Barack Obama, the Islamic State, and America’s Never-Ending War in the Middle East

The World Financial Review has published our latest piece, “America’s Never-Ending War in the Middle East.”  To read the article, click here; we’ve also appended the text (with links) below:

 America’s Never-Ending War in the Middle East 

While President Obama continues—at least for now—to resist redeploying large numbers of U.S. soldiers to fight the Islamic State on the ground, the military components of the anti-Islamic State strategy he has laid out effectively recommit the United States to its post-9/11 template for never-ending war in the Middle East.  In the end, such an approach can only compound the damage that has already been done to America’s severely weakened strategic position in the Middle East by its previous post-9/11 military misadventures.       

Thirteen years after the fact, most of America’s political and policy elites have yet to grasp the strategic logic that motivated the 9/11 attacks against the United States.  Certainly, al-Qa’ida was not averse to damaging America’s economy and punishing its people.  But Osama bin Laden knew that effects of this sort would be finite, and thus of limited strategic value; he had no illusions about destroying “the American way of life.”

The real objective of the 9/11 attacks was to prompt American overreaction:  to goad Washington into launching prolonged military campaigns against Muslim lands.  These campaigns would galvanise popular sentiment across the Muslim world against the United States, mobilise Middle Eastern publics against regional governments (like the one in bin Laden’s native Saudi Arabia) that cooperate politically and militarily with it, and rally them in favor of jihadi fighters who resist American domination.  Looking ahead, the al-Qa’ida leader anticipated that local backlash against U.S. overreaction to a terrorist provocation would ultimately undermine the regional foundations of America’s ability to project massive amounts of military force into the Middle East, compelling it to disengage from the region and go home.

Viewed through this frame, the United States fell for bin Laden’s plan with appalling alacrity.  America’s post-9/11 invasions cum campaigns of coercive regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have been strategic failures, leaving the United States weaker—in terms of its ability to achieve its stated goals in the Middle East, its economic position, and its standing as a global superpower—than before.  And the most important factor ensuring the failure of these campaigns was that they eviscerated the perceived legitimacy of American purposes in the Middle East for the vast majority of people living there.  As a result, America’s self-declared “war on terror” has made the threat to U.S. interests from violent jihadi extremists vastly more broad-based, complicated, and dangerous than it was thirteen years ago.

Doing the Same Thing…   

Now, in response to the Islamic State’s dramatic rise, the Obama administration wants to go down the same, well-worn, and colossally self-damaging path of strategic overreactions.  The administration’s strategy for dealing with the Islamic State is a veritable case study in Einstein’s (apocryphal) definition of insanity—“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”  For there is absolutely no rational basis on which to think that, this time, the United States will get a different—presumably better—result.  This makes Obama’s military campaign against the Islamic State exactly the sort of “dumb war” that, as a presidential candidate in 2008, he promised American voters he would oppose.

President Obama can declare all he wants that the Islamic State isn’t Islamic—but the movement starts its fight against the United States with an extraordinary level of support from Sunni Muslim publics.  In July 2014—that is, before the United States began its current air campaign against Islamic State targets in Iraq—a poll by the (Saudi-owned) pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat showed that 92 percent of Saudis believe that the group “conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.”  In Jordan and Kuwait, Facebook posts by the Islamic State draw tens of thousands of likes in just a few hours; Twitter feeds and other social media suggest that there is a considerable reservoir of popular support for the movement among Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and other Arab populations.  Saudi Arabia and Jordan have generated large contingents of young men who have left their home countries to fight with the Islamic State, which draws holy warriors from across the Sunni world.

Under these conditions, U.S. military action against the Islamic State will once again play into the jihadi grand strategy:  to draw “crusaders” (the West, embodied in the United States) and “infidels” (Shi’a) into battle against Sunni holy warriors, thereby rallying support for them across the Sunni world.

Far from deterring Islamic State provocations, U.S. airstrikes will actually incentivize it to do more.  The movement did not execute any of the American journalists it has been holding hostage (for well over a year in some cases) until after the United States started bombing it in August.  That month, as an Islamic State fighter beheaded journalist James Foley for what (thanks to an initial posting on YouTube) turned out to be a worldwide audience, the group warned that, if U.S. military forces continued bombing, it would execute another prisoner, Steven Sotloff.  Of course, the bombing continued; at the beginning of September, as it had promised, the Islamic State beheaded Sotloff for another worldwide video audience.

These gruesome executions have sparked enough elite outcry and sufficient turnaround in American public opinion to prompt the Obama administration to escalate U.S. military action against the Islamic State.   But one utterly predictable consequence of not just escalating the U.S. air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq but expanding it into Syria (as President Obama seems set on doing) will be more provocations like the beheadings of Foley and Sotloff.

In effect, the Islamic State is continuing the strategy pioneered by bin Laden thirteen years ago, daring Washington to escalate U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria.  Sustained U.S. military action against the Islamic State—even if confined to what Obama calls “a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists”—will, in the eyes of Arab publics, cast the movement and those allied to it as resisting continued U.S. efforts to dominate the Muslim world.  This will not only boost the Islamic State’s already substantial popular support in the Muslim world; it will further erode America’s already severely weakened strategic position in the Middle East.

…Over and Over Again 

Likewise, Obama’s pledge to boost American “support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground” will put the United States in the surreal position of combating the threat to U.S. interests posed by jihadi fighters by funding, arming, and training…jihadi fighters.  The proposition that there is a moderate Syrian opposition with enough military potential and—even more importantly—popular support inside Syria to overthrow the Assad government is a myth.  To claim in addition that these mythical moderate oppositionists can take on and defeat the Islamic State is either blatantly dishonest or dangerously delusional.

To have even a token chance of dealing effectively with the Islamic State, Washington needs to acknowledge the mistaken premises of its Syria policy—that Assad has lost the support of most Syrians and can be overthrown by externally-supported oppositionists—and recognize that ending the anti-Assad insurgency is essential to cutting of the Islamic State’s base in northeastern Syria.  Ostensibly moderate and secular Syrian opposition groups have, for the most part, been well penetrated by their Islamist counterparts.

The White House is (to put it mildly) dancing around reports that elements in one of the supposedly “moderate” and secular Syrian opposition groups to which the Obama administration now wants to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in additional military and financial support sold Steven Sotloff to the Islamic State militants who would later behead him.  For those reports highlight a big problem with the administration’s strategy:  the main thing that will be achieved my stepping up U.S. support for “moderate” Syrian oppositionists is to open up more channels through which the Islamic State can obtain more Western weapons and military equipment than it already has.

Needed:  A Real Regional Strategy 

The point about the mistaken premises of the Obama administration’s Syria policy highlights another debilitating contradiction at the heart of its stated strategy for stopping and, ultimately, dismantling the Islamic State.  This contradiction grows out of the gap between the administration’s rhetoric on the need for a regional strategy vis-à-vis the Islamic State and the actual conduct of its regional diplomacy.

Without doubt, there needs to be a regional strategy for dealing with the Islamic State.  Obama and his senior advisors pay lip service to this idea.  But their notion of a regional strategy encompasses only established and unrepresentative Sunni regimes dependent on Washington for their security—e.g., Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, and Jordan.  These governments, by providing various types of support to Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria, have actually facilitated the Islamic State’s extraordinary ascendance.  There is no way that this sort of “regional strategy” can meaningfully contribute to halting and ultimately undermining the movement.

A real regional strategy against the Islamic State would necessarily include Russia, Iran, and Syria’s Assad government—in leading positions.  For those actors are all essential players in any serious effort to contain and roll back the multifaceted challenged this movement poses.  Yet senior Obama administration officials have ruled out working with either Iran or the Assad government, and Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, complains that the administration’s dialogue with Moscow about the Islamic State—if it can appropriately be called “dialogue”—is much more pro forma than substantive.

Obama’s strategy toward the Islamic State provides damning testimony as to how little he has done—or, in his second term, is willing to do—to challenge the foreign policy orthodoxies against which he ran his initial presidential campaign, and which have done so much to weaken America’s international position in the two and a half decades since it came out of the Cold War as the most powerful state in history.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett



104 Responses to “Barack Obama, the Islamic State, and America’s Never-Ending War in the Middle East”

  1. fyi says:


    Dr. Hunter’s comments – with much of which I agree –

  2. fyi says:


    Ambassador Freeman’s assessment:

    We read:

    “Given the strategic situation, Iran is in a seller’s position for the first time.”

    And thus there would and could not be any nuclear deal; US cannot pay the price.

  3. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 1, 2014 at 11:40 am

    No, that is not correct

  4. James Canning says:

    I continue to believe the US should have tried to prevent the eruption of the vicious civil war in Syria. And I think the catastrophe in Syria is in part a higly=regrettable result of Iran’s ill-considered expansion of its nuclear programme.

  5. James Canning says:


    To be clear: you think the only deal Iran should make with the P5+1 is a deal that makes it easier for Iran to build nukes.

  6. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    October 1, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    There is no other deal possible.

  7. James Canning says:


    You appear glad Iran is in a hole too deep to get out of. For domestic political reasons.

  8. Karl.. says:


    Whats the point with a security organization if the members in case of a war would go against each other?

  9. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    October 1, 2014 at 1:39 pm


    My position has been clear; after 1998, Iran should be armed with nuclear weapons for the reasons of state security and cohesion.

    You, living under the protection afforded to you by nuclear weapons evidently do not empathize with Iran.

  10. James Canning says:


    Iran in your view has created “facts on the ground”, and Iran cannot step back. Correct?

    Sadly, the civil war in Syria in part grew out o Iran’s ill-considered expansion of its nuclear programme. You apparently agree that the civil war is a outgrowth of Iran’s nuclear programme. Correct?

  11. James Canning says:


    “Empathy” has much to do with my thinking about the situation. But I am convinced there is virtually ZERO chance the P5+1 would allow Iran to build nukes. You disagree.

  12. James Canning says:


    “Empathy” has much to do with my thinking about the situation. But I am convinced there is virtually ZERO chance the P5+1 would allow Iran to build nukes. You disagree.

  13. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    October 1, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    You can verify with your contacts in UK’s Defense establishment:

    The power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons should her leaders so decide does not exist in the international arena.

    P5+1 have also amply demonstrated that.

  14. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    October 1, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    I believe I had answered you on this issue when I educated you on the (Aristotelian) categorization of causes.

    The conclusion: “No”.

  15. Ataune says:


    I actually think Hunter’s argument in the link you posted is much like Canning’s one. It goes like that:

    “The problems between the West and Iran are political, i.e. power issues. Since the West has inherited the British approach of wanting Iran to be a “moribund” buffer state, she cannot accept a strong Iran shifting the balance of power in the region, therefore if Iranian leaders want better conditions for their population they should grow-up, bite the bullet and surrender all the tools providing them strength.”

    An argument in the same category from the Iranian side can counter it like this:

    “Iran is an island of peace and security in a region marred by wars and poverty. She has enough hard strength and soft power to defend herself and project a model for neighboring countries. After 2 big strategic blunders by the West, I.e. direct heavy military intervention in the region and a precocious engagement of hostilities with Russia and China, Iran has enough political space to manoeuver to her advantage. It is the West which is now in stalemate and loss-loss situation”

  16. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    State security is not only in case of, and or against a foreign invasion, state security with that mindset is a post-world war western Europeans colonist concept which are willing to give up their state sovereignty for free security. Nerveless the SCO is a “cooperative” organization and not a treaty (alliance) organization like NATO. They are cooperative in issues like terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling etc. As a member of SCO China has made no commitment (signed a treaty) in case NATO attacks Russia she will go to war with NATO. But that’s not true for Germany in case of an attack on a NATO member. Is it that you try to mix and blend the facts to make and get to your own end point, doing very much same as Gav which you often criticize for doing the same.

  17. fyi says:

    Ataune says:

    October 1, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    I read it the other way:

    “….she cannot accept a strong Iran shifting the balance of power in the region, … Iranian leaders …should grow-up, bite the bullet and … build nuclear weapons.”

  18. Karl.. says:


    From SCO wiki:

    Over the past few years, the organisation’s activities have expanded to include increased military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and counterterrorism

    You mean that an organization with member that are obviously not enemies, rather allies in their work against certain threats (thereof “military cooperation”, war games), “intelligence sharing” and collab on “counterterrorism” would not back each other in case of a war.

    You mean an organization meant to strengthen the members relationsship with each other on security (war), econonomy, cultural would mean nothing in case of a war involving one or multiple members of this same organization?

    Or take this quote:
    At the 2007 SCO summit Iranian Vice President Parviz Davudi addressed an initiative that has been garnering greater interest and assuming a heightened sense of urgency when he said, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is a good venue for designing a new banking system which is independent from international banking systems”

    Those international banking is the “west”.

    Or what do you think this statement by Putin mean?

    “We now clearly see the defectiveness of the monopoly in world finance and the policy of economic selfishness..//

    Yes thats right,its directed against the west.

  19. James Canning says:


    Again, I think you are delusional if you think Iran could simply proceed to build nukes. In fact, such a decision more likely would result in termination of Iran’s nuclear programme.

  20. James Canning says:


    Britain made clear it would welcome a richer and stronger Iran. Provided it makes a deal with P5+1.

  21. James Canning says:


    Where do you apparently discern an indication by the P5+1 that Iran could not be prevented from building nukes?

  22. James Canning says:


    I take it we agree the catastrophe of civil war in Syria resulted in part from Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme.

  23. Ataune says:


    I do agree with at least one argument advanced by Hunter in her article: Britain’s policy towards the Iranian state was defined by “keeping the buffer state in place but always moribund”. I think if your claim is to the contrary, the burden is on your shoulders to prove that Britain is today (or let’s say 30 years ago to sideline the nuclear pretext) is acting/acted in a way to strengthen the Iranian state. At least one example of policy aimed at this objective during the last 36 years will suffice.

  24. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 1, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    you mean that an organization with member that are obviously not enemies, rather allies in their work against certain threats (thereof “military cooperation”, war games), “intelligence sharing” and collab on “counterterrorism” would not back each other in case of a war.’

    Show me where in SCO’ membership agreement it says they would defend each other in case of war, or show me if SCO has an article like this NATO’ 5th article which West Germany had to sign since she lost a big war and no longer was or is allowed to be independent.

    “Article 5 is known as the “one-for-all and all-for-one” article, the keystone of NATO as an organization. It states that an “armed attack” against one member is an attack against all and sets in motion the possibility of collective self-defense.”

    If you can’t why would I need to subscribe to what you conceptualize or think an organization under the table is supposed to be?

    Can you see what is wrong with what you wrote above, to me it sounds like the propaganda garbage that comes from NYT or WP, or Spiegel.

    Now YES I do mean members of an organization cooperating against CERTAIN threats not necessarily will step in another member’s war since they didn’t make a commitment to do so. You can think, conceptualize, interpolate any treaty, organizations or whatever else living and not living matters exist in this universe for whatever wishful thinking you may have, but that is not what necessarily can and will happen or is fact.

  25. Karl.. says:


    Actually I havent said anything about comparing it to nato.

    “If you can’t why would I need to subscribe to what you conceptualize or think an organization under the table is supposed to be?”

    You would know this if you responded to my questions. Especially this:
    * “You mean an organization meant to strengthen the members relationsship with each other on security (war), econonomy, cultural would mean nothing in case of a war involving one or multiple members of this same organization?”

    You seems to belive that SCO is nothing but a name, no concept behind it, no interets whatsoever. One wonder why Iran want to become a member of this totally insignifant group of members.

  26. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Maybe instead of reading Wiki you can click on SCO site and read what they say the main reason and goals of the organization is without the need to cherry pick from Wiki. To back some wished of ours in a debate. Frankly that’s childish, but never less, this could help if you have run out of your crayons.

    The main goals of the SCO are strengthening mutual confidence and good-neighborly relations among the member countries; promoting effective cooperation in politics, trade and economy, science and technology, culture as well as education, energy, transportation, tourism, environmental protection and other fields; making joint efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the region, moving towards the establishment of a new, democratic, just and rational political and economic international order.

    Proceeding from the Spirit of Shanghai the SCO pursues its internal policy based on the principles of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equal rights, consultations, respect for the diversity of cultures and aspiration towards common development, its external policy is conducted in accordance with the principles of non-alignment, non-targeting anyone and openness.

  27. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    October 1, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    “Did Turkey back the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?”

    GAV man you know better

    US was not attacked by Iraq , Iraq was a war of choice so technically Article 5 of NATO was not required to be exercised by no sovereign members like Germany France and Turkey

  28. Karl.. says:


    Actually I havent mentioned anything about “goals”, I have spoken about the anti-western stance by SCO, which is obvious.

    Your post just repeat what I said earlier and also questioned you about.

    “You mean an organization meant to strengthen the members relationsship with each other on security (war), econonomy, cultural would mean nothing in case of a war involving one or multiple members of this same organization?”

    Again do you believe SCO is an insignificant group with no interests?

  29. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 1, 2014 at 6:11 pm


  30. James Canning says:


    I see you agree Turkey’s foreign policy is not controlled by the US.

  31. James Canning says:


    And we both are aware “Afghanistan” did not attack the US in 2001.

  32. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    October 1, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    “I see you agree Turkey’s foreign policy is not controlled by the US.”

    Sorry Gav
    No, I don’t agree

  33. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 1, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    “Actually I havent mentioned anything about “goals”, I have spoken about the , anti-western stance by SCO, which is obvious.

    Really? It is that obvious that even you can recognize, maybe you need to share your binoculars with SCO members

  34. Nasser says:

    Stating the obvious.

    What Prussia did for Germans, Iran must do for Shiites.

  35. Karl.. says:


    You deny Nato is anti-Russia too perhaps?

  36. James Canning says:


    Prussia took the German people into the calamitous First World War.

  37. James Canning says:


    You pointed out Turkey’s refusal to back the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

  38. James Canning says:


    Prussia brought most of the German states into one country, whether the people of those states were Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or whatever.

    Your assumption that someone of Shia religion considers himself Iranian is a doubtful proposition.

  39. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    October 1, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    You have to forgive Gav James. His cognitive dissonance is helping him cope with his beloved Britain falling apart.

    Why aren’t the British middle-classes staging a revolution?

    So, perhaps next time London riots, it’ll be Kensington, Mayfair and Notting Hill in flames, not Hackney and Croydon. And the people on ordinary incomes won’t be hiding their homes, they’ll be joining in or at least cheering from the sidelines.”

  40. Empty says:


    Nasser has linked to an article that I’m not sure if the content is correct or it is propaganda. It needs to be verified if indeed such statement was made by Rouhani. I’ve put an excerpt from it below. Please note the contrast between the two statements (the one I linked a couple of days ago directly translating from Rouhani’s interview with Russia’s Chanel 2 and the one below).

    Do you see how one would end up despising and distrusting weasels and weasel-minded people? It matters not to me if it is Russia doing it to Iran or the Iranian president doing it to Russia. If true, he is a lying sack of manure either with the Russian people or with the EU reps. That’s the sort of politics that is quite common in the west and a lot of us in Iran despise and want to have nothing to do with. That’s the kind of politics that made Iranian people despise and mistrust Britain and Russia over the centuries. Rouhani team thinks they are playing politics? خاک بر سرشون. [damn them.]

    Excerpt from Nasser’s link: “While attending the UN General Assembly in New York, the President of Iran made a startling statement on gas supplies which could be construed as hostile in regard to Russia. The statement was made amid the standoff between Russia and the West (the US and EU) over the crisis in Ukraine.

    The statement implied that if sanctions were lifted and sufficient funds invested into constructing a modern gas pipeline, at the start of 2020s Iran could begin gas deliveries to Europe (10-20 billion cubic meters of gas per year). In light of the Russian-Ukrainian gas conflict, Iran is offering Europe a “reliable source of gas,” – according to DW.”

  41. Nasser says:

    Empty says: October 2, 2014 at 11:07 pm

    I linked to the article because I found the obvious hypocrisy to be quite amusing.

    Before the recent Ukraine crisis, Russia has been using its ties with Iran as a bargaining chip to exact better terms or this or that concession on various issues from the West. Now that Iran does the same, Dr. Titov feels morally outraged.

    I despise Mr. Rouhani and his cabal for a lot of reasons but this is not one of those reasons. Iran doesn’t owe the Europeans or the Russians a damn thing! I don’t think a country that has been sanctioning Iran has any moral right to tell it who it can sell its energy to. Rouhani was right to remind both sides what Iran has to offer.

    By the way, this is not some propaganda piece and the author wasn’t lying. What the author failed to mention is the fact that this is nothing new. If memory doesn’t fail me, President Ahmedinejad made the EXACT same offer after the Russian-Georgian war and President Bush then responded by granting Iran with the lowest form of diplomatic recognition. In fact, Iran has been making the same noises about being a reliable alternate supply source for Europe consistently for many years only to be totally dismissed because Western relations with Russia were never as sour as now and the Western priority then was to starve the Iranians.

    Having said all that, I think Dr. Titov was very wrong to be so panicky. I am willing to bet my entire life savings on Western sanctions on Iran never being lifted and Iranian gas never flowing to Europe. Europeans are and will remain an enemy of Iranians and of Shiites. Maybe the Eurotrashes should have thought of these matters before starting Cold War 2.0 with someone that can turn of their light switch and make them freeze in the winter. Or maybe they should have hedged their bets and cultivated ties with an alternative supplier like Iran sooner. Well, too late now hahaha. F**k em!

    Russia is not an enemy of Iran but not a friend either. So there is nothing dishonorable about entering into some form of transactional relationship with Russia. If Iran can exact some meaningful assistance from them on certain important issues in return for foregoing (dubious anyway) energy ties with the West, it would be well worth it.

  42. Nasser says:

    James Canning,

    Germany’s only mistake was fighting the Russians instead of the Anglos.

  43. Empty says:


    RE: Before the recent Ukraine crisis, Russia has been using its ties with Iran as a bargaining chip to exact better terms or this or that concession on various issues from the West. Now that Iran does the same, Dr. Titov feels morally outraged.

    Irony is a good term to describe it in poetic justice.
    Tit for tat is a better term describing it in game theory.
    Weaselhood is a good term to describe it in honest approach to world affairs. He could have just said that Iran would have relationship with all countries including Europe and Russia based on honesty, justice, and mutual respect. What’s wrong with that? Why do they have to copy all the worst that west has to offer? Still, خاک بر سرشون.

  44. Karl.. says:

    October 2, 2014 at 11:07 pm

    Heres another link, so after all, I dont think it was propaganda

    Actually what that link is saying, is quite close to this earlier quote you posted before.

    “*”Iran has large reserves of natural gas and is focusing on providing its immediate neighbors with their energy needs. Besides, today’s conditions are not such that if Russia decides to cut off its gas to countries in Europe, Iran could replace it.”

    What hes saying is also that the “conditions” are not ready, that is, there is no pipeline structure ready yet (according to the DW link).
    Initially I saw the the quote as a way for Iran to say that Iran wont help eu in a conflict with Russia, but I think that was a wrong interpretation by me.

  45. Karl.. says:

    Speaking on Austria, they have a foreign minister that is 27 years old?!
    Heres clip where he get fooled by Israel

  46. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    October 3, 2014 at 4:47 am

    You are reading too much into it.

    Iranians are basically saying that they are currently working on supplying gas to their neighbors and are willing to sell their gas to others, including EU.

    This is a commercial proposition and not a political one.

    I agree with Mr. Nasser (and Mr. Rouhani – in his UN speech) that EU is an enemy of Iran and the Shia.

    In the EU world view, the Shi should not exist; their existence, their religious rituals, and their beliefs are all abominations.

    Half the EU population thinks of itself as being morally superior to the rest of the world – including Iran; in my opinion.

    Yet these people – all the while claiming to be humanitarians – had no problems trying to destroy the fabric of Iranian society through the induction of hyper-inflation in Iran – trying to reprise the experience of the Weimar Republic in Iran.

    Relations with EU will not go back to status quo ante of 1999 any time soon; likely not for decades.

    They wages war against Iran and the Shia and their wars failed.

    It takes a 2 or 3 generations (40 to 60 years) for the wounds of any war to heal.

  47. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    October 3, 2014 at 12:26 am

    EU states were indifferent to Iranians’ offers because they expected Iran to be defeated in the near future.

    At that time, they (Europeans) would have expected to help themselves to the Iran’s gas wealth as well as consumer demands on very favorable terms.

    The economic siege warfare waged against Iran was qualitatively & quantitatively hundred times worse than what UK waged against Iran between 1950 and 1953.

    EU (and US, and Russia, and Japan, and India) all expected the same results as 50 years earlier – quick Iranian collapse and surrender.

    When that did not happen, they realized that they are committed to a long war against Iran – something that they did not plan.

    I agree with you that the sanctions will never be removed either; they will erode however over the coming decades.

    That a minor state, such as Iran, could withstand the economic warfare of NATO states is a testament of how much the world has changed since 1950s.

  48. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    October 2, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Neither Prussia nor Germany in anyway are comparable to Iran.

    The only European country comparable to Iran from the perspective of 2 millennia of history is Italy.

    Turkey is the country that is the analogue of Prussia.

  49. Nasser says:

    A collection of Russian and American thoughts on “Costs of a new Cold War”

    – I found it interesting that Fyodor Lukyanov suggests that the best way to deal with the US is to let it sink under the weight of its own obligations/burdens and that Russia should absolutely cease all cooperation even on minor tactical matters. I believe the same applies to Iran, for example with regards to IS and the Taliban.

  50. James Canning says:


    You should direct your comment to Nasser. He argued Prussian model should be followed by Iran.

    I take it you agree that Shia Arabs in Iraq are not keen to become Iranians.

  51. Nasser says:

    fyi says: October 3, 2014 at 9:23 am

    I remain mystified as to why they did what they did in Libya before Iran was dealt with?

    And shouldn’t they have waited till a subservient alternative supplier like Iran was firmly in their pockets before resuming a new Cold War with their biggest energy supplier?

    I never really appreciated till now “Whom the Gods choose to destroy, they first first make mad.”

  52. James Canning says:


    EU countries would welcome a richer and stronger Iran. They have no desire to see Iran “defeated”. But they want Iran to make the deal with P5+1.

  53. James Canning says:


    Vietnam was prepared to have normal relations with the US soon after the withdrawal of all US troops from that country. The US sulked for decades.

    The Bilderberg Group worked for a restoration of good relations between former enemies during the Second World War, beginning almost immediately after that war ended.

    Your advocacy of decades of sulking by Iran, is misguided. In my judgment.

  54. Nasser says:


    The West didn’t let the Weimer Republic, the Serbs, the Iraqis, the Libyans and as is now apparent even the Soviets surrender. Germany and Japan after WWII are thus anomalies.

    What message does that send to their enemies?

    A brilliant Chinese strategist is known to have said “Build your enemies a golden bridge to retreat across.” The West doesn’t believe in such things

    The Russians, the Chinese and Iranians should be mighty grateful for the early warning.

  55. James Canning says:


    Where on earth do you get the notion that “the EU” does not approve of Shia Islam? Preposterous.

  56. James Canning says:


    Certain German generals had an irrational fear of the growth in wealth and power of the Russian Empire, and that is why they launched the catastrophic First World War.
    The British Empire posed ZERO threat to Germany, and German trade had flourished party due to the protection provided by the Royal Navy.

  57. James Canning says:


    You apparently have forgotten that the rising threat from Germany forced Britain to accept Russian occupation of northern Persia, in the early years of the last century. This occupation may not have been such a good thing for Persia.

  58. James Canning says:


    You also appear to be unaware that Britain helped Prussia to unify most of the German states under Prussian domination.

  59. Nasser says:

    James Canning,

    The real enemy of the Germans have always been the Anglos.

    History would have turned out very differently had the Germans not let the Brits escape at Dunkirk.

    And even more importantly, had they not in their infinite arrogance attacked the Soviets afterwards.

    Today they are making the same mistake by starting a new Cold War against the Russians at AngloZionist instigation.

  60. Nasser says:

    Some good sense from an unlikely source:

    “Sanctions on Russia Could Backfire”

  61. Empty says:

    Excerpts from Ayatollah Khamenei’s address to Hajj pilgrims. The message in full is within the link:

    “The filthy hands of imperialist politics have, for some time now, placed division on the agenda in order to fulfill their sinister interests, and today with the blessing of Islamic Awakening, Muslim peoples have correctly recognized the enmity of the imperialist and Zionist front and they have taken a stance against them while the policies of division between Muslims have intensified.

    The scheming enemy is aiming to stoke the fire of a domestic war among the Muslims, to misdirect the motivation for resistance and jihad and to secure the Zionist regime and the servants of arrogance- who are the real enemies.

    Instigating terrorist-takfiri and similar groups in the countries of the region of West Asia is among these abhorrent policies. This is a warning to all of us to count the issue of unity among Muslims as the priority of our national and international duties.”

    “The other important issue is the issue of Palestine. With the passing of 65 years since the establishment of this murderous Zionist regime and the various ups and downs in this important and sensitive issue, and particularly with the bloody events of the past year, two realities have become clear for all.

    The first reality is that the Zionist regime and its criminal supporters recognize no limit or boundaries regarding viciousness, cruelty and trampling underfoot all human and ethical standards. Crimes, genocide, mass destruction, the killing of children, women and the shelter-less and any violation and oppression that they can commit, they not only make permissible for themselves, but more so, they take pride in. The tear-inducing scenes of the recent 50-Day War in Gaza are the latest example of the historical crimes which have been repeated numerous times in the last half century.

    The second reality is that this disaster and calamity has not led to the results that the leaders and supporters of that murderous regime wanted. Contrary to the idiotic dreams of power and stability for this regime that the filthy officials of the Zionist regime dream, day-by-day this regime has moved closer to implosion and annihilation.”

    “American Islam is putting the clothes of Islam on servitude to foreigners and enmity with the Islamic Ummah, the Islam that stokes the fire of division among Muslims, instead of trust in divine promises, it trusts in the enemies of God, instead of fighting with the Zionists and arrogance it fights with its Muslim brothers, it unites with arrogant America against its own people or other peoples. It is not Islam, it is a dangerous and deadly hypocrisy which every sincere Muslim has to fight against.”

  62. M.Ali says:

    I was watching the Asian Games yesterday, and was thinking, Asian countries really need to strap down and think more of events, conferences, and economic relationships together. Asia today is not the Asia of 50 years back, and they really don’t need EU and US as much anymore.

    I guess we just need to believe in ourselves more…

    In other news,

    “The Pew Research Center says China is one of the few countries where popular support for Russia has risen since Moscow’s confrontation with the West over Ukraine—rising to 66% in July from 47% a year earlier.

    A poll by In Touch Today, an online news service run by China’s Tencent Holdings Ltd., put Mr. Putin’s approval rating at 92% after Russia annexed Crimea in March.”

  63. James Canning says:


    In 1914, some German generals had an inflated notion of the increase in wealth and power of the Russian Empire. They contrived to launch a pre-emptive war, to injure Russia.

    Britain posed no threat whatever, to the German Empire. in 1914.

    I agree that Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 was an act of insanity.

  64. James Canning says:


    I take it you concede that the rising threat to Britain, from Germany, prior to 1914, forced Britain to accept Russian occupation of Northern Persia.

  65. James Canning says:


    I take it too that you concede that Prussia was able to create the German Empire partly due to Britain’s encouragement of that programme.

  66. A-B says:

    Based on the ravings of the genocidal Britishite Cameron in UNGA re. the so-called “non-violent extremist” (i.e. the modern day heretics that question the vile CULT of Western liberal-SECULAR-democracy) it is obvious that the truly warmongering government in the world (on par with the worst of a neo-con American kind) is that of the UK; and its PM is a worse terrorist – violent or non-violent – than Osama bin Laden, or for that matter Obama bin Biden (cf. Biden’s outrageous attack on US’ lackeys Turkey, UAE and the Saudi-filth for being responsible for creation of the ISIS cretins; and Obama’s RELATIVE reluctance on military adventurism as compared to the POS Cameron.)


  67. A-B says:

    The Argentine President de Kirchner’s speech at UNGA adds up the vulture capitalists targeting Argentina and the presence of the British Piracy Inc. in Las Malvinas and the plan for confiscation of more Argentinian land by the Anglo-American Piracy as explained in Adrian Salbuchi’s excellent articles published on RT on the Zionist activities in Argentina incl. defaming Iran in case of the Israeli false-flag operation at AMIA, the Gaza carnage and establishment of ‘New Israhell’ in Patagonia. Adrian Salbuchi:

    Will yet another sovereign debt bond mega-swap be imposed upon Argentina, this time with large swathes of its national territory – especially Patagonia – being used as collateral guarantee?

    That would mean that in a few years’ time the Shylocks in Wall Street and London will do everything they can to yet again push Argentina into default, since that would pave the way for them to “legally” take over its territory cashing in on their collateral as “compensation”.

    Remember: usurer Shylock drooled at the mouth whilst sharpening his knife preparing to cut deep into Merchant Antonio’s heart. He didn’t give a damn about the 3000 ducats owed him: he just wanted the pound of flesh “legally” his.

    Is this what the coming “Sovereign Debt Model” will look like?

    If we tie this all in with what the unfolding of “Act III” in the on-going Israel-Palestine crisis whereby re-settling millions of Israeli civilians into southern Argentina might be on the drawing board, we can then begin to understand how nicely Argentina’s next debt crisis will tie in: The global Rothschild’s, Warburg’s, Lazard’s, Soros, Rockefellers will be able to “legally” take over Patagonia, and then “legally” hand it over to whomever they wish without a single shot being fired!

    If this is what’s really happening behind-the-curtains regarding Argentina, does anybody believe it will stop there?


    So, thanks Mrs. President! Some years ago, I remember (correctly I hope) an interviewee on the matter of AMIA investigation on PressTV saying something like “we have more in common with Iran through Mithra[ism] than we have with Israel.” I hope I heard correctly because suddenly Iran, in my mind, became half the world!!

    Then goes Iran’s president and talk to the Britishite filth Cameron (who naturally insults him and his country) or wants to establish ties with the festering West, Iran’s eternal enemy!


  68. fyi says:

    A-B says:

    October 4, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    You are entirely excusing the shenanigans of the various Argentine Governments – including hers – in causing the crisis in the first place.

    For example, when the government needed money, it raided the pensioners’ savings – a simple act of fiscal confiscation and theft.

  69. A-B says:

    Well, I AM prioritizing. And both comments reflect what was said at UNGA, to show what IMHO should be Iran’s priority. Mr. Salbuchi, I believe, is also critical of Pres. de Kirchner, but in the articles he PRIOTIRIZE to write on the Zionist’s (i.e. Anglo-American’s) plans for his country. Anglo-American Zionists are enemies of both Iran and Argentina; IMO to the entire humanity. De Kirchner’s shortcomings pale in comparison.


  70. Karl.. says:


    On that topic, quite interesting that she shamed “jewish” groups in her speech.

  71. Amir says:

    Karl.. says:
    October 4, 2014 at 5:39 pm
    It’s understandable that people would support their kith and kin, and I’m not sure if this article really reflects the truth, but the author has a point, see link:
    What I mean to say is that Zionists have been trying hard to brand anything against them as “anti-Semitic” but sadly, they are mainly Jewish people and if they are doing something wrong and they are caught in the act, they shouldn’t call it anti Antisemitism.

  72. Nasser says:

    – A few articles from Nikolas Gvosdev

    “Time for Plan B on Obama’s Triple Containment of Russia, China, Iran”

    “On Iran and Russia, Obama Gambling for More Time”
    http:// www.

    “Time for the U.S. to Make Hard Choices on Russia, Middle East”
    http:// www.

  73. Amir says:

    It suddenly dawned upon me because majority of Iranian decision makers believe the world is at a critical juncture and the global order is going under substantial transformation, they are not seriously considering any understanding/ rapprochement/ re-alignment with the West. A transformation in which they believe they are stake-holders.
    That is not to say Mr Zarif isn’t for a closer relation, or there aren’t people interested in rapprochement, but aren’t making the final decision.

  74. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    From Dr. Marandi:

    ISIL, US intervention and the rise of the Iranian model

    Western media’s caricaturish coverage of Iran masks an uncomfortable truth.

  75. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    And of course the immediate and obligatory bullshit “response”, cuz can’t have fat old Emir-funded Aljazeera spreading the notion of participatory politics among the Arab subjects, right?

    The ‘Iranian model’ is no inspiration for Arabs

    The Arab region is experiencing grave developments but the ‘Iranian model’ will not solve Arab problems.

  76. James Canning says:


    The US sees Chinese investment in African and Latin American economies as a good thing.

  77. fyi says:


    This site also has the news report on how a 2-Month-Old Baby turned into a ‘Full Grown Man’ overnight and then fled into the bush with his mother.

  78. Karl.. says:

    MSM keep on scaremongering
    ISIS, Iran, Russia all in one.

  79. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    October 6, 2014 at 4:55 am

    I agree, Arabs are stupid.

  80. James Canning says:


    Netanyahu claims that Israel’s open contempt for international law, in growing the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank, conflicts with American values. Rubbish, in my view.

  81. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    October 6, 2014 at 11:48 am

    The Americans love all things Israeli – ancient & modern.

    And their view their country as the New Jerusalem, the City on the Hill, the City of God and other such nonsense.

    How they reconcile this view with their own contemporary mythos of “America as Godfather” – the movie trilogy – I cannot comprehend.

    Israelis dislike America – they think she is decadent – they like Germany.

  82. James Canning says:

    The Sunday Times (London) Sept. 20th quoted General David Richards (now Lord Richards of Herstmonceux): “The types of representative government the Middle East has enjoyed for hundreds of years may still be the best for them now. . .”
    How very true. (Richards until recently was Britain’s top general.)

  83. James Canning says:


    Most Americans I know detest Israel for its Apartheid Wall, endless occupation of the West Bank, etc etc.

  84. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    October 6, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Is he daft or just stupid?

    “The types of representative government the Middle East has enjoyed for hundreds of years”

  85. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    October 6, 2014 at 7:42 pm
    James Canning says:

    The type of government Lord Richards is enjoying is one that cares none for innocent citizens, jails them on made up charges (Former Guantanamo detainee and War on Terror critic Moazzam Begg), and enjoys friendly relations with the most treacherous murderers on the planet (General Sisi).

    So, is he daft, stupid, or a closet dictator?

  86. Amir says:

    Jay says:
    October 6, 2014 at 8:40 pm
    Well, you shouldn’t say “closet dictator”. Aristocracy has been kind enough to notice the Middle East; the rest is too trivial.

  87. Sineva says:

    Time magazines latest article on iran[basically the same old stuff]

  88. fyi says:

    چرا این کارها را با اسلام می‌کنند؟

    حسرت می خوریم که چرا چهره غالب جهان اسلامی که با رونق علم و تجارت و رفاه از آن در آثارغربی و شرقی یاد می شد، حالا باید با این اداها و افراطی ها شناخته شود.

    به گزارش خبرنگار دین و اندیشه خبرگزاری دانشجویان ایران(ایسنا)، «درعلم مکانیک کارهایی کرده اند که هوش از سر آدم می پرد»، « در نجوم کارهای یونانیان را نقد کردند و طرح های جدید ارائه دادند»، « رفاه و رونق اقتصادی بالایی داشتند»، « در شرق حواله می دانند و در غرب می گرفتند». اینها حرف هایی است که در سر کلاس هایم می شنوم، سر کلاس تاریخ علم، کلاس تاریخ هنر، کلاس تاریخ و تمدن و… . اما وقتی کیفم را برمی دارم و از دانشگاه تهران سمت فلسطین جنوبی، خیابان شهید نظری، خبرگزاری ایسنا، اداره سیاسی می آیم و پای سیستم می نشینم تا خبرهای دنیا را چک کنم، حرف های دیگری هست. حالا بر روی بسیاری از خبرگزاری های دنیا، نام جهان اسلام با ترور، با رفتارهای خشونت آمیز، با فقر و نارآمی و هر چه که حس منفی دارد، به چشم می آید.

    شاید این حرف ها، این باورها و اندیشه هایی که در ادامه می خوانید تمسخرآمیز به نظر بیاید، اما در کنار لبخند تمسخرآمیزی که با خواندنشان بر روی لبانمان می نشیند، اندوه، نگرانی و حسرتی هم به دنبالش است، حسرت اینکه چرا چهره غالب جهان اسلامی که با رونق علم و تجارت و رفاه از آن در آثارغربی و شرقی یاد می شد، حالا باید با این اداها و افراطی ها شناخته شود.

    در مصاحبه ای که با دکتر معصومی داشتم، او از مسلمانان شرق آسیا گفت، از تسماحشان و اسلام خنده روشان، اما این همه حرف هایش نبود. او از تجربه های تلخ افراطی گری هایی گفت که در این منطقه رخ داده است: «باید بدانیم که این منطقه تجربه هایی درباره جنبش های افراطی دارد. مثلا در اوایل قرن 19 جنبش «پادری» شکل گرفت که تفکرات افراطی داشتند و متاثر از وهابیت بودند. اینها افراطی گری های خاص خود را داشتند، مثلا اگر کسی نمازش ترک می شد او را جریمه می کردند و برای بار دوم او را اعدام. یا اینکه همه زن ها مجبور بودند برقعه بپوشند و جاهایی که اندیشه های آنان را نمی پذیرفتند غارت می کردند».

    یا از طرف دیگر، دکتر فرمانیان از ساده اندیشی ها و تفسیرهای سطحی این چنین گروهایی افراطی سخن می گفت: ریشه جریان های تکفیری و این خشونت ها را باید در چند چیز جستجو کرد، اولین و مهمترین علتی که باعث می شود این جریان های تکفیری در دنیای اسلام به وجود بیایند، برمی گردد به ظاهرگرایی اصحاب حدیث. در طول تاریخ اصحاب حدیث به دلیل این که برای عقل در فهم دین جایگاهی قائل نبودند، به متون دینی اعتماد کرده و ظاهر آن را گرفته اند. از طرفی برخی متون دینی صراحتا حکم به کفر مخالف می کنند که نمونه اش را هم در روایات اهل سنت و هم روایات اهل شیعه داریم؛ مثلا روایت داریم که « هر کس نماز را عمدا ترک کند، کافر است». اگر کسی به ظاهر این روایت تمسک کند، آن وقت باید بسیاری از انسان ها را تکفیر کنیم.

    شاید شنیدن این اندیشه برایتان خنده آوره باشد، اما باوری است که عده ای با نام اسلام بر آن اعتقاد دارند. خانم دکتر یزدان منش، که خود تحصیل کرده پاکستان بوده، از افراطی های دیاری می گفت که اندیشمندانی چون اقبال لاهوری در آن زندگی کرده اند: یکی از رفتارهای افراطی شان در برخورد با دانشجویان بود در موضوع ارتباط دختر و پسرها که گاه دست به تنبیه دانشجویان می زدند، با رفتارهایی خشونت آمیز و…

    آدم های آنجا ( این را مربوط به ایالت بلوچستان پاکستان به ویژه مناطق مرزی با ایران عرض می کنم) واقعا به شکل آدم های نخستین زندگی می کنند که البته یا دولت توجهی به آنها ندارد و یا خودشان نمی خواهند. تا چند سال گذشته مدرسه های دخترانه را نابود می کردند و معتقد بودند نیازی نیست که دخترها درس بخوانند که این مربوط به قسمت شمال غرب پاکستان به ویژه طالبان و شبکه حقانی در وزیرستان بوده است. یا مثلا در مورد انتقال «لوله گاز» از ایران به پاکستان، این باور را داشتند که وقتی در زمان پیامبر گاز نبوده، چه نیازی هست که ما گاز داشته باشیم.

    این اندیشه های تعجب آور، مخصوص به شرق جهان اسلام نیست. باید مثل اینجانب، دو واحد تاریخ اسلام در آفریقا پاس کرده باشید و از عالمان و رونق تجارت و اقتصاد آن دیار اسلامی در تاریخ شنیده باشید، تا وقتی که امروز پای صحبت های یک کارشناس در مسائل آفریقا می نشیند، یک حسرت خوردن درست و حسابی را تجربه کنید: گروه بوکوحرام در حال حاضر یکی از مخوف ترین گروه های تکفیری آفریقا است. اعلام موجودیت بوکوحرام به سال 2002 توسط فردی سلفی مسلک به نام “محمد یوسف” و در استان بسیار فقیر بورنو(در شمال نیجریه) که از هر 10 نفر آن 8 نفر بی سواد بوده و سه چهارم جمعیت آن زیر خط فقرند، باز می گردد. او حتی کروی بودن زمین را باور نداشت. بوکوحرام در اصل خواستار تعطیلی تمامی مدارس نوین و اجرای قانون شریعت در تمامی ۳۶ ایالت نیجریه است. اعضای این گروه هرگونه آموزش به سبک غربی، مدارس غربی، لباس های غربی، آداب و رسوم غربی و حتی استفاده از کلاه ایمنی توسط موتورسواران را ممنوع و سیستم بانکی و مالیاتی را هم حرام می داند.

    باید تاریخ خوانده باشید تا بدانید روزگاری در این جهان اسلام، عالمانش از شرق تا غرب در تماس بودند و تبادلات علمی می کردند. مردمانی از هر دیار، چه زن و چه مرد این حق را داشتند تا آزادانه در هر کجای دنیای اسلام گام بردارند و همه جا با نام مسلمان به او احترام می گذاشتند. امروز، در این دنیای ارتباطات با این همه امکانات که مسیر باز است برای تعامل و اندیشه ورزی و آشنایی با آدم های هر جای کره خاکی، اما باز نام اسلام و مسلمان هم در این عرصه بی انتها با افراطی گری گره خورده است، مالکی از افکار و نحوه فعالیت گروه های مختلف افراطی در جهان عرب می گوید که: این گروه ها از رسانه های مختلف و فناوری های پیشرفته روز بویژه اینترنت برای نشر آموزه های خود و جذب نیرو استفاده می کنند. عمده فعالیت گروه های تکفیری استفاده هدفمند از شبکه های اجتماعی، به ویژه توئیتر و فیسبوک برای عضوگیری از میان جوانان مسلمان است. گروه های تکفیری از مدت ها پیش برای رساندن پیام یا انتشار فیلم های عملیات نظامی از شبکه اینترنت استفاده کرده اند، آنان همچنین از شبکه های اجتماعی به منظور جذب نیرو و جمع آوری پول و بحث و گفت وگو و هماهنگی راهبردی با یکدیگر استفاده می کنند. اغلب این گروه ها نیز از اسکایپ برای مصاحبه با افراد داوطلب عضویت، یا تبادل آرا درخصوص تاکتیک های نظامی استفاده می کنند و برخی نیز از وب سایت یوتیوب برای نشان دادن موفقیت های خود در عملیات جنگی و یا مستند سازی بهره می برند.

  89. fyi says:


    Dr. Cordesman on Iran’s missiles:

    The way I read it, Iran should be left with no military power so that she could be easily destroyed.

  90. fyi says:

    مقصد پروژه‌های بی‌هدف دانشگاهی کجاست؟!

    خدمات وزارت علوم ما به وزارت دفاع آمریکا!

    کد خبر: ۲۶۱۲۱

    تاریخ: ۱۵ مهر ۱۳۹۳ – ۱۸:۵۰

    اشاره) مقصود این متن به هیچ وجه سیاسی و جانبدارانه نیست یعنی حتی به فرض که کشور ما با هیچ کشوری، خصومت ذاتی و عرضی نداشته باشد و به فرض که بزرگ‌ترین تحقیقات نظامی درباره ریز بالزن‌‌ها در کشور دشمن درجه یک ما انجام نگردد، باز هزینه بدون ثمر یک وزارتخانه برای وزارتخانه‌ای نامتجانس در کشوری دیگر کاری بس مضحک و عجیب است!
    یکی از این پروژه‌های تحقیقاتی، پروژه مرتبط با آزمایشگاه MAV یا ریز بالزن‌‌ها است که بررسی با منابع و اسناد آکادمیک آن در دانشگاه‌های سراسر جهان، می‌توان به نکات قابل تأمل و صد البته تعجب برانگیزی دست یافت!
    هرچند در کاربرد‌های فراوان اجسام پرنده تردیدی نیست اما شاید کاربرد اصلی پرنده‌های بالزن در ابزار نظامی و به خصوص ابزار جاسوسی تعریف شوند. این ادعا در ابتدا شاید کمی دور از انصاف به نظر برسد اما با بررسی وضعیت تأمین بودجه‌های بزرگترین کارهای تحقیقاتی که تاکنون در این زمینه انجام گرفته است و سازمان‌های پژوهش نظامی که به صورت تخصصی در این چهارچوب فعالیت می‌کنند و از طرفی خروجی تجاری و عملی این تحقیقات این مدعا را تقویت می‌کند که در حال حاضر بیشترین نیازی که بناست از طریق پرندگان بالزن و حشرات مکانیکی ارضا گردد، نیاز جاسوسی و کسب اطلاعات در شرایط خطرناک است. هرچند بنا به هدف پروژه فرصت جست و جوی گسترده و ارائه کامل مراکز تحقیقات نظامی و پروژه‌های عملیاتی شده محقق نبود اما اطلاعات پیش رو که حاصل جست و جوی ساده‌ای در تارنماهای جستجوگر بین‌المللی بود ارائه می‌گردد:
    «پشه‌های جاسوس»
    این فناوری ظریف، یک پشه مصنوعی، مجهز به کنترل از راه دور، دوربین مخفی، میکروفون، ضبط صدا و یک آزمایشگاه کامل سیار است.
    فناوری پشه جاسوس، می‌تواند صد‌‌ها کیلومتر پرواز کند و با نشستن روی بدن افراد، نمونه خون آنها را با دردی به اندازه گزش نیش پشه گرفته و DNA آن را آنالیز کند. سپس، اطلاعات به دست آمده را با بانک اطلاعاتی خود تطبیق دهد و در پایان عملیات، گزارش شناسایی فرد را به مرکز ارسال ‌کند.
    نکته جالب‌تر اینکه، این پشه می‌تواند یک Micro RFID را به پوست فرد مزبور تزریق کرده تا ردیابی او آسان شود. همه این کار‌‌ها را بدون اینکه شخص متوجه‌ شود، انجام می‌دهد.
    در واقع این فناوری جاسوسی یک هواپیمای کوچک بدون سرنشین از نوع حشره مانند پشه است که به مرحله تولید رسیده است. این پشه مصنوعی می‌تواند، راه‌های عبوری چون؛ درز‌ها، شکاف‌‌های بسیار کوچک، سوراخ‌های روری چار چوب در‌‌ها و پنجره‌های نیمه باز را تشخیص داده و از آنها عبور کرده تا به حریم خصوصی شما وارد شود.
    این فناوری به قدری ظریف و طبیعی ساخته‌ شده است که در ابتدا و با توجه خاص نمی‌توان آنها را از پشه‌های معمولی تشخیص داد.
    دیوید‌هامبلینگ رئیس عالی وزارت دفاع در این زمینه می‌گوید؛ ما این محصول را در زمینه نظامی و برای خاک دشمن استفاده خواهیم کرد. این دستگاه‌‌ها هر چند دارای محدودیت‌های است که در حال رفع آن هستیم، اما به دلیل دارا بودن قدرت مخابره تصویر از ارزش بالای برای ارتش آمریکا برخوردار است، چراکه این فناوری می‌توانند دورتر از صد‌ها مایل در خاک دشمن به نظارت مخفیانه و ارسال گزارش مشغول باشد، بدون اینکه توجه کسی را جلب کند.
    ژوئن سال 2011 نیز ارتش ایالات متحده مجبور شد به داشتن تکنولوژی بسیار ظریف و پیچیده‌ که مانند، هواپیماهای بدون سرنشین در اشکال حشرات و پرنده‌‌ها هستند، اعتراف کند.این هواپیما‌‌ها که بیشتر با الگو‌برداری از شکل پروانه، سنجاقک، پشه، مگس، باز‌ها و… هستند در پایگاه هوایی رایت و پترسون آمریکا و نیز کشور‌های چون روسیه، ژاپن، انگلیس و… طراحی و به مرحله اجرا در می‌آیند.
    «سازمان دارپا و ساختار تخصصی آن»
    دارپا “DARPA” مخفف “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency” به معنای آژانس پروژه‌های تحقیقاتی دفاعی پیشرفته است که به صورت مستقیم زیر نظر وزارت دفاع آمریکا و شخص وزیر، فعالیت‌ می‌کند.
    این سازمان در سال 1958 و برای مقابله با پیشرفت هوایی و فضایی اتحاد جماهیر شوروی به خصوص در دوران جنگ سرد و پیرامون پرتاب نخستین ماهواره فضایی جهان به نام Sputnik 1 بود که توسط اتحاد جماهیر شوروی از پایگاه فضایی بایکونور به مدار زمین پرتاب شد، ایجاد شده است.
    بنابر ادعا و معرفی این سازمان در تارنمای رسمی آن، دارپا به دنبال گسترش تکنولوژی در عرصه نظامی و داخلی آمریکا بوده است تا بتواند مقابل تهدیدات خاص دشمنان آمریکا در عرصه نظامی از قدرت خاصی برخودار باشد و از سوی دیگر، از گسترش تکنولوژی‌های پیچیده دشمنان آمریکا جلوگیری کرده و بتواند با نگاه آینده محور، تکنولوژی‌های متعجب‌کننده برای مقابله با دشمنان آمریکا تولید کند.
    این سازمان همچنین به دنبال گسترش تکنولوژی در عرصه امنیت ملی آمریکا است تا شهروند آمریکایی در هیچ موقعیتی احساس خطر نکرده و بتواند دشمن را با استفاده از تکنولوژی برتر نابود کند.
    با توجه به اخبار منتشر شده از وبسایت رسمی دارپا و دیگر سایت‌های تخصصی در زمینه تکنولوژی، فعالیت‌های دارپا تنها به مسائل نظامی ختم نشده و بسیار فراتر از تکنولوژی برتر نظامی است، به طوری که این سازمان در زمینه علوم روانشناسی، علوم رفتاری و علوم پزشکی نیز فعالیت‌‌ و پیشرفت‌هایی داشته است که بسیاری از آنها به دلیل سری و مخفی بودن هنوز قابل درک نیست.
    این سازمان در حال حاضر از 6 اداره تخصصی مجزا تشکیل شده است،؛ تمام گزارش‌‌ها و محصولات تولید شده تنها با نظارت مستقیم مدیر این سازمان انجام می‌شود.
    1- اداره اجرای تطبیق (AEO)
    این اداره یکی از 2 اداره جدید است که توسط مدیر جدید این سازمان، تشکیل شده است؛ این اداره وظیفه شناسایی و بومی‌سازی مواردی را بر عهده دارد که تا به حال در موضوعات داخلی دارپا وجود نداشته است. (موضوعاتی از قبیل پیشرفت‌ها، ایده‌ها، پیشرفت‌های تکنولوژی و…)، این اداره همچنین وظیفه تطبیق میان پیشرفت‌‌ها و تولیدات ساخته شده در این سازمان را نیز به‌وجود می‌آورد.
    2- اداره علوم دفاعی (DSO)
    به صورت خیلی قدرتمند، به دنبال پیشرفت‌های امیدبخش در طیف وسیعی از علوم و مهندسی پیگیری می‌کند، این پیشرفت‌‌ها به صورت محوری در افزایش توانایی نظامی به کار گرفته می‌شود.
    3- اداره اطلاعات جدید (I2O)
    وظیفه این اداره، تحقیق در قسمت‌های مختلف ارتش آمریکا برای برتری قطعی آمریکا در تمام سطوح مختلف نظامی است.
    4- اداره تکنولوژی میکروسیستم (MTO)
    این اداره وظیفه یکی کردن ریزتراشه‌های الکترونیکی، الکترومغناطیسی، فوتونیک و تولید محصولاتی است که بتواند در علوم ارتباطات، برتری ارتش آمریکا را نسبت به سایرین حفظ کند.
    یکی دیگر از وظایف این اداره، مقابله با حملات بیولوژیکی، شیمیایی و اطلاعاتی است، از سوی دیگر، این اداره می‌بایست میان جنگ‌‌ها با استفاده از نیروی نظامی و بدون نیروی نظامی ارتباط برقرار کند.
    5- اداره تکنولوژی استراتژیک (STO)
    تمرکز این اداره بر روی تکنولوژی‌هایی است که بتواند تأثیرات گسترده‌ای در جنگ داشته و چندین سیستم مختلف را به صورت همزمان از کار انداخته و یا درگیر کند.
    6- اداره تکنولوژی تاکتیکی (TTO)
    وظیفه این اداره، تحقیق بر روی سیستم‌‌ها و زیر سیستم‌‌ها است، از سوی دیگر، پیشرفت در زمینه هوانبردی، فضایی و سیستم‌های زمینی نیز به این اداره محول شده است – هواپیماهای بدون سرنشین نظیر فالکون، پرتاب کننده‌‌ها ماهواره‌ای و کنترل کننده‌‌ها جزیی از وظایف این اداره محسوب می‌شود – یکی از موفقیت‌های چشمیگر دارپا در دوران جنگ سرد، ساخت شبکه داخلی ارتباطی برای امور نظامی میان نقاط مختلف آمریکا است، این ایده و این شبکه، با گسترش روز به روز تبدیل به شبکه جهانی اینترنت شده است که در حال حاضر انقلابی در عرصه ارتباطات به راه انداخته است.
    شاید دلیل پیشرفت و مشهور شدن دارپا نسبت به 2 دوره قبل، فعالیت‌ها، پیشرفت‌‌ها و تولیداتی بوده است که دارپا در این دوره و تا به حال انجام داده است.ایده و طراحی هواپیماهای رادارگریز، ایده و طراحی هواپیماهای بدون سرنشین، محصولات خاص بیوتکنولوژی، محصولات جاسوسی با استفاده از فناوری‌های نانو و خیلی از پیشرفت‌هایی که در صنعت نظامی آمریکا به چشم می‌خورد، محصول این سازمان بوده است و یا توسط این سازمان مدیریت و نظارت شده است.
    «پروژه‌های در حال اجرای دارپا»
    الف)حشرات سایبری جاسوس
    یکی از پروژ‌ه‌های در حال اقدام دارپا، استفاده از حشرات برای استفاده جاسوسی از این موجودات است، در این پروژه، با استفاده از تکنولوژی نانو، ریزپردازنده‌‌ها و دوربین‌هایی همراه با جی پی اس، روی بدن حشرات قرار گرفته و این حشرات می‌توانند به صورت مستقیم عکس و فیلم را به مرکز کنترل ارسال‌کنند.
    انرژی به کار رفته در این حشرات برای عکس و فیلمبرداری، با استفاده از تبدیل انرژی میکانیکی بال حشره به انرژی الکتریکی تأمین می‌شود.
    ب)ربات پرنده
    ربات پرنده نیز یکی دیگر از محصولات جاسوسی دارپا است که می‌تواند با کنترل از راه دور و با سرعت قابل توجهی در مکان‌های مختلف پرواز کرده و به صورت زنده تصویر‌برداری کند.
    از ویژگی‌های این ربات پرنده، سرعت قابل توجه، چرخش و فرود دقیق در مکان‌های تعیین شده است.
    این محصول دارپا به عنوان یکی از اختراعات برتر سال 2011 بوده است، این محصول زیر نظر مستقیم رجینا دوگان مدیر فعلی دارپا ساخته شده است.
    پروژه کامبت یکی از مهم‌ترین مراکزی است که به منظور اهداف نظامی و جاسوسی با استفاده از تکنولوژی‌های نوین در دانشگاه میشیگان تأسیس شده است. نکته نغز ماجرا اینجاست که مدیر فعلی کامبت و مدیر برخی دیگر از پروژه‌های دارپا، یک پروفسور ایرانی و از فارغ التحصیلان دانشگاه صنعتی شریف است!
    «پروژه‌های عملیاتی در دارپا»
    الف)خفاش جاسوس
    روبات هواپیمای جاسوسی شبیه خفاش که 15 سانتی متر طول دارد، قادر به جمع آوری اطلاعاتی از مناظر، صدا‌ها و بو‌ها در مناطق رزمی شهری و فرستادن آنها به سربازان در کمترین زمان ممکن می‌باشد.
    به نقل از ساینس دیلی، این ایده از طرف ارتش بوده و خود ارتش برای ساخت این روبات هزینه‌ای معادل با 10 میلیون دلار و برای مدت 5 سال به کالج مهندسی دانشگاه میشیگان اختصاص داده است. این هزینه به بخش COM-BAT تعلق گرفته است. همچنین این کمک هزینه می‌تواند برای یک دوره 5 ساله دیگر و به مبلغ 12.5 میلیون دلار دیگر تجدید شود.
    پژوهشگران دانشگاه میشیگان روی میکروالکترونیک متمرکز شده اند. آنها درنظر دارند سنسورها، وسایل ارتباطی و باتری‌های مورد نیاز برای این روبات ریز هوایی را که خفاش نام‌گذاری شده، توسعه دهند. مهندسین دوربین‌های کوچکی برای دید استریوی خفاش و یک سری میکروفن‌های ریز برای دریافت انواع صدا‌ها از زوایای مختلف و همچنین ردیاب‌های کوچکی برای تشعشعات هسته‌ای وگازهای سمی در نظر گرفته اند.
    برای اینکه خفاش راه خود را در شب پیدا کند از یک رادار کوچک کم توان و یک سیستم جهت یاب حساس استفاده شده است. انرژی‌هایی که خفاش از خورشید، باد، ارتعاش و سایر منابع دریافت می‌کند می‌تواند به شارژ دوباره باتری لیتیمی اش کمک کند. خفاش می‌تواند سیگنال‌‌ها را به سربازان مخابره کند.
    COM-BAT همچنین شامل دانشگاه کالیفرنیا در برکلی و دانشگاه نیومکزیکو می‌باشد. COM-BAT یکی از چهار مرکزی است که ارتش آنها را موظف به یک تلاش گروهی بین صنعت، دانشگاه و آزمایشگاه پژوهشی ارتش برای کار روی یک روبات هواپیمای کوچک که قادر به حس کردن و برقراری ارتباط باشد، کرده است. هرکدام از چهار مرکز، عهده دار توسعه دادن قسمتی از اجزای روبات خفاش می‌باشند. روبات خفاشی که یک حسگر با کنترل خودی و الهام گرفته از خصوصیات یک خفاش واقعی است.سرابندی در این رابطه می‌گوید: “خفاش‌‌ها از یک حس جهت یابی قوی و با کیفیت بالابرخوردارند که حتی در تاریکی می‌توانند با استفاده از امواج برگشتی از اجسام، موقعیت آنها را پیدا کنند. روبات خفاش ما هم باید این گونه باشد.”
    روبات می‌تواند برای نظارت کوتاه مدت در پشتیبانی از سربازان در حال پیشروی طراحی شود. همچنین روبات می‌تواند برای مأموریت‌های طولانی تر، درگوشه خیابان یا ساختمان بنشیند و گزارشی از فعالیت‌هایی که انجام می‌دهد را به مرکز فرماندهی ارسال نماید!
    غرض از این حاشیه پر رنگ‌تر از متن ذکر این نکته نیست که پروژه‌های تحقیقاتی بالزن یا ابتداً یا در نهایت اهداف نظامی دارند که این وجه ساده و بدیهی ماجراست. مقصود از این سطور طولانی توجه به این نکته بود که در نبود راهبرد آموزشی هدفمند، بودجه آزمایشگاه‌‌ها و پروژه‌های پژوهشی دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی را در مقوله بالزن‌‌ها باید وزارت علوم بپردازد تا ثمره آن در خارج از این مرز‌ها توسط وزارت دفاع سایر کشور‌ها برداشت شود. توجه به این نکته ضروری است که همان طور که ذکر آن رفت هزینه‌های تحقیقاتی ریز بالزن‌‌ها در همه کشورهای پیشرفته توسط وزارت دفاع تأمین می‌شود و وزارت علوم در این معامله ذینفع است حال آن که در کشور ما وزارت دفاع کلا در این مقوله برکنار و وزارت علوم یک بنگاه ضررده و وزارت دفاع کشور خارجی ذینفع است.
    بدتر از همه این که در نبود صنایع نظامی متقاضی این فناوری، دانشجویان فارغ التحصیل که عمر علمی خود را پیرامون رفع مشکلات نظامی سایر کشور‌ها گذرانده‌اند پس از بیرون رفتن از محیط ایزوله دانشگاه، برای اشتغال یا باید به گذشته علمی خود پشت کنند و یا به کشور خود.

    سید احمد علوی/ دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه تهران
    *منابع در دفتر روزنامه موجود است

  91. M.Ali says:

    So apparently the instagram group “richkidsoftehran” is getting a lot of media attention in the west. Of course, while this is just some rich kids having fun, for the west it turns into some kind of freak media circus, making it into some sort of political attack on Iran.

    I’m not the sort of person who is into expensive brands and lavish lifestyles, but hey, nooshejooneshoon.

  92. Sineva says:

    fyi says:
    October 7, 2014 at 10:11 am
    The usual utter crap from cordesman,basically he grossly underestimates/guesstimates iranian capabilities,its not even worth reading its basically nothing but bad propaganda

  93. James Canning says:


    Britain’s former top general, Lord Richards, says the West should be more accepting of representative governments in the Middle East. And “”maybe we should be a little less convinced ours is automatically the right one for everyone.” (Sunday Times, Sept. 28th)

    Words of wisdom. He should be applauded.

  94. James Canning says:


    I think Lord Richards was arguing that foolish Western military adventures in the Middle East, under the guise of “democracy promotion”, should be avoided.

  95. James Canning says:


    Egypt’s Morsi wanted Bashar al-Assad overthrown. Are you unhappy Morsi was overthrown?