big holes and gaps you have there “You still do not seem to understand” wouldn’t fill this holes.

    True USSR is gone but all her nuclear weapons are still there in mother Russia according to your BS theory that should have prevented anybody attacking her protected client state by an announced directed supplied proxy war, why her nukes couldn’t prevent that, you don’t have an answer for that so resort to “you don’t understand”. You are a waste time but fun to be cornered.

  211. ataune says:

    To answer both fyi and caning

    US wasn’t, and isn’t, waging a religious war ran by protestants on behalf of the israeli project in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Those wars were the culmination of a misguided policies seeking direct domination of the “greater middle-east” as a leverage to control Eurasia.

    They surely resulted in millions of innocents being directly or indirectly injured and maimed but the highest price was payed by the perpetrator in form of a defeat of their political project.

    US not only lost the declared, but propaganda oriented, purpose of the wars, i.e. the defeat of “terrorism”, but she also completely missed the real political objectives: shift and re-alignement of the major middle-east countries under its security and intelligence umbrella.

    Iraq ruled now by the shia politicians can only find legitimacy backing in Iran; and, Afghanistan, once Americans start leaving, has the greatest chance to become rather an economic partner with Iran than adversary to her.

  212. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    February 17, 2014 at 10:07 am

    “US wasn’t, and isn’t, waging a religious war ran by protestants on behalf of the israeli project in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    Keep telling yourself that, may be you will eventually believe it.

  213. ataune says:


    “Keep telling yourself that, may be you will eventually believe it.”

    it’s not only me saying this, your hosts, the Leveretts, are basically repeating this mantra on each and every article since “raceforiran.” And, unlike me, they are well kbnown and respected academic figures in their own field.

    Do you have the same advise for them too?

  214. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    February 17, 2014 at 10:24 am

    Then I disagree; I think the religious component is quite evident.

  215. Karl.. says:

    Some new info on Gareth Porter’s new book on Iran.

  216. ataune says:


    You disagreeing is one thing, but, since your comments are almost the third of all the ones in this site, do you have any arguments or facts countering what they so eloquently prove in every occasion? shall we just believe you over them, because you are repeating your opinion so often?

  217. Kathleen says:

    Another crack in the wall of decades long silence about what has and is happening in the West Bank. A must watch. The Frightening Tactics The Israeli Army Uses On Palestinian

    Please spread far and wide

  218. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    February 17, 2014 at 10:41 am

    I am not sure what you mean by facts.

    I am stating my opinion based on what I see going on.

    There is clearly a problem between the world of Islam and the United States.

    The late Osama Bin Ladin attacked US in retaliation for the “Towers of Beirut” – itself a consequence of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982.

    Then US declared enemies of Israel to be enemies of US which has persisted to this day.

    [Case in point, Syria, which helped save American lives during early years of GWOT and which sought good relations with US – to no avail since she was a hated enemy of Israel and thus not worthy of US friendship.]

  219. ataune says:


    They see it differently. For them, as I understand, it’s not a “clear problem between the world of Islam and the United States” but a problem resulting from mis-guided and wrong American policies in the Middle-East. The reason these policies are wrong is not because the “protestants have allied themeselves strategically with the Israeli project”, but US following a mis-guided policy of domination and ultimately overthrow of the only independant regional power in the region.

    These are two different frameworks of thought. You see religious impetus as the main driver of policy, and every now and then (like in your last comment) attribute the start of these aggressions to so-called “muslims” (OBL comes into mind); while the Leveretts see the US domination project in the middle-east as the initiators and call for the radical shift in those.

    The recent history of the region, after WWII, attest to them being correct rather than you.

  220. fyi says:

    ataune says:

    February 17, 2014 at 11:35 am

    I am not insisting that my view point contains the only essential truth of the hole that US and EU have dug for themselves in the Middle East and in the wider world of Islam.

    I am not denying the Imperial Urge that has brought US and EU to this juncture.

    What I am saying, however, is that without the religious motivation for the control of Palestine, this conflict cannot be understood nor reduced in scope.

    Without slavery, Civil War in US cannot be comprehended – even though the “Rights of States” was also an essential feature of that war.

  221. James Canning says:

    Writing in the Financial Times recently, Simon Schama, the British historian, said he believed Israel must end the occupation of the West Bank or the occupation will end Israel.

  222. James Canning says:


    Yes, “states rights” in the US prior to Civil War meant property rights, especially the right to own slaves. Enormous capital investment, on part of slaveowners, and a prop to values of agricultural land. Abraham Lincoln wanted to issue bonds to buy out the salveowners, and avoid civil war. Sensible plan, but wrecked by fanatical abolitionists in the North.

  223. James Canning says:

    @ataune – – Foolish US policies in the Middle East tend to have a great deal to do with the Israel lobby. Some of the richest Jews, and most influential behind the scenes, have little or no religious conviction.

  224. James Canning says:


    Obama thought Syria “worthy” of better relations with the US, when he entered the White House. This is “fact”.

  225. James Canning says:


    Close relations between Iran and Afghanistan would be a GOOD THING for the US. A “win”, not a “defeat”.

    I do not see a problem for the US, in close relations between Iraq and Iran. To be expected, if Shia control the central government.

  226. James Canning says:

    In the late 1960s, I called for the US to GET OUT of Vietnam so the country could get its act together and, in the not-too-distant future, good relations between a unified Vietnam and the US would be possible.

  227. James Canning says:


    You might add, in comments to FYI, that Putin knows very well indeed Russia’s nukes do nothing whatever to deter terrorist attacks in Russia.

  228. kooshy says:

    ataune says:
    February 17, 2014 at 11:35 am

    I agree with ataune, the religious component of hegemony seeking by US/western policy planers is not much, ever since the WWI the main purpose is been trade routes and energy resources, is true that the religious component on both side is used to an extend to mobilize their respected constituencies, but the war is not fought or about religion or religious locations, is all about land /sea/and their resources.

    Now, is true and natural that the Zionist and Jewish nationalist would love and would do their best to make this a war of Islam and Christianity (Fishing in the muddy waters) and attach themselves to Christianity and make up what is called Judeo-Christian (is a term used since the 1950s to stress the common ethical standards of Christianity and Judaism) common cause and fight the Muslims owners of Palestine. But for the US/Western planers the reason for creating Israel was not to help them and offer the land to Jews (if the Christian Europeans cared for the Jews they wouldn’t have slaughtered them at least twice in 1400’s and 1900’s) for the Europeans it always had a bigger capitalist colonial hegemonic strategic content, this western colonial hegemony desire happen to coincide with desires of Zionist Jewish nationalist for now. As history has shown American/Europeans can and will throw the Jews back in gas chamber when their usefulness no longer is beneficial or possible for their colonial capitalistic hegemony seeking strategy. That has been western European mentality ever since and will not change any time soon without a few more world wars.

  229. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    It’s not propaganda, it’s the response to an Israeli attack. And when he says it will happen you can be sure that all the strategic consequences have been taken into consideration.

    One “purpose” of such a move would be to destroy the largest city and main port of the nation that just attacked Iran.

    Good reason, wouldn’t you say?

    How will it be done?

    Take a wild fuckin guess.

  230. nico says:

    fyi says:
    “There is clearly a problem between the world of Islam and the United States.”

    That is obvious exageration.
    What about US oivit to Asia ?
    What about US meddling and war in central and southern America ?
    What about US, France and UK meddling and war in Central Africa ?
    What about US and EU meddling and proxy war in Ukraine ?
    What about the missile shield in Europe ?

    What about dictators and and other ploutocracy supported everywhere ?

    The jewish and religious issue obviously has a role.
    But not as much as you and Canning pretend.

    The US unilateral moment was OPENLY directed to WORLD dominance.

    The US unilateral moment was first and foremost the rejuvenation of the COLONIAL mindset and policies.
    Truly a huge and immoral REGRESSION.

    The issue with the kind of you, Canning and Bacon is that you believe the Westerners are not reponsibles or that they do not know what they are doing.

    Because they are mad.
    Because of jews
    Because the fallen state of man.
    Because history has no direction.

    That is solid Bull Crap.

    Westerners know perfectly well what they are doing.
    And they are perfectly conscious of the kind of morality they are following

    That is first and foremost a war of trancendency, idea, ideology.
    A war of morality and propaganda.
    A war of world views.

    And your delusional or hypocrit point only put you in the same corner as the blinds or the criminals.

  231. Rehmat says:

    There has never been a problem between the world of Islam and the United States until the rise of Christian Zionist movement and their Israeli project in the Middle East. These 65 million American Zionist Christians don’t love Jews – but in their crooked religious theology – they’re hastening the second-coming of Lord Christ to convert all Jews living in Occupied Palestine to Christianity or kill them all.

    The historical fact is that the West has problem with Judaism for the last 20 centuries. On February 6, 2014, MP Oleg Bolychev, member of Vladimir Putin’s ruling United Russia party at the regional parliament in Kaliningrad accused Russian Jews for destroying Russia twice.

  232. James Canning says:


    Do I take it you think the slaughter of civilians in the Central African Republic, is no proper concern for the UK, France or the US?

  233. James Canning says:


    ALL of Harry Truman’s military and foreign policy advisers told him the creation of Israel would damage US national security interests in the Middle East.

    They did not want him to recongnise Israel before the borders of Israel were established.

  234. James Canning says:


    Jews are thoroughly incorporated into the “ruling class” in the US, the UK, France, and other countries considered to be “Christian”. They are under NO THREAT whatever.

  235. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “,Do I take it you think the slaughter of civilians in the Central African Republic, is no proper concern for the UK, France or the US?”

    that could be if those war were not ignited and manipulated by US or France in the first place.
    Civil wars in Africa are 9 times out of 10 results of Syrian like scenario.

  236. Karl.. says:


    You are right, but ignore that troll. If he lived in Germany he would have supported the nazis claims too. No point arguing with him.

  237. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “What these retard bitches can never understand (since they have never read game theory) is that nuclear weapons are effective at preventing bloodshed on massive scales. Against Americans, Londoners and equally against Pakistanis and Salafis/Takfiris/Wahabis. This is the beauty of mathematics.”

    And what you have never read is the second great debate in international relations.

    Quickly, quickly go look it up!

    As always arrogantly and condescendingly in love with your opinions and views.

    BTW the only “retard bitch” here is you. A “behavioralist” retard bitch. Your abstract modelling and empiricism of politics and international- contrary to what you “believe” (yes it’s kinda like a religion, you see)- proves your total insanity, not your “rationalism”.

    Escalate this genius.

  238. Jay says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    February 17, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    I am sorry if I missed it. Who is the game theorist (that you were responding to)?

    As a theoretician/game theorist I would enjoy learning about the accomplishments of other game theorist. What model (or models) did you use vis a vis Iran and adversaries?

  239. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    “Ignore that troll”

    He is not a troll, he is worse.
    He is the satanic shadow of the anglo polities

    Canning like to find excuse in the anglo imperialism in the fight between imperial powers.

    What was the US excuse in their unilateral moment ?
    Was that because of some kind of imperial competition with other powers ?

    Please let me laugh. Or cry.
    That was the true face and world views of the Anglo polities and oligarchy as it obtains for centuries.
    Truly a civilizational and inexcusable moral debacle and fault.

    Guess who was called the great Satan and the little Satan ?

    And you have Bacon posting here holding forth on US democracy greatness and free speech !

    Oups, see you later, I am throwing up.

  240. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    I was pointing out to genius IQ 147 behavioralist retard bitch that many “smart” people don’t necessarily agree with him that everything in politics and international relations can be reduced to mathematics and games in game theory.

    Politics and international relations is closer to art than it is to natural science.

    Discussed thoroughly 40-50 years ago among international relations theorists. My humble opinion is that the arguments in favor of a classical approach versus natural science-like/abstract modelling approach have stood the test of time.

    Unlike retard bitch Smith, I’m not as arrogant and rude to insult those who like to analyze matters using other methods than those I might prefer.

  241. Jay says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    February 17, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Thanks for the note. As you probably know, “good” science necessitates a degree of openness to alternative approaches. Borrowing shamelessly, “a model has got to know its limitations”!

    Game theorists have experienced spectacular failures! So have international theorists. What ultimately stands the test of time, in my view, is a “non-arrogant”, multidisciplinary, and clear eyed approach that accommodates the competing views in a given problem. In asking my question I was hoping that I could learn how other game theorists have approached the Iran-Adversary models.

  242. James Canning says:


    You asked what was the “excuse” of the moron in the White House, during the “unilateral moment” of the US.

    GW Bush was a dupe, or stooge, of liar neocon warmongers wanting to “protect” Israel.
    By taking out an enemy while an opportunity presented itself, post-“9/11”.

    I asssume you will see this comment as my attempt to “justify imperialsim”.

  243. James Canning says:


    I happen to agree with you that Britain and France, with help from the US, brought chaos to Libya. Hillary Clinton played a key role.

  244. James Canning says:


    Had I lived in Germany in the 1930s, I suspect I would have been one hoping someone would take out Adolf Hitler. Before he brought catastrophe to the entire continent.

  245. James Canning says:


    Again, give me ONE EXAMPLE of what you consider an effort on my part to “dirupt” this site. Surely this should not be too hard as assignment for you to accomplish.

  246. Rehmat says:

    On Monday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Sayyid Ali Khamenei told a large delegation from Iranian province of Azerbaijan that he is not optimistic about a deal with the United States over Iran’s nuclear program.

  247. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    February 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm


    Gav James, god forbid, whenever Brits end up fighting Germans, can you imagine who will get gassed, and who ends up paying with land.

    How should I say it, perhaps it’s not a very jolly history to brag about for either of the two sides my very dear lad

  248. kooshy says:

    BIB you are right, he, fyi warm up act can take his game theory to Haifa and put it right where light don’t shine.

    “What these retard bitches can never understand (since they have never read game theory) is that nuclear weapons are effective at preventing bloodshed on massive scales.”

    This guy is repeating (gherghreh) the same BS American give to their school kids and the rest of world for Truman’s massacring of the Japanese in WWII.
    It was 1973 in American history 101 , when my college professor said the same thing justifying Truman’s decision to use A bomb on Japanese civilians for saving more lives, I stood up and told the professor that he is justifying what the Americans did, Truman is hated in many places in the world for what he did, killing over 250000 civilians in one shot, the rest of sheeples in the class couldn’t believe that some people don’t like Truman and the macho American behavior, for years since their childhood they were told that we did the very human thing, this was the only way the stop the war and save many lives, then again same sheeples bought the same argument for Iraq.

  249. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “You asked what was the “excuse” of the moron in the White House, during the “unilateral moment” of the US.”

    That is not an excuse.
    Where was the congress ?
    What about the MSMs ?
    And the civil demonstration against war ?
    And political leaders ?
    Oups, I forget myself. Where is my head ? There is no opposition party in the US only one party with two names following oligarchic orders.
    How practical, isn’t it ?
    Someone told me the US was a Great democracy… Really ?

    What about the freedom of speech regading the 9/11 and critical thinkint regarding the official version ?

  250. PB says:

    What is more interesting is that now you can’t even see the version of Al Jazeera their article is published.
    How interesting that any version of any newscast published in this country is just rubish and void of analysis of US international policy. Has anyone seen Al Jazeera/america, might as well watch MSNBC. You won’t see the Leverett’s on any of US channels either.

  251. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    Think how many nations & people would have fared better if Churchill had been “taken out.”

  252. Empty says:

    Bussed in Bassiji & Kooshy,

    What is really hard to digest for them is the blossoming of a new (old) thought, or a way of thinking if you will, that flips the very foundation of every “scientific” field in the past two hundred years on its head: that human beings are not only capable of being moral and just in theory but in practice; that they can build societies in which end does not justify the means; that they can have qualitatively great (and smart) power to defend themselves and their societies without themselves being aggressors.

    We’re just in gestation period of this way of thinking and they are besides themselves. Imagine if this thought takes root, if this thought is capable of surviving without a technological idol called nuclear weapon, then they must kiss goodbye the “western” scientific thought (another idol) in multiple fields:

    In biological and natural sciences, “fitness” in survival of the fittest has to be redefined (now, that’s the real Armageddon!) to mean only those who do not aggress.

    In medicine, humanity doesn’t try to “zap” everything out of existence (even itself) in an attempt to heal a wound or a tumor or maladies.

    In agriculture, humanity doesn’t try to create the most noxious toxins in order to kill the pests that eat the crops thus creating resistant strains which are no longer killed even with the most potent pesticides.

    In economics, humanity does build a whole system around predatory lending and gambling in the temples of banks and Wall Street.

    Crumbling down of idols is a painful sight for the idolaters.

  253. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Beautifully said, and if I may just add that Iran is in fact the one country where research into the so-called “hard” sciences is officially declared to be the number one national priority of the government- by the vali who is an Islamic jurisprudent.

    We are the land of Ibn Sina and Khaje Naseer…as they say: “its in our DNA”.

    So retard bitch is wrong on all counts.

    “I would like to raise two, three other points: we should take priorities into consideration. You are energetic and you have just entered the arena. However, your resources, your determination and your time are not unlimited. You should see what the priorities are. You should attend to all issues. You cannot delay a task until another is completed. You should find out which issue receives more attention.

    In my opinion, there are two issues which are necessary for us to pay attention to. One is the issue of economy and another is the issue of science. In my opinion, today these two issues should be put at the top of our agenda. These should be done primarily by you who are executive officials and secondarily by officials in other branches…

    …Since 10, 11 years ago until today, we have benefited from a rapid movement in scientific areas. A good movement has begun and the way I see it and according to the reports that I read, this movement has gained strength on a daily basis. The first day when we discussed the issue of the scientific capacities of the country and the software movement and the idea of crossing the borders of knowledge, I myself did not believe that there are such capacities in the country for progress at such a rate. Then, we suddenly saw that scientific progress bubbled like a spring from different corners of the country. Today, if you take a look, you will see that our research centers, our scientific-technological organizations and our universities are bubbling like a spring in different sectors. This should not be stopped. In economic areas too, this is the thing which will enormously help us. If we manage to move things forward in scientific areas and adopt an economic outlook towards science – I will refer to this issue later on – then this will definitely be much more beneficial to us than selling our crude oil and other such things…

    …We should prevent the rapid movement which exists today from being slowed down. The administration especially should make efforts to do this. As I said, this is one of the two main priorities of the country. The issue of scientific progress should be pursued in particular. Of course, the organizations which are mainly responsible for the issue of scientific progress are the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Health. However, the Ministry of Industries and the Ministry of Agriculture and even those ministries which provide different services can and should offer help. Cooperation between universities, scientific and research centers and the organizations which provide different services – such as the Ministry of Industries, the Ministry of Roads and Transportation, the Ministry of Petroleum, the Ministry of Agriculture and the different ministries which are involved in technical issues – is really necessary. They can act like a suction pump and they can obtain the products of science out of scientific and research organizations and they can help that organization to be active and diligent.

    Of course, there are two factors involved in scientific issues. One is that we should complete the chain of science and technology. That is to say, we should complete this chain which is made up of first ideas and thoughts, second science, third technology, fourth production and fifth market. If we carry out research and achieve technological advances, but we cannot engage in large-scale production or find a market for that, our efforts will be futile. All of these things should receive attention and the issue of scientific chain should be followed up until it leads to production and breaks into the market. Our attention should be focused on all the links of this chain. This is one factor. The other factor is knowledge-based companies. Fortunately, today many knowledge-based companies have been established. You should benefit from these companies as much as you can.”

  254. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    I completely agree. The worst enemy of a real scientist is arrogance.

    Apparently retard bitch hasn’t heard of Kurt Goedel and his Incompleteness Theorem either.


    “Kurt Friedrich Gödel (/ˈkɜrt ɡɜrdəl/; German: [ˈkʊʁt ˈɡøːdəl] ( listen); April 28, 1906 – January 14, 1978) was an Austrian, and later American, logician, mathematician, and philosopher. Considered with Aristotle and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel made an immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century, a time when others such as Bertrand Russell,[1] A. N. Whitehead,[1] and David Hilbert were pioneering the use of logic and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics.

    Gödel published his two incompleteness theorems in 1931 when he was 25 years old, one year after finishing his doctorate at the University of Vienna. The first incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (for example Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms. To prove this theorem, Gödel developed a technique now known as Gödel numbering, which codes formal expressions as natural numbers.

    He also showed that neither the axiom of choice nor the continuum hypothesis can be disproved from the accepted axioms of set theory, assuming these axioms are consistent. The former result opened the door for mathematicians to assume the axiom of choice in their proofs. He also made important contributions to proof theory by clarifying the connections between classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and modal logic.

    Religious views

    Gödel was a convinced theist.[20] He held the notion that God was personal, which differed from the religious views of his friend Albert Einstein.

    He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: “Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today’s science and received wisdom haven’t any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the afterlife], independently of any theology.” It is “possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning” that it “is entirely consistent with known facts.” “If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife].”[21]

    In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as “baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.”[22] Describing religion(s) in general, Gödel said: “Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not”.[23] He said about Islam: “I like Islam, it is consistent [or consequential] idea of religion and open-minded”.[24]”

  255. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    I remember during Khatami admin how some these retard bitches were throwing stones through the windows of the offices of certain professors- excellent scientists and teachers- in Sharif Uni because these professors were “religious”.

    “Scientism” can be the worst form of “religious intolerance” and dogma itself.

  256. Jay says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    February 18, 2014 at 5:22 am

    Gödel’s work has had a profound influence. His incompleteness proofs are nothing short of brilliant – resting on simple ideas that are weaved together with mastery.

    People who knew him from his days at IAS describe him as a humble, caring, and open-minded person who carried out every discussion with great poise and respect. Excellent example!

  257. Fiorangela says:

    “Lebanon calls on Gulf states to end Iran-Saudi rift | Al Bawaba

    Speaker Nabih Berri called on Gulf countries to play a mediating role between Iran and Saudi Arabiaand encourage rapprochement, as he left Kuwait to continue his tour of the region in Tehran Monday.

    “I asked the Kuwaiti emir to mediate between Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and he reassured me he would do everything possible to bring their points of view together,” Berri told Al-Rai, a Kuwaiti newspaper, in an interview to be published Tuesday. . . .

    Berri said he considered strengthening the Army an urgent issue for Lebanon. “Today, I consider strengthening the Lebanese Army a national priority,” he said.

    “Lebanon is about to turn into a [new] front line in the Syrian [war], that is already plaguing Tripoli, Hermel and Akkar,” Berri said . . .”

  258. Fiorangela says:

    serious question —

    re: “The first incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (for example Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms. To prove this theorem, Gödel developed a technique now known as Gödel numbering, which codes formal expressions as natural numbers.

    He also showed that neither the axiom of choice nor the continuum hypothesis can be disproved from the accepted axioms of set theory, assuming these axioms are consistent. The former result opened the door for mathematicians to assume the axiom of choice in their proofs. He also made important contributions to proof theory by clarifying the connections between classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and modal logic.”

    – – –

    What are the first steps a non-scientist, non-mathematician could take to understand the two paragraphs above? What should be studied first, then next, then next?

  259. Fiorangela says:

    Empty says:
    February 17, 2014 at 11:55 pm

    The Washington Journal program on C Span invites listeners to respond to various questions/propositions. The other day, the question was, What would you like Congress to do for you?

    A woman caller said, “I would like Congress to stop identifying me and treating me like a consumer and start thinking of me as a citizen.”

    That’s a step in the right direction, given where we are today.

    But one would have thought that a society that calls itself “progressive” would have progressed at least to the point the Italian humanists reached in the fourteenth century Anno Domino.

  260. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:

    February 18, 2014 at 10:46 am

    The gist of the Incompleteness Theorem may be understood by looking at Plane Euclidean Geometry – see, for example,

    There are 5 axioms.

    In the late 19-the century, early 20-th century there was a concerted effort to axiomatize all fields of mathematics, hoping to avoid a number of contradictions and inconsistencies that had been discovered during that time.

    The idea was to create axioms for these other branches of Mathematics – and together with rules for deducing logically correct conclusions from the axioms – establish contradiction-free theorems in every branch of mathematics.

    Euclidean Geometry was the template for this effort initiated by the late David Hilbert and continued under the name Bourbaki in France.

    The Incompleteness Theorem established that in any axiomatized mathematical system, there are statements (theorems) that are true but cannot be proven within that set of axioms together with their rules for deduction (rules of inference).

    The Incompleteness Theorem was established for Number Theory and it essentially amounted to saying that there are true statements that could be made about numbers that are not deducible from any set of axioms and rules of inference that purport to encompass Number Theory.

    That is, Number Theory is a bigger subject than could be comprehended within an axiomatic system.

    Some of the implications are that computer-based simulations of physical phenomena are also incomplete – the Universe cannot be formalized by the human mind and it certainly is not a computer.

    Another implication could be that the Mind is not computable – men are not computers….

  261. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 18, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Perhaps my response will not be entirely satisfactory because it will demand a good deal of time and effort from you. However, considering the profound impact of these results, it is hard to imagine a shortcut – at least for me.

    Start with learning about Cantor’s Uncountability arguments. Here you learn about a proof technique often referred to as “diagonalization”

    Cantor’s arguments are based on sequences. Next we can replace sequences with computable sequences.

    This leads you to the proof of the “Halting Problem”.

    At this point, continuing with Cantor’s arguments, you should do a warm up with “Russell’s Contradiction”, “Liar Paradox”

    The next stop is Tarski’s “Undefianability of Truth” Theorem

    You are now at the threshold of first theorem of Godel

  262. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 18, 2014 at 10:46 am

    On second thought, perhaps you are asking for a descriptive guide. The following post is an excellent guide.

  263. ataune says:


    You can also read Douglas Hofstoder nice book on Escher, Godel and Bach,_Escher,_Bach

  264. James Canning says:

    The New York Times today has an interesting report on the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran.

  265. James Canning says:


    Name one country you think would have benefited from the assassination of Winston Churchill.

  266. James Canning says:


    I asked you earlier: do you think Chamberlain made the right decision in September 1938, when he agreed to Hitler’s demand that Germany be allowed to annex the Sudetenland?

  267. James Canning says:


    First World War, and Second World War are tow of the greatest catastrophes in history.
    The first one was insane, and obviously helped to produce the second.

  268. James Canning says:


    The conspiracy to set up the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq was followed on by a conspiracy to suppress the truth as much as possible, and to protect the conspirators (and stooges, dupes, et al.). Fools in the US Congress are inclueded in preceding categories.

  269. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm


  270. James Canning says:


    Explain how Iran would have benefited from the assassination of Winston Churchill. And what year this would have had to have taken place.

    Still waiting for your opinion as to whether Chamberlain should have given Hitler the Sudetenland, in Sept. 1938.

  271. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 18, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    Contrary to Lloyd George’s advice/warning (below), the effect of Versailles land transfers was to snare German nationals in hostile territory surrounding Germany — something like the human shield Saddam was accused of using to protect Iraqi oil wells, etc.

    I too have been disconcerted with the taking of Sudetenland, and many German leaders today are as well, primarily because Hitler gave his word, and then broke his word, a notion unacceptable to the dignity of at least some members of NSDAP leadership.

    But in view of the fact that Germany was surrounded by hostile forces, and aware that it was Germany’s boxing-in by France and Russia that was the ultimate precipitant of WWI, which caused so much suffering in Germany as well as Belgium & France, there is at least an element of strategic logic in taking Sudetenland and sundering the encirclement.

    The image of Germany surrounded brings to mind the ring of US military bases that surrounds Iran. Just a coincidence.

    FDR attempted to negotiate disarmament and withdrawal treaties w/ European leaders, and NSDAP was cooperative, until Jewish zionist leaders in cahoots with a claque of American Anglophiles engineered enough political (AIPAC-like) pressure and propaganda to disrupt the negotiations. FDR had boasted that he was “this close” to achieving a peaceful resolution of European concerns, but the negotiations broke down, tragically and finally. In other words,it could well have been FDR who boasted, “We have peace in our time.” And if it had been, it might have prevailed: Churchill replaced Chamberlain within days of Munich; Churchill would not have been able to undermine a peace pact engineered by FDR.

    from: “100 documents on the Origin of the War selected from Official German White Book 1939”

    Extract from a Memorandum circulated by Mr ., Lloyd George,
    British Prime Minister, 25 March 1919

    “Some considerations for the Peace Conference before they
    finally draft their terms”

    . . . . The maintenance of peace will then depend upon there
    being no causes of exasperation constantly stirring up . the spirit
    of patriotism, of justice or of fair play. To achieve redress
    our terms may be severe, they may be stern and even ruthless,
    but at the same time they can be so just that the country on
    which they are imposed will feel in its heart that it has no
    right to complain. But injustice, arrogance, displayed in the
    hour of triumph will never be forgotten or forgiven .
    For these reasons I am, therefore, strongly averse to transferring
    more Germans from German rule to the rule of some
    other nation than can possibly be helped. I cannot conceive
    any greater cause of future war than that the German people,
    who have certainly proved themselves one of the most vigorous
    and powerful races in the world, should be surrounded by a
    number of small states, many of them consisting of people
    who have never previously set up a stable government for
    themselves, but each of them containing large masses of Germans
    clamouring for reunion with their native, land. The
    proposal of the Polish Commission that we should place
    z,ioo,ooo Germans under the control of a people which is of
    a different religion and which has never proved its capacity
    for stable self-government throughout its history must, in my
    judgment, lead sooner or later to a new war in the East of
    Europe . . . .

  272. James Canning says: today: “German-Israeli relations are at a nadir [due to] divisions over [illegal] Israeli settlements. . .”

  273. James Canning says:


    You may remember that Bismarck insisted that a primary basis of German foreign policy was maintaining good relations with Russia. And that the foolish Kaiser dismissed him, and allowed Germany’s relations with Russia to deteriorate.

    But there was ZERO chance of a French attack on Germany. Or of a Russian attack on Germany. In 1914.

  274. James Canning says:


    Chamberlain was British PM when Britain declared war on Germany (due to Germany’s failure to agree to evacuate the western half of Poland).

  275. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “The conspiracy to set up the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq was followed on by a conspiracy to suppress the truth as much as possible, and to protect the conspirators (and stooges, dupes, et al.). Fools in the US Congress are inclueded in preceding categories.”

    That is a lie and mere propoganda.
    Again pathetic excuses about the Anglo being the victims…
    But, I forgot this one !
    That was not because of jews, or strategic competition between powerz but because of a conspiracy !
    Sure the US are such a great democracy, they only can be exceptional and perfect !

    No, no, no, Mr Canning.
    The US regime since the fall of the Soviet Union has been consistent in its immoral policies through various presidentials terms and administrations.
    Be it the Clinton, Bush or the Obama administrations.

    Sure the Bush administration engaged in war in Irak.
    But the other administrations were or are not qualitatively different.
    They all are rapacious, imperial and criminal.

    You all bunch. Stop thinking the US as a democracy victim of some people or lobby.
    It is a rogue and criminal regime which has foresaken dignity, morality and common decency.

    There is no excuse.

  276. Fiorangela says:

    re 1914 & what I remember about Bismarck — I was very young in 1914, just entering my teens so I was not paying much attention to Bismarck.

    But Mr. Engdahl has studied the era — the entire century, in fact — and supports the thesis that WWI had little to do with Europe as such, and everything to do with British-vs-German access to Ottoman oil and mineral wealth. Churchill was the pivotal figure in England’s switch from coal to oil, and in defense of his risky decision, was not constrained by a few million Iranian — or French, Turk, German– lives, from pursuing his agenda.

    Had Germany developed the Berlin-to-Baghdad railroad, and development of Ottoman empire resources, the last 100 years of history, as the next 100 years, might have turned out much differently: the German plan seemed to be less along the lines of exploitation and/or colonization and more in the form that FDR imagined in the early 1940s when he thought that mutually beneficial trade relationships with Iran and the Arab states might replace British imperialism.

    Iran was not a party to either of the wars, but Iran was plundered in both — losing perhaps 9 million civilians to famine in WWI (according to Mohammad Gholi Majd). No Churchill, possibly no WWI, or at least no British entry into WWI.

    In 1940, NSDAP made numerous peace overtures to the English; Churchill rejected them; he wanted war.

    In a talk at Politics & Prose in Washington, DC a year or so ago, University of Maryland historian Jeffrey Herff responded to the question of the owner of the bookstore who asked, “If there had been no [second world] war, are you saying there would have been no final solution?”
    Herff answered, “Yes, that’s right: No war, no final solution.”

    No Churchill, no war.
    No war, no final solution.

    No Churchill, no famine in Iran.

    No Churchill, no overthrow of Mossadeqh.

    No overthrow of Mossadeqh, no 1979 revolution.
    No 1979 revolution, no Iran-Iraq war.

  277. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 18, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    “Chamberlain was British PM when Britain declared war on Germany (due to Germany’s failure to agree to evacuate the western half of Poland).”

    = = =
    That was very noble of the Anglos to stand behind the Poles in that way, and it turned out so well for the Polish people.

  278. Fiorangela says:

    World War 2 Total Deaths (Approximate):
    Soviet Union 23,954,000
    China 15,000,000
    Germany 7,728,000
    Poland 5,720,000
    Japan 2,700,000
    India 2,087,000
    Yugoslavia 1,027,000
    Rumania 833,000
    Hungary 580,000
    France 567,600
    Greece 560,000
    Italy 456,000
    Great Britain 449,800
    United States 418,500
    Czechoslovakia 345,000
    Netherlands 301,000
    Austria 123,700
    Finland 97,000
    Belgium 86,100
    Canada 45,300
    Australia 40,500
    Bulgaria 25,000
    New Zealand 11,900
    South Africa 11,900
    Norway 9,500
    Spain 4,500
    Denmark 3,200
    TOTAL: 63,185,500

    Ideologues and opportunists like Tim Snyder attempt to (once again) shift 100% of war guilt onto the Germans, but the facts are that Stalin — that grand ally of FDR and Churchill — had already starved as many as 5 million Ukrainians and Russians before Hitler was appointed to chancellorship; and the facts are that Stalin was ‘promised’ Berlin and the despoliation of Germany and then Poland, by that same noble Anglo leader, Winston Churchill. Stalin’s forces slaughtered and raped millions in Germany before expending the rest of their savage energy on Poland. England did not come to Poland’s aid; Eisenhower kept US/Western allies away from the scene of Stalin’s rampage for at least a month.

    Must make an Englishman very proud to have stood behind its ally so staunchly.

  279. Richard Steven Hack says:

    US escalates Syrian intervention


    Jordan has been turned into a permanent base for this intervention. TheJournal report describes a “military operations room” in Amman that is staffed by “officials from the 11 countries that form the Friends of Syria group, including the US, Saudi Arabia, France and the UK.”

    Obama flew to California Friday for confidential discussions with Jordan’s King Abdullah II at Sunnylands, the former Annenberg Estate. He promised the Hashemite monarch $1 billion in loan guarantees as well as the renewal of a memorandum of understanding that provides the kingdom with $600 million in US financial and military aid. In return, Washington wants a free hand in using Jordanian soil as a launching pad for aggression against Syria.

    End Quote

  280. Richard Steven Hack says:

    US to use Jordan as base for potential military intervention in Syrian


    The sources said that American and European military and security intelligence experts are meeting in Jordan to put together two scenarios in case the talks failed. The first is to allow American and British forces into Syria to fight radical jihadist groups such as Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and to prevent them from reaching the border with Israel.

    Only members of the Free Syrian Army will be allowed in Daraa and the neighbouring towns. The second scenario is to oversee the arming of opposition groups and help them develop plans to attack the Syrian regime’s bases; ensuring that sophisticated weapons do not reach Jihadist groups.

    End Quote

    Of course, as I’ve said many times here, the REAL reason for such attacks on Syrian military bases is to insure that Syrian weapons cannot be used against Israel during an IRAN war.

    The scenarios cited above are: 1) the first is to “justify” intervention based on the PR notion that “we have to fight them there so as not to fight them here” – also used in the Iraq occupation, and 2) the real scenario to take out the Syrian threat to Israel – thus allowing Israel to attack Hizballah in Lebanon via Syrian territory – which will also be advanced by scenario 1.

    It is clear now that Obama never had any intention or expectation that the Geneva talks would produce results in the Syria crisis – any more than Khamenei believes the Iranian nuclear talks will produce results. Khamenei clearly sees Obama’s duplicity better than anyone here. Obama clearly has once again been concealing his real motives behind “false diplomacy” in order to shield himself from blame once his real actions – military intervention – are initiated. This has been a consistent Obama pattern since his first days as President: speak a lot of meaningless words about “engagement” and “diplomacy” – while stabbing Iran in the back with cyberwar, assassinations of scientists, supporting the Egyptian military coup, and turning a blind eye – and CIA assistance – to arming the Syrian insurgents.

    Anyone who takes Obama as anything other than a lying SOB is delusional.

  281. masoud says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 18, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Goedel’s Theorem is one of the most incredible and profound results of modern mathematics.

    Essentially Goedel proved that if you have a sufficiently complex system of rules(eg the arithmetic of natural numbers 1 2 3 …), there will always be statements about this system of rules that are true, but that nevertheless, no one will ever be able to prove the truth of.

    Basically, it means rationality is over rated.

    The second paragraph is a little more technical:
    The most basic and essential system of rules that mathematicians use is something called ZF set theory, and Goedel also proved that the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis, which are two very controversial additional postulates to ZF theory are ‘consistent’ with ZF. That is, nothing in ZF disagrees with them them.

  282. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Obama may have been hoping the Russians would end their support of the Syrian government. This seems highly likely.

  283. James Canning says:


    Winston Churchill wanted to keep the Red Army out of Central Europe. This is the reason he favoured an attack through Greece, and up into Bulgaria and Roumania,
    instead of Normandy. The Americans refused to back his plan.

  284. James Canning says:


    I have asked you before: what should Britain have done, after Germany invaded Poland in 1939?

    Churchill hinmself sometimes wondered if the war had been worth the cost.

  285. James Canning says:


    Churchill was not PM of Britain in 1914. Cabinet decision, to declare war on Germany if Germany did not agree to evacuate Belgium.

    Should Britain have accepted German annexation of Belgium? And what today are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine?

  286. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Israel and Saudi Arabia’s Priorities in Syria. Covert Militarism and the “Lebanonization Strategy”


    Current developments both inside and outside of Syria have shown that the primary sponsors of the extremist-dominated insurgency – namely, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel and Turkey – aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel.

    One may be forgiven for thinking the Obama administration had decided to abandon the policy of regime change following the failed attempt to incite intervention, through the chemical weapons casus belli in August. But the harsh reality remains that the above mentioned alliance is indeed continuing its covert military support of the insurgency, in one form or another, in the full knowledge the vast majority of rebels are religious fundamentalists with a sectarian agenda, and vehemently opposed to any form of democracy or political pluralism.

    End Quote

    He does say he thinks that Obama still wishes to avoid a military intervention. However, this does not jibe with Obama’s clearly evident willingness to attack Syria just a few months ago before being out-maneuvered by Russia.

  287. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Syria at the Edge of ‘Shock Doctrine’


    Disappointed that President Obama didn’t bomb Syria last year, the neocons and other war hawks are using the frustrations over initial peace talks in Geneva to ratchet up pressure for a “humanitarian” military assault now.

    End Quote

    But this author, too, doesn’t understand the fundamental duplicity of Obama, thinking that Obama’s backing off from attacking Syria was some sort of “courage”, when it clearly was not. It was more embarrassment at being out-maneuvered by Vladimir Putin.

  288. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 18, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    “I have asked you before: what should Britain have done, after Germany invaded Poland in 1939?”

    – – –
    The better question is What should England have done BEFORE Germany invaded Poland. That is when England could have prevented war, but that was not the agenda England had in mind. “100 Documents” includes evidence of the persistent efforts Germans made to resolve the Danzig corridor problem nonviolently, efforts that persisted up until the last days of August 1939. England’s support of Polish intransigence was the equivalent of Germany’s blank check to Austria 1914– or of US unconditional support for Israel to the present day. (hmmm — what if USA gets socked with reparations for the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians?)

    – – –

    “Churchill hinmself sometimes wondered if the war had been worth the cost.”

    The poor dear. He must have felt terribly stressed by the whole affair.
    Which is curious in view of the fact that not only was the “cost” to him very small, he actually profited from waging war. FOCUS cheques dropped in Churchill’s pudgy hands enabled him to maintain Chartwell and to pay his son’s gambling debts. Perhaps his real regret was that he had not demanded more.

  289. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 18, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    “Winston Churchill wanted to keep the Red Army out of Central Europe.”

    – – –
    What a coincidence: that is precisely what Herbert Hoover and Neville Chamberlain concluded that Hitler wanted to do: keep Communist Russia out of central — and Western — Europe. In 1938 Hoover cautioned Britain & France to stay out of the way and let Hitler & Stalin fight each other to exhaustion; “then there will follow a century of peace,” prophesied Hoover (“Freedom Betrayed,” Hoover’s memoir, ed. George Nash).

    – – –

    “This is the reason he favoured an attack through Greece, and up into Bulgaria and Roumania,
    instead of Normandy. The Americans refused to back his plan.”

    Why should the Americans back Churchill’s plan?
    He involved himself & the entire Western world in an unnecessary war at a time when his country had neither the financial resources nor the military to wage it. He connived to involve USA in his war, and FDR was maneuvered into complying.

    Churchill promised Poland that England would come to its aid, but much as George H W Bush incited Kurds to revolt then abandoned them, after Polish leaders were emboldened to refuse a peaceful settlement w/ Germany and Germany invaded Poland in consequence, England and France were impotent. They did nothing to help their “ally” Poland. After Germany obtained thru less than 30 days of war what they tried for 6 years to obtain nonviolently, Russia also invaded Poland, and still that noble stalwart Churchill sat on his hands.

  290. Karl.. says:

    This colonialism isnt just used in the middle east. Just look how western states create a civil war in Ukraine, support neo-nazis and of course use sanctions on the elected government.

  291. Rehmat says:

    On Tuesday, Obama announced the appointment of Robert Malley (born to an Egyptian Jewish father) as member of White House National Security Council to enhance America’s faltering popularity in the Persian Gulf region.

    In March 2012, pro-Israel Foreign Policy Magazine published Malley’s Op-Ed, in which he claimed: “Israelis, not for the first time, likely are exaggerating the Iranian threat and its imminence“, and suggested that it was in Netanyahu’s interest to keep the world focused on Iran in order to take pressure off of Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

    “Virtually the entire international security conversation has become monopolized by Iran, turning Netanyahu’s 15-year obsession into a global one,” Malley wrote. “That is an added benefit for the prime minister: for as long as that remains the case, there will be little space left for that other irksome Middle Eastern conflict — the Israeli-Palestinian dispute – and even less American appetite to pressure Israel on it,” wrote Malley.

  292. Fiorangela says:

    Karl.. says:
    February 19, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Strobe Talbot, pres. of Brookings Institute, chairing a panel discussion focused on a new book about Russia by Angela Stent of (???) Georgetown University, Peter Baker, husband of Susan Glasser & co-autorh with her of their journalism on Russia; moderated by Fiona Hill, author of an arm-chair psychological profile of Putin.

    Many interesting perspectives; just this one, relative to Karl’s comment: “US and Russia partnered to denuclearize Ukraine.”

    Do we see a pattern here? US armtwists and also offers friendships to partners (or accomplices?) to coerce a resource-rich geostrategically important target state to neutralize themselves, then US has the field clear to subvert the Target.

    Just heard a question from the audience from a young man who identified himself as a student from American University. From the content of his question, I have to believe he has listened to a lecture or two of Hillary Leverett’s. hoo wah.

  293. James Canning says:


    Are you actually arguing that it was not a good thing to get rid of Ukraine’s nukes? Amazing.

  294. James Canning says:


    Obviously Israel tries to play up the “threat” from Iran, to facilitate its continuing insane colonisation programme in the West Bank. “Deflection” of global attention.

  295. Fiorangela says:

    Americans are very badly served by the majority of their public intellectuals. The old farts are committed, first and foremost, to maintaining their positions and gravy train. They — (this is inspired by the commentary of Strobe Talbot that I am listening to right now) — have mastered Russia/Communism/Cold War; their neurotransmitters are programmed in that language; it may be that they are incapable to updating to Russia 2.0.

    The hope is in young people like the student from American University, whose minds are fresh and able to program in “Russia as it is, not Russia as we deluded ourselves that it was at a time when we needed to manufacture it as a boogey man.” This hope in the young people comes with a very serious caution: there are not enough Hillary Mann Leveretts and Flynt Leveretts to go around, and young people are being taught and trained by the old farts with their sclerotic views or even, imo, in the case of some of the participants in the Brookings panel, agendas that are antithetical to what Americans like me thought was the value set established by those who pledged “their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor.” One seldom hears words like “honor,” “respect,” “character” emanating from think tanks, and the Brookings panel did not deviate from that trend.

  296. James Canning says:


    Do I understand you as arguing that Britain should have ignored the partition of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939?

  297. James Canning says:


    You said you were no comfortable arguing that Chamberlain was right, to pressure Czechoslovakia into giving Germany the Sudetenland, at Munich in September 1938. Because Hitler soon broke his promise not to take the rest of the country (which he partitioned with Hungary).

    Now, you argue Britain should have pressured Poland to give Hitler Polish territory, to avoid war.

  298. James Canning says:

    RS Hack,

    I think Obama was glad that Russia took up Kerry’s suggestion the US would not need to attack Syria if Syria gave up its CW (in wake of Aug. 21 CW event).

  299. James Canning says:

    Eric Cantor, one of the most aggessive stooges of Aipac and Israeli warmongers, in the US Congress, once again has claimed Iran wants to hit Israel with nukes, to “wipe it off the map”.

  300. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 19, 2014 at 1:42 pm
    Are you actually arguing that it was not a good thing to get rid of Ukraine’s nukes? Amazing.

    – – –
    meanwhile, back on the island–

    ” For some, London’s desire to retain nuclear arms is all about the United Kingdom maintaining close access to a global superpower, even if Washington is by most accounts a hegemon in gradual decline.

    Some of those who favor keeping the U.K. nuclear deterrent see the arms as “a way of cementing that nuclear relationship with the U.S., so we have a closeness of consultation on every aspect of nuclear policy,” Chalmers said. “If we weren’t in the [nuclear] business, we wouldn’t be consulted.”

    this is the equivalent of the loner reasoning that “if I don’t help them rob the liquor store they won’t let me into their clubhouse.” pathetic


    James Canning says:
    February 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm
    “Obviously Israel tries to play up the “threat” from Iran, to facilitate its continuing insane colonisation programme in the West Bank. “Deflection” of global attention.”

    “Liberal Democrats are eager to embrace a relaxation of the CASD approach as a useful “step down the nuclear ladder,” but their Tory governing partners firmly reject the idea.
    U.K. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond called the Liberal Democrat proposal “reckless” in a July commentary published in the Daily Mail. . . .[T]here are states, such as Iran, which already have ballistic missiles and are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons,” Hammond wrote. “How can anyone be confident that the global security environment will not change in the next 10 years? This is not the time to let down our guard. . . .
    Rather, according to some issue experts, the continued interest in preserving a small and ready U.K. atomic arsenal translates into something more nuanced: Continued confidence in London about influencing events on the world stage — unilaterally, if need be.

    Imagine, for example, a future scenario in which a nuclear-armed Iran sponsors militants bent on disrupting the oil fields of one of its Persian Gulf neighbors — oil on which the United Kingdom continues to depend, even as the United States has become more energy independent.

    “If we get drawn into a conflict, how is our confidence in responding affected by Iran’s nuclear arsenal? How is Iran’s calculus affected, depending on whether or not possession of nuclear weapons is unilateral — only on Iran’s part — or mutual?” asked Shashank Joshi, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, also speaking at the Pugwash event. “I think it may affect judgments at the margin, and it may weigh upon the minds of decision-makers.””

    Thank Zeus for Peter Jenkins; the fading imperial island can claim at least one sane Brit —

    ““These days, we do not loom large in the calculations of Iran’s military balance,” Peter Jenkins, a former U.K. ambassador to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna, said at a Sept. 23 British Pugwash discussion. “Unless grievously provoked, they would not dream of wasting precious nuclear weapons on us.

    poor pathetic England. Not worth an Iranian nuke.

  301. James Canning says:


    Are you arguing Britain should get rid of its nukes?

  302. James Canning says:


    Proponents of insanely high levels of “defence” spending, claim the US is in “decline” if it fails to do this, that or whatever, here and there around the world. But especially in the ME.

    I of course disagree strongly.

  303. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    February 19, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Are you actually arguing that it was not a good thing to get rid of Ukraine’s nukes? Amazing.

    ` ` ` ` `
    James Canning says:
    February 19, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Are you arguing Britain should get rid of its nukes?

    ` . ` . ` . `


  304. Jay says:

    Fiorangela says:
    February 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    So long as this earth has been revolving, humans have tried to justify their unjustifiable actions.

    Here is Greenwald on the UK court ruling:

    “The U.K. government expressly argued that the release of the Snowden documents (which the free world calls ‘award-winning journalism’) is actually tantamount to ‘terrorism,’ the same theory now being used by the Egyptian military regime to prosecute Al Jazeera journalists as terrorists. Congratulations to the U.K. government on the illustrious company it is once again keeping. British officials have also repeatedly threatened criminal prosecution of everyone involved in this reporting, including Guardian journalists and editors.”

    In other words, when it suits this U.K. judge and justice system they can equate journalism with terrorism.

    So, why not! If Ukraine gets rid of Nukes – good. Britain get rid of nukes – terrible!

  305. Richard Steven Hack says:

    On Syria, Obama Dons His Interventionist Cap – Again

  306. masoud says:

    Is anyone else wondering why we’ve gotten the sudden flurry of statements by Rouhani, Zarif, and Khameini about how Iran’s ballistic missile program is completely off limits in the nuclear talks?

    I think there is quite a fair chance that just as soon as Zarif and co are through making concessions on the nuclear program, we’re going to start hearing another hue and cry being raised, this time over Iran’s ‘ambiguous’ missile program.

    In other news, I’m actually finding the Rouhani government’s slow motion implosion to be quite satisfactory. Where the hell does a man who supposedly wrote an entire doctoral thesis in English but can’t string together two sentences in the language get off criticizing others’ education anyway?

  307. fyi says:

    masoud says:

    February 20, 2014 at 2:54 am

    Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad both had stated that “..if you make any concession, they will demand more and move closer…”.

    I think the political estimation among Axis Powers is that Iran is bled white and therefore ready for making concessions.

    They are wrong but cannot blame them for trying….

  308. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:

    February 20, 2014 at 1:18 am

    Yes, wonder never ceases….

    Syria remains a target and so does Iran…

  309. Karl.. says:

    Maybe Russia could sell Iran the S300 now? Or will Russia keep getting fooled by the west, just take Ukraine.

    Does Russia really thinks west loves them? Why are they so naive?

  310. paul says:

    It’s interesting to observe the way that defenders of war twist things. One such here claims that Obama was happy that Russia came up with the Syria chemical weapons plan. But, of course, as he knows, no such plan would have been necessary had Obama and his allies not fomented war in Syria in the first place, and then threatened open attack by US forces. If Obama wanted peace, all he had to do was not make war! Ah, but I suppose such plain thinking misses out on the ‘nuances’ that would turn black into white, that gives nobel prizes to warmongers.

    This defender also rewrites 20th century history; according to him, the major wars were the fault of Germany. The US did nothing wrong, it seems. The UK did nothing wrong. There was no chain of events where one set of imperial powers tried to force another set of imperial powers into a corner, in a ruthless struggle for continental and world dominion, where both sides committed many vile acts. As for Churchill, what a sweetheart that man was! He wasn’t a mad bomber, an exterminator of cities, a dyed in the wool warmonger. He wasn’t a vicious imperialist, a racist. He didn’t support fascism’s bloody takedown of the spanish republic. He was such a good good man! If only we had more statues to Churchill. That’s the problem with the world today; not enough statues to Churchill.

    What we should be looking at now is Ukraine. The US is clearly behind the proxy struggle there, just as is has been in Syria and Libya, attempting to overthrow another government by proxy strife. We can see now what Obama’s volte face after the Russia staredown over Syria was really sbout. His intention was to wreck the Geneva peace talks, while weakening Russian and Iranian support for Iran, in order to come back around for a renewed Syria war. Belligerent talk is ratcheting up, propaganda is ratcheting up, and new lines in the sand are being drawn (currently Obama is warning Ukraine of ‘consequences’).

    In other words, the Hegemon continues its crushing journey, helped along by its apologists, draped with nobel prizes.

  311. paul says:

    Russian and Iranian support for Syria….

  312. Karl.. says:


    You are right, although obama backstabs Putin bigtime with Ukraine. Its like these peoples are vampires, they must have blood. Now ukrainian blood.

  313. James Canning says:


    You surely are aware I deplore the appalling catastrophe in Syria. I deeply regret it.

    But obviously it was a good thing Obama saw he did not need to attack Syria if it agreed to get rid of its CW.

  314. Rd. says:

    James Canning says: “

    Are you arguing Britain should get rid of its nukes?”

    dearest, if you could actually read in between the lines, I believe the message could be interpreted something like, the B-elites are hypocrites!! however, you should dread (nut)! and carry on. every court needs its jester.

  315. Fiorangela says:

    thank you Rd.

    – – –

    “The Arab Spring Unleashed in Europe”

    Mr. Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine, on C Span this morning.
    See Rd.’s comment, above, and Read between the lines of Herbst’s mendacious protestations — “we only want to for Ukraine to enjoy democracy”, and “Color revolution … color revolution … color revolution.”

    In response to a caller’s mention of Nuland’s recorded phone conversation wit Pyatt, Herbst lied: he said, “the only thing Nuland talked about was who would be the best person for whichever position. That is all she said.”

    In fact, Nuland also talked about being in touch with Jeff Feltman at United Nations.

    Feltman is the Rainbow boy of Color Revolutions.

    In 2007 testimony before US State Dept. Subcommittee for Religious Freedom, Feltman alluded opaquely but unmistakably to US funding for “NGOs” in Iran. Shortly thereafter, voila, the Green Revolution (fizzled) in Iran.

    Within days of Tunisia experiencing turmoil, and shortly thereafter Egypt’s Tahrir Square and the “miracle” of “social media,” Hillary Clinton delegated Jeff Feltman to manage the “Arab Spring” in the region. That worked out well.

    Clinton hired one of the Obama election campaign’s very young social media geeks to interface between State Department and countries in the Middle East. We know — or should know, that Twitter and Facebook etc. are as private as ancient telephone party lines. The greatest “advance” these media represent is the ability of their users to convince poor saps like us that they are the Next Big Thing. Hells bells — England taught US State Dept. how to listen in on phone calls and open diplomatic pouches in the run-up to WWII in the early 1930s. Snooping is not new.

  316. Fiorangela says:

    John Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine, on C Span.

    Gareth Porter’s “Manufactured Crisis”, while subtitled and pitched toward Iran, has as its framework the process by which USA overthrows regimes it does not like.

    It’s helpful to read Porter’s earlier book, “Perils of Dominance,” which

    “demonstrates how the slide into war in Vietnam is relevant to understanding why the United States went to war in Iraq and why such wars are likely as long as U.S. military power is overwhelmingly dominant in the world.”

    As Herbst repeated, and as USAians were assured re Libya and Syria, “there will be no boots on the ground;” Hillary Clinton shifted US foreign intervention tactics from brute military to the more subtle tactics of her predecessors, the Dulles brothers. Porter’s argument about US “overwhelming dominance of military power” is not obsolete, it is merely shifted: US still acts like an empire, it just uses different aggressive tactics, over which it still maintains “overwhelming dominance.”

    check out moonofalabama on the Ukraine situation, and note this comment by a blogger whose specialty is central banking and the creation of money and sovereign wealth:

    ” Without going into one of my long treatises on the importance and power of a sovereign currency (which the US, Great Britain, Japan, Australia and Canada have), let me remind you that great powers are at work to wrest the Ukraine from its sovereign currency and make it join the EU. That means the Ukraine’s currency would be the Euro and it would lose control of its resources (HUGE!) and its future. That paves the way for the bond vigilantes to swoop in to offer loans while grabbing the resources as collateral for a song. [Look what’s happening to Argentina in the past few days with two hedge funds insisting on 100% payment on their loans plus interest plus penalties, and they got the US courts to say they could file a judgment against Argentina’s sovereign funds at the Fed. The US government is right to take this to the Supreme Court to stop the Wall Streeters. Because of the US law that says no US money can leave the US banking system–except for 11% of actual dollar bills printed in the system, all US currency in foreign bank and govt sovereign accounts globally is ACTUALLY IN checking accounts (reserve accounts) at the NY Fed, or in savings accounts (securities accounts); ‘captive audience’ so to speak. International banking law say that the US cannot attach the funds as the manager of the world’s reserve currency. The Wall Streeters got the US courts to go around this, and it’s wrong.] – . . .
    There are a lot of people interested in getting their hands on the Ukraine’s oil fields. This is a financial play behind the fighting and killing. Don’t lose sight of that. Nuland is not representing US interests; she’s representing the interests of international bankers. If the Ukraine loses its ability to denominate its debt in its own currency (can’t remember the name of it), it impoverishes its people and the Ukraine can turn into Greece or Spain, unable to pay its bills inside its own country and unable to hire its own citizens or provision itself.” (h/t mrw)

  317. James Canning says:


    Are you arguing that the US “slid into Vietnam War” because it was “overwhelmingly dominant militarily?

    Primary reason for idiotic invasion of Iraq was ISRAEL LOBBY and its neocon wing of liar marmongers.

  318. James Canning says:


    You are a strong candidate for “court jester” if you think Iran should refuse to make a deal with P5+1 unless Britain gets rid of its nukes.

  319. James Canning says:


    Are you arguing Obama was unhappy that Russia proposed Syria get rid of its CW, to avoid a US attack?

  320. James Canning says:


    I think Britain and the US should get rid of their nukes.

    But, obviously, getting rid of Ukraine’s nukes was a good thing.

  321. James Canning says:


    Are you proposing that Iran insist China get rid of its nukes?

  322. Rehmat says:

    Dr. Juan R. Cole in a recent interview he gave to young Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari claimed that Barack Obama made a sincere offer to Iran to resolve US-Iran differences but former Iranian president Ahmadinejad and other hawks in Iran refused to trust Obama.

    Cole also claimed that America’s Middle East policy is not controlled by Israel or its lobby group AIPAC.

  323. ataune says:


    “Are you proposing that Iran insist China get rid of its nukes?”

    US, China, Russia is for later. As an only legitimate political action targeting nukes, I think your duty, and everybody else, is to insist, in every public forum including here that Israel, Pakistan, India, NK, UK and France get rid of their nukes.

  324. Karl.. says:

    Another naive state: China

    Its time China like Russia use similar acts against the US.

  325. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “Are you proposing that Iran insist China get rid of its nukes?”

    I am suggesting, the brits should move out of the stone age and ditch that old monarchy system, just like the Iranians did way back in 1979!!! You folks are way behind buddy.. infact you are in the same stone age as the wahabi saudi royals! Good company to be with! Right charley? I guess the sun shines out there more than that lil’ island.

    “Charles of Arabia happily danced to their tune; after all, these jolly old chaps are “our” gold-medal bastards. “

  326. James Canning says:


    You make good points (re: getting rid of nukes).