Foreign Minister Zarif on Iran and Its Persian Gulf Neighbors

PGmap

Last week, as nuclear diplomacy between Iran and the P5+1 dominated international headlines, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif published a very important and substantive Op Ed, “Our Neighbors Are Our Priority,” in Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat.  The most fundamental message of Zarif’s Op Ed—that Tehran wants positive-sum, mutually beneficial relations with its Gulf Arab neighbors—is, strictly speaking, not a new theme in  the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy:    

–For example, when Zarif’s immediate predecessor, Ali Akbar Salehi—who was born and grew up in Iraq, speaks fluent Arabic, and lived for two years in Saudi Arabia as deputy secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)—became foreign minister, he said that Iran’s relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey were his top priority.

–Well before that, during Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s presidency, Rafsanjani made détente with Gulf Arab monarchies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) a foreign policy priority. 

But, while continuing in the line, Zarif’s Op Ed is remarkable for the richly substantive agenda it lays out for building closer strategic ties between the Islamic Republic and its GCC neighbors

–Citing UN Security Council Resolution 598 (which ended the Iran-Iraq War) and its exhortation that the UN Secretary-General “examine, in consultation with Iran and Iraq and with other States of the region, measures to enhance the security and stability of the region,” Zarif calls for the creation of a regional security framework among the “eight littoral states” of the Persian Gulf (Iran, Iraq, and the six GCC states).      

–While noting that cooperation among these eight states should not be “at the expense of any other party,” Zarif points out an important distinction between those outside powers “who are dependent on us as major suppliers of their energy requirements,” for whom the Persian Gulf “constitutes a major element in their economic and industrial wellbeing,” and “those who do not depend on our energy resources,” for whom “our region is merely an important theater for extending their control in the international political arena and in international economic competition.” 

Zarif further underscores “that the paramount interest of such outside players may not always be stability, but in fact may depend on what can justify their presence.  The presence of foreign forces has historically resulted in domestic instability within the countries hosting them and exacerbated the existing tensions between these countries and other regional states.”    

Beyond these and other important substantive points, the publication of Zarif’s Op Ed in a high-profile, Saudi-owned regional newspaper is unprecedented

To read Zarif’s Op Ed in its entirety, see here.  We append substantial excerpts from it below.     

“Our Neighbors Are Our Priority”

Mohammad Javad Zarif

In the past few weeks, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1 have endeavored to make use of the unique window of opportunity provided by the Iranian presidential election this past summer to resolve the nuclear issue, which has unnecessarily cast a shadow of insecurity and crisis over the region.  While most in the international community welcomed this positive development, some of our friends in our immediate neighborhood have expressed concerns that this opening may be pursued at their expense. 

Regrettably, a zero-sum mentality has been prevalent both in our region and around the world, and some may have even grown accustomed to taking advantage of hostility to Iran to pursue their interests.  Still, I wish to reiterate that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not have any such illusions.  We recognize that we cannot promote our interests at the expense of others.  This is particularly the case in relation to counterparts so close to us that their security and stability are intertwined with ours. 

Thus, notwithstanding the focus on our interactions with the West, the reality is that our primary foreign policy priority is our region. 

Few things are constant in international politics, but geography is among them.  A country cannot change its neighbors.  In our interconnected world, the fate of one nation is tied to the destinies of its neighbors.  The body of water that separates us from our southern neighbors is not just a waterway—it is our shared lifeline.  All of us depend on it, not just for survival, but to thrive.  With our fates so closely tied together, the belief that one’s interests can be pursued without consideration of the interests of others is delusional. 

As the turmoil in our region evidences, no country is an island.  Prosperity cannot be pursued at the expense of others’ poverty, and security cannot be achieved at the expense of the security of others.  We will either win together or lose together.  We are capable of working together, trusting one another, combining our potential, and building a more secure and prosperous region. 

Sadly, the model for security and stability that has to date been imposed on our region has been one based on competition, rivalry and the formation of competing blocs.  The only outcome has been the fostering of fresh imbalances and the emergence of unrealized or unstated ambitions that have repeatedly menaced the region over the past three decades… 

To reverse the vicious cycle of suspicion and mistrust and move forward—to build confidence, and join forces in striving to build a better, more secure and more prosperous future for our children—it is imperative that we keep three points in mind. 

First, it is crucial that we build an inclusive framework for confidence and cooperation in this strategic region.  Any exclusion will be the seed of future mistrust, tension and crisis.  The core of any wider regional arrangement should be limited to the eight littoral states.  Inclusion of other states will bring with it other complex issues, overshadowing the immediate problems of this region and further complicating the complex nature of security, as well as cooperation among us.

Naturally, there are legitimate concerns about potential imbalances and asymmetries that might arise within a new system.  Concerns about the domination or imposition of the views of any single country or group of countries must be taken into account and addressed.  To build an inclusive system based on mutual respect and the principle of non-interference, we should envisage arrangements within the framework of the United Nations.  The necessary institutional framework has already been provided in Security Council Resolution 598, which ended the disastrous war imposed by Saddam Hussein on Iran, Iraq and the entire region. 

Second, we need to be clear that while our cooperation is not at the expense of any other party, and will in fact promote greater security for all, we are very much cognizant of the variety of interests involved in our region.  The waterway that divides us is vital for the world, but the source of its importance is not identical for all actors.  For us littoral states, it is our lifeline.  For those who are dependent on us as major suppliers of their energy requirements, it constitutes a major element in their economic and industrial wellbeing.  In contrast, for those who do not depend on our energy resources, our region is merely an important theater for extending their control in the international political arena and in international economic competition.  Hence, we must bear in mind that there is a qualitative difference between the interests of the various players involved, and act accordingly. 

Third, the international element of the instability in our region stems from the divergence of the nature of the interests of various outside powers and their competition.  Their injection of extraneous issues only complicates an already complex security situation further.  We must not forget that the paramount interest of such outside players may not always be stability, but in fact may depend on what can justify their presence.  The presence of foreign forces has historically resulted in domestic instability within the countries hosting them and exacerbated the existing tensions between these countries and other regional states. 

I am convinced that there is a genuine will to discuss these common challenges.  The challenges and opportunities that we face are enormous.  They range from environmental degradation to sectarian tension, from extremism and terrorism to arms control and disarmament, and from tourism and economic and cultural cooperation to confidence-building and security-enhancing measures.  We must aim to initiate dialogue that results in practical and gradually expanding steps.

Iran, content with its size, geography, and human and natural resources, and enjoying common bonds of religion, history and culture with its neighbors, has not attacked anyone in nearly three centuries.  We extend our hand in friendship and Islamic solidarity to our neighbors, assuring them that they can count on us as a reliable partner. 

In our recent presidential election, which was a proud manifestation of the ability of an Islamic model of democracy to bring about change through the ballot box, my government received a strong popular mandate to engage in constructive interaction with the world, and particularly with our neighbors.  We are dedicated to making use of this mandate to instigate change for the better, but we cannot do it alone.  Now, more than ever, is the time to join hands to work towards securing a better fate for all of us; a destiny based on the noble principles of mutual respect and non-interference.  We are taking the first steps towards this objective.  We hope you will join us in this difficult, but rewarding, path.

 

352 Responses to “Foreign Minister Zarif on Iran and Its Persian Gulf Neighbors”

  1. Castellio says:

    This is an interesting and welcome perspective on Going To Tehran.

    It is clear that Zarif, at least, knows that the last thing Iran should do is isolate herself as the great Shia bastion threatening her neighbours with nuclear weapons. That way lies the Neocon highway and debilitating war.

    This is an attempt at leadership for the sake of the whole region – stressing common bonds rather than differences – and a not-too-subtle look to the markets in Asia as representing those who have legitimate energy needs, and hence offer the possibility of genuine long-term partnerships.

  2. Roger says:

    Very good article.

  3. Karl.. says:

    Zarif brings up stuff the sunni regimes have never thought of, so is anyone listening? After all the anti-shia killings get funded by these regimes.

  4. Fiorangela says:

    Westerners may have difficulty grasping the concepts that Zarif embraces. He speaks as a man firmly grounded in the qualitatively different practices of the Persian empire, inflected with centuries of Islam.

    The West thinks, predominantly, in terms of the Anglo- tradition, which enthrones their ideas as the right way to act and live, and which ineluctably imbues Anglos with the right to rule.

    In some ways, FDR fought a two-front war in WWII: he allied with England militarily, even as he did what he did what he could to fight against Churchill’s determination to expand the British empire, most especially in the Middle East. FDR’s vision was to engage with Iranians and Arabs in a reciprocal relationship of mutual respect; Churchill’s ambition was to dominate the people who “respected only violence and force,” and to extract resources from their lands.

    When I travelled in Iran and drove in the area of Natanz, I saw acres and acres of 20-year growth pine trees and shrubs, planted to cool the desert and hold the sands in place. Pylons carried power lines from what I assume was the nuclear station at Natanz; they extended to the pine groves and arced through the desert, to the edge of a windmill farm.

    From the time he was a boy in school, FDR was entranced by forests and planting trees, a passion that remained with him throughout his life. It informed some of his New Deal policies. On a trip to the Persian Gulf region, he flew over the desert and envisioned greening it; he looked forward to partnering with the Iranian people to bring about exactly what the Iranian people have accomplished for themselves. My point is, FDR had a vision of a US-Iran relationship that was consonant with what Mr. Zarif proposes for Iran and its neighbors.

    FDR’s vision was never realized; Churchill out-lived him. Then, it was utterly debased by George H. W. Bush when he invaded Iraq, ostensibly, to “liberate” Kuwait, but actually, to plant the flag of American imperium. Bush I, and Clinton, and Bush II and Obama followed in Churchill’s path. But there is treasure in the attic of American foreign policy, left there by Franklin Roosevelt, that could suit Americans well in transitioning out of decades of arrogance and into a future of mutual respect and reciprocity.

  5. James Canning says:

    I long have argued Iran should always, if possible, seek good relations with the other Persian Gulf nations.

  6. Irshad says:

    James Canning says:
    November 29, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    And what happens if some of these countries do not want better relations with Iran? The Saudi king recently told the visiting Lebanese PM, that the Lebanese army should fight Hezbollah to stop its involvement in Syria! Then we have the invident at a recent Koerber security conference in Germany, where Irans former nuclear negotiator, Mr Moussavian bluntly told the former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Faisal, that Saudi Arabia has called for the US to attack Iran more times then Isreal! and supporting an armed uprising in Syria whilst sending troops to invade and put down a peaceful uprising in Bahran!!!

    And then theres the open cooperation that Saudi have with Isreal (wahabism and zionism in bed again) to stop Irans regional rise.

    But you wont see this will you? Saudi money truly has corrupted the bankrupt British ruling classes which turns a blind eye to the money that the Saudis use to build mosque in poor areas of England with a large south asian muslim population so they can propagate their salafi/wahabism confusing young kids who then go off the rails become extremist and go off to “jihad” in Syria, after watching Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera. If they return home back to England then they are promptly arrested by the police but no Saudi official or organisation will be investigated for turning these confused adolescents in to violent thugs justifying everything with Islam. So who cares about these poor kids, just keep pumping the money in the casinos of London, real estate in Knightsbridge and Surrey, breed more horses to win the grand national and sign big fat contracts with BAE Systems on weopans that will rot in the dessert or sent to the clowns in Syria known as ISIS or whatever they call themselves now!

  7. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Setting aside the semantic gymnastics, the point is that Mr. Obama is able and capable of deciding – he is not forced. Political expediency is a broader tent – it is not public opinion alone.

    The differentiating factor between your average political leader and a “great” leader is the ability of great leader to use fair and equitable ideals (rather than fear and hate) to set the tone of public opinion.

  8. Sineva says:

    So long as the current crop of arab governments are little more than vassals of the west there is little hope for much improvement in relations especially after what the saudis and their ilk did in syria,that will have to wait until these governments have been replaced,the fact that the saudis find it easier to make common cause with israel against iran really says it all,I think at this point iran has more to gain by deterring these regimes than by reaching out to them

  9. Castellio says:

    Sineva:

    We don’t have to be naive about this: we agree that Saudi Arabia in particular and the Gulf States in general are not about to change or limit their crimes due to any stated good intentions of the Iranian government.

    But the Iranian government is reaching out to the people of these states, not just the government. They are trying to make it harder for the totalitarian states to persuade their people that Iran is the enemy, or for those states to pursue their policy of divide and conquer using the “sunni – shia” divide.

  10. paul says:

    Isn’t it astounding that supposedly evil leaders of countries like Russia and Iran can talk actual sense about world affairs, whilst our ‘leaders’ and talking heads and ‘wise’ commentators mostly spout raving gibberish, and our ‘intellectual classes’ mostly nod their heads to same? Who can ever forget Hillary Clinton promising to “obliterate” Iran, with a kind of feral glee in her voice, while on the campaign trail? And she may be president after Obama has finished with his various wars.

    Oh silly me, I’ve lost the plot, haven’t I? Obama is a peacemaker now! He became a peacemaker overnight, like Saint Paul, on the way to Damascus!

    For my money, Tony Cartalucci, cited here the other day, explains it all. He found a passage in a 2009 Brookings institution strategy plan for Iran that appears to exactly presage Obama’s volte face towards peace, as a way of building public support for war. Already it looks like Iran is being pressured to back out of the agreement. This will then be played off as intransigence and evidence of evil intentions and something to hide. The public still won’t be for war, but they won’t be as much against it, and that’s all Obama needs to fire up the Engines.

    Well, regardless, one has to give kudos to Zarif for talking sense, and to Iran for proactively seeking a better path than endless confrontation and war. That said, though, it’s quite despicable, in my opinion, that the current gvt. in Iran continues to make a big point of throwing Ahmadinejad under the bus.

  11. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Report: Israel, US to hold joint exercise in spring
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4458993,00.html

    Like I said, kick the can down the road until they can figure out how to attack Syria and Lebanon again…

  12. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The Dogs of War Still Growl
    Regime Change is Still the Name of the Game
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/29/the-dogs-of-war-still-growl/

    I agree with this assessment except for two points:

    1) Iran isn’t interested in making people think they have nukes, unlike Saddam.
    2) The goal isn’t really “regime CHANGE” as it is “regime DESTRUCTION” – or at least profit by trying.

  13. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    RSH,

    I’ve been waiting for 4 years for your prediction of Israel to Bekaa Valey- Hezbullah, US to Syria – Iran war.
    In your estimation, what is the new timeline in view of the new developments?

  14. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Winston Churchill had no intention, during the Second World War, to “expand” the British Empire in the Middle East. He did have faint hopes of keeping India, but in this thinking he had little support even in the British establishment.

  15. James Canning says:

    Paul,

    Yesm how grotesque on the part of Hillary Clinton, hot on the campaign trail, to speak of “obliterating” Iran. Despicable, in my view. But, pandering to rich Jews in this fashion is seen as obligatory by some Democrats.

  16. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    Saudi Arabia wants Israel to get rid of its nukes. So does Iran. Saudi Arabia wants Israel to get out of the West Bank. So does Iran. Both countries should be able to work together.

  17. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    I did not think Obama needed to hit Syria with a missile strike, to keep his credibility intact regarding not allowing Iran to build nukes.

    Did you think he needed to? A number of those who post on this site claimed Obama was bluffing, regarding not allowing Iran to build nukes.

  18. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    The Sultan of Oman communicates with other Gulf rulers, and he has long sought to foster better relations between GCC and Iran.

  19. James Canning says:

    Paul,

    I assume you are aware that Ahmadinejad’s government misled Khamenei about the true state of the Iranian economy. Was this a wise decision, in your view?

  20. Fiorangela says:

    paul says: November 30, 2013 at 11:29 am

    re: “Tony Cartalucci . . . explains it all. He found a passage in a 2009 Brookings institution strategy plan for Iran that appears to exactly presage Obama’s volte face towards peace, as a way of building public support for war. Already it looks like Iran is being pressured to back out of the agreement. This will then be played off as intransigence and evidence of evil intentions and something to hide. The public still won’t be for war, but they won’t be as much against it, and that’s all Obama needs to fire up the Engines.”
    = = =

    As well, one suspects that the Iranian public are being set up with high expectations only to be followed by major disappointment. Nothing else has worked to rile the Iranian people — not Hurting, Hanging, Suffocating and Starving,” (h/t Nima Shirazi). Time to call in Lucy to pull away the football.

    I don’t think it will work.
    It is my belief that Iran’s leaders have prepared the Iranian people for a hard slog.

    The Obama admin thinks it WILL work because misdirecting the American public and calling it “education” has worked in the past —

    “Those Angry Days” is Lynne Olson’s account of the “fight” to involve USA in World War II. One of the key themes in “Angry Days” is the need to “educate the American people” on why they must go to war.

    But “education,” in Olson’s parlance, really means propaganda and deception. For example, in 1939 when Roosevelt wanted to strike down the Neutrality Act so that he could send money and arms to England, his speech to the people framed repealing neutrality as the only way to stay out of war:

    “To the assembled lawmakers and the millions of Americans listening to the speech on radio, FDR bluntly declared, “I regret that the Congress passed the [Neutrality] Act. I regret equally that I signed it.” He argued that revising the law was the best way to guarantee peace and safety for the United States in the tumultuous period ahead: “Our acts must be guided by one single hardheaded thought — keeping America out of this war!” …

    “[P]ro-administration senators who spoke for the bill followed Roosevelt’s lead in never mentioning the need to help ritain and France and in insisting that repeal of the embargo was the est guarantee of peace for America. By doing so, the historian Robert Divine observed, they continued “the elaborate pretense that the sale of arms to the Allies was but an accidental by-product of a program designed to keep the United States clear of the war.” “ [pp. 91-92]

  21. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: November 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    re: “Winston Churchill had no intention, during the Second World War, to “expand” the British Empire in the Middle East.”

    * * *

    QUOTE: “So widespread is a modern Western perception that the war was fought about Jews that it should be emphasized this was not the case. Though Hitler and his followers chose to blame Jews for the troubles of Europe and the grievances of the third reich, Germany’s struggle with the allies was about power and hemispheric dominance.” END QUOTE (“Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945” by Max Hastings p. xvii)

    QUOTE: ““The Cairo government did not formally enter hostilities until Feb. 1945. The sympathies of most Egyptians lay with the Axis, which they believed would liberate them from more than seventy years of British domination. Indeed, such views were widespread among Arab nationalists throughout the Middle East, and were stimulated by Hitler’s 1940 successes. That August, the secretary of the grand mufti of Jerusalem visited Berlin to discuss fomenting a revolt in Iraq. In addition, he suggested, prospective rebels in Palestine and Transjordan might be armed with weapons provided by the Vichy French in Syria. The aspiring insurgents’ principal demand was that the Nazis should commit themselves to the future independence of the Arab states.

    Yet in 1940 Germany’s leaders were not much interest in Muslim revolts, less still with Arab freedom. Moreover, at this stage they conceded to Italy the principal diplomatic role in the region. Mussolini’s ambitions for extending his African empire were wholly incompatible with local peoples’ aspirations: in pursuit of them, his generals had already massacred many thousands of Libyan and Abyssianian tribesmen. Only in 1941 did the Germans engage with Arab nationalists, notably in Iraq and Iran. Their attempted interventions there were late, halfhearted, and easily frustrated by forces dispatched to reassert British hegemony.

    In Egypt in September 1939, Britain invoked a clause of its treaty with Farouk which obliged him, in the event of a war, to provide “all the facilities and assistance in his power, including the use of ports, aerodromes and means of communication.” Thereafter, the British treated the country as a colonial possession, governed through their ambassador, Sir Miles Lampson. They based their Mediterranean fleet at Alexandria, and in February 1942 deployed troops in Cairo to stifle a nascent Egyptian rebellion. In the course of the war, desperate hunger among the peasantry caused several food riots; the plight of the Egyptian fellaheen contrasted starkly with the sybaritic lifestyle of the British military colony centered upon Middle East headquarters, Shepheard’s Hotel, the Gezira Sporting Club and a nexus of barracks, supply and repair bases throughout the Nile Delta, where contempt for “the wogs” was almost universal.

    American visitors were dismayed by the lassitude and imperial condescension of the British in Egypt, who seemed to regard the conflict being waged in the western wilderness as a mere event in a sporting calendar. This perception was unjust to those doing the fighting and dying: it failed to recognize the British Army’s tradition of seeking to make war with a light heart. But a core of truth about the North African campaign was that the British role until late 1942 was characterized by an amateurishmess that was occasionally inspired but which more often crippled its endeavours.” END QUOTE (- Inferno, Hastings, pp. 104- 105)

    QUOTE: “the Americans grew more concerned about Great Britain’s postwar ambitions [in the Middle East] than about postwar Soviet influence. The British had an established record of interference, occupation, and de facto empire and gave no indication that they would leave the Middle East after the war. On the contrary, they saw the war as an opportunity to deepen and expand their influence.” END QUOTE (“FDR and the End of Empire: The Origins of American Power in the Middle East” by Christopher O’Sullivan, 2012, p. 26)

    * * * * *

    re: “He did have faint hopes of keeping India, but in this thinking he had little support even in the British establishment.”

    QUOTE: ” Toye acknowledges Churchill’s pathological aversion to India and how he wished Partition upon the subcontinent. “The mere mention of India,” he writes, “brought out a streak of unpleasantness or even irrationality in Churchill.

    In March 1943, R A Butler, the education minister, visited him at Chequers. The prime minister ‘launched into a most terrible attack on the ‘baboos’, saying that they were gross, dirty and corrupt. He even declared that he wanted the British to leave India, and – this was a more serious remark – that he supported the principle of Pakistan. When Butler argued that the Raj had always stood for Indian unity, Churchill replied, ‘Well, if our poor troops have to be kept in a sweltering, syphilitic climate for the sake of your precious unity, I’d rather see them have a good civil war.’ ”

    Toye devotes less than three pages to Churchill’s malign role in the Great Bengal Famine of 1943-44. Britain’s plunder of India is dispensed with equally briskly: “One factor that increased Churchill’s resentment towards India was the issue of the sterling balances. These were British debts chalked up in London in exchange for goods and services required for the war effort. These grew, in total, from £1,299 million in December 1941 to £3,355 million in June 1945, of which around one-third was owed to India. From one perspective, this was very good news for the UK. She was, in effect, extracting an enormous forced loan which she was unlikely to have to repay in the near future.” END QUOTE Times of India, “Why Churchill had an aversion to India,” by Minhaz Merchant, Oct 3, 2010, 12.50am IST

  22. Bibijon says:

    The Peace Escalation Theory
    =========================

    “Obama’s volte-face towards peace, as a way of building public support for war.”

    Yes, Obama will say all manner of nice things, meet and greet, send Kerry to talk, etc. all as way proving to the skeptical world that he really, really tried to be nice.

    Rohani is also likely to say peaceful things, conclude deals with IAEA, invite inspection of Arak, etc. just to make sure that the coming war will not be blamed on his intransigence.

    Obama is going to be forced to up the ante and go around selling the Geneva deal to his domestic constituency to prove to the world that he is nicer than Rohani.

    Rohani will have no option but to see Obama and raise the niceness quotient.

    Obama’s best hope will lay in changing the contest from niceness to reasonableness.

    Rohani, likely to have predicted the sudden change in tactic will be ready to unleash a torrent of logic and reason.

    Before you know it, way up high on the spiral of ‘blame the other guy’, the two will have entrapped themselves in an endless escalation to peace.

    But, yes, eventually, they are going not to care who gets blamed, and start the damn war.

    h/t Paul, and Tony Cartalucci

  23. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Egypt, Syria and Iraq were independent states, when the Second World War began.

  24. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    In March 1942, a member of Churchill’s war cabinet (Staffforde Cripps) offered the leaders of the Congress party freedom for India after the war was over. Nehru wanted to accept the offer, but Gandhi refused. He demanded the British get out while involved in the greatest war in history. That Chruchill was a bit fed up is only reasonable.

  25. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Are you actually claiming Obama WANTS war with Iran? Utter nonsense.

  26. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    November 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    I agree,yet at this moment the saudis and the israelis are making common cause to hurt iran,bizarre but true,so long as the saudis find it easier to work with people who should be their mortal enemies against people who should be friends or at least ones they should have cordial relations with then I think all that iran can reasonably do is to make it clear to the saudis that cooperating with the israelis in any acts of aggression against iran will cost them dearly,so long as the saudis act as enemies they must be treated as such.Iran should make it clear that they are willing to meet like with like,friendship with friendship,aggression with aggression,altho personally so long as the house of saud rules I do not realistically see any prospect for friendship only deterrence.

  27. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Zarif says:

    “…In our recent presidential election, which was a proud manifestation of the ability of an Islamic model of democracy to bring about change through the ballot box…”

    Forget “outside powers”- THIS is what our brothers to the south are crapping their dishdashas about.

    Even if no evil US-UK-Israeli influence would exist in the region, the brothers to south would remain hostile because of “…a proud manifestation of the ability of an Islamic model of democracy to bring about change through the ballot box…”.

    I doubt Zarif and his crew truly understand this.

    Or maybe he thinks that our “friendliness” will be lesson for “the people” in these countries and they will also want “…an Islamic model of democracy to bring about change through the ballot box…”. Bahrainis have already shown that they do.

    That’s good, but only one major barrier too this beautiful plan: 8,000-plus Saudi princes with privileges to loose if there is “…change through the ballot box…”

    Nope, can’t get around the fact that you’re gonna have to dangle a couple of thousand of them from various lamp posts- from various sensitive areas on their bodies.

    Zarif is being true to his liberal self and I sincerely pray for his success- against historical precedent.

    Like Agha says, this will be a good “experience” for Iran and the world.

  28. nico says:

    http://larouchepac.com/node/28976

    Fiorangela,

    About the post-modern west and the civilizational choice of catholicism.

    Earlier this week the Ukraine-born Glazyev was in Kiev for a conference on Ukraine’s potential participation in the Eurasian Economic Union, the next stage of the Customs Union process initiated by Putin. Since “any serious economic analysis shows that the Ukrainian economy will lose from signing the Association Agreement with the EU,” Glazyev posed the matter, “What is the essence of a ‘European choice’ for Ukraine? The goal would be to keep Ukraine out of Eurasian integration. This is understood very well in Europe and is the main reason behind the active pressure on Ukraine to sign the agreement on Association with the EU.”

    Glazyev then took the discussion to a higher level, according to a report on the Glagol website, saying: “It is also strange to hear talk about some kind of ‘civilizational’ choice, allegedly facing Ukraine. The country made that choice in the time of Prince Vladimir [of Kiev Rus, 1,000 years ago], who adopted Christianity. It is not a matter of a choice between Orthodoxy and Catholicism — between the Byzantine and Roman traditions. The choice is between Christianity and post-Christianity. Europe today is a post-Christian civilization. And the so-called ‘European choice’ is an anti-Christian one, not Catholic.”

    Thus Glazyev echoed the remarks with which Putin startled international participants in the Valday Discussion Club meeting two months ago, when the Russian President said,

    “We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious, and even sexual. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity.”

  29. nico says:

    Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
    Putin’s speech

    http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6007

    “(…)For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.

    (…)

    Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

    The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

    What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values ​​embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values​​. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question. (…)”

  30. nico says:

    Yes, it is first and foremost a clash of civilization.
    Tradition against post-moden nihilism.

    The same nihilism favored by fyi and Canning.

  31. nico says:

    Ahah, Putin’s speech is not that far from Khzmenei’s in its substance.

  32. A-B says:

    Now, is this a freakin’ joke?!

    LA Times: The chalice that helped make possible the Iran nuclear deal (November 30)

    Well, people seem to get inspired by also the comment section of ‘Going to Tehran’. So, on the previous thread, I wrote sarcastically:

    A-B says:
    November 23, 2013 at 9:03 am

    Remember in conjunction to Rohani’s attending UNGA, the US returned to Iran an ancient Iranian artifact, a 2700-year-old Griffin chalice, it had seized since 2003 supposedly stolen by an Arab. It’s like you open the door to a self-invited guest who offers you as ‘gift’ the flowers he just uprooted from your own flower bed in your own yard. And just in case he says “Here – an Arab stole it from you. Now show us some of your famous hospitality!” Many times US policy seems to take its cue from Hollywood, but ‘National Lampoon’?? Then again, Nuttiyahu gets ‘inspired’ by Looney Tunes (cf. his ‘bomb chart’ at UNGA) and is applauded by the ‘civilized’ West, so, I guess, nothing should surprise you!

    The tragic part is though, that there are Iranians who at this outrageous gesture say: meeerci, yoo shouldn’t have! How gracious av yoo! Doz bad Arabs R no good, yoo see vee R Puuuurrrsians. And vee love yoo sooooo much.

    … Why exactly?
    ——————————————————————-

    And the Americans unashamedly are bragging that their imprudence actually – and as usual – paid off. This, of course, is of no surprise since, as usual, Iranians reward their abusers by showing gratitude (cf. above), by this [idiotic] submissive self-loathing attitude towards foreigners for them to constantly take advantage of:

    “A day later, Mohammad Ali Najafi, the head of Iranian cultural heritage and tourism, summoned reporters to his office. Beaming, he gently held the griffin aloft and called it “a sign of goodwill from the U.S.A.”

    Photos appeared in pro-reform newspapers, while hard-liners, angered by Rouhani’s overtures to the West, dismissed the chalice as fraudulent.

    “We do not look a gift horse in the mouth,” Najafi said. “Even if it is fake, it is worthy.”

    K1-N

  33. A-B says:

    Well, here’s an impromptu part 2 of ‘the Iranian influence on (Jews and) Zio’s’ :-)

    In my archaic mannerism, on November 24, I wrote “As I said before, Iran is at a century old war with the West; a war as epic as between Light and Darkness.”

    Now, the Zio-maniac Nuttiyahu in Times of Israel (November 28) “vows to banish ‘darkness’ of Iran nuclear program.” He said “We came to drive out the darkness, and the largest darkness that threatens the world today is a nuclear Iran,” and further “We are bound to do all we can to prevent this darkness. If possible we will do this diplomatically, if not we will act as ‘a light unto the nations’.”

    The good part is that in his search for inspiration he will come across some truths about himself and the Evil that is Israel (AKA the two-bomb-state).

    K1-N

  34. Don Bacon says:

    The US attack Iran?
    I don’t think the US would be expanding bases and bringing in military families a mere hundred miles from a potentially hostile shore, considering that Iran has a full array of ballistic and cruise missiles on land, plus cruise missiles and torpedoes on fast boats and submarines.

    Nov 27, 2013
    Greenert confirms expanded footprint in Bahrain

    MANAMA, Bahrain — Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, emphasized the importance of the Navy’s Middle East presence Wednesday, telling sailors at an all-hands call that Bahrain remains the best option for operating out of the region. . . . Besides new equipment, more crew and families will be coming to Bahrain, Greenert said. Construction is now underway to build more infrastructure and capacity to support the additional units on the base, which is home to the U.S. 5th Fleet.

    “We have to get hot on some things,” he said. “Bahrain has a plan, it has a cost, it’s in our budget.” Greenert stressed Bahrain’s key role in the service’s Middle East presence, telling sailors that the base here would continue to be its “centerpiece.” He said there is “no really good plan B … compared to what we have.”

    This is clearly a sign that US will NOT attack Iran — otherwise they would be pulling out, not moving in to the Gulf.

  35. nico says:

    Ahah !
    few days after Ukraine rejection of the “US conspiricacy construct” namely the EU.
    The US, Soros financed ukrainian “democratic opposition” protest against the Ukrainuan President.
    That is the Notorious Femen in their act for democracy !

    What does Putin say ? Satanic ?
    What would Khamenei think of that ?

    http://twitter.com/Femen_France/status/407088692201656320/photo/1

    And we have bunch of politician shit bags in France and in other western countries defending such degenerate movements.
    Truly the end of civilization…

  36. Sammy says:

    nico says:
    December 1, 2013 at 10:48 am

    ‘…And we have bunch of politician shit bags in France and in other western countries..

    nico , not only the shit bags in France but in Germany as well , All from the same ‘MISCHPOKE’
    There , their parties call themselves CDU and CSU and the ‘C’ suppose to stand for ‘Christian’ , but they All have ‘buried’ their religion & God a long time ago.

  37. nico says:

    “MOSCOW, December 1 (RIA Novosti) – Iran and Russia are discussing plans to build a new nuclear power plant at Bushehr, with construction set to begin next year, Iranian media reports said Sunday citing the country’s nuclear chief.

    Ali Akbar Salehi told state broadcaster IRIB that Iran was negotiating with Russia a deal to produce 4,000 megawatts of electricity, and Moscow has “expressed its readiness to build.”

    “With the progress made in the Geneva talks, next year we will see the start of construction on another nuclear power plant in Bushehr,” AFP quoted Salehi as saying.”

    ttp://en.ria.ru/russia/20131201/185189860/Iran-Russia-Talk-New-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Deal–Report.html

  38. nico says:

    Sammy says:
    December 1, 2013 at 11:23 am

    “…And we have bunch of politician shit bags in France and in other western countries..

    nico , not only the shit bags in France but in Germany as well , All from the same ‘MISCHPOKE’
    There , their parties call themselves CDU and CSU and the ‘C’ suppose to stand for ‘Christian’ , but they All have ‘buried’ their religion & God a long time ago.”

    If the Roman church were to react the pope Francis should excomunicate those bunch of satan worshipers.
    Maybe that would provide the needed shock for people to wake up.
    But do not bear with it.
    The church is destroyed and it accepeted its total and unilateral surrender with Vatican II.

    But as I said to Fiorangela

  39. Castellio says:

    “The point is that the thesis of the ‘decline of the US empire’ and its corollary, the ‘crises of the US ’ are overstated, time bound and lack specificity.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/decline-of-the-american-empire-global-configurations-of-power-the-swindle-economy-and-the-criminal-state/5359263

    An excellent article that summarizes the current ‘situation’ of the American Empire, which also serves as a critique of those who think the end-times have come.

  40. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: November 30, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    “Are you actually claiming Obama WANTS war with Iran? Utter nonsense.”

    = = =

    Do you feel lucky, punk?

    Or do you assess the patterns and the odds?

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Polkan

    1. April 1846 Infused with the bible-based ideology of Manifest Destiny, that the United States was “the new Israel” ordained by god to control the North American continent, President James K Polk wanted to annex California, which had been settled by Mexicans — i.e. Los Angeles (now, Tehrangeles) was names and established by Mexico in the 18th century. Polk set in motion two or three tactics: US military forces deployed to Mexican territory; US diplomats met with Mexican authorities and offered to purchase Mexican territory; and provocations were devised, together with cover stories, calculated to provoke, or seem to provoke, the Mexicans to fire the first shot — Polk’s administration was aware that neither the US Congress nor the US populace would acquiesce to a military campaign to wrest California from Mexico.

    Polk was correct: the American people and the American Congress did NOT agree that territory of another sovereign should be taken by force.

    But California is now part of the manifestly destined United States, after a 2-year long war of aggression.

    to be continued

  41. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon

    Again Iran is nothing against the american military. You really think America somehow fear Iran’s military?

  42. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    That Polk wanted the US to annex California in the 1840s in no way whatever suggests Obama WANTS war with Iran. What would be the purpose of war with Iran (assuming no effort to build nukes etc etc etc)? To prevent hundreds of American and Europeaqn companies from doing $100 billion or more in business with Iran?

  43. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    We both know that Bibi Netanyahu would like a US war with Iran. We both know he has numerous very rich American friends, who try to help Netanyahu get what he wants from the US.

  44. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    You probably know about the numerous American efforts to steal Florida from Spain, after American independence in 1783.

  45. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    I favor a rich and secure Iran, living in peace with its neighbors. Which you call “nihilism”. Rubbish.

  46. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    Saudi Arabia and Iran both want Israel to get rid of its nukes. And both countries want Israel out of the West Bank.

    Zarif clearly is aware of these facts, and can build on them.

  47. nico says:

    Castellio says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    “An excellent article that summarizes the current ‘situation’ of the American Empire, which also serves as a critique of those who think the end-times have come.”

    This article is BS.
    Was the 1929 financial crisis not the prelude of dramatic change in world history ?
    Were the soviet economic crisis and implosion not the prelude of dramatic changes ?
    Are the current western and global economical crisis not the prelude of dramatic changes ?

    Petras fail to grasp that the current world economic and social construct has achieved a complexity and integration which by essence is fragile.

    Yes this construct is highly performant but fragile.
    The construct deficiencies are structural and it is bound to collapse.

    The more complex and integrated the construct is the more dramatic the collapse shall be.

    What form it will take and where it will start remains to be seen.
    My personal take is that it has already started with the 2008 western financial implosion.
    Which was itself the result of 20 years economic blunder after the fall of USSR.
    But was also the continuation of ultra liberal policies started late 70s.

    The trend is only speedind up and is the result of more than 30 years of economic and political options elected by the leadership.
    Yes the trend is speeding up and that is why I think it wee will see dramatic change in the very near future.
    Besides the more than 30 years momentum shall not be reversed in few weeks.
    And my take is that it shall never be reversed short of war, civil unrest, revolution, regime change and so on…. That is collapse.

    That is proven history about “how things happen” and how history unfold.

    Petras thinking othetwise is absolutely delusional and imbued in leftist positivism tainted by the usual western and more so US exceptionalism.

    Sure the situation is different today, we will do better… Like it has been proven by westetn keadership in the past 20 years. They had the opportunity to proce do. But they did not.
    Simply laughable.

    The absence o

  48. James Canning says:

    Mark Kirk, “the senator from Aipac”, according to Jim Lobe.

    http://www.lobelog.com/the-mystery-of-mark-kirks-motivations/#more-22157

  49. Fiorangela says:

    Gideon Levy Argues that Sanctions against Iran worked, therefore, Israel should be sanctioned

    I agree that Israel should be “sanctioned” or by some other more-or-less violent means be forced to remove its nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals AND remove itself from territories belonging to Palestinians, AND be coerced to join the rest of the world community in subscribed to the rule of law.

    But I disagree that the “Iran model” proves the effectiveness of sanctions.

    Iran did not acquire nuclear technology outside of international treaty framework, as Israel did, nor did Iran use its nuclear capabilities to blackmail or threaten or in other ways achieve geopolitical ends, as did Israel in the 1973 war.

    Iran is not occupying the lands of another people and repressing their human rights. Israel is.

    Iran is being unjustly punished. Israel is being unjustly shielded from constraints on its behavior that are required to sustain an orderly international community.

    Furthermore, to the extent that Iran agreed to the recent round of negotiations, it was NOT on the basis of sanctions imposed, with dubious legitimacy, by the US and UN. Those sanctions demanded that Iran surrender its right to enrich uranium, which Iran has not and will not concede, no matter the degree to which sanctions “strangle,” “hurt,” or starve innocent Iranian people.

    Gideon Levy’s comparison is inapt.

  50. James Canning says:

    PressTV today has an interesting report on the sale of a long-closed station on the Piccadilly line of the Underground, in London. Buyer is Ukrainian, and he is paying 50 million pounds.

  51. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    December 1, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    “I favor a rich and secure Iran, living in peace with its neighbors. Which you call “nihilism”. Rubbish.”

    Liar.
    You are a racist supremacist.
    You have no moral and principles.

  52. Karl.. says:

    Fiorangela

    Sanctions brought Iran to stop its program in a deal, but you are right on the other stuff.

  53. Castellio says:

    Nico – that’s fine. Enjoy your unclouded certainty.

  54. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You continue to have apparent difficulty grasping the fact iran needed to make a deal, and the fact Russia and China wanted Iran to make the deal. Common sense you term “supremacist”.

  55. nico says:

    Castellio says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    “Nico – that’s fine. Enjoy your unclouded certainty.”

    I am not sure to understand your remark.
    Are you claiming the western world is not facing n economic crisis, the dimension of which is being exoperienced only 1 or twice in a century ?
    Are you claiming such crisis is not bringing major change ?

    Fine. Enjoy your blissfull blindness… And keep listening Obama vows of economic recovery.

    As for collapse. Who said it will be the end of time ? It will only be the start for a new historical sequence.

  56. Sammy says:

    nico says:
    December 1, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    I agree with your view points regarding the article of Prof.Petras which Castellio linked. Usually I read Prof. Petras with great interest , however this specific article was unfortunate and in my opinion even misleading.
    You are an expert :-) , so I better refrain from going too much into details , however I need to share this idea with you.
    In my constant tendency to simplify and reduce things ( probably because of laziness )I have come to the conclusion that the main ‘death blow’ to the world’s current status will come from the FED.
    After QE3 and the replacement of the current Zionist FED leader Benjamin Shalom B. , by another Zionist FED leader Yellen ( and continuation of current FED policies) , the last nails in the coffin of the USD as the currency of the world are being expedited.
    The world’s ruling elites ( who predominately happen to be Zionists ) will exploit and acquire the last remaining ‘REAL’ assets in the last corners of the world with fake FED money ,and then they care no whit about the fate of the USD , as the are not bound by nationality or patriotism to any nation ( except may be to the temple mount) and this moment is not very far in my opinion.
    With the collapse and crash of the USD we will not recognize this world as we know it now and further predictions are not possible , at least not for me.

  57. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    December 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm
    “You continue to have apparent difficulty grasping the fact iran needed to make a deal, and the fact Russia and China wanted Iran to make the deal. Common sense you term “supremacist”.”

    Iran offered to prove its nuclear program peacefull for years.
    The exact same deal has been available to the US from the very start.
    The US goal from the very start has been to victimized Iran in their full spectrum dominance geopolitical game.

    Sure you are a racist and an exeptionalist supremacist.
    The you write your sentence is proof of it. Again.

    Actually, the US need to have a deal under Iran terms.
    Iran does not need a deal under the US terms.

    Not because Iran would be more powerfull.
    But because it is only just and fair.

    Indeed a great victory of Iran over your kind.
    Actually, I am quite sure you would have been very happy for Iran to entirely surrender.
    No need to answer back… I mean lie back.

  58. Mohammad says:

    It is notable how Zarif shrewdly avoids actually naming the Persian Gulf in his Op Ed (calling it “The body of water that separates us from our southern neighbors” or “The waterway that divides us” instead), in order to not stir senseless nationalistic sentiments over (mis)naming the Persian Gulf either in Iran or abroad. Note that even merely using “the Gulf” is considered unacceptable in Iran.

    I love this diplomat.

    But that nasty naming issue is one to be dealt with, otherwise it will always needlessly raise blood pressure levels on both sides of the waterway. I believe the most sensible way to deal with it is to come at a detente: accept that the other side will call the waterway whatever it wishes to, and this ought to not have any real-world impact on the relations between Persians and Arabs.

  59. Fiorangela says:

    “ Does Entertainment Industry Portray American Values?” A video clip was shown of President Obama speaking at DreamWorks Studios in Glendale, California, on November 26, 2013.

    Pres. Obama told the employees of Dreamworks studio that their movies portrayed American values and disseminated same throughout the world, thus making the world a better place.

    A majority of callers to the C Span Washington Journal program disagreed.

    The first caller, “Steve,” from Middleton, Massachusetts, said this:

    “Interesting to hear the president talk about progress. … It’s a philosophically loaded term. [see David Walker Howe on James K. Polk] I’m 60 years old and I’ve seen a transformation in this country that no doubt is media driven. I fyou go back to the 70s it’s just shocking to look at, for example, programs like Little House on the Prairie. There was more talent and drama in one hour — incredible writing, instilling real values in people than you see today. Television, especially, today seems to be run by ghouls. Seems to be reflecting the anti-values of media moguls: we see murders, serial killings all over the place as if they’re next door, left and right. Even though at the beginning of the program they always say, This is fictional, etc. etc., and at the same time you see a glorification of the CIA, the FBI, and this philosophical transformation seems to be without a doubt a form of social engineering. Where it all began I don’t know.”

    Moderator Pedro Ecchavaria: “So Steve, how do you think the rest of the world perceives us in the United States through the entertainment media we send out?”

    Steve: “Y’know, one of the things that I think is very underestimated– when we go back to 9/11 we often think, These people hate our way of living, they hate our freedom. But I think what I see in this country is an abuse of freedom. And what many people in the Middle East — I’m an Irish American, I have nothing to do with the Middle East — but what they worry about is precisely these anti- values intruding, where women and young girls are degraded; where sex is exalted, where violence is just glorified [Pedro tries to cut off caller] … and I think that contributed to what happened on 9/11– they don’t want it.”

    Pedro: “We’ll leave it there, Steve.”

    = = =

    Ping Steve’s thoughts against Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement to a Congressional subcommittee chaired by Dan Burton on Sept. 12, 2002. After urging the panel to support George W. Bush in his plan to invade Iraq, then-congressman Dennis Kucinich asked Netanyahu, “What about Iran?”

    Netanyahu replied, (@1:10 in the video) “I would like to change the regimes of Iraq and Iran.

    Iran has something Iraq does not have: Iran has 250,000 satellite dishes.

    I said to the CIA, if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you don’t have to go through the CIA cloak-and-dagger stuff. … Just take very large transponders and beam Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 2050 [sic] and all that into Tehran and into Iran. That is subversive stuff because the young kids watch it, the young people watch it; they want to have the same nice clothes, nice houses, swimming pools and so on.

    And that is something that is available — internal forces of dissension that are available in Iran which is, paradoxically, the most open society in that part of the world.” http c-spanvideo dot org/program/Conflictw

    Steve from Massachusetts recognized what none of the Congressional panel member seemed to realize: American culture has been subverted by programming calculated to create “internal forces of dissension.” He also recognized that people from the Middle East are aware of this attempt at subversion of their cultures and “they don’t want it.”

    = = =
    Among the many other things Benjamin Netanyahu is not, he is not original in his scheme for the subversion of cultures. For over three decades Daniel Walker Howe taught the history of the USA’s 19th century. In the lecture linked here — Fiorangela says: December 1, 2013 at 1:02 pm
    Howe recounted the tactics by which US President James K. Polk used deception to draw US forces into an aggressive war against Mexico in order to expand the US empire to include California.

    Howe’s lecture did not stop with the war — which, by the way, claimed proportionally more American lives than any other US act of aggression. Calling upon his expertise in the intellectual history of the American people, Howe answered Steve’s closing comment/question: Where did it all begin?

    Howe explained how American “Whigs”, represented most significantly by Abraham Lincoln, exposed Polk’s deception and continued to oppose his militarist tactics. Whigs construed the notion of Manifest Destiny to mean the expansion of efforts to create a better society by developing character, science, and creativity rather than territorial expansion.

    For a while, Whigs led a majority movement, but eventually, the populace was seduced by “progressivism”, and persuaded themselves that subverting the cultures of others was a “progressive” ideal.

    Steve saw the flaw in that philosophy, too.

  60. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    I have bben sharply critical of US policies toward Iran for many years now.

    I think you are aware that making a deal with Ahmadinejad was a matter made much more difficult due to his personality, unwise statements, etc etc.

    I agree a deal with Iran is a good thing for the US.

    Your notions of “supremicism”, racism”, etc etc are a bit silly.

  61. James Canning says:

    On another note, things are getting seriously nasty in the Central African Republic. Slaughter of civilians on a considerable scale.

    “[President Francois] Bozize is thought to have enriched himself from the diamaond and gold reserves during his 10-year rule, siphoning almost 80% of the country’s revenues into the coffers of his family and supporters.”
    – – Miles Amoore,. writing in the Sunday Times (London) Nov 24th

  62. Fiorangela says:

    nico says: December 1, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Thank you for the links and overview. I am very eager to learn about the influence of Russian Eastern Christianity on Russia’s present political situation — it’s a steep learning curve.

    nico says:
    December 1, 2013 at 7:52 am

    “We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.”

    does indeed suggest that

    ” nico says:
    December 1, 2013 at 8:00 am

    “Ahah, Putin’s speech is not that far from Khzmenei’s in its substance.”

    = = =

    Marcello Pera, former prime minister of Italy, spoke at the US Library of Congress, about the correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Gaetano Filangieri, a Neopolitan political scientist who wrote one of the first modern treatises on “What makes a good law.” According to Pera, the Christian foundations of Europe were essential to good governance. Of course, Filangieri was most likely working from Western Christian traditions. I don’t know how that differs from Eastern Christianity.

    I can’t find it right now, but I recall that a former Israeli government official spoke at Chatham House and said that the nations of the Middle East must incorporate the “western values of European civilization.” Did he mean that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all should become Christian?!

  63. Castellio says:

    Nico: I am not claiming that there isn’t an economic crises. I am not claiming that there won’t be change. I am not beholden to nor a supporter of Obama.

    Petras is, in the article, doing the hard work: opening up an understanding of how his own initial critique can be wrong. He is pointing out that “the other side” is busy and active. I thought people might be interested in that.

    It was possible for you to read the article and engage with his actual content. However, you simply dismissed it.

    You are like the general who wants to fight the war strictly according to his own plans, with no thought given to the plans and reactions of the other side.

    This is, perhaps, linked to the fact that you also like extreme statements, and to portray others as personifications of evil, worthy of contempt but not consideration.

    So what else can I say? I wish you the best, and that you get at least some enjoyment out of your unclouded certainty.

  64. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 1, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    James, the Polk example is but one piece of the larger puzzle, which when fully constructed seems to me to demonstrate that US leaders have not demonstrated the ability to engage with another resource-rich, or geostrategically important nation in a way other than by deception, subversion, violence, or all three.

    The article by James Petras that Castillio linked bears that out: the US “ain’t down yet”, but it appears that what keeps US afloat is the fact that it has not exhausted its bag of dirty tricks.

    The concepts that Putin is rediscovering, and that Rouhani advances — and that are, incidentally, consistent with some of the more admirable of the counsels of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — would see the USA prospering through reciprocal relations of mutual respect with other nations, rather than through coercion and violence.

    James K. Polk’s primary motivation for claiming California was his visceral, deep and abiding hatred for England, the major empire of the era, which was pressuring the US west coast — Polk’s predecessor made a deal whereby the Oregon territory was split between England and USA, creating British Columbia for England and Oregon, Washington state and Idaho for USA.

    Polk found such deal-making repugnant. After two years of fighting that cost tens of thousands of American lives, the US war with Mexico over California exhausted itself, and Polk’s emissary negotiated a peace with Mexico. The pact was contrary to Polk’s orders: it gained for the US Texas and California as we know them today. But Polk wanted the US forces to keep hurting the Mexicans so that he could gain even more — he wanted Baja and more of Northern Mexico.

    One sees that same hate-driven all-or-nothing mindset in the statements of US congressmen as well as Obama, with respect to Iran. It is the mental — and spiritual — perspective of a primitive; a poorly developed character and psyche.

    Americans consider “businessman” or “lawyer” to be a preeminent qualification for political leadership. Israel’s leaders have been terrorists and warriors, and all of Israel’s young people go through military training; those who do not, do not find positions in Israeli commerce or politics. But in China, leaders are poets; Czechoslovakia’s Vaclav Havel was a playwright and essayist; Poland’s president is an historian. Americans confuse functionality for soul.

  65. Fiorangela says:

    nico, you may be interested in this (random) comment by an (anonymous) blogger —

    http://www.livefyre.com/profile/18388964/

    ” at The Arioch Kein Problem, Freund, man kann ihn halt bloß nicht verstehen… B-) The big mistake the ‘Russian Bear’ is making in respect to his geopolitical grip to power and influence in the region is that he hasn’t understood yet how to apply his vast resources of ‘soft power’ in his favour and thereby find new love instead of strangling his old love that is about to leave him in public.

    Russia gained in reputation big time recently preventing intervention/escalation in Syria – instead of strangling Ukraine now, why not offer Japan a better deal about the Kuril-Islands in exchange for further economic cooperation and pacifying China (Taiwan) about their claims of the Senkaku-Islands bringing China and Japan to a compromise? Call EU-Lady Ashton about your plans and get a new EU-Russian economic deal in exchange – WIN-WIN-WIN (you thereby also would have left the US standing in the cold – again)

    Russia too often still uses threats instead of incentives.”

  66. Fiorangela says:

    Castellio,

    Can you name 10 members of the US Congress & administration who have a thorough grasp of Petras’s key points?

  67. Don Bacon says:

    @Karl
    Again Iran is nothing against the american military. You really think America somehow fear Iran’s military?

    No, not fear, but respect. That’s precisely why the US has not attacked Iran, though they’ve threatened it for six or eight years even while Iran has continued to strengthen its peaceful nuclear program as well as its conventional military defense arsenal, and while Iran has also strengthened its geopolitical strength, the US gift of Iraq friendship and the chairmanship of NAM being major components thereof.

    Turn the coin: You really think Iran somehow fears America’s military? Obviously not. Respect, yes, fear, no. That’s one factor that makes Iran’s success so profound and so respected by most observers.

  68. kooshy says:

    Karl
    You may want to read some longer real debating arguments like the one bellow, instead of your usual short one liner interruptions on this the board, if you want to make sense you need to spend time and make longer debating arguments, but you probably are not tasked to do that. So what the heck?

    Is Obama’s Policy of “Tough Diplomacy” Really Withering Away?
    by SASAN FAYAZMANESH

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/29/is-obamas-policy-of-tough-diplomacy-withering-away/

    In conclusion, the new agreement between Iran and the P5+1, however it is interpreted and wherever it will lead, is not simply the result of the election of President Rouhani in Iran. Much of the agreement was already on the table before the new administration in Iran arrived. Rouhani and his team changed the tactic of negotiation, speeded up the process, and accepted what had been offered to Iran under the Ahmadinejad’s government. The agreement was also not due to the success of the policy of “tough diplomacy.” On the contrary, it was the result of the failure of the policy. The policy of sanctioning Iran intensively was intended to collapse the Iranian economy, bring the masses into the street and prepare the ground for military actions. But, even though the draconian sanctions caused extreme hardship in Iran, the economy did not collapse and Iranians did not pour into the streets. Indeed, according to many reports, most people in Iran blamed the economic hardship on the sanctions. This caused the Iranian government to dig in its heels deeper and try to ride out the sanctions with what they called the resistance economy. Had it not been for the policy of “tough diplomacy,” a settlement with Iran could have been reached sooner. In that case, ironically, Iran’s nuclear program would not have been as advanced as it is today.

  69. Don Bacon says:

    Labeling an oppressive assault on another country’s economy as “diplomacy” or even “tough diplomacy” is a perversion that should not be encouraged by journalists, even by putting it in quotes. It is economic aggression, war by other means, and is no part of diplomacy: The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.

  70. Empty says:

    Mohammad,

    RE: I believe the most sensible way to deal with it is to come at a detente: accept that the other side will call the waterway whatever it wishes to, and this ought to not have any real-world impact on the relations between Persians and Arabs.

    You probably already know this but it is worth mentioning, I think. Nima Safa a researcher (not sure as part of his thesis or a student project) focused his research on the name “Persian Gulf” (or Khalij Fars). In his search, he came across a hadith from Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) from credible Sunni sources in which the Prophet uses the name “Bahre Fars” (or “Persian Gulf”). It appears that for the past year the Iranian embassies, consulates, and cultural houses are busy with PR with the Arab and Muslim public to make the hadith known and also demonstrate that any person or government who argues for a name change for Persian Gulf to anything else but Persian is going against the hadith of the Prophet.

    You could see the full hadith, the source sited (which is considered reliable by Sunni scholars), and further explanation here: http://ebi-64.blogfa.com/

  71. Empty says:

    Just a note: “Bahr” in Arabic is translated as “sea” or “large body of water”

  72. Smith says:

    Hoc quoque transibit!

    While others are sharing here; their joy over choking themselves on the American phallus; we must not forget the bigger picture: http://raztv.ir/video+7mjibrhu2i

    All for 55 dollars. Naqabel.

  73. Smith says:

    با این توافقنامه ایران هم رفت تو دود تعطیلات نوروز: http://raztv.ir/video+lqblurysop

  74. Castellio says:

    Fiorangela, I don’t know the individuals in Congress and the Administration well enough to list specific people.

    Nor am I sure what your subtext is, so can’t readily address the principle at which you are pointing.

  75. M. Ali says:

    Mashup of Rohani’s recent advertisment clip combined with Obama’s.

    http://raztv.ir/video+v7n3shs2qh

    The only thing these capatilist reformists are good for, is mimicking their darlings in the west.

  76. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon
    December 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    What is it that America respect?

    Yes Iran indeed fear American military and they are right in doing that.

  77. nico says:

    Castellio says:
    December 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    “Petras is, in the article, doing the hard work: opening up an understanding of how his own initial critique can be wrong. He is pointing out that “the other side” is busy and active. I thought people might be interested in that.

    was possible for you to read the article and engage with his actual content. However, you simply dismissed it.You are like the general who wants to fight the war strictly according to his own plans, with no thought given to the plans and reactions of the other side.

    This is, perhaps, linked to the fact that you also like extreme statements, and to portray others as personifications of evil, worthy of contempt but not consideration.So what else can I say? I wish you the best, and that you get at least some enjoyment out of your unclouded certainty”

    First let me tell you that my critic is not directed to you but to the Petras article.
    Second I believe I engaged in substance while you did not in your answers. Unfortunately you are the one challenging me personnally and not my opinions.
    Third let me elaborate why the Petras article truly is pathetic

    I read in a past decade some of Petras’ articles.
    The impression it left me is that he is a leftist if not a communist doctrinaire.
    The issue is that he did not seem to notice the Soviet era is finished and with it the communist utopia has been dismissed.

    Petras’ conclusion is as follows:

    “The point is that the thesis of the ‘decline of the US empire’ and its corollary, the ‘crises of the US ’ are overstated, time bound and lack specificity.  In reality, there is no alternative imperial or modern anti-imperial tendency on the immediate horizon.  While it is true that Western capitalism is in crisis, the recently ascending Asian capitalism of China and India face a different crisis resulting from their savage class exploitation and murderous caste relations.  If objective conditions are ‘ripe for socialism’, the socialists – at least those retaining any political presence- are comfortably embedded with their respective imperial regimes.  The Marxists and Socialists in Egypt joined with the military to overthrow an elected conservative Islamist regime, leading to the restoration of imperialist clientelism in Cairo .  The French and English ‘Marxists’ have supported NATO’s destruction of Libya and Syria .  Numerous progressives and socialists, in Europe and North America, support Israel ’s warlords and/or remain silent in the face of domestic Zionist power in the executive branches and legislatures.”

    Good enough.
    The issue is that the article is dated November 24, 2013.

    Now please read the following.
    Synopsis of the End of History from Fukuyama dated 1989-1992.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

    “The End of History and the Last Man is a 1992 book by Francis Fukuyama, expanding on his 1989 essay “The End of History?”, published in the international affairs journal The National Interest. In the book, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.
    “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”[1]”

    So what is the conclusion ?
    Clearly that capital P “Prof.” James Petras dud not take the ticket some 20 years ago when the train left station.
    What we see in his article is the whinning of a “intellectual” dinausor and the proof of his thought and articles vacuity fir the most part of the last 20 years and more.

    Yes that is pathetic.

    Ok he is waking up. Good enough. But whate does he offer ?
    Nothing.

    “P.” James Petras is the proof of the western intellectual bankruptcy and lack of challenges of past ideologies.

  78. Smith says:

    And some bigheirat now are saying we should just let others rename The Forever Persian Gulf to something else. I am sure such people are proud of this diplomacy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2013/12/131202_l31_iran_women_traffiking_uae.shtml

  79. Smith says:

    Another head of state without nuclear weapons has been implicated in “war crimes”: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25189834

    Of course we will never see this from UN against UK or US that have perpetrated war crimes, started a shia sunni sectarian war in Iraq and torture. They have nuclear weapons.

    And as is clear, another context is being prepared for war against Syria and installation of Alqaida there as they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, etc etc. US objective is to replace all Muslim states with Alqadia, their steadfast ally of their own making.

  80. Fiorangela says:

    Castellio says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:00 am

    My ‘subtext’ is that of Diogenes looking for an honest, or at least well-informed, legislator/policy maker.

    For example, Massachusetts Rep. John Tierney tries to apply rationality to his votes.

  81. Sammy says:

    Sad assessment by Thierry Myssan :

    “BEFORE OUR EYES”
    The Abdication of Iran
    by Thierry Meyssan

    http://www.voltairenet.org/en

  82. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Sakineh Bagoom: “I’ve been waiting for 4 years for your prediction of Israel to Bekaa Valey- Hezbullah, US to Syria – Iran war. In your estimation, what is the new timeline in view of the new developments?”

    First of all, as I’ve always said, the timeline depends on actual events, not the other way around.

    Second, as I’m saying now, Obama was outmaneuvered by Putin and Lavrov on Syria. This derailed his CLEAR intentions to start a war in Syria just a few weeks ago – the purpose of which, as I’ve explained repeatedly here, is to degrade Syria and enable Israel to degrade Hizballah in Lebanon – a necessary precursor to an Iran war.

    In this respect, nothing has changed. The Iran deal appears to be a ploy to a) kick the can down the road until Obama and his masters in the military-industrial complex and the Israel Lobby can figure out how to get back into a war with Syria, and b) as others have noted above, an effort to burnish Obama’s undeserved Nobel Peace Prize via diplomacy – before getting on with the real goal of starting another war.

  83. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Jim Lobe, a known Iran Pollyanna, has a bunch of nonsense to say in Asia Times:

    US shift in motion from Tehran to Tokyo
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-021213.html

    My posted response at Asia Times:

    “President Obama is determined to free the US of military commitments in the Greater Middle East to deploy resources in Asia.”

    Jim Lobe has always been a Pollyanna with regard to the Iran crisis, i.e., always willing to believe the best of Obama and that the crisis would be resolved by diplomacy, not war.

    It ain’t so….

    Any “Asian pivot” is just a) a sop to the military-industrial complex to offset the minimal and mostly unreal “downsizing” of the US military budget under the guise of “sequestation” (whatever the hell that means), and b) a preparation for war with either North Korea or even China – which should scare the hell out of people much more than war with Iran.

    In reality, nothing has changed. The fact that the US has sent a few planes into a disputed zone and intends to set up some new military bases in the Asia region is hardly significant compared to the effort being spent to continue its presence in the Middle East and especially Africa, as Pepe Escobar has repeatedly pointed out here.

    The military-industrial complex and the Israel Lobby still wield total control over Obama. The Iran deal is merely a means for Obama and his masters to kick the can down the road while they recover from Putin and Lavrov’s temporary outmaneuvering of them over Syria. Once Obama figures out how to enable Israel to take out Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon, the Iran war will be back on.

    So-called “pundits” like Lobe need to stop treating every single day’s news as a “game changer” and start looking at the basic strategic realities of the goals of the US elites.

  84. Richard Steven Hack says:

    As proof that the US is NOT doing a “pivot” OUT of the Middle East, I point you to Don Backon’s post on December 1, 2013 at 10:34 am:

    Nov 27, 2013
    Greenert confirms expanded footprint in Bahrain

    MANAMA, Bahrain — Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, emphasized the importance of the Navy’s Middle East presence Wednesday, telling sailors at an all-hands call that Bahrain remains the best option for operating out of the region. . . . Besides new equipment, more crew and families will be coming to Bahrain, Greenert said. Construction is now underway to build more infrastructure and capacity to support the additional units on the base, which is home to the U.S. 5th Fleet.

    “We have to get hot on some things,” he said. “Bahrain has a plan, it has a cost, it’s in our budget.” Greenert stressed Bahrain’s key role in the service’s Middle East presence, telling sailors that the base here would continue to be its “centerpiece.” He said there is “no really good plan B … compared to what we have.”

    Unfortunately, Bacon’s notion that this means the US is pulling OUT is obviously wrong. The US has been increasing its presence in the Middle East and Africa for some years now, as Pepe Escobar has repeatedly pointed out in Asia Times. So far, the so-called “pivot” to Asia has consisted of some tough talk, a few new military bases in the region, and the dispatching of a couple planes to irritate the Chinese and reassure the Japanese. This isn’t significant in the slightest.

    If there actually IS to be a pivot to Asia, then the US is going to need to strengthen its hold on the Middle East – because that’s where the oil is to run any major military campaign in Asia.

    Also, as I’ve said in my Asia Times post, if the US IS pivoting to Asia, it’s only to prepare to start a war with either North Korea or China – and that should scare the hell out of everyone more than a war with Iran…

  85. Richard Steven Hack says:

    paul: “Obama is a peacemaker now! He became a peacemaker overnight, like Saint Paul, on the way to Damascus!”

    An apt analogy since Paul was in fact a Roman double agent who intended to help destroy the movement being led by Jesus, and was subsequently run out of Israel by Jesus’ brother and his followers, and then hied off to Rome under Roman guard to establish his OWN religion based on a one-hundred-eighty degree opposite philosophy – which subsequently became the Roman Catholic “Christian” church – a church which “hijacked” a Jewish prophet and then persecuted the prophet’s own people for the next two thousand years.

    Anyone who thinks Obama is a “peace maker” is delusional. He continues to be owned and operated by his masters in the military-industrial complex and the Israel Lobby and he continues to be an inveterate liar – as his actions with regard to the international intellectual property agreement, ObamaCare and the NSA scandal continue to prove on a daily basis.

  86. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Why on earth would Obama want a war with North Korea? He comprehends fully that the US needs to work with China and Russia in the interests of getting rid of NK’s nukes.

  87. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    A Russian analyst correctly noted that Obama seemed to be a man with a gun held to his head, when he spoke about hitting Syria with missiles (in wake of Aug 21 CW event).

    Obama’s primary concern appeared to be that his credibility regarding not allowing Iran to build nukes, would be compromised if he did not “punish” Syria.

    The Russian plan for getting rid of Syrian CW was a good thing for entire Middle East.

  88. Richard Steven Hack says:

    By the way, has everyone forgotten how Clinton negotiated the “Agreed Framework” with North Korea which resulted in North Korea abandoning its nuclear development program? That was considered a huge breakthrough in diplomacy with North Korea.

    And then both Clinton and Bush reneged on the deal…which is why North Korea has (dud) nukes today….

    As far as the US is concerned, diplomatic deals are made to be broken when convenient.

  89. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    Al-Qaeda seeks the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy. So do you apparently. Does this make you an “ally” of al-Qaeda?

  90. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Report: Netanyahu orders Mossad to find proof Iran violating nuclear accord
    http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Report-Netanyahu-orders-Mossad-to-find-proof-Iran-violating-nuclear-accord-333586

    Of course, by “find” he means “manufacture”…

  91. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Texas was an independent state, at the time of its annexation by the US.

    A border dispute with Mexico, set up the war that enabled Polk administration to annex California, Arizona etc etc etc.

  92. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Do you think America’s relations with Canada fit the description you provided? “Violence, deception” etc.

    What obtained in the 1840s does not obtain today.

  93. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Vladimir Putin would like to see economic union with Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other former Central Asian republics of USSR. Promoting this means open borders, and consequent migration of many many millions of Muslims from Centraol Asia into Moscow and other Russian cities.

    Putin also promotes Russian nationalism, and the Russian Orthodox Church.

    You might ascertain a certain conflict between the two programmes.

  94. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iranian report: Israel, Saudis plotting new computer worm to sabotage our nuclear program
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/1.561088?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.217%2C

  95. James Canning says:

    The interview with Rouhani in the Financial Times this past weekend, is well worth reading.

  96. nico says:

    Sammy says:
    December 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    “Sad assessment by Thierry Myssan :
    “BEFORE OUR EYES””

    I am not sure to share the Meyssan’s piece opionion.
    Actually, the neocons are saying the opposite.
    That Obama shoved Israel.

    Who to believe ?

    The moment of truth will come with the Geneva II meeting about Syria in January and the potential Nuclear final deal.
    The truth will come with real facts on the ground.

    By the way, in contradiction to Meysan’s article, Rohani clearly stated that the current nuclear dites shall not dimanstled.
    That is Fordow, Natanz AND Arak will be kept.
    That is Iran red line.

    http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=337493

    “Asked whether dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities was a “red line” for the Islamic republic, Rouhani replied, “100 percent.””

  97. nico says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    December 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    “Sakineh Bagoom: “I’ve been waiting for 4 years for your prediction of Israel to Bekaa Valey- Hezbullah, US to Syria – Iran war. In your estimation, what is the new timeline in view of the new developments?”

    First of all, as I’ve always said, the timeline depends on actual events, not the other way around.”

    Sure.

    Likewise it is not because the US build up military bases that they will attack.
    How many bases arround the world ? Several hundreds.
    Obviously there are not war everywhere.

    The US aim at condolidating their position locally and threatening thei competitor.

    That being said it is chess game to be played on the long run.
    Do the US retain the option to attack Iran ?
    Sure.
    But the result will be a regional war.
    As for Syria. Be patient we will likely get the end story in 2014.
    If Syria is loiraq still remain and exoect a strategic open military alliance with Iran with the ensuing threat over Iraq and Iran oil supplies as well as Kuwait.

    As for attacking China.
    The US was able to achieve strategic victory over Iraq or Iran. Expecting strategic victory over China by way of war is ludicrous.
    The US have a strategy of containment with the typical proxy war, hot point to be activated to be preserved and activated like NK, demonization, devide and rule tactics and so on.

    Does someone see the similarity of the Japan vs China enmity encouraged by the US with the KSA vs Iran enmity.
    It only benefits the US.
    Typical Anglo devide and rule perfidy and inserting themselves where they do not belong.

  98. nico says:

    My apologies. Edited post.

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    December 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    “Sakineh Bagoom: “I’ve been waiting for 4 years for your prediction of Israel to Bekaa Valey- Hezbullah, US to Syria – Iran war. In your estimation, what is the new timeline in view of the new developments?”

    First of all, as I’ve always said, the timeline depends on actual events, not the other way around.”

    Sure.

    Likewise it is not because the US build up military bases that they will attack.
    How many bases arround the world ? Several hundreds.
    Obviously there are not war everywhere.

    The US aim at consolidating their position locally and threatening thei competitors.

    That being said it is chess game to be played on the long run.
    Do the US retain the option to attack Iran ?
    Sure.
    But the result will be a regional war.
    As for Syria. Be patient we will likely get the end story in 2014.
    If Syria is attacked it still remains to be seen and expect then a strategic open military alliance with Iran with the ensuing threat over Iraq and Iran oil supplies as well as Kuwait.

    As for attacking China.
    The US was NOT able to achieve strategic victory over Iraq or Iran. Expecting strategic victory over China by way of war is ludicrous.
    The US have a strategy of containment with the typical proxy war, hot point to be preserved and activated like NK, demonization, devide and rule tactics and so on.

    Does someone see the similarity of the Japan vs China enmity encouraged by the US with the KSA vs Iran enmity.
    It only benefits the US.
    Typical Anglo devide and rule perfidy and inserting themselves where they do not belong.

  99. Sammy says:

    nico says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    I am following TM and his WS since many years and often watched his interviews on IRIB , especially when he was invited by Nader Talebzadeh and also during numerous events in Iran , where TM was always present , thus I regard him as an expert.
    Also Meyssan and Paul Craig Roberts where the first Western thinkers to put the 2009 elections in a right perspective and under no circumstances followed the Mainstream Exile-Iranian/Western hype regarding the Soros inspired ‘color revolution’, therefore I value his opinion.
    To be honest I am still not sure what to think about the new Iranian government and probably you are right and we will have a better picture after Geneva II , at least what foreign policy is concerned.
    Probably TM was very much connected to AN (and to the late Hugo Chavez) and saw Both as a true ‘Anti-Imperialists’ and now sees a new form of ‘feudalism’ shaping up in Iran.
    Let’s hope he is wrong.
    BTW why so single ‘beep’ from Rohani/Zarif regarding Venezuela and South America in general ?

  100. Don Bacon says:

    @Hack
    Unfortunately, Bacon’s notion that this means the US is pulling OUT is obviously wrong.

    You made that up. I never expressed a notion that the US is pulling out of the ME. Quite the opposite, I evidenced that the US is increasing its presence in the Gulf, which implies no US attack on Iran (because Gulf facilities are vulnerable).

    Since you brought it up, the supposed US pivot to Asia-Pacific is mostly fictional, and largely rhetorical.

  101. Sammy says:

    nico says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    ‘Does someone see the similarity of the Japan vs China enmity encouraged by the US with the KSA vs Iran enmity.’

    Yes with clear eyes. What a pity for the world , humanity and its limited resources.
    It happens that I admire both countries , China and Japan.
    Imagine 2 great and ancient countries like China and Japan joining hands with another , 2 neighbors so to say , the second and third largest economies in the world joining their incredible human & technological forces , a truly unbeatable team , by far exceeding the fake derivate and service driven GDP of the US.
    Whole of Africa, South America , and Asia and Russia would blossom and prosper , it would be definitely a much better world , except of course for the Zionist controlled entities in the world , US , Canada , Western Europe and a few other usual ‘culprits’.

  102. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 2, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    What if these substitutions were made, James —

    Vladimir Putin Barack Obama would like to see economic union legalized immigration of with Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other former Central Asian republics of USSR Mexicans and other Hispanics from US neighbor states that once controlled territory that is now the USA. Promoting this means open borders, and consequent migration of many many millions of Muslims Catholics from Centraol Asia Mexico into Moscow Texas and other Russian cities south-western American states.

    Putin also promotes Russian nationalism, and the Russian Orthodox Church Texans are staunchly Evangelical Christians; Texas is the home of John Hagee as well as followers of Francis Schaeffer.

    You might ascertain a certain conflict between the two programmes.

  103. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 2, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    addendum

    Pope Francis Calls All Catholics to Evangelize

  104. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    I don’t think John Hagee’s virtually insane religous programme (and its attendant hopes of driving all Christians out of the “Land of Israel”), is any part of Obama’s programme.

    I rather like Vladimir Putin’s promotion of Russian Orthodoxy, restoration of ruined or abused churches in Russia, etc etc. He even toyed with restoring the monarchy.

  105. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    The US prefers good relations between Japan and China. The squabble over those islands is not a good thing.

  106. James Canning says:

    David Gardner, writing in the weekend Financial Times Nov 23/24:

    “Mr Obama should suggest [Netanyahu] spends less time drawing red lines for America’s position on Iran and more time drawing green lines to delineate a viable Palestinian state.”

  107. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 2, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    James, Hagee may not be a part of Obama’s program, (or programme), but the weird group he leads most certainly impacts American policy.

    I was trying to make a larger point: in the USA, as in Russia, I presume, there are many, or at least more than one, voice clamoring for attention. In the US, the Christian zionists, Christian Right, even Roman Catholics demand attention, together with the Israel lobby which may or may not, depending on the cycle of the moon, have anything to do with religion.

    Surely a similar dynamic plays out in Putin’s Russia, and he can’t be that stupid that he is not aware of contending religious polities.

    I would suggest that there is more common ground in the values field between Islam and Russian Orthodoxy than between i.e. Judaism and Russian Orthodoxy, and between Christian Zionism and R.O.

  108. Rehmat says:

    Last month, American Jewish blogger, Stephen Lendman, wrote that P5+1 interim deal with Iran doesn’t change US-Israel policy toward Iran.

    French investigative political writer and author, Thierry Meyssan, who opposed French-NATO invasion of Libya, believes that Iran came out as a loser in the P5+1 interim deal. As far as he is concerned, it’s absurd to pretend that the two parties have solved a misunderstanding supposedly maintained for eight years for the aggressiveness of President Ahmadinejad. The truth is Iran gave up its nuclear research and began to dismantle it without receiving anything in return except gradual lifting of illegitimate sanctions. “In other word, the country brought to its knees, has surrendered,” says Meyssan. Read the complete article here.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/03/lobby-us-holding-secret-talks-with-hizbullah/

  109. Don Bacon says:

    Well Meyssan is wrong. So you don’t have to read the complete article, because obviously Iran has not surrendered anything.

  110. Bibijon says:

    Marc Lynch has a good piece:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/02/iran_oslo_camp_david_spoiler_alert?page=full

    His conclusion:

    “In other words, this six-month period will give ample opportunity for spoilers on all sides to undermine trust, sabotage the process, and set the final status talks up for devastating failure. Both Washington and Tehran need to be keenly attuned to this logic, and focus on maintaining forward momentum, defanging potential spoilers, and avoiding negative spirals of mistrust and frustrated hope. Both sides need to demonstrate that they can and will deliver on the letter and spirit of their agreements. Focusing on short-term bargaining advantage or domestic political posturing will likely rapidly derail hopes of building trust through cooperation. Public diplomacy aimed at building support for the process and heading off the predictable flashpoints should be given as much attention as the negotiations themselves. We should forget Munich, learn the lessons of Oslo, and hold on to Camp David as proof that success is possible and worth pursuing.”

    —-

    Sound advice methinks. But Marc’s allusions to Camp David, and Oslo Accords, are not good analogies.

    I don’t think an Iran deal should be seen as a transformative catalyst for the dynamics in the Hebraic world of Arabs and Israelis. I think Israel’s and Persian Gulf states’ relationships with the US will continue unaffected, if not made even more intertwined. Iran-US detente has the potential of freeing Iran from that dysfunction, to be more focused on on the emergence of Asia.

  111. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Meyssan’s assessment on this issue is wrong.

  112. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    “Both sides need to demonstrate that they can and will deliver on the letter and spirit of their agreements…”

    It’s clear that Iran will and it’s just as clear that the US won’t.

  113. Bibijon says:

    Yet another day, yet another poll
    ================================

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/iran-deal-american-support-polling-100555.html

  114. Karl.. says:

    I think Meyssan is very correct,
    the last sentences about ending support for Hezbollah/Palestinians
    was offered under Khatami/Rouhani adminiation in 2003 too.

  115. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

    http://www.thenation.com/article/156851/decline-and-fall-american-empire

    Delet be ki khoshe?

  116. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Karl-jan,

    You have no idea what was offered and what wasn’t offered then or now.

  117. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Ahmadinejad invites Rouhani to a debate.

    http://farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13920912000632

    The honeymoon is over, right?

  118. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji
    December 3, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Actually that is nothing new. According to the grande bargain (2003) Iran offered that.

  119. nahid says:

    Mr Bussed_in Basij

    Ahmadia-nejad is the best of IRI so far and shame on new Government that constantly falsify his record . People do know why, (agha ha va aghazadeh ha.) some people should mention to the Pres. Rohani that shut up and 4 years are not that far and may be even sooner him and his aghazadeh ha be out of office .

  120. Neo says:

    On the right to enrichment:

    “Kerry — while serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee four years ago… In an interview with the Financial Times, Kerry said with regard to Iran’s rights as a signatory of the NPT:

    “The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous … because it seemed so unreasonable to people. … It was bombastic diplomacy. It was wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will. … They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.””

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/iran-nuclear-deal-right-to-enrich-new-era-in-persian-gulf.html#ixzz2mQaX7I1h

  121. Castellio says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says: December 3, 2013 at 5:03 am

    That’s my reading as well.

  122. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Karl-jan,

    The reports of a “grand bargain” offer in 2003 and what it may have entailed are more myth than reality.

  123. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji
    December 3, 2013 at 11:58 am

    Possible, but it has also been confirmed by all sides.

  124. James Canning says:

    Neo,

    The neocons driving G W Bush foreign policy did not want a deal with Iran. As I am sure you know.

    John Kerry obviously was correct, in his statement of 2009 that you mention. And why didn’t Hillary Clinton back this position openly? I think we know the answer.

  125. James Canning says:

    Nahid,

    Are you in effect claiming that Ahmadinejad did not deceive Khamenei, regarding the actual state of the Iranian economy? Or is this not important, in your view?

  126. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    Israel played key role in blocking any deal between Iran and the US in 2003. Gross incompetence on part of Condoleezza Rice made this easier for Israel and the neocons.

  127. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    The riots in Moscow, by ethnic Russians opposed in immigration of large numbers of Central Asians, reflect the problem Putin has. He naturally wants to play up Russian nationalism, Russian Orthodox Church, etc etc, but at the same time he wants economic union with former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Meaning, free immigration into Russian cities, of primarily Muslim people who are not ethnic Russians.

  128. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    I agree that John Hagee and his followers, and many if not most Christian Evangelicals, are an important part of the equation, explaining the stupidity of American policies in the Middle East related to Israel.

  129. James Canning says:

    Henry Kissinger has a long piece on the nuclear deal with Iran, in today’s Wall Street Journal. Worth reading.

  130. nahid says:

    James Canning says:

    December 3, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    no , Mr
    Ahamdijejad never deceived any body, Leadre has a huge staff and monitoring everything, and Leader himself praised Mr Ahmadi nejad many times. these GOOZ PISH are compaigneh for next election by falsifying the record of ex presedint, because they know who is the winner.

  131. humanist says:

    Stephen Lendman is ‘very’ skeptical about the whole process of the ‘agreement’ and its benefits for Iran:

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/02/337904/us-policy-towards-iran-remains-unchanged/

  132. James Canning says:

    The piece by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz in the Wall Street Jouran Dec. 3rd (“What a final Iran deal must do”), is a very sound analysis, in my view.

    I think it is in Iran’s own best interests, that no notions of building nukes contine to be harboured.

  133. James Canning says:

    Nahid,

    According to the Financial Times, Khamenei was “astonished” to see a credible assessement of the Iranian economy. After Rouhani took office. This comment came from a “government adviser” (unnamed). (FT Nov 27)

  134. James Canning says:

    Humanist,

    What in your view is “negative” for Iran, regarding the interim deal with E3+3?

  135. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Don Bacon: “You made that up. I never expressed a notion that the US is pulling out of the ME.”

    Apologies. I think I meant to say Jim Lobe, not you.

  136. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 3, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747004579228110944819396

    James, as part of a background to the history of the nuclear issue with Iran, the two authors of that article write:

    “Following the revelation of the Natanz and Arak facilities, the IAEA board of governors adopted a 2003 resolution expressing “grave concern” and calling on Iran to “suspend all further uranium enrichment-related activities” and “any reprocessing activities.” The resolution called it “essential and urgent” for Iran to provide unrestricted access to IAEA inspectors, and requested that Iran “promptly and unconditionally sign, ratify and fully implement” an additional protocol to its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards.”

    Can you tell me why in their article they fail to mention that in response Iran did:

    -suspend all further uranium enrichment
    -any reprocessing activities
    -sign, and fully implement” an additional protocol to its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards. And implemented it beyond the requirements of AP?

    Also, why do you think they do not mention that after almost 3 years of this suspension and adherence to AP, the EU3 turned around and said they want the suspension to be permanent?

    Additionally, why do you think there is no word in that article castigating Saudi Arabia ‘acquiring nukes?’ Why is that scenario not dealt with the all-options-on-table when it comes to Saudis or anyone else using the Iran excuse to get their despotic hands on a few loose nukes?

    I have news for the authors and you. Iran as a threshold nuclear state will/shall be part of the final deal and/or the no deal. I urge everyone to get used to it.

  137. Don Bacon says:

    @Hack
    Thank you.

  138. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    The fairness of Kissinger’s and Shultz’s account of what transpired 8 or 10 years ago can be challenged. As you do. But I think they are accurate in their assessment of what a final deal would need to entail. And again, I think it is in Iran’s best interests, not to be in a position to attempt to build nukes quickly.

    I am sure Shultz and Kissinger do not want Saudi Arabia to have nukes.

  139. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    I think Kissinger and Shultz prefer to conceal the stupidity of the George W. Bush administration, in its dealings with Iran.

  140. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 3, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    James,

    I see it very simply, and I understand that you don’t. Iran’s threshold nuclear state needs to be winked at, or else the West will have to coop with an NPT exit.

    If Kissinger and Schultz like to imply Saudi’s acquiring nukes is so understandable, and so undeterrable if Iran so much as has the capacity to manufacture nukes in an extreme exigencies, then surely they have just articulated the very reason why Iran cannot, and shall not settle for anything less than being recognized as a threshold nuclear state.

    I believe the big lads and gals understand this. In time you will behave as if you too always understood there is no other equitable way. Get adjusted to reality, I say.

  141. M. Ali says:

    Rohani’s presidential style is to blame everything on the previous administration, but completely forgive USA for past deeds.

  142. nahid says:

    James Canning says:

    December 3, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Nahid,

    According to the Financial Times, Khamenei was “astonished” to see a credible assessement of the Iranian economy. After Rouhani took office. This comment came from a “government adviser” (unnamed). (FT Nov 27)
    Financial Times is not reliable source,

  143. nico says:

    M. Ali says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:04 am

    “Rohani’s presidential style is to blame everything on the previous administration, but completely forgive USA for past deeds.”

    Well is that not typical political role playing and struggle like everywhere else ?

    My understanding is that Rohani and Amadinejad or not that different in substance.
    They only pretend to be.

    The same obtains between democrats and republicans.
    Obama is yes we can and criticizes Bush. Is he that different in substance other than role playing ?

    What is important is the regime and the macro policies.

    My understanding of the real difference between Rohani and Amadinejad is the style and the class support.
    Rohani being more oligarchic and Amadinejad being more populist.

  144. nahid says:

    M. Ali says:

    December 4, 2013 at 5:04 am

    The proud 100 days of his report is foreign policy , thanks to ex president that change the ground for them. This gooz pich (Rohani was negotiator). Zero center fugue to 20,000 now.

  145. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 4, 2013 at 2:49 am
    “No full enrichment right in deal.
    http://presstv.com/detail/2013/12/04/338127/final-deal-to-recognize-iran-enrichment/

    Do you mean Iran should stockpile hundreds of tons of enriched uranium not intended at civilian use purpose ?
    If not, then what is your issue ?

    The real stake for Iran is right now to build additional NPP by the tens.
    When that will be then who will be able to critcize Iran enrichment at industrial scale ?

    There will not be foreign support for additional NPP without a deal.
    What will be the more te consuming to get NPPs by domestic effort alone.
    Or wait for the new NPPs to justify more enrichment.

    Maybe you are supporting the domestic growth of NPPs AND unlimimited enrichment not intended for civilian purpose ?

    Well it seems the Iran leaders chose the other option in line/consistent with Khamenei fatwa.
    And they intend to keep the enrichment know how and (capped) capability nonetheless with the option to expand it in a rush.

    Several options exist and Iran is chosing the middle road avoiding extremisim (that is surrender or total defiance).
    As stated by Rohani.

    Now it remains to be seen if the US will accept Iran legitimate will for development and knowledge and will be capable to deliver.

  146. Karl.. says:

    nico
    December 4, 2013 at 7:25 am

    Yes there is a problem if Iran are refused their right to enrichment. Dont you think?

    What is NPP btw?

  147. nico says:

    nahid says:
    December 4, 2013 at 7:12 am
    “M. Ali says:December 4, 2013 at 5:04 amThe proud 100 days of his report is foreign policy , thanks to ex president that change the ground for them. This gooz pich (Rohani was negotiator). Zero center fugue to 20,000 now.”

    It seems to me that the nuclear issue is overseen by the National Security Council which have given a mandate to the governement in the current negociation.

    In addition Rohani has been the SL representative at the NSS.

    My take is that the Iran nuclear development is framed in Iran macro policies and guarded by the SL.
    The strategy has never changed
    There has been slow down and speed up but always in the same direction.
    Depending on circumstantial tactics but in line with the overall strategy.

    Sure each people and party has his/its own sensitivity and inclination.
    And after Amadinejad speeding up the nuclear program, is it that not time for consolidation of past gains ?
    You seem to believe Iran should be doubling down or that the nuclear growth should be linear.

    Is that not an extremist view out of understandable pride and nationalism or personalization of Iran policies through your again understandable liking for Amadinejad ?

  148. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 4, 2013 at 7:27 am

    “Yes there is a problem if Iran are refused their right to enrichment. Dont you think?
    You see the glass half empty.
    In the presstv article the WH and an NSA advisor said that they accept Iran enrichment right and that was enshrined in the initial agreement.
    Thus the US in principle officially accept the right to enrich.
    That is what they did not for more than a decade and resulted in the current escalation.

    Now, the WH statement refered to a negotiated cap in enrichment related to real civial needs.
    That should be OK in principle

    That being said the devil is in details.
    Actually Busherh is fueled by Russia and Iran has actually no need for enenrichment right now and has stockpile.
    The issue is then how to keep the know how and pjrsue enrichment and keep an insurance stockpile nonetheless that would guarantee Iran not to be held hostage. And the final deal should also alleviate western jusitified logical concerns.
    Well time will tell if a final deal is achievable.

    “What is NPP btw?”

    Nuclear Power Plant that is to produce electricity for civilian purpose

  149. nahid says:

    nico says:

    December 4, 2013 at 7:38 am

    Rohani (gooz pich) should not get credit for something that they have nothing to do with

  150. Karl.. says:

    nico
    December 4, 2013 at 7:49 am

    I guess thats what you dont understand. Enrichment right mean that, right to enrich. It doesnt mean any “cap”.
    Iran have said that the redline is this “cap” you are taking about.

  151. Bibijon says:

    Whom did you call gooz pich that yourself is now being thus thought of?
    And who will call a gooz pich those who now label you thus?

  152. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 4, 2013 at 8:38 am

    Folks must recognize the right to pour unlimited amount of water in 16oz glasses. And, recognize Iran’s right to take out every buildings’ windows as raw material for making 16oz glasses, every one of which according to our rights can have unlimited amounts of water poured into them.

    We have the right to plant unlimited number of trees on any given acre.

    Any limits on how many cars we manufacture per person per year is a sure sign of imperialism at work. Ditto air conditioners, and refrigerators.

  153. Persian Gulf says:

    Nico:

    “Rohani being more oligarchic and Amadinejad being more populist.”

    How do you define a populist? (I don’t necessarily have a negative view about populism) and I don’t see any difference between the two even for this notion. I think Rohani is a populist too. Only the targeted class is different. In Rohani’s case, the target population is:  شبه روشنفکران – غرب زدگان- بی خردان – قسمتی از طبقه متوسط غیر مولد و بی مصرف…-

  154. Smith says:

    Incompetent and ignorant rulers and their foolish people: http://djavadsalehi.com/2013/11/29/rouhanis-budget-complaint/

  155. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:

    December 4, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Mr. Ahmadinejad was the only leader in Iran that tried to destroy the distinction between the “in-people” and the “out-people”.

  156. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    December 4, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Yes, direct taxation to fund the state has to be the goal.

    Once that is realized, the state will be stronger and the oil export can be shot at the discretion of the Iranian government.

  157. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    December 3, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    What Mr. Shultz and Dr. Kissinger desire is not feasible.

    Cooperation with Iran is possible but only after her status as a virtual nuclear-armed state in accepted by P5+1 as well as the Axis Powers.

    That is not in the cards yet.

    Strategically, US has to become the off-shore balancer against the Shia Crescent since she has to re-orient her resources to Asia; she cannot be sucked into a war in the Persian Gulf at a moment’s notice.

    But there is not sanity yet in the Court of the Mad King.

  158. Photi says:

    On CSPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California says a ground war with Iran will be a horrible thing, so if you have to hit Iran, you hit them with tactical nuclear devices to set them back several decades. He also proclaims Iran is a state sponsor of terror, irrational and an all around bad actor.

    Rep. Hunter advises the US to initiate a nuclear war, and host Greta has nothing critical to say. Nothing about whether Mr. Hunter’s suggestion of nuclear war is a bad idea or all around irrational and illegal. We are a nation of degenerates and hypocrites, may God save us.

  159. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 30, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    “I assume you are aware that Ahmadinejad’s government misled Khamenei about the true state of the Iranian economy. Was this a wise decision, in your view?”

    = = =

    I assume you are aware that nobody in Iran, or in Khamenei’s offices, noticed that Iran’s economy was struggling, so, No Harm, No Foul, right?

    In your view, isn’t it wise for the leader of 73 million people who have been under siege for >10 yrs. to play Three Little Monkeys?

    That’s what you are suggesting Khamenei has done.

  160. Fiorangela says:

    It occurs to me that it was not ratcheting up of sanctions and the replacement of that buffoon Ahmadinejad with the negotiator Rouhani that brought Iran to the negotiating table; rather, it was the coordinated actions of Ahmadinejad in ratcheting up centrifuges, followed by Rouhani’s statements, Now shall we talk?, that brought the US to the negotiating table.

    To be sure, them dumb Eye-ranians just imitated western ‘good cop – bad cop’ tactics, cause everyone knows that the job of the 200-year old USA, and of P-5 states that took turns killing each other for about 500 years, is to teach Iran how to act civilized.

    Just ask California Congressman Duncan Hunter, who appeared on C Span’s Washington Journal program this morning (4 Dec 2013). http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/DuncanH

    One of my children is the same age as Duncan Hunter. If I thought my child would ever speak as vilely as Hunter spoke on C Span this morning, I would have drowned him instead of baptizing him. Hunter is a disgrace to humanity and his district in California should be ashamed to have elected him.

    During the time that the US held Iraq under sanctions — that cost the lives of 1 million people, half of them children (h/t Madeleine “The price was worth it” Albright)– Patrick Clawson studied the physical effects and moral implications of the sanctions, in a monograph for the US Defense University (iirc). One point he made in the “morality of sanctions” section was that it was appropriate to sanction ALL the Iraqi people, that is, impose collective punishment, because all of the Iraqi people had failed to remove a leader who was acting badly.

    That same logic must be applied to the American people, and especially to people like those who elected Duncan Hunter, whose district includes “almost all of San Diego County except for the coastal and border areas. . . . Fallbrook, San Marcos, Valley Center, Escondido, Santee, Lakeside, and mountain and desert areas stretching to the Imperial County line.” Justice demands that such people be named and shamed.

    Hunter is a veteran of the Iraq war, where he participated in the attacks on Fallujah. What the United States did to Fallujah is a crime against humanity.

  161. Rehmat says:

    Tehran wants US-NATO out of Afghanistan

    On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham stressed that the proposed BSA between Kabul and Washington will not serve the government of Afghanistan, its people or the region.

    Hamid Karzai is expected to visit Tehran next week to have consultations with his Iranian counterpart Sheikh Hassan Rouhani and the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenie. Karzai is also scheduled to visit New Delhi later this month to discuss this matter.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/04/tehran-wants-us-nato-out-of-afghanistan/

  162. James Canning says:

    Rehmat,

    A lot of Americans apparently want the US out of Afghanistan. Probably a majority.

  163. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Rouhani himself was greatly surprised, upon taking office, to learn the dire state of the Iranian economy.

    I quote the Financial Times Nov 27th: “People close to the current government say the Ahmadi-Nejad regime, which bears as much, IF NOT MORE, blame as sanctions for destroying the economy, was feeding Mr Khamenei a distorted picture ”

    Forcing banks to make billions of dollars in loans that were certain to go bad, was not good policy.

  164. James Canning says:

    Photi,

    Duncan Hunter appears to be an idiot. He has other idiots in the US Congress to keep him company.

  165. Bibijon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    December 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    “That same logic must be applied to the American people, and especially to people like those who elected Duncan Hunter”

    Well, maybe it should apply to the 27% who Support taking military action against Iran to destroy its nuclear development program. I think the 35% who hold a “very unfavorable view, and even the 52% who hold a “somewhat unfavorable” view of military action ought to have a serious conversation about the beast they have elected to office.

    http://aufc.3cdn.net/fc17d12faadccc86f2_grm6b0abf.pdf

  166. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    In my view, Obama can get a deal through (P5+1 and Iran), accepting Iranian enrichment to low levels, operation of nuclear power plants, and TRR. For Iran to demand more likely would mean no deal. And thus lead to and end to all Iranian oil exports.

  167. James Canning says:

    Nahid,

    I welcome any factual errors in reporting by the Finanical Times, regarding Iran, that you have seen. Can you name an English-language global newspaper that is more accurate in its reporting?

    I think you can be sure a “government adviser” in Tehran did tell the FT that Khamenei was “astonished” when he saw the real figures for the state of the Iranian economy.

  168. James Canning says:

    Bibijon & FYI,

    Scott McConnell has some interesting comments on the Kissinger-Shultz piece in the WSJ yesterday:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/kissinger-shultz-quietly-back-iran-diplomacy/

  169. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The White House has once again explicitly stated that they do not recognize Iran’s right to enrich.

    What the White House is saying is that any enrichment which the US MIGHT “allow” will be “limited” – whatever that means. Most likely, it means there will be no final deal with Iran – even assuming Obama actually wants one, which is highly unlikely.

    This is going nowhere for the next six months, and once the Syria “negotiations” collapse completely, as they must, and the Senate ratchets up more Iran sanctions, as they must (or face AIPAC’s wrath), the whole Iran deal will collapse and the war will be back on, starting with Syria and Lebanon, as I’ve said.

  170. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Nasrallah: Israel will not attack Iran without US green light
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4461054,00.html

    Perhaps, Nasrallah – but they will attack YOU without a US green light…and if they do, the US will support it, just like they did last time.

    The only question is whether the US will attack SYRIA in order to ENABLE Israel to attack Hizballah. That situation has not played out yet…

  171. Richard Steven Hack says:

    As I said…

    Israeli military says it will ‘flush out’ Hezbollah, not ‘turn Lebanon into dust’
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2013/Dec-04/239840-israeli-military-says-it-will-flush-out-hezbollah-not-turn-lebanon-into-dust.ashx

    Or, you know, both…

  172. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Russia’s Putin, Saudi Prince Bandar discuss Syria, Iran: Kremlin
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/03/us-syria-crisis-russia-saudi-idUSBRE9B20Z320131203

    “Bandar Bush” back at it…

  173. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    December 4, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    The phrase “pro-American” is not factually correct.

    Young Iranians are enchanted by US and the liberal non-interfering culture of personal freedoms.

    Something that the Iranian government is denying them – without a doubt.

    The rest of the population despises US.

    As I sated before, the only sane strategic option for US is the acceptance of nuclear-weapon threshold Iran.

    But since the Mad King is still committed to the military destruction of Iran, we will not see that any time soon.

    I must express my heartfelt thanks to the Mad King; her revolutionary projects first in Iraq and then in Syria – together with the wars against Lebanon and economic one against Iran created the new Shia Crescent.

    I do not want to be ungrateful to the Mad King.

  174. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 4, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Thanks.

    I, for one, continue to believe that the Iran and US have already negotiated their bottom lines, and are merely rolling it out for public consumption. It probably goes along these lines:

    Iran will …

    1- build some 16 power plants over the next decade.
    2- add enrichment facilities commensurate with fueling those NPPs.
    3- refrain from stockpiling large quantities of UF6, and manufacture fuel.
    4- refrain from building reprocessing plants for ten years
    5- build hard-water reactors commensurate with production of medical/agricultural isotopes, and scientific research and export the spent fuel.

    I find it hard to believe either side would have started ‘public’ negotiations, and concluded joint action plans without the end state already defined and acceptable to both. Do you?

  175. nico says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    December 4, 2013 at 9:58 am

    ”How do you define a populist?”

    Obviously the term populist hs several connotation.

    The negative one being that populace being idiot by nature then leaders wearing power through support of the populace are extremists and demagogs. In that view the leaders should follow enlightened people only. That is basicaly the oligarchic view.

    The positive one being that in democracy the decision is made by the people for the people and that power is worn only by delegation of the people and that those leaderz not being in touch with the people are basically antidemocratic oligarchy.

    I rather prefer the positive view.
    Switzerland with their direct democracy and wide use of referundum for many subjects from the very basic to more complex/global shows that the populace is not that stupid and when truly empowered can manage their country.

    That being said I do not deny the danger of populism when used by the wrong person to lead unwisely. (But I do not apply that to Amadinejad).

  176. nico says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    December 4, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    “The White House has once again explicitly stated that they do not recognize Iran’s right to enrich.What the White House is saying is that any enrichment which the US MIGHT “allow” will be “limited” – whatever that means. Most likely, it means there will be no final deal with Iran – even assuming Obama actually wants one, which is highly unlikely.”

    Well that is negotiation posturing and diplomacy.
    Do you truly believe that the WH will just openly state that Iran has free ride for enrichment…

  177. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “The phrase “pro-American” is not factually correct.
    Young Iranians are enchanted by US and the liberal non-interfering culture of personal freedoms.
    Something that the Iranian government is denying them – without a doubt.”

    perhaps more aptly;

    Young Iranians are miss-informed by US and the liberal non-interfering culture of personal freedoms.
    Unless of course, if we don’t consider tapping phone conversation,monitoring emails, profiling, loosing pensions (Detroit), [if I understand correctly, Iranians living in US even as a US citizen are able to obtain their pensions from IRI, even if they have not been in Iran since 1979]. Of course, not to mention the corporate abuse, but that one for another day.

    However, if you are referring to their concern on ‘roosari ya tousari’ , I can understand for some, that is a concern.

    It is not right to compare apples/oranges. From personal (family) experience, I can say ‘many’ of those young Iranians are miss-informed. Internet understanding of life in US does not make reality. Though, one ‘could’ argue back in the 70’s, life in US was different, than today. However, if your culture of personal freedoms entails wearing bikinis and mingling freely on the beach, you are right.

  178. nico says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    December 4, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    “Nasrallah: Israel will not attack Iran without US green lighthttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4461054,00.htmlPerhaps, Nasrallah – but they will attack YOU without a US green light…and if they do, the US will support it, just like they did last time.”

    And just like last time Israel will be defeated.

    “The only question is whether the US will attack SYRIA in order to ENABLE Israel to attack Hizballah. That situation has not played out yet…”

    Well you already get the answer with Russia militarily vetoing such option.
    This is off the table.
    Or maybe did you not notice that yet… ?

  179. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Is Obama Changing Tack on Syria?
    http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/12/04/is-obama-changing-tack-on-syria/

    As I have previously suggested here, the Obama administration is trying to find ways to get back into attacking Syria. And as I have previously predicted here, this includes using the presence of Al Qaeda in Syria as the excuse.

    Just as in Iraq after the occupation became a quagmire, neocons justified the US occupation by the line, “better to fight them there than fight them here.” I predicted this notion would surface in the Syrian crisis once it became uncomfortably clear that the people Obama was supporting were radical jihadists.

    The end game remains the same: SOMEHOW degrade Syria’s military in order to allow Israel to attack Hizballah in Lebanon in the Bekaa Valley via Syrian territory without having to worry about engaging Syrian forces as well as Hizballah forces on two fronts.

  180. Jay says:

    Photi says:
    December 4, 2013 at 11:47 am

    James, reading Photi’s post, it appears that Rep. Hunter does not believe that the US is bound by non-first-strike policy. From several of his interviews, he appears to suggest that the policy is “flexible” – it could be changed at will and at any time if needed.

    Do you agree that a policy that can be changed at will carries no value?

  181. nico says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Sure the war drums are deafening… Let me hear..
    Do you truly believe the US will engage in a war with Syri, directement directly against Iran, Russia as well as against China will ?
    Is that all the noise you are able to show to try to convince people here ?

    Try again.

  182. Bibijon says:

    AIPAC + War Profiteering < Oil + Gas
    ================================

    You want to sell a (already done) deal? Here's how:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/iran-oil-idUSL5N0JJ2A420131204

    "Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh named the seven in order: Total of France, Royal Dutch Shell, Italy's ENI, Norway's Statoil, Britain's BP and U.S. companies Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips."

  183. Bibijon says:

    Jay says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    It will be beyond Hunter to comprehend, but the world hears what is being said, and how it is received by the interviewer and broadcast by c-span.

    Can we really regard North Korea as an outlier for threatening to nuke the US?

    When Ahamadinejad used to rail against the mismanagement of world affairs by the US, can anyone argue that the insecurity, and the incivility we reap and will reap for generations were not sown by that “mismanagement.”

    Are we surprised to see “de-Americanize the World” headlines emblazoned on the Chinese state media?

    Thank you very much Mr Hunter, and whoever voted for you.

  184. Bibijon says:

    Scraping the bottom of the (impending war) barrel
    ===============================

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    “As I have previously suggested here, the Obama administration is trying to find ways to get back into attacking Syria. And as I have previously predicted here, this includes using the presence of Al Qaeda in Syria as the excuse.”

    No. the AQ, and the admission that there is AQ is a precursor to accepting the survival of the Ba’ath government, and desisting from further aid to the rebels.

    The Syrian game, the Israeli game, and the Saudi game are over. Completely.

  185. kooshy says:

    Rich

    Sounds like you got bored with abstinence on
    commenting here, understand, Like Client said “man got to know his limitations”

  186. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    You may have noticed the report in the Wall Street Journal today, regarding al-Qaeda in Syria and its wish to overthrow the Saudi monarchy.

  187. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    And Boeing continues to be very interested in making deals with Iran, for civilian aircraft.

    WSJ report Dec. 4th suggested Netanyahu would refuse to make a deal with the Palestinians, unless the US attacks Iran.

  188. James Canning says:

    Jay,

    Congressman Hunter of California clearly is an idiot. (Or worse?) Or perhaps he is well awaree of the no-first-strike US nuclear protocol, but pretends otherwise.

  189. James Canning says:

    Najmeh Bozorgmehr has an interesting piece at the FT.COM site Dec. 4th (blogs): “Iran: Five easy ways to destroy an economy”.

  190. Don Bacon says:

    Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh is due to meet senior executives from Western oil companies including Eni and Shell on Thursday, an Iranian oil official said.

    I can just see some piddly-ass US politician taking on Royal Dutch Shell. heh

  191. Fiorangela says:

    Dr. Dan Joyner has a new post on Arms Control Law — The European Court of Justice Weighs in on EU Sanctions on Iranian Businesses

  192. Don Bacon says:

    Fiorangela says:
    December 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Excellent. Joyner links to a blog
    http://europeansanctions.com/

    with this
    “…The ECJ’s main disagreement with the GC (which we discuss below) is that the ECJ has said that the Council can satisfy the criterion of having to prove that entities provide “support” for nuclear proliferation by showing simply that they are involved in the oil and gas sectors in Iran; the GC had previously said that involvement in that sector was not in itself enough, and that the Council had to show some kind of conduct demonstrating actual support for nuclear proliferation. . .”

  193. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    December 4, 2013 at 11:40 am

    I had a lot of hope that Ahmadinejad is going to implement taxation, banking, monetary etc etc structural reforms. But the big thieves did not let any reform to go through, specially the extremely corrupt majles and judiciary. Now there is not much hope. The mafias are incharge again.

    A country where government’s wild park rangers protecting a UN recognized conservation park are touted by heavily armed poachers and illegal hunters and the corrupt judiciary and majles take the side of the poachers, there is not much hope.

    See this from awhile back: http://goo.gl/XpsvzW

    And now this: bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2013/12/131204_nm_environment_dena_execution.shtml

    The poachers family is so influential in the extremely corrupt judiciary that the park ranger is to be executed for having done his job and defending himself against illegally armed thugs.

  194. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    December 4, 2013 at 11:36 am

    It is the kind of reality that Iran will have to face one day.

    A non-nuclear country like Iran has only two choices:

    1) Kneel and suck

    or

    2) Become nuclear armed

    As it appears, today Iran has chosen the option number one and some of the people even love to suck as evident also on this forum. Whether they will continue to suck into the future, is to be seen. Specially with upcoming sanctions and more humiliation for Iran.

    But if they continue to suck, then why we had the revolution and all the cost in wealth and blood? After all Shah was also a sucker and he actually was getting a much better pay for his sucking service to US compared to 55 dollars Rouhani is begging.

  195. Sammy says:

    ‘BURN THEM ALIVE’ in central Hell Aviv !

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/netanyahu-expenditures-public-criticism-arik-einstein.html

    …To a large extent, the political use of a cultural icon — grief over whom swept the entire country — is even more serious than the sin of avarice, because it proves that in Netanyahu’s office, all moral values are lost. When it comes to the prime minister’s personal survival, there is no room even for honoring the dead.

    The first couple was on an official visit to Rome this week when Haaretz released the numbers, once again showing a lavish lifestyle. This comes on the coattails of data published by the OECD in May that show that the poverty rate in Israel is the highest among the developed countries.

    This is not the first the Israeli public has learned of the first couple’s whims, which come at a high cost to taxpayers, but this time, the media and public impact was stronger than in the past. Social networks were flooded with angry posts and caricatures that lampooned the hedonistic couple, whose water bill for their private home in Caesarea alone cost taxpayers 80,000 shekels ($22,700) in 2012, and whose budget for the scented candles that make their home more pleasant reached close to 6,000 shekels ($1,700).

    It is conceivable that the public outcry was so intense partly because Einstein had died just a few days earlier, giving rise to a strong public outpouring of emotion. His greatness as a singer contrasted vividly with the simple lifestyle he lived for decades — the average apartment he lived in, the lowbrow restaurant he liked best and his unconditional love for the country of his birth.

    Arik Einstein was not a materialistic man, and it wasn’t posturing on his part. It was completely authentic, making him a reverse image of the Netanyahus: Only six months ago, they were forced to explain why the public, which is enduring a high cost of living and taxes, needed to pay 10,000 shekels ($2,800) a year for expensive pistachio ice cream or half a million shekels ($142,000) for a special double bed installed in an airplane for one-time use on a short flight to London for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral.

    Now back to this past Sunday. When the prime minister’s entourage recognized that things at home were getting out of control — the Netanyahus were being slaughtered in the media and no one from their inner circle or any of the Likud ministers were ready to stand up and defend them — it started to panic. From this point to recruiting the unwitting Einstein to the campaign, the road became quite short.

    This was a veil sewn with crude stitches that was supposed to turn down the public heat on the first couple by invoking a symbol of modesty and simple living. However, that is exactly why it was unconvincing and the effort only magnified how detached the couple is from the public and how despised the couple is.

  196. Smith says:

    Meanwhile in India, more unsafeguarded centrifuge enrichment facilities are being built for production of weapons. Another benefit of being outside the slavery bond of NPT: http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/RMP_4_Dec_2013.pdf

  197. Smith says:

    US says as part of a final deal, Iran will have to dismatle almost all of its nuclear infrastructure including Arak reactor and industrial level enrichment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2013/12/131205_l26_sherman_iran_nuclear.shtml

    The deal being offered to Iran is worse than what Six Party talks had offered to North Korea.

    US expects more sucking from Iran for even lesser pay in coming months.

  198. Smith says:

    Iran begging and sucking the non-signatory of NPT and a nuclear armed state to give back Iran’s money: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/business/2013/12/131205_l03_iran_india_payments.shtml

    Another reason why staying in NPT and not being nuclear armed is shameful and humiliating.

  199. Smith says:

    US says that it will continue to pressurize Iran over “human rights, freedom to access internet and social networks” despite the nuclear deal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2013/12/131204_u08_iran_us_humanrights.shtml

    Start sucking and they demand more sucking.

    At least Shah was not this much of a sucker. Why we had this revolution at great cost of blood and wealth?

  200. Bibijon says:

    Whatever happened to Smith?
    =========================

    For several days now there’s no garbage posts by the guy. Don’t miss it one bit, of course. Just wanted to applaud the moderators.

  201. fyi says:

    Rd. says:

    December 4, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    The fact is that the social atmosphere in Iran is oppressive; the well-to-do and others who can take foreign trips of different durations to take a break from it.

    The young people remain enamored of US image; on the other hand, a young woman recently told me that she is pleased living in US as no body is telling her what to do.

  202. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    December 5, 2013 at 12:13 am

    No, I disagree.

    Iran now has the capacity to build a nuclear weapon within a few weeks.

    Any crisis that would make her to become a nuclear-armed state will be months in gestation.

    On the other, US attack will also take weeks to organize after Iran has left NPT.

    Either way, Iran is already a threshold-nuclear-weapon state.

    Strategically it means that any war with Iran will have the chance of making Iranian leaders leave NPT.

    Iran as a threshold weapon state was the best deal that Axis Powers, Russia and China could get.

    But you are right about the fools in Iran; I often cringed from 1979 to 2005.

    Not so much during the presidency of Mr. Ahmadinejad; the man who dared insult the semi-religion of Shoah.

  203. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    December 5, 2013 at 8:33 am

    There is snow ball’s chance in Hell of roll-back of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

    Iran still retains the option of leaving NPT if the so-called final status negotiations end in failure.

  204. Bibijon says:

    Or, for that matter why has fyi disappeared from the scene? Oh well, good riddance.

  205. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    December 5, 2013 at 8:41 am

    All in good time.

    Mr. Khamenei stated the same thing: “why the Islamic Revolution if we were to obey the diktats of foreigners…”

  206. Bibijon says:

    In other (commercial news)
    =========================

    Reuters is reporting:

    Eni’s CEO first to meet with Iran oil minister
    ttp://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE9B40IV20131205?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

    Austrian trade delegation to visit Iran after nuclear deal
    ttp://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/iran-austria-trade-idINL5N0JJ3UP20131204

  207. M.Ali says:

    A rumor I had from a guy in the scene a few months ago, before all the talks, was that US & Iran will come to some terms, because behind the scenes, Iran had agreed to give preferable oil contracts to American & western oil companies.

    Reading the stuff above makes me think that the rumors might have actually been true.

  208. James Canning says:

    M. Ali,

    The Iranian oil minister will not give better terms to “western” oil companies, than are made available to oil companies from China or other places. But he does want the superior technology that “western” oil companies have.

  209. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Curious that you think a pitch for continuing leadership by the US in nuclear weapons, is something relevant to Iran’s nuclear programme.

  210. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    If Iran were to follow your advice and leave the NPT, the likely result would be no Iranian oil exports. Meaning, grave financial crisis for the government.

  211. James Canning says:

    “Iran: Five easy ways to destroy an economy”, can be read at ft.com/theworld

    For those curious about bad economic decisions taken by Ahmadinejad.

  212. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    Your apparent belief Iran can follow the course set by India fails to take into account the ISRAEL LOBBY. Meaning, your advice is worth next to nothing.

  213. James Canning says:

    Philip Giraldi has a great new piece, and one that should be read by those who lack an adequate understanding of the power of the ISRAEL LOBBY in the US:

    “The Hollywood spy”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-hollywood-spy/

  214. Fiorangela says:

    “Arak must not come on line because plutonium is used only for weapons.”

    Israelis Develop ‘Safe’ Plutonium; Good for Power, Bad for Weapons

  215. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    December 5, 2013 at 9:23 am

    Rd. says:
    December 4, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    “The fact is that the social atmosphere in Iran is oppressive; the well-to-do and others who can take foreign trips of different durations to take a break from it.”

    Well based on my experience and what I have seen in Iran, what you are generalizing here is mostly true for a small percentage of Iranians, mainly the ones who are exposed to and want to live a western lifestyle, which is not confirmative to current Iranian civil law and civic traditions.

    But it should also be mentioned that majority of Iranians and their young have not and are not yet exercising parts of social liberalism of western culture which traditionally is not allowed in Muslim societies; this same group did not before revolution and still is not after revolution practicing segments of western culture that is forbidden in Islam. Therefore the revolution’s implementation and reinforcement of Islamic social laws didn’t affect their lifestyle. This majority of Iranians for a foreign vacation would rather go ( which they do in far greater numbers than the European trips) to a pilgrimage trip to Iraq or Syria with their full “hijabs” on, they would never make a trip to beaches in Turkey, or a night at opera in Paris, so what you are generalization to make believe how majority is feeling is not correct.

  216. Castellio says:

    Joint Statement With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and John Kerry, Jerusalem, December 5, 2013

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/12/218347.htm

    KERRY: Much of our discussion in the very beginning obviously focused on where we are with respect to Iran. I can’t emphasize enough that Israel’s security in this negotiation is at the top of our agenda. And the United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program – a program of weaponization possibilities – is terminated. We agree on what the goal of the final status agreement ought to be.”

    “The fundamental sanctions regime of oil and banking remains absolutely in place. It is not changed, and we will be stepping up our efforts of enforcement through the Treasury Department and through the appropriate agencies of the United States.”

  217. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    December 5, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    A married woman, twice hadjiyah, with grown children, who loves Iran, and wears her scarf abroad recently said the same thing to me: “Need to get out of Iran as a respite from…”

    You need to look inside yourself and ask yourself why and how you and your kind have made life miserable for so many Muslims.

  218. James Canning says:

    Castellio,

    Clearly Kerry has to make this sort of statement, to prevent Democrats in US Congress from trying to block a deal with Iran.

  219. James Canning says:

    Martin Wolf of the Financial Times had an exceelent piece yesterday, on the dispute between Japan and China over those islands, and the lessons of 1914.

  220. nahid says:

    Erdogan Get Trampled by Horse | Turkey

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kejGQ4iV4EE

  221. humanist says:

    James,

    Re: your Dec 3, 4:23pm post

    Like Lendman I am unable to envision the clearance of these dark clouds in coming years, despite the outstanding historical event that happened recently in Geneva.

    I am not optimistic mainly because I can’t see any major change in US hegemonic ambitions in the ME….thus to achieve such type of goals (and because of colossal influence of Israel) US needs Israel….and we all know how unforgiving and ruthless Israelis are.

    In my view Geneva event is termed ‘historic’ not because of Iranian deal but since, after decades of humiliating conformity of Americans to Likudniks, ‘apparently’ there we some sort of revolt.

  222. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    December 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    “You need to look inside yourself and ask yourself why and how you and your kind have made life miserable for so many Muslims.’

    You are wrong, in westernization I am just like you completely westernized, been living out of Iran for three forth of my life and before that majority of my family were completely westernized at least since 1912, as matter of fact my whole family feels the way you do, but unlike you I am not willing out of personal selfishness to fool myself and think Iranians with majority who are very religious feel the social way of Islamic Iran is restricting them their social freedom, you can claim so many things about the life in Iran but the majority are not annoyed by religious restrictions which mainly is what is bothering the westernized Iranians.

    But, rather me who has not lived in Iran for over 40 years, you need to ask yourself why 35 years after an Islamic revolution you can’t really claim you have a majority, once you find that out than you will come to accepting what is the reality in Iran is.

    When you are in a taxi you may hear people complaining about economy, political restrictions, corruption etc. but you will never hear they don’t let me go out without hijab, or I can’t go to a bar, or have my wine with lunch, you need to come to an understanding that the way you are is not the way that majority of Iranian are or want to be. This is what I had to do to be able to understand and enjoy Iran, and I believe I may have lived in the west longer than you have.

  223. Karl.. says:

    Bibjon, kooshy and anyone else that support the Iran/p5+1 agreement should read the link Castillo posted

    http://goingtotehran.com/foreign-minister-zarif-on-iran-and-its-persian-gulf-neighbors#comment-28063

    Read what Kerry said about ending Iran’s program.

    How can anyone think that this agreement would lead to peace?

  224. fyi says:

    kooshy says:

    December 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    The majority can wallow in its own misery and misguided ways as much as it desires, but it does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others – for those others – however a small minority they may be – have their own intrinsic human worth and human dignity.

    در سرزمین قد کوتاهان
    معیارهای سنجش
    همیشه بر مدار صفر سفر کرده است
    چرا توقف کنم؟
    من از عناصر چهارگانه اطاعت میکنم
    و کار تدوین نظامنامه قلبم
    کار حکومت محلی کوران نیست

  225. Sammy says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:50 pm
    More proof.
    US dont recognize enrichment right.

    Karl , it is amazing and hard to believe that US politicians are finally developing tactfulness in their foreign policy and more amazing that they were forced to by IRI.
    Whatever Kerry said yesterday to Bibi Mileikowsy is in line with this new approach and shows that the ‘Geneva’ is a done deal.
    If you find out who is behind Conoco Phillips and Exxon , who will enter the Iranian oil &gas market , you have all you need to understand the spectacle.

  226. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    I never said that I supported or not the Geneva MOU, which in reality it really what it is, for now it is just the way to see if the westerners can make their bosses accept a nuclear capable Iran or not, and put a leash on Israel,
    Karl, we know you don’t like it a bit, and would one wonders if it is so bad for Iran, why Karl who is assumedly is a westerner? Why is he so unhappy with this deal if
    it is so unfairly bad for Iran? But I tell you at this time Iran is willing to accept some (time restricted) restrictions, since no longer nothing can change the reality of Iran’s nuclear program, Iran’s nuclear program is not economical if Iran was treated fairly. But thanks god for safeguarding her independence Iran soon learned and implemented that she had to have the capability for both (2) defensive purposes. You need to come to term with that too.

  227. Karl.. says:

    kooshy

    December 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    You didnt support the deal? Really?

    Here you congrate Iran on the deal

    goingtotehran.com/nuclear-rights-and-the-p51-talks-with-iran#comment-26000

    Here you wrongly said that p5+1 recognize Iran’s enrichment rights.

    goingtotehran.com/nuclear-rights-and-the-p51-talks-with-iran#comment-25865

    Here you wrongl claim sanctions will end

    goingtotehran.com/nuclear-rights-and-the-p51-talks-with-iran#comment-26164

    Here you wrongly claim that the perment deal is really a temporary limited deal

    goingtotehran.com/syria-update-assad-and-his-government-are-winning#comment-25575

  228. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    Kerry has made clear he thinks Iran must be allowed to enrich to low levels. You of course are aware that Israel, and Aipac, want no enrichment by Iran.

  229. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 5, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    1-Karl I still congratulate the Iranians for what they have done in Geneva (getting 6 FM from most powerful states to Geneva twice in 2 weeks ) but I never said I support or not the deal and you got to not to make your own assumptions on what and to what I agree with.

    2- I am not wrong thinking the P5+1 is recognizing Iran’s right to enrich if they didn’t they wouldn’t have come to Geneva and sign an MOU agreeing on ongoing enrichment.

    3- I am not claiming sanctions will end but I think sanctions will by itself get to be irrelevant by the very ones that have to implement them.

    4- I am not wrong claiming There is nothing permanent specially with anything specially with deals between sates , USSR wasn’t permanent and I don’t think Israel is permanent knowing how small she is and how many enemies she has next door.

    Karl you need to be be honest and let board know if it’s Israel that you are worried for or Iran.

    By the way I didn’t bother to check on my past comments that you provided links to but once I get back to my laptop I will just to see if you are honest on your commenting

    This position that you brought up I support no matter if I did or not before
    And I and majority of Iranians and now the Americans think I am wrong so what’s your problem ?
    Could it be Israel ? Sorry

  230. kooshy says:

    Typo using iPhone to post a comment
    I and majority of Iranians and now the majority of Americans think I am right, so what’s your problem ?

  231. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 5, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Today, Kerry made it clear to Hiz Honor, Benjamin Netanyahu, global overlord of nuclear programs, that neither he nor any other member of the international community (aka England, France, USA) will “permit an Iran that has the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.”

  232. Don Bacon says:

    Kerry also made it clear to President Karzai that he must sign the BSA this month. Mr. Karzai’s response was to make plans to visit India t discuss a regional bloc — India, Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iran.

    news report:
    After refusal by Karzai to sign a new bilateral security agreement with US until Afghan presidential election in April, the Afghan relations with Washington have come under considerable strain prompting Karzai to go for his plan to set up regional bloc. Iran has already asked Karzai to refrain from signing such security agreement which ensure stay of US forces after 2014. Karzai has already accused Washington for halting fuel supplies to Afghan forces to put pressure on him sign the new arrangement. //

    So much for Kerry making it clear. (As on his desire to bomb Syria.)

  233. Photi says:

    the ghoul who wants to nuke Iran justifying his ghoulishness:

    “I guess I am the only one who said it (publicly),” Hunter said. “This is not a secret thing. A lot of people talk about it as an option.”

    or in other words its an OK policy choice because other ghouls agree.

    he also says nuking Iran will be a huge undertaking costing billions and billions of dollars, and yet he stands by his military recommendation (note he is a US politician on the Armed Services Committee).

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/dec/05/duncan-hunter-iran-nukes/

  234. Photi says:

    Hunter also criticizes Middle Eastern political culture as dishonest. Pretty rich coming from a ghoul US politician.

  235. Photi says:

    let me try the bb codes once more:

    Hunter also criticizes Middle Eastern political culture as dishonest. Pretty rich coming from a ghoul US politician.

  236. Karl.. says:

    kooshy
    December 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    The problem is of course that are wrong as I just showed with the comments you have made since the deal was made.

  237. Karl.. says:

    kooshy

    1. That doesnt mean anything postive, even if Iran brought 120 FMs to the table, unless ending the nuclear-program is something good according to you. Surely one dont congratulate something unless one think that they accomplished something
    positive, therefore you seems indeed to support the deal.

    2. Yes you are wrong, the agreement cut Iran’s right and the permenent deal is to end the program all together /or to end permently, he 20% enrichment.

    3. Obviously not since the US are close to put more sanctions on Iran asap.

    4. Yes you are, read what Kerry said in the link Castillo gave.

  238. Bibijon says:

    Weasel words
    ===========

    Castellio says:
    December 5, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Joint Statement With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and John Kerry, Jerusalem, December 5, 2013:

    “And the United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program – a program of weaponization possibilities – is terminated. We agree on what the goal of the final status agreement ought to be.”

    Castellio, what do you think Kerry is really saying. I know what he is NOT saying:

    The United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program – particularly Uranium enrichment program – is dismantled. Not only we agree on what the goal of the final status agreement ought to be, but also we are of the same opinion as Mr Netanyahu, that no national nuclear program should remain in Iran.

  239. M.Ali says:

    Kooshy, I’d have that discussion before with fyi before.

    As a democracy, the Iranian government is supposed to provide the Iranians with the laws that will create the social environment they are after.

    As an Iranian in Iran, I’m a bit westernized myself, but to enforce my beliefs on the 80 million population is not democratic.

    The government tries to be in line with the population’s mores as much as it is possible.

    “This majority of Iranians for a foreign vacation would rather go ( which they do in far greater numbers than the European trips) to a pilgrimage trip to Iraq or Syria with their full “hijabs” on, they would never make a trip to beaches in Turkey, or a night at opera in Paris, so what you are generalization to make believe how majority is feeling is not correct.”

    An amusing anecdote. A group of older married woman in my family wanted to have a girls-only vacation abroad. They go to the travel agency and the agent tells them, you can go to so and so because they have great bars and nightlife and the ladies reply, that they are not into that! so, the agent tells them, why not go to so and so place, because they have great beaches, and the ladies again reply, they dont like to go the beach!

    Eventually, they go to Malaysia, the most Islamic country they could think of.

  240. Bibijon says:

    I feel your pain
    ================

    Karl,

    I cannot begin to imagine what it must feel like for Israel.

    You expend all that money, effort, and political/diplomatic capital, to make Iran’s nuclear energy program out to be the scariest thing in history, and then Obama uses that to his own credit for defusing a crisis by accepting a decade-old Iranian offer of transparency. I mean all that effort to Israel put into making this a crisis, and Israel winds up not only getting no credit for it being solved, but seeming like the very odd man out.

    And, as if that were not enough, Obama goes a step further and uses Israel’s long promoted ‘linkage’ to pull the rug out from under ‘greater Israel.’ Obama let Netanyahu keep harping on Iran-before-2-state-solution and just as Netanyahu put his last egg in the linkage basket, Obama goes ahead and fixes the Iran problem. Oh, dear! Now that Iran and US are friends, and Iran is no danger to Israel, what foot-dragging likage excuse has poor Netanyahu got left?

    The above would be more than enough to make Netanyahu’s mercurial head explode, but there is more …

    With all that transparency, objectifying Ay. Khamenei’s fatwa that Iran is a strict adherer to NPT, Israel’s own illicit nukes come into sharp focus. Add to that all the hoopla about Syria getting rid of her CW, and anyone with an ounce of empathy would feel Netanyahu’s pain as he watches an unstoppable momentum for establishing a Mid East free of WMD.

    I feel your pain, Karl.

  241. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    Its because it isnt solved, as we see, more sanctions is on the way, kerry and US making clear that they arent recognizing Iran’s right and that the deal will reduce Iran’s program.

    Those that support the deal, including you is closer to the israelis since they too want Iran to have no rights and in return – getting nothing.

  242. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 6:27 am

    “as we see, more sanctions is on the way”

    No disrespect, but if it’s all the same to you, I’ll go by Jim Lobe’s take:

    “Despite continuing grumblings about the first-phase agreement between Tehran and the so-called P5+1 by Republicans and a couple of key Democrats, the chances that lawmakers will enact new sanctions against Iran before the year’s end — as had been strongly urged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters here — seem to have evaporated.”

    http://www.lobelog.com/iran-deal-safe-from-lawmakers-for-now/

    “it isnt solved”

    Call me an incorrigible optimist, but when I see that many foreign ministers high-fiving, I can’t help but think something or other must have been solved. Maybe they just agreed on where to have breakfast. But, you know, there’s got to be a limit to skepticism, as much as there ought to be short leash on wild optimists. Did you hear Jack Straw is going to Tehran? So is Lavrov. So is UAE’s president. What a non-solution solution!

    But, back to Netanyahu’s misfortunes:

    The Mid East WMD Free Zone got an unexpected boost when Kissinger and Schultz bandied about Saudi threats of purchasing a few loose nukes. Every fear tactic Israel firsters use winds up boosting the momentum for ME-WMD-FZ which after Iran’s transparency agreements, Syria’s CW accord, and Iraq’s brutal destruction of WMD it didn’t have, Israel’s arsenal is now the most covered thing on a nudist beach.

    I think the decent thing for anyone after this many abject policy failures, and arguably his only claim to competency is in the area of cartoon bomb drawing, is to call for new elections by February. Don’t you?

  243. nico says:

    Nice news.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article181389.html

    “Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel, announced a Pentagon budget reduction of 100 billion dollars in five years, amounting to 20% of the current budget, which comes on top of the cuts already made this year.”

    20% cut is substantial yet it is not enough.
    The US still will be able to meddle everywhere.
    Well at least it provides hope.

  244. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    I havent claimed that that US will put more sanctions this month, I claimed that they will put sanctions asap.
    Of course they are “high-fiving”, Iran surrendered just like they all wanted.

  245. Sammy says:

    The poor guys(Bibi&Co.) don’t know what they want , and the claim that Kerry/Bibi are on the same ‘wavelength’ is utterly silly.

    ‘Analysis: A tale of two Kerrys’

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Analysis-A-tale-of-two-Kerrys-334180

    ….Not linked in the sense that if you get something on the Iranian front, you can give something more to the Palestinians, but rather that Israel watched carefully, and with grave concern, what happened in Geneva, and drew the conclusions.

    Despite the efforts of Kerry and Netanyahu to paper over difference at their joint appearance on Thursday, there was deep, deep disappointment in Israel over how the Obama administration, and Kerry, handled the Iranian dossier.

    Even though the criticism in recent days has been more muted, and the focus now on the future negotiations with Iran, Jerusalem still believes the interim deal was, as Netanyahu said repeatedly in the past, a “bad deal.”

    And here is where there is linkage with the Palestinian issue, and it also explains Kerry’s underlining the security issue in his statement Thursday.

    First of all, the agreement Kerry is pushing with the Palestinians will necessitate Israel taking calculated security risks.

    But with Iran suddenly “off the ropes,” emboldened and enjoying newfound international legitimacy as a result of the recent accord in Geneva, Israel is likely to be less willing – not more willing – to take those security risks…..

  246. Sammy says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 8:05 am
    Of course they are “high-fiving”, Iran surrendered just like they all wanted.

    Utterly rubbish !

    If you looked into the eyes of Bibi yesterday and his overall appearance ( during the press conference on Thursday ) he seemed like Jack Nicholson in the movie ‘Shining’ , the poor man is on the verge of insanity. ( why on the verge ?? )

  247. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 8:05 am

    “I havent claimed that that US will put more sanctions this month, I claimed that they will put sanctions asap.”

    Thank you for that pearl of wisdom. Could you tell me now that the initial push has floundered, at what point during the next six months, or after a final deal, will new sanctions be adopted agaist the public (2 to 1) wishes?

    “Of course they are “high-fiving”, Iran surrendered just like they all wanted.”

    There was huge smile on Zarif’s face too. What was he so happy about do you suppose? And, why the expressions of support from Ay. Khamenei for the deal?

    Anyways, tell me what you think about Israel, and whether you think Netanyahu is serving her best interests. From the dungeons of apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandela emerged who made the world a better place. From the US-tax-payer funded luxury of the Israeli prime minister’s office, Bibi Netanyahu has emerged. What is missing here?

  248. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    Nothing has “floundered”, again I said that they will put sanctions as soon as POSSIBLE. They understand that it isnt the time for sanctions. Besides EU have already strenghten sanctions after the deal.

    They smile because they think this would lead to peace, they are desperate for a deal.
    Remember Qadaffi also smiled…

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_35igJnloijA/SMG5Jnda4CI/AAAAAAAADOg/VKuBxIGBacs/s400/Rice+Khadaffi.jpg

    And hes not smiling today.

  249. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 8:53 am

    Yes, yes as soon as possible, in capital letters if you like. But, tell me at what juncture? During the initial six months while IAEA inspectors are going around, and the P5+1 are busy negotiating a final deal? Or after they announce the final deal and whole new set of high-fives? When should I wake up and look for signs of life in the push for new sanctions?

    On the smiles, for what it is worth, P5+1 went from ‘suspend all enrichment’ to ‘refrain from expanding enrichment.’ I think that elicited the smiles.

    Qaddafi is smiling as much as Netanyahu is smiling these days. What’s going on do you think?

  250. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    As I said, asap, if these possibilites come in january or april we dont know it will come more and more before the 6 months is over.

  251. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 9:09 am

    In January there’ll be a call for new elections. By April there will be a new PM in Israel.

  252. fyi says:

    M.Ali says:

    December 6, 2013 at 5:15 am

    Yes, when a young woman is walking with her 4-year-old son as molested by the moral police; that is what Deomcracy means in Iran.

    Know this Mr. Ali: what you are doing is the control of the young womb; this is the sum-total of the popular religiosity that is being enforced by the Iranian Government.

    Barren old women are evidently not molested or accosted otherwise by the Moral Police; their wombs are no longer fertile.

    People have intrinsic rights and dignity and the state cannot legally and justifiably infringe on them.

    The agha-zadeh individuals have their hands in the state coffer – Beit al Mal – that is fine and is not against Islam but what young men and women do is.

    The religious duty of opposing vice and promoting virtue, evidently, is only invoked to confront young fertile wombs and not the maleficence of the state and its functionaries.

  253. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    December 6, 2013 at 9:09 am

    I agree with you.

    I recall reading comments by a Russian commentator months ago about the possibility of a small deal in 2014.

    I think this is that small deal over the 20% enrichment – if one strips it away from all the reversible steps that both sides have committed to make.

    There is a small positive content in this that US was finally forced to deal with the Iranians on a strategic level.

  254. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    December 6, 2013 at 8:53 am

    Certainly in Iran there was an expectation that prices are going to come down after this deal; which they have not and will not.

    The wars against the Shia Crescent evidently will continue: in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, and (economically) in Iran.

  255. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 3:45 am

    Karly

    You need to read what I wrote I wrote all those positions that you think is bad deal I agree with as long as majority of the word including Iranians are happy with it, besides in my opinion P5+1 has finally realized and accepted that Iran is a nuclear capable state which means realizing Iran will enrich no matter they accept or not.

    Here is what I wrote you yesterday “This positions that you brought up I support no matter if I did or not before.
    And I and majority of Iranians and now the Americans think I am “right” so what’s your problem? Could it be Israel? Sorry”

    Karl – on this blog we all know you (and warm up act Smith) are worried for Israel’s position, there is nothing wrong with that you just need to come clean and state your true aim and position, so if in your opinion Iran has forfeited her right, that should be good for Israel, if this is so than one wonders why Bibinuts, and you are so upset with this deal bad deal for Iran. You can’t hide your real position for ever, for what anyway? That’s stupid and wouldn’t add to anyone’s intellect.

  256. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    Why would Israel have new elections all of a sudden?

    kooshy

    It doesnt matter what a majority thinks (when it comes to facts). Now Iran have agreed to stop enrichment so of course it matters if they break that promise.

  257. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 10:18 am

    “Why would Israel have new elections all of a sudden?”

    Because:

    -Netanyahu demands a redline, Obama refuses to establish one.
    -Netanyahu embarrasses himself and Israel in front of the world audience with his own redline drawn on a cartoon bomb talking down at the assembled world dignitaries.
    Obama still refuses to budge.
    -Netanyahu, a year later, calls Rouani a cross-dressing wolf, even though Obama a day before had acknowledged Rouhani’s election legitimacy in UNGA.
    -Obama telephoned Rouhani
    -Cameron phoned Rouhani
    -Netanyahu calls the interim deal a historic mistake
    -Hague tells parliament Israel should zip it.
    -Reports come pouring through that US has been meeting Iran and holding negotiations for months, sidelining Netanyahu
    -Netanyahu has been asking for new sanctions, and none have happened so far.

    I think he has done plenty enough damage to Israel’s reputation, and relationship with the US to be forced out of office, in weeks, rather than months.

    What do you think?

    On the smiles, just to add that P5+1 went from demanding:

    ‘suspend all enrichment of 3000 centrifuges’
    Export ‘a significant portion of 2 tons LEU’
    Export all of 20%
    shutter Fordow,

    to:

    refrain from expanding enrichment beyond 10,000 centrifuges’
    ‘expor none of to 7 tons of LEU’
    convert 20% to oxides or dilute it
    increase inspections of Fordow from weekly to daily

    Surrender? Whose?

  258. Sammy says:

    As mentioned Geneva is a done deal…

    ”Hagel in Bahrain to reassure skittish allies on Iran deal”

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/06/338531/hagel-in-bahrain-to-calm-skittish-allies/

  259. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    Obama have a redline (“no nukes for Iran”), besides netanyahu enjoy good support in Israel, new elections? Just nonsense.

    Yes surrender and Kerry have plans for even bigger surrender for Iran.
    http://goingtotehran.com/foreign-minister-zarif-on-iran-and-its-persian-gulf-neighbors#comment-28063

    Do you support such a deal too?

  260. Sammy says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 11:46 am
    Obama have a redline (“no nukes for Iran”), besides netanyahu enjoy good support in Israel, new elections? Just nonsense.

    Let’s see what Chris hedges has to say …

    ”Imploding the Myth of Israel”

    …Its democracy—which was always exclusively for Jews—has been hijacked by extremists who are pushing the country toward fascism. Many of Israel’s most enlightened and educated citizens—1 million of them—have left the country. Its most courageous human rights campaigners, intellectuals and journalists—Israeli and Palestinian—are subject to constant state surveillance, arbitrary arrests and government-run smear campaigns. Its educational system, starting in primary school, has become an indoctrination machine for the military. And the greed and corruption of its venal political and economic elite have created vast income disparities, a mirror of the decay within America’s democracy….

  261. Sammy says:

    ”Imploding the Myth of Israel”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/imploding_the_myth_of_israel_20131103

    …Its democracy—which was always exclusively for Jews—has been hijacked by extremists who are pushing the country toward fascism. Many of Israel’s most enlightened and educated citizens—1 million of them—have left the country. Its most courageous human rights campaigners, intellectuals and journalists—Israeli and Palestinian—are subject to constant state surveillance, arbitrary arrests and government-run smear campaigns. Its educational system, starting in primary school, has become an indoctrination machine for the military. And the greed and corruption of its venal political and economic elite have created vast income disparities, a mirror of the decay within America’s democracy….

    …Its democracy—which was always exclusively for Jews—has been hijacked by extremists who are pushing the country toward fascism. Many of Israel’s most enlightened and educated citizens—1 million of them—have left the country. Its most courageous human rights campaigners, intellectuals and journalists—Israeli and Palestinian—are subject to constant state surveillance, arbitrary arrests and government-run smear campaigns. Its educational system, starting in primary school, has become an indoctrination machine for the military. And the greed and corruption of its venal political and economic elite have created vast income disparities, a mirror of the decay within America’s democracy….

  262. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    December 6, 2013 at 11:46 am

    Wow! People who support Israel’s Mandela, are very welcome to him and on behalf of Iran I would thank those supporters of his, may he continue in office in perpetuity.

    Why do you think Iran would accept something permanently that she would not accept even for six months in a period when the two sides are trying to boost one another’s “confidence?”

    Shared red lines are neither lines, nor red in color. See, Obama’s redline is the same as Ay. Khamenei’s redline: no nukes. This isn’t a recipe for conflict, it is grounds for agreement, which the two sides in fact are working out in increments.

  263. Fiorangela says:

    Sammy says:
    December 6, 2013 at 11:14 am

    you ruined my lunch.

  264. Karl.. says:

    Bibijon
    December 6, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    “Wow! People who support Israel’s Mandela, are very welcome to him and on behalf”

    Correct so why did you claim new elections was coming?

    “Why do you think Iran would accept something permanently”

    Thats the issue I have tried to tell you, Iran WONT accept such a permanent deal still you stupport the present deal which in the end will either lead to this bigger surrender or more sanctions.

    “Shared red lines are neither lines, nor red in color. ”
    Well since obama claim Iran build nukes they arent sharing any lines at all.

  265. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Did Iran Have to Give Up So Much to Get So Little?
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/did-iran-have-to-give-up-so-much-to-get-so-little/

    Interesting read, suggesting that Rouhani is more interested in the Iranian economy than Iran’s sovereignty and thus made diplomatic mistakes, and suggesting that the US is more interested in regime change “from within” than “from without.” I’m not sure about either of those, having no information to base an opinion on.

    I do doubt that “regime change” is the goal as compared to “regime degradation” militarily which is more profitable to the US military-industrial complex. So I think it’s unlikely that the US has shifted its goals to regime change from within, since as the Leveretts have said, that’s highly unlikely to happen, and it does nothing to remove Iran from being an influence in the region, which is the US (and Israeli) goal.

  266. Sammy says:

    Fiorangela says:
    December 6, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Utmost sorry Fiorangela , I just could not resist and this is a picture which was taken ‘preemptively’ before HIS referral to a ‘famous psychiatry’ in Den Haag.

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaholics.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2Fnetanyahu-3.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaholics.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F&docid=iclbSickaK2cCM&tbnid=2aH-gzLMmLuMVM%3A&w=908&h=611&ei=ShOiUpeRG9bnoAT4qoKICg&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

  267. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    December 5, 2013 at 9:32 am

    I certainly hope so. But the more you look at it, the more it looks like the deal Qaddafi made. During Qaddafi’s deal also, there was alot of talk about western corporations going in, making huge profits for the white man and his children, there was also talk about how the white man companies are going to dig oil out of the ground and how Libya is going to become an important oil supplier to white man and his house niggers and how the Libyans could buy more disposable, non-sensitive technological consumer products from the white man and such. The same talks, we are hearing about Iran now.

    The stupid Iranian oil minister yesterday was saying Iran wants to supply white man with as much oil as white man demands even lower than 20 dollars a barrel. He was begging white man to accept Iranian oil. He was extremely more desperate than Shah. Even Shah had never begged like that in 1953. It seems like they are ready to give up all nuclear works, all technologies, Iran’s oil and natural resources and even the revolution and Islam itself, in order for the white man to accept them as his dogs.

    I really hope you are right. But what my eyes see is really disappointing. Iran should be nuclear armed. Even a “nuclear capable” Iran is not enough anymore, if you ask me.

  268. Smith says:

    Karl,

    You are wasting your time with the house niggers. Let them suck. They have been waiting for this moment for 34 years now. American phallus with all its erect glory deep in their mouths. Let them “enjoy” it. They won’t stop until the load is discharged into their belly. More sanctions are coming. Let’s see how they will rationalize the taste of the coming load discharge to themselves. It is their pride to be suckers.

  269. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    You should be aware that China is the world’s largest importer of oil. Lower oil prices obviously would be a very good thing for China.

  270. James Canning says:

    R S Hack,

    Iran gave up very little of value, contrary to the assertions of Ismael Hossein-Zadeh that you just linked.

  271. James Canning says:

    Sammy,

    Christians, Muslims, and other non-Jews who are citizens of Israel and live in Israel, do have the vote. They of course are not allowed to enjoy most of the “power-positions” in the State.

  272. Sammy says:

    James Canning says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    ‘Iran gave up very little of value, contrary to the assertions of Ismael Hossein-Zadeh that you just linked…

    very ‘wise’ observation …

  273. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Obama felt free to negotiate with Iran, only after the 2012 elections in the US. And even at that, he of course was obliged to conceal the negotiations with Iran.

  274. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    You continue in effect to congratulate Gaddafi for what amounts to substantial incompetence in running Libya, after he made the deal to get rid of Libyan WMD. And you try to pretend Libya was not making considerable progress, with the reduction and removal of sanctions, despite incompetence on Gaddafi’s part.

  275. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    The US spends double, or more, on “defence” each year, than what is actually necessary. Tiny cuts Hagel proposes are much too small.

  276. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    If you are suggesting that Netanyahu wants to block any deal between P5+1 and Iran, in order to continue Israel’s abject failure to sign NPT and get rid of Israel’s nukes, I of course agree entirely.

  277. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    “R S Hack,

    Iran gave up very little of value, contrary to the assertions of Ismael Hossein-Zadeh that you just linked.”

    Even cheesy Goldberg agrees:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-05/reasons-for-optimism-in-iran-.html

  278. Bibijon says:

    News Flash!
    =========

    Barbra Slavin finally has discovered a poll she likes!

    http://www.lobelog.com/iranians-lukewarm-on-rouhani-oppose-syria-intervention-poll/

  279. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    My view is that Iran gains huge economic opportunities and gives up nothing of any real commercial value. Even if Iran closes Arak, Fordow, scraps or sells 15,000 centrifuges, etc etc.

  280. James Canning says:

    Karl..,

    To clarify your position, is it correct that you want Iran to continue to enrich uranium to 20% so Iran will continue to appear to have a possible nuclear weapons programme?

  281. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 6, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    “My view is that Iran gains huge economic opportunities and gives up nothing of any real commercial value. Even if Iran closes Arak, Fordow, scraps or sells 15,000 centrifuges, etc etc.”

    Yes, I am familiar with your views.

    However, it is a mistake to put a today’s snapshot commercial value on nuclear technology. These are long term investments and as such, they are priceless. To avoid future disappointment, you should stop putting meaningless dollar value on things that are not for sale, at any price.

    But, the story would be only half told if one didn’t mention good relations with P5+1 countries are also priceless and should not be bargained away easily.

  282. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    December 6, 2013 at 9:43 am

    The prices have nothing to do with with this. The prices go up even in the most slave nation doing all kind of slavery for the white man.

    Inflation in Iran is due to structural inefficiencies in Iran’s economic system. The economic system of Iran discourages job creation, entrepreneurship, innovation, investment in knowledge based companies, over production, etc etc. It encourages corruption, slavery, black marketeering, rent, lies, etc etc. To fix Iran’s economic problems, there must be brave and non-corrupt people capable of implementing structural reforms. The opposition to these reforms from mafias and extremely corrupt people specially in the brother cult run majles and judiciary is going to be tremendous. Even Ahmadinejad failed to cut through it.

    Within months, there will be huge disillusion and disappointment over this deal. After all 55 dollars is nothing. Ahmadinejad was wiring 45 dollars per month per person and the people still blamed him. This is dangerous for the revolution as people will start to ask what the mafias got from the white man in return for being in power and giving up so much. People are not going to see any difference in their economic well being and they are not stupid.

  283. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    December 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    This is a small deal and probably worth $ 55.

    The Axis Powers, USSR, and the Arabs taught Iran very bitter lessons during Iran-Iraq War.

    Iranians spent the next 20 years addressing the shortcomings of Iranian polity in military technology and organization.

    Axis Powers, India, China, and a number of others also taught Iran valuable but bitter lessons in economic warfare.

    I imagine it will take another 20 years or so for the Iranians to address the shortcomings of their economic capacity and organization.

    I think all these wars have only made Iranians stronger and, at the same time, even less pleasant or welcoming to foreign people; especially the Westerners.

    As it should be.

    Furthermore, these wars against Iran have exposed how Axis Powers will wage future wars and thus have given warnings to other international actors on how to protect themselves.

    Axis Powers have indeed paid a very high price to destroy the Shia Crescent and have failed.

  284. Rd. says:

    Karl.. says:

    Bibijon

    “Thats the issue I have tried to tell you, Iran WONT accept such a permanent deal still you stupport the present deal which in the end will either lead to this bigger surrender or more sanctions. “

    now I see what karl is all upset for… it is; AIPAC’S WATERLOO moment. have you been trying to promote aipac objectives with a back hand???

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/12/harper-aipacs-waterloo.html

  285. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Iran’s oil minister comprehends that Iran very much needs “western” technology and services, especially in the oil and gas sector of the economy. And Iran needs it sooner, rather than later. And not 20 years from now.

  286. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    December 6, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    Well, Life is tough, specially for Iranians.

  287. James Canning says:

    Bibojon,

    We both agree Iran needs access to western technology etc etc etc. And Iran needs a lessening of sanctions, and preferable an end to them. Viewed this way, the elements of a nuclear programme that are “lost”, are of no economic value comparatively speaking.

  288. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    Others may not be clear on where we seem to disagree. I think you believe Iran can keep Arak, Fordow, 20,000 centrifuges, etc etc? And still achieve a deal with P5+1?

  289. fyi says:

    All:

    Based on Internet sources:

    An enrichment plant designed to supply fuel for 2 nuclear power plants has the capacity to produce enough enriched uranium for 5 to 6 nuclear weapons a year.

    Likewise, spent fuel could be used for such productions.

    To some among the P5+1 it has become clear that what they desire in Iran is unreachable for them.

    The Mad King is still not so convinced – based on all evidence.

  290. Castellio says:

    RSH has already pointed to this article. I, too, urge that it be considered.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/did-iran-have-to-give-up-so-much-to-get-so-little/

    If the American capitalist class can “partner” with the emergent capitalist class in Iran, then it will be happy to do so. This is what is meant by Regime change from within. Arguably, it is the nature of that partnership which is being negotiated.

    I believe the Israelis were very aware of the ‘secret’ negotiations with the White House and Iran, and were aware of and accept the conditions of the deal. They are comfortable with it.

    The outstanding issue is Iranian support of Hezbollah and Syria. There will be no final agreement with Iran until it is clear that Iranian support for both is being withdrawn. These aspects will not be part of a “public” negotiation. The carrot will be the increasing business partnerships. The stick remains the sanctions and the further closing down of Iranian oil exports.

    Obama is acting upon his committment to deliver the neutralization of Iranian foreign policy while pushing its integration within the American economic empire, and to do so without war, if possible, but with war if necessary.

    When one truly grasps the integration of the israeli and American capitalist classes, especially within the financial services and military-industrial sectors (which are both enthusiastic supporters of Obama), one realizes that such a future is amenable to both the US and Israel.

    The US and Israel almost achieved complete control of the natural gas and oil reserves of Russia, but Putin led a popular movement (at the time it was extraordinarily popular) in a concerted effort to maintain some semblance of a Russian controlled economy.

    Will the US and Israeli elite find themselves with a substantial and growing “ownership position” within the Iranian economy in five years? Twenty years? (The elite of the US and Israel don’t care what religion the people of its partners might be. See Saudi Arabia as a prime example.)

    I am confidant that the Iranian leadership is aware of all this. How far they are willing to go along with it, I don’t know. Perhaps further than we currently imagine.

  291. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 6, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    “Others may not be clear on where we seem to disagree. I think you believe Iran can keep Arak, Fordow, 20,000 centrifuges, etc etc? And still achieve a deal with P5+1?”

    Yes, but not quite. Iran will keep 2xArak, Fordow, 50,000 centrifuges, etc etc. And still achieve a deal with P5+1 because of transparency, and because of limits on stock piles that on further enrichable.

    The alternative is exact same infrastructure without transparency or any limits on stockpiles. I cannot read P5+1’s minds, but I recommend they accept the former, and quit scare mongering and equating a nuclear power infrastructure with weapons production. Because, that fear mongering will eventually cause runaway proliferation in the region and beyond, forcing Iran to leave NPT.

  292. Bibijon says:

    Castellio says:
    December 6, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    It could be that Iran envisages the Chinese model, have foreign investments, and even ownership but under rather tight government control. Iran’s bonds with Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are best kept in tact from Western PoV, so it might not be such a sticking point.

    If Netanyahu, and co knew about this, then at least we know who’s going to get the Oscars next year.

  293. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    So, in your view, even if Arak, Fordow, etc incl 20,000 centrifuges have little economic value to Iran, Iran should insist on keeping them even if it means no deal with P5+1. Meaning all Iran’s oil exports would be stopped. And grave financial crisis would ensue.

  294. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 6, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    “So, in your view, even if Arak, Fordow, etc incl 20,000 centrifuges have little economic value to Iran”

    As I’ve tried to explain, it has incalculable developmental, scientific, and infrastructural value to Iran and Iranians.

    “Iran should insist on keeping them even if it means no deal with P5+1. Meaning all Iran’s oil exports would be stopped. And grave financial crisis would ensue.”

    Yes, and that a war then will be an inevitability, as would Iran’s exit from NPT.

  295. Castellio says:

    Bibijon at 5.45.

    An interesting observation. I am hoping that the Iranian government is working out some kind of policy for the country’s future in relation to the “partnerships” it intends to enter. Is anyone thinking that far ahead? (Does ‘Unknown Unknowns’ know?)

  296. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Karl,

    You are mistaken to think that the statements of some of the then reformists constitute a “confirmation from all sides”.

    Yes, Zarif and friends “wanted” to make a grand bargain- then and now- but that’s different than an an actual bargain happening or this having the backing of the Leader.

    As everyone- including Zarif and Rohani- says this matter is in the Leader’s jurisdiction.

    And nothing that the Leader has said or done indicates a “grand bargain”.

    In other words, stopping support for Palestinian and Lebanese resistance is never on the table. In fact Leader clearly announced that Iran’s policy is to support any individual, movement, country that is anti-Israel.

  297. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    kooshy-jan,

    Isn’t it interesting how those who are enamored by the west and western civilization and western education forget what we learned in western universities:

    Anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove a thing.

    M. Ali-jan,

    Remember controlling the womb of women of child-bearing age is a major goal of all sane, rational and healthy individuals, communities, societies and nations and Islam as the final and perfect program for the welfare of humans emphasizes this matter in particular.

    Only sick, insane and irrational individuals, communities, societies and nations would put the matter of procreation exclusively in the hands of young women of child bearing age.

    Don’t ever forget this, regardless of whatever propaganda you might hear to the contrary.

    In fact the great story of western civilization is how it gave women complete sovereignty over their wombs and thus sealed it’s own fate within 2 generations.

    The only way out for the west was immigration- in other words somebody somewhere is producing the babies who might than continue the German, English, Italian, American nations.

    Allowing women of child bearing age to exclusively control how many kids they have means a world of pensioners without enough young people to support them within 2-3 generations.

    Humanity needs more Islam and less western civilization in this regard.

  298. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Iran’s Hard-Liners Keep Their Criticism of Nuclear Pact to Themselves

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/world/middleeast/irans-hard-liners-keep-their-criticism-of-nuclear-pact-to-themselves.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0

    Our silence makes others crap their pants. See how that works…

  299. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    فتنه‌گران وقتی دیدند دوستان سابقشان پست گرفته‌اند، طلبکار شدند!/جمعیت میلیونی 9 دی فعلا خویشتنداری می‌کند/ اگر موفقیتی در مذاکرات بوده ثمره مقاومت مردم است

    http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=175537

    Ah yes, if we could now only translate “kheesh-tandari” into English?

  300. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Following Rouhani’s lead, Zarif “steps in it” domestically.

    Wow, only 3 months…I really thought Rouhani and Zarif could keep it together for 6 months-1 year but apparently shaitan really insisted…

    Wouldn’t let me post the link:

    به گزارش خبرنگار شبکه ایران محمد‌جواد ظریف وزیر امور خارجه کشورمان روز گذشته در جمع دانشجویان دانشگاه تهران در سالن علامه امینی کتابخانه مرکزی این دانشگاه حاضر شد و به تبیین فعالیت های وزارت خارجه در صد روز گذشته پرداخت.
    وی سخنان خود را با پاسخگویی به اظهارات اخیر نتانیاهو آغاز کرد و گفت: نتانیاهو با دروغ‌پردازی به دنبال از بین بردن انسجام داخلی کشورمان است و باید بداند این تلاش‌ها شکست خورده است.

    وی با اشاره به اینکه وزارت خارجه در شرایط دشواری قرار دارد افزود: سیاست خارجی عرصه کنش‌گری است و باید پیچیدگی‌های عرصه سیاست خارجی را بشناسیم. سیاست خارجی عرصه سپید یا سیاه نیست. روابط بین‌الملل طیفی از خاکستری است. همین موضوع مذاکره را کار سختی کرده است در حالی که بیانیه خواندن راحت است.

    وزیر امور خارجه کشورمان در ادامه تاکید کرد: ما در سیاست خارجی می‌توانیم روش بهتر را انتخاب کنیم و می‌توانیم با تصمیمات درست به سمت صلح و امنیت جهانی برویم و نباید با تصمیمات غلط مبنای امنیت بین‌المللی را بر ناامنی ناشی تسلیحات کشتار جمعی بگذاریم. نباید اجازه دهیم که به ما بگویند شرایط بین‌المللی این است و ما مجبوریم در سایه کابوس هسته‌یی زندگی کنیم.

    او با تاکید بر ضرورت خودباوری و دوری از خودبزرگ‌بینی و خود کوچک‌بینی گفت: ادعا نمی‌کنم کسانی که رهبر فرزانه انقلاب آنها را فرزند انقلاب نامیده‌اند از خطا مصون هستند؛ ما آنچه را که می‌توانیم انجام می‌دهیم. خودباوری سمت پیروزی در سیاست خارجی است. باور به مردم برای ما قدرت ایجاد می‌کند. وقتی این قدرت را باور کردیم، از مذاکره نمی‌ترسیم. آنهایی از مذاکره می‌ترسند که دچار خودکم‌بینی هستند و فکر می‌کنند ضعیف هستند و قدرت مردم را باور ندارند.

    وی افزود: رسیدن به تفاهم و راه‌حل نیازمند فکر، دقت، ابتکار و از همه مهمتر شجاعت است اما بیانیه خواندن شجاعت نیاز ندارد. آن‌هایی از مذاکره می‌ترسند که آمریکا و رژیم صهیونیستی را ابر قدرت می‌دانند و فکر می‌کنند در مقابل آمریکا نمی‌شود ایستادگی کرد.

    وی با اشاره به اینکه شرایط تحریم وضعیت دشواری را بر مردم تحمیل کرده تصریح کرد: باید احترام، امنیت و اقتدار به ایران و ایرانی را بازگردانیم. ایران باید یک‌بار دیگر به‌عنوان خاستگاه تمدن، مدارا و گفت‌وگو در دنیا شناخته شود.

    ظریف در ادامه گفت: همه شما ممکن است انتقادهایی به وضع موجود داشته باشید؛ این طبیعی است اما اگر به مجموعه شرایط و به این موج عظیم مردمی نگاه شود همه چیز مشخص می‌شود. با وجود تمام تلخ‌کامی‌ها، ناروایی‌ها و فشارها و سختی‌های اقتصادی این مردم به پای صندوق رای رفتند و با حضور 73 درصدی خود آینده خود را تغییر داده و اجازه ندادند کسی برای آن‌ها تصمیم بگیرد. این بزرگ‌ترین عامل نهادینه دمکراسی است. مردم ما قدرت ما هستتند.

    وی تصریح کرد که راه دشواری در پیش است و این راه نیاز به فداکاری دارد و ضمن اشاره به وظایف دانشجوبان افزود: توان دیگر جمهوری اسلامی ایران خود باوری ماست. ما باید خودمان را باور کنیم و با این جمعیت دانشجوی نخبه این توان را می‌توانیم داشته باشیم. اهداف آرمانی قدرت آفرین است. آرمان عین منافع ملی ماست. بدون آرمان ایران تبدیل به یک کشور معمولی می‌شود. اکنون سوال این است آیا سلاح هسته‌یی قدرت می‌آورد؟ آیا ایران قدرتمند است یا همسایه‌ی ما که سلاح هسته‌یی دارد؟

    وی اضافه کرد: سیاست خارجی ما دعوای جناحی نیست. سیاست خارجی ما مچ گیری نیست؛ بلکه حوزه اجماع داخلی است. با تقویت اجماع داخلی می‌توانیم سیاست‌خارجی را هدایت و حمایت کنیم. بدون اجماع داخلی سیاست خارجی پوسته‌ای از شعارهاست. در حوزه‌ی سیاست خارجی باید دعواها را کنار بگذاریم و همدلی را جایگزین کنیم. سیاست خارجی نمی‌تواند بر اساس انگاره‌ها، بزرگ‌بینی‌ها و کم بینی‌ها شکل بگیرد بلکه باید بر اساس واقع بینی و توان جمهوری اسلامی شکل بگیرد. باید از تخریب ظرفیت‌ها و تخلیه استراتژیک ایران جلوگیری کنیم. باید احترام و اقتدار را به ایران بازگردانیم.

    رئیس دستگاه دیپلماسی کشورمان ضمن واکنش دوباره به سخنان صهیونیست ها درباره پروژه ایران هراسی افزود: سلاح هسته‌ ای برای امنیت ما مضر است؛ ما سلاح نمی‌خواهیم؛ سلاح هسته‌ایی نه می‌تواند بازدارندگی و نه امنیت و نه پایداری برای حکومت ایجاد کند و جز خطر و نگرانی برای ما چیز دیگری ندارد. اما دنیا باید بفهمد که نمی‌گذاریم برای ما تصمیم بگیرد. نتانیاهو باید به این درک برسد و از توهم های همیشگی خود که منشأ جنگ است خارج شود. برخی جوانان ما با امکانات و ظرفیت‌های داخلی با وجود فشارهای کشورهای خارجی و تحریم‌ها توانستند یک دانش علمی را نهادینه کنند. این عامل اقتدار ماست. ما باید همزمان اجازه دهیم که دیگران از این اقتدار علمی استفاده کنند و نباید بگذاریم که برخی مانند رژیم صهیونیستی چهره‌ی ایران را مخدوش کنند. ما باید این بهانه را از صهیونیست‌ها و همراهان افراطی آن‌ها بگیریم. زیرا آن‌ها آینده‌شان را در جنگ، تنش و تشنج می‌بینند. از این طریق می‌توانند بر ظلم و تهدید و فشار ادامه دهند. امروز ما این بهانه را از دست نتانیاهو گرفته‌ایم و از این به بعد هم اجازه نخواهیم داد در بحث مذاکرات ایران با جامعه جهانی دخالت کند.

    وی در ادامه به برخی اظهارات رسانه‌های داخلی در حاشیه توافقات هسته ای ایران و 1+5 واکنش نشان داد و گفت: اجازه ندهید دنیا برای ما تصمیم بگیرد وخط فکری ایجاد کنند و با دروغ پردازی‌ها اجماع داخلی را از بین ببرند. برخی در داخل “فکت شیت” کاخ سفید را مبنای توافق هسته‌ای قرار می‌دهند. ولی به برنامه‌ی اقدام مشترک اعلام شده از طریق سایت رسمی کشور اهمیت نمی‌دهند. چرا سایت‌های ما که ادعای حزب‌اللهی بودن می‌کنند از سایت دبکای اسراییلی که عامل پخش اطلاعات غلط است نقل قول می‌کنند اما وزیر خارجه را باور نمی‌کنند.

    ظریف رسانه ها را به انصاف دعوت کرد و افزود:‌ دوستان ما چرا اجازه می‌دهند که رسانه‌های اسراییلی درباره‌ آینده مذاکرات صحبت کنند. نتانیاهو با مظلوم نمایی چندین دهه است که کلاه بر سر دنیا گذاشته است. اما اکنون وامانده است و نمی‌داند چه کار کند و به دروغ پراکنی ادامه می‌دهد تا بتواند انسجام ما را بر هم زند. اما من می‌گویم که این انسجام پابرجاست. رسانه ها سخنان نتانیاهو را تکرار نکنند.

    وی در ادامه گفت: شخصیت ما به خاطر نمایندگی مردم بزرگ ایران است. ما اجازه نمی‌دهیم که در مذاکرات به ما توهین کنند. امیدواریم که دوستان ایرانی و داخلی این مساله را قبول کنند و نگویند که طرف مقابل به ما توهین کرده و مذاکره‌کنندگان ایران تنها جان سالم به دربرده‌اند. ما بیش از هر چیز در این مسیر نیاز به همدلی داریم. ما نیاز داریم که جلوتر از رهبری حرکت نکنیم و اگر ادعای پیروی از رهبری داریم باید پشت ایشان حرکت کنیم. نقد سازنده، هدایت و راهنمایی، هم ضروری است و هم ضرورت نشاط دانشگاهی است.

    وزیر امور خارجه در پاسخ به سوالات مشترک نمایندگان بسیج دانشجویی، انجمن اسلامی مستقل و جامعه اسلامی دانشجویان که انتقاداتی به توافقنامه ژنو داشتند گفت: غربی‌ها از چهار تا تانک و موشک ما نمی‌ترسند بلکه از مردم ایران می‌ترسند. آیا شما فکر می‌کنید که آمریکا نمی‌تواند سیستم دفاعی ما را از کار بیندازد؟ واقعا شما فکر می‌کنید که آمریکا از سیستم نظامی ما می‌ترسد. در کدام سند و طبق چه گفته‌‌ای شما ادعا می‌کنید که آمریکا می‌تواند به سیستم دفاعی ما ورود پیدا کند و آن را کنترل کند؟ چرا شما اشاره نمی‌کنید به این موضوع که جان‌کری گفت هیچ وقت در عمرم شخصی مانند شما با این تلخی با من صحبت نکرده است. ما در مقابل خارجی‌ها می‌گوییم که به شما اعتماد نداریم اما شما چرا از طرف خارجی‌ها حرف می‌زنید؟ از نصیحت های شما سپاسگزارم اما واقعیت این است که ما به مذاکره نرفته، برخی دوستان اعلام شکست مذاکره کردند. من حاضرم فشار داخلی را تحمل کنم اما موضع مذاکراتی‌ام را از دست ندهم. در مقابل طرف غربی می‌ایستم اما شما به نفع طرف غربی صحبت نکنید. شما در تهران نگویید جمله‌ای که می‌گوید غنی‌سازی آیا به معنی این است که در فردو باشد یا نطنز یا اراک، داخل خاک ایران است یا خارج ایران. همه‌ی دنیا که پذیرفته است غنی‌سازی باید در داخل خاک ایران باشد. چرا آتش به دست دشمن می‌دهید که دشمن می‌تواند از آن استفاده کند؟ این چه کمکی به امنیت ملی می‌کند؟ آیا برای غنی‌سازی خارج از ایران محدوده و تعداد سانتریفیوژ می‌گذارند؟ چرا آب به آسیاب دشمن می‌ریزید؟ چرا اجازه می‌دهید آن‌ها بتوانند به روزنامه‌ی ایرانی استناد کنند؟ آیا این در جهت امنیت ملی است؟ چرا به سخنان کاخ سفید استناد می کنید؟

    وی با تأکید بر اینکه چنین اظهارنظرهایی برای من بسیار دردناک است، گفت: برای من بسیار دردناک است که این حرف‌ها را بزنم اما زمانی که از نیویورک و ژنو برگشتم از همه دولت‌ها تشکر کردم اما بنا نداریم مشاهده کنیم افرادی که حقوق و آبروی خود را گذاشتند تا مذاکرات به نتیجه برسد تا پول‌مان را باز پس بگیریم که اینگونه با آنها برخورد شود. ما پول نفت کشورمان را که به دلیل سیاست‌های غلط و ندانم‌کاری در اختیار غربی‌ها قرار گرفت پس می‌گیریم.

    وی در ادامه پاسخ های خود گفت: دوستان ما هم بلدیم مغلطه کنیم اما خواستیم به صورت منطقی بر اساس واقعیت بگوییم که در دو جای این تفاهم‌نامه بندهایی قرار داده شده است که هیچ راهی برای فرار از غنی‌سازی باقی نگذاشته است.

    وی در قسمت دیگری از سخنان خود گفت: مذاکره در اتاق مذاکره صورت می‌گیرد و نتیجه مذاکره را من به اطلاع همه رساندم. ما اعتقاد داریم خدا همه زمان مذاکره را ضبط کرده و ما با این اعتقاد بر سر میز مذاکره با 1+5 نشستیم. مذاکره برای به دست آوردن منافع بیشتر برای کشور است. در غیر اینصورت می‌توانستم برای دریافت سوت و کف بیشتر از حال کارهای زیادی انجام دهم.

    وی با تأکید بر حقوق ملت ایران گفت: اطمینان می‌دهیم که ذره‌ای از حقوق ملت در این مذاکرات ضایع نشده اما مذاکره باید با هر قیمتی معنا پیدا کند. مذاکره‌ای که برای رادیو و تلویزیون و برای جلب سوت و کف قرار باشد به جایی نمی‌رسد و ما تازه در ابتدای کار هستیم.

    وی گفت: جدولی ترسیم کرده‌ام که چه چیزهایی را در مذاکره دادیم و چه چیزهایی از مذاکره گرفتیم و آنچه گرفتیم صدقه نیست و این مطلب را بنده در میز مذاکره مطرح کردم اما درباره نحوه حرف زدن آنها با ما نمی‌دانم که در غرب در گذشته چه شرایطی به وجود آمد که آنها با ما اینگونه حرف بزنند اما بنده تلاش می‌کنم که شرایط را به حالت عادی برگردانم و از همه شما می‌خواهم که صمیمانه و با اتحاد تلاش کنیم منافع ملی‌ را برگردانیم.

    وی با تشکر از انتقادات مختلف گفت: از همه افرادی که از بنده انتقاد می‌کنند ممنونم اما حواس همه باشد که بدانیم این انتقادها به نفع کیست. همه‌ی ما دل در گرو این آب و خاک داریم، حاضرم فشار داخلی را تحمل کنم اما شما به نفع طرف غربی صحبت نکنید. اگر من عصبانی شدم عذرخواهی می‌کنم. قصد چنین کاری را نداشتم. کار دشواری به روی دوش ما گذاشته شده است. ما نیاز به کمک تک تک مردم ایران داریم تا بتوانیم این کار را پیش ببریم.

    وی در پایان گفت: ما سند مذاکره را در اختیار تیم مذاکره کننده غربی گذاشتیم اما اینقدر خیال‌مان راحت بود که در شرایط فعلی با قلدرترین آدم‌های دنیا می‌توانیم بحث کنیم. بنده قول می‌دهم تا با یاری خدا به منافع ملی کشور دست پیدا کنیم.

  301. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    Of course did the grande baragain had the backing from SL.
    I dont say its good or bad but in the end Iran must decide whats good for Iran itself.

  302. Sammy says:

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/12/07/338645/saudis-plan-major-offensive-against-syria/

    ‘Saudis plan major offensive against Syria’

    …This new Islamic Front charter calls for the establishment of an Islamic state under “Shariah law.” No surprise there. Minorities would be tolerated… code for getting the Palestinian treatment. It is basically your normal religious cover for the Saudi Royal family expanding its domain to the Mediterranean and getting the longed-for pipeline insurance to not have Iran sitting astride their Strait of Hormuz doorway for exports.

    One has to ask now if all of the sudden friendliness to Iran is just a ploy to neutralize them, and planting a wedge that maybe a sellout of Syria is part of a sanctions resolution game for Iran by the West. This would be a typical psyops ploy to run between those with long-term suspicions of each other.

  303. M. Ali says:

    “Around 178 states voted in favor of Jordan,”

    What exactly were the choices? 178 states thought that Jordan was a good choice?

  304. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Karl,

    You are mistaken about 2003 so-called grand bargain. Then like now it’s about testing the opposite side.

    And the opposite could not and can not deliver a “grand bargain”- contrary to the hype.

    What’s “good for Iran” is not hoping for “grand bargains” and the like.

  305. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    Yes of course they tested the other side and if the other side had grasped it, it could have led to something big.

    M. Ali

    Strange indeed, not sure what the election was about, only a vote about Jordan yes or no?

  306. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    And of course…Zarif has to eat his own words:

    “America fears Iranian peoples’ resistance/Proud of nation’s basiji defense capabilities…”

    http://farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13920916001116

    This is gonna be fun to watch over the next 4 years…if he makes it to the end of the first term.

  307. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Karl,

    The point is that the other side can never “grasp it”…as Wendy Sherman would say, “it’s in their DNA”.

  308. Fiorangela says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:40 am

    I take your statement about the importance of women in sustaining the growth of a nation as a concession that men are irrelevant in reproduction, as in most other things.

  309. Karl.. says:

    Here we go again..

    When Iran show it want peace, US arm the neighbours even more!
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579241953247889632

  310. Photi says:

    re: Duncan Hunter

    if i were an Iranian living in Iran though, i would find it hard to dismiss the talk of Hunter as the rhetoric and bluster of an idiot or madman. hunter supports more sanctions, more sanctions are intended to derail the negotiation process, a failure of the negotiation process will certainly escalate the conflict, inching the US ever closer to the tipping point of war with Iran. and this is exactly what congressmen like hunter want to achieve, they want to reach the tipping point where war with Iran is inevitable. and US Representative Duncan Hunter says when we get to that point we need to nuke the Iranians to set them back decades.

    To what extent does this man speak for the GOP? To what extent does he represent the viewpoints of military professionals in the US? To what extent does Representative Duncan Hunter, in his support for more sanctions, speak for the 76 US Senators who recently signed a letter in support of more sanctions? “More sanctions” are intended to derail the negotiations to make war inevitable, Duncan Hunter wants that war escalated to nuclear from the start, do the 76 US senators who support more sanctions also support this degree of escalation? Do these 76 US senators take nuclear war off the table or do they quietly back Duncan Hunter? If i were an Iranian i would want to know all that. Hell, i am an american and want to know all that. And we think Iran would be irresponsible with the bomb?

  311. Fiorangela says:

    This morning C Span Washington Journal hosted Robert Zarate, Juan Zarate’s chubby little bro. He carried water for Israel/William Kristol/Robert Kagan. How smart — or desperate — must someone be appear in public to recite the talking points of a gang that has been consistently and homicidally wrong for over 20 years?

    Nevertheless, Zarate recited his Iran-is-bad talking points, but some callers raised a ruckus: “‘Fer chrissakes, why do you keep putting these zionists on; how about some objectivity?”

    The C Span host was flustered, but Zarate-at-the-ready padded out the generic “we’ve presented other viewpoints” rejoinder to the complaint: “C Span had Trita Parsi on, the day after the DEAL was announced.”

    Well, yes, Parsi did spend 41 minutes at Washington Journal’s table on Nov. 25, 2013. Parsi was also recorded by C Span on two other occasions in 2013, for a total of three C Span appearances in 2013.

    Patrick Clawson was also on C Span on three occasions in 2013, the same number of Iran-related appearances as Benjamin Netanyahu, Barbara Slavin, and Ray Takeyh.

    When “Iran” was the topic, WINEP was recorded talking about it on SEVENTEEN occasions in 2013.

    William Kristol appeared on C Span FIVE times in 2013, which is the same as the number of Saban Center events that C Span covered in that time period.

    Robert Kagan made only one appearance on C Span in 2013, the same number of 2013 appearances as Robin Wright, Susan Rice, Susan Glasser, Suzanne Maloney, Ken Pollack, and Flynt and Hillary Leverett. Glasser’s Iran-related appearance was in addition to two other appearances on C Span in the past year.

    In other words, C Span, CAMERA is not the only shutterbug that’s keeping an eye on you.

  312. Photi says:

    That’s some great data Fiorangela, thanks:)

    Fiorangela says:
    December 7, 2013 at 11:02 am

  313. Fiorangela says:

    With respect, Photi, the Salon piece on Duncan Hunter was pablum, and the comments were little more than ill-informed gutter-sniping.

    The terrifying reality of Duncan Hunter has two essential ingredients; one is examined by historian Thomas Fleming in “A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War,” and the other element is summed up in a comment made by Sanho Tree in a conversation with Prof. John Dower, author of “Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima; 9/11, Iraq.” http://c-spanvideo.org/program/Dower

    Dower has devoted much of his academic life to study of Japan before and after the war. As the title of his book suggests, he was struck by the use of terms such as “ground zero” and “a new Pearl Harbor” to describe the 9/11 attacks, and sought to explore the parallel of the US response to Pearl Harbor to the implications of a US response to 9/11.

    Tree is also a scholar and historian, and a member of the Institute for Policy Studies.

    Dower had just explained that the Allies bombed German and Japanese cities, resulting in the deaths of 400,000 to 600,000 civilians in each nation, for a total of about a million civilians killed by Allied bombing, “culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki”

    Dower continued, “Had I been living at the time I have no reason to believe I would have supported that.”

    Therefore, Dower continued, “When we suddenly hear that terror bombing is something peculiar to an alien culture; that it’s THOSE people who don’t respect individuals, but we do; that they have different standards, then I think that’s where we really have to start asking deeper questions.” (@ 20 min)

    Dower reflects the “disease in the public mind” that Thomas Fleming argues is a malevolent element in the way Americans wage war: in the US, we wage war by first engendering deep and dehumanizing hatred of the Other. Dower implicitly recognized that he would have been caught up in that hatred, that, although he did not elaborate on the means by which it was spread, was actually the intentional outcome of a media and public policy campaign managed by FDR’s administration in the run-up to- and prosecution of- the wars against Germany and Japan.

    In a putative democracy, the masses are expected to give their assent to war; therefore, the masses must be “educated” (a term used by Lynne Olson in “Those Angry Days”) to understand the necessity of war. Twentieth century wars have been total wars inasmuch as the total population has been involved in the hatred propelling the war, and also as victims of that hatred, as Dower mentioned.

    (As I noted earlier, in my view, C Span is as guilty as every other media outlet in participating in engendering hatred of the Other.)

    Sanho Tree moves the exploration from how publics — i.e. Dower himself — are caught up in the quest to kill, to an examination of how soldiers are engineered to kill. He said:

    “To take an 18-year old, whether it’s a US, or Japanese, or German, or Chinese, and be able to turn that 18-year old into someone who is capable of doing really horrific things to strangers for reasons of state, is a very unnatural act. It takes a lot of conditioning. So there’s a lot of dehumanization that goes on, both of the perpetrator as well as the victim.

    And I think this carries over — In order to do these things you have to dehumanize, but if you dehumanize you can’t really get into the mindset of your adversary. And if you can’t get into their mindset you can’t get into what’s motivating them. If you can’t understand what’s motivating them [or if you deliberately lie about what’s motivating them -ed.] you can’t get them to stop doing what it is you want them to stop doing in the first place.

    And so could you talk about that misunderestimation . . . of the motivation of the adversary, and how that impacts the war, not just World War II but the wars in Iraq post-9/11, the whole way we approach our adversaries, that mentality.”

    Duncan Hunter was a U.S. soldier who fought in Iraq and more specifically, in Fallujah, where the US did truly horrific things, rising to the destructive level of the firebombings of Germany and Japan and the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Duncan Hunter has been conditioned to hate and trained to kill. It is what his psyche knows to do.

    Max Hastings has been hailed by the British monarch as England’s preeminent historian. Hastings has written that the U.S. military in World War II was a gentlemanly force, not brutal like the Russians, and not disciplined, like the Germans. The USA’s World War II army was a draft force; they were scarcely trained at all, and “conditioned hatred” would have been picked up from the general public, where “hatred of the Hun” was the work of Hollywood movies and the nation’s most prominent magazines and journalists.

    US now has a professional army, professionally conditioned to hate, and trained to kill and destroy — observe former soldier, now US Congressman Mike Rogers to see the residue of hate/kill/destroy in his policy prescriptions.

    Duncan Hunter is a trained killer, conditioned, perhaps over-conditioned, to so hate the Other that whatever means of killing or destroying him is legitimate, in his conditioned frame of mind. As Dr. Tree explained, the cycle of hate makes it impossible for Hunter to understand the other.

    HUNTER IS NOT an anomaly. He is but one of tens of thousands of young men and women that the United States has dehumanized, in the process of dehumanizing others.

    But it gets worse.

    It doesn’t take very close observation of Hunter’s comments on the C Span program on Dec. 4, 2013 to notice that he has an issue with lying. He charges that “Iranians lie,” they lie all the time. Hunter also defended the Bush administration against the charge that it lied in order to drive the US to war against Iraq — a war in which Hunter participated.

    I’m not a psychologist, but interpreting some displays of human nature are just common sense: Hunter knows he was lied to; he cannot bear to believe his own leaders, whom he was drilled to obey and respect, would lie to him, so the lying must have come from someplace else — the Other, the enemy. Iran.

    Once again, Hunter’s response to being lied to is not unique and is not an anomaly. In an appearance at Politics and Prose, a popular Washington, DC bookstore, Jeremy Ben Ami was asked by the man who teaches Ben Ami’s children in a Hebrew day school, “How should we teach the children about the Israel-Palestine conflict?”

    Ben Ami said, “We have to tell them the truth. If we do not, they will find out, and then there will be resentment.”

    When warriors are lied to, Ron Suskind noted in a recent book, “they have been known to storm the castle.”

    Duncan Hunter is a thunderstorm in search of a castle to destroy.

  314. Sammy says:

    Nice news :

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/sunni-woman-first-iran-mayor.html

    ‘Samiyeh Balochzehi, 26, was elected mayor of Kalat in Sistan-Baluchistan, an unprecedented event in one of Iran’s most conservative provinces. She is an engineer with a master’s degree in natural resources management. (photo by Asrehamoon)

    Baluchi Sunni woman elected mayor is first for Iran

    The election of the first Baluchi woman last week as the mayor of Kalat, a city in the south of Iran, was an unprecedented event in one of the most underprivileged and conservative provinces in Iran. It is a significant step which local experts believe that can inspire Baluchi women to work for more rights and break boundaries that have been created by both the state and society….

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/sunni-woman-first-iran-mayor.html#ixzz2moMF3Tke

  315. Bibijon says:

    James,

    “when [1,205 Iranian adults were] asked whether maintaining the right to advance a nuclear program is worth the price being paid in sanctions and isolation” 96 percent agree that it is worth the price.”

    In other respects, Iranians seem remarkably identical to Americans in their political views.

    See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/what-iranians-think_b_4403946.html

  316. Fiorangela says:

    re: Fiorangela says:
    December 7, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    correction:

    “Dower continued, “Had I been living at the time I have no reason to believe I would have supported that.”

    should be:

    “Dower continued, “Had I been living at the time I have no reason NOT to believe I would have supported that.”

  317. Don Bacon says:

    @Fiorangels
    HUNTER IS NOT an anomaly. He is but one of tens of thousands of young men and women that the United States has dehumanized, in the process of dehumanizing others.

    Are you meaning to suggest that other countries, e.g. Iran, have no Duncan Hunters?
    Or is it only in Americans’ DNA.

  318. Fiorangela says:

    Don Bacon says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Read more carefully, Don Bacon.

    The hate that Duncan Hunter exhibits is taught, trained, conditioned, not inherent, as in “DNA,” whatever the hell is meant by slinging about that latest buzzword.

    When is the last time Iran propagandized its population in order to engender sufficient hatred of the Other to attack another country?

  319. Don Bacon says:

    news report
    Congressional opposition to the recently announced nuclear accord with Iran reached a critical tipping point this week as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle publicly lambasted the deal while pushing for tighter economic sanctions on Tehran.//

    To recap, H.R. 850 was passed by the US House in July, and a companion bill might be considered in the Senate. Supposedly this bill, if passed, would require the president to stop all Iran oil export. Personally, I can’t find that in the House bill — you take a look. WARNING: There is a lot of (probably AIPAC-written) garbage in the bill. Also: I’ve had these links to Thomas expire in the past, in which case you’d have to look it up yourself at Thomas.loc.gov — “H.R. 850 passed by House”.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:3:./temp/~c113riK01t::

  320. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    Yes, Iran should have a domestic nuclear power programme. Financial Times report today suggests Israel will accept it, including limited enrichment to low levels to fule nuclear power plants. Do you think mos Iranians would support an effort to be able to build nukes quickly, even if this means no oil exports and grave financial crisis?

  321. Don Bacon says:

    @Fiorangela
    When is the last time Iran propagandized its population in order to engender sufficient hatred of the Other to attack another country?

    You tell me when anti-American propaganda was last promoted in Iran, if you have the answer. Actually, I doubt that anyone can say when was the last time it was promoted.

  322. Don Bacon says:

    Don Bacon says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Yes, the Thomas link above timed out. I believe it’s really the beat place to find the bill, if you care to make the effort to do it.

  323. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    Duncan Hunter’s problem is simply that he is unable to comprehend how the US could destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, without occupying Iran and without using tactical nukes. And, of course, he claims the “radical extremist Muslims” who “drive” Iran’s government, are much more dangerous than the clique that rules North Korea.

    Congressman Hunter, of course, is also a fool.

  324. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    One might wonder if Duncan Hunter is only pretending to be such an idiot as to advocaste hitting Iran with nukes.

  325. Fiorangela says:

    Don Bacon says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    there’s a difference between shouts of protest/resistance and conditioning for aggression.

    The US had NO stake in WWI, yet government agencies whipped up hatred of Germans in order to engender enough fighting spirit to gain the public’s acquiescence to war.

    The US had NO stake in WWII (pre-Peral Harbor, which might have been a provoked event), yet US government agencies and its helpers in media whipped up hatred of Germans AND Japanese, invoking fear that the Hun would attack the USA, in order to fire up sufficient fear and hatred to gain the public’s acquiescence to war.

    Iran is quite a different case. In many ways, Iranian cries of “Down with America” is an expression of impotence, but certainly of resistance. Iran IS being preyed upon by the US and by Israel. The human animal cries out when it is being harmed. That is entirely different from conditioning a human being to do something unnatural: Kill a stranger for state purposes. (btw, I’m told that the Farsi for “Death to America” is the same as “Down with America.” There are not two different ways to say it.)

  326. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    “One might wonder if an assassin is only pretending to be such an idiot as to advocaste killing an elected leader,” but his act would still be a crime, idiotic or not.

    United Nations Charter, Purposes and Principles

    Article 2. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

  327. Fiorangela says:

    Don Bacon says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Won’t the US side be in breach of the agreement if additional sanctions are imposed on Iran over the course of the interim deal?

  328. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    US Congress is not likely to try to impose further sanctions against Iran, while the deal is pending. Some Aipac stooges will press for them, but success is unlikely.

  329. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    “Yes, Iran should have a domestic nuclear power programme. Financial Times report today suggests Israel will accept it, including limited enrichment to low levels to fule nuclear power plants. Do you think mos Iranians would support an effort to be able to build nukes quickly, even if this means no oil exports and grave financial crisis?”

    James, I am not shocked to see you persist at your usual line of argument. Also, don’t be surprised if I tell you that according to Zogby’s polling, Iranians, with near unanimity don’t care what anybody else thinks, if what they think is unreasonable, hypocritical or shamelessly consistent with shameful racist, colonial mindsets.

    As to the ability to make weapons, and quickly so, this theoretical capability is a natural byproduct of any nuclear fuel cycle technology that is beyond laboratory scale. It is not possible to fuel one, let alone 10 or 20 NPPs without thereby having the capacity to also make bombs. It is in essence the same thing as saying if you can produce a million cars a day, you could in theory convert all that production capacity to make tanks and then invade Iraq. Don’t get me wrong. I know for you and quite a lot of people that kind of reasoning appears perfectly, self-referentially logical. But, the point is for 96% of ordinary Iranians, it is nonsense. Such disagreements could be settled by coercion, except that in opinion polls, and in their actions Iranians have shown they shall not be coerced. The only choices left are:

    a) Stop scaring yourself into a paranoid schizophrenic. Accept Iran’s assurances through inspections, etc.

    b) Have a war.

    This has been under discussion for over a decade. For me at least it is settled. It is either war, or live at peace with the reality, and let the absence of evidence of wrong-doing be of comfort to your anguished mind.

  330. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    As I said, Duncan Hunter is an idiot. Or, a calculating liar. Both?

  331. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    I am not “scaring myself”. I simply am stating what deal I think is available, speaking about the “real world”.

    I think Iran has the choice of the limited nuclear programme, or no programme.

  332. Don Bacon says:

    The US administration admonishes the Congress that if the US now imposes additional sanctions, it will derail the negotiating process and give Iran a reason to disregard the agreement. (Dan Joyner has said that the agreement is not a legally binding document, I believe.)

    But of course sanctions might have a wider effect. How would the other five powers react to this slap in the face? Would they just take it?

    And there are other events going on in the commercial and diplomatic sectors. What would happen to them?

    There seem to be two main commerce areas that may open soon for EU countries as a result of the six power – Iran agreement.
    –oil — Shipping companies and insurance, several countries, and possibly foreign investment under some scheme involving say Royal dutch Shell and/or FINA.
    -autos — Here we’re talking France, which is in dire economic straits under Hollande, the friend of Israel/KSA who was the devil of the agreement talks. Peugeot & Renault, also in dire financial conditions, badly want to get back into Iran with its huge pent-up demand for cars.

    The potential movement of large corporations (back) into Iran would make other (political, legal) issues largely irrelevant if it in fact happened.

    There are also diplomatic changes taking place in the region. There is also movement in the Gulf, with Zarif visiting Qatar recently. Iran and Qatar co-own a huge gas field, and gas is badly needed in Europe and Pakistan.

    What would be the effect on all these? We don’t know. If the US administration can restrain the Congress for awhile, there could be some irreversible done deals.

    The target US House adjournment for holidays is Dec 13, the Senate to be determined. The House plans to reconvene Jan 7, Senate Jan 6.

  333. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    December 7, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    I wouldn’t bet the farm on Congress not acting to sabotage the Iran deal.

    re Hunter: I believe he is a very sick man, a damaged human being. Such a one would call for compassion, but he is in a position to make life-or-death decisions impacting many people. I think he should be removed from his post in Congress.

  334. Don Bacon says:

    There’s a world full of damaged human beings, including the US. It’s just been revealed that there are 700,000 US military veterans (AKA heroes) in prisons and jails. That’s within the two million total Americans who are current guests of the US prison industry.

  335. Fiorangela says:

    Don Bacon, the US is supposed to be the smartest most mostest place on the planet.

    If there are 700,000 military members in jail, wouldn’t an enlightened society attempt to figure out some common elements that got them there?

    And should the American people put up with being led by such a damaged human being? Would you hire one of these persons to babysit for your granddaughter? If not, why would you trust them to make life-or-death decisions that will affect your life, your children’s lives, your granddaughter’s life?

    But I’ll go a step further — ours is a sick culture — only a sick culture would deliberately condition thousands of men to kill, when they have no real need to have enemies. Having enemies is a choice, and almost every battle the US has fought since early in the 18th century has been a war of choice — the conflicts could have been settled in other ways — Thomas Fleming makes the argument that even the Civil War could have been settled nonviolently — every other nation had renounced slavery without warfare — but in the US, propaganda that demonized the Other fanned the flames of hate, and men could not extricate themselves from the spiral of hate that Sanho Tree described.

  336. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 7, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    “I think Iran has the choice of the limited nuclear programme, or no programme.”

    10 years of threats by Israel, UK, France and Israel haven’t worked so far. Maybe a cheap threat from you is what Iran was waiting for to capitulate. I doubt it though.

  337. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    I am not “threatening Iran”, and I much prefer no threats against Iran be made. But there seems ZERO chance France would accept Arak’s completion as a heavy-water reactor. Or that France would accept Iranian retention of more than a few thousand centrifuges. And those facilities have very little economic value for Iran, in context of no deal with P5+1.

  338. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Pakistan’s energy problems are actually a longer-term serious social problem for Iran, if one expects the overpopulation of Pakistan – – due partly to poverty – – to lead to migration to Iran of many millions of Sunni Muslims. In decades to come.

  339. James Canning says:

    Fiorangela,

    The American Civil War very much was an UNNECESSARY and avoidable war. Sadly, fanaticism on the part of some of the abolitionists did a great deal to bring the catastrophe down on the heads of the people of the country.

    War of 1812 of course was entirely avoidable. As was the Spanish-American War. And, in my view, the Revolutionary War.

  340. Bibijon says:

    James Canning says:
    December 7, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    James, given no other choices, I am very confident France will learn to live with whatever reality/inevitability. French is a very rich language, they’ll find a graceful way to back out of their initial bargaining position.

    I would appreciate your not conveying other people’s threats so frequently. Thanks in advance.

  341. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Sammy-jan,

    Thanks for posting the story.

    Some people on this forum think that the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a “disaster”- especially for the women of north Tehran because they have to put a rag on their head which goes against there innate “human dignity”.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to compare and contrast the story of Ms.Balochzehi in Baluchistan of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the story of women in Baluchistan of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan- were female literacy is less than 10%.

    It’s like the good doctor from Mississippi said about rural healthcare in Iran: it’s a “miracle” and should be used as a model for rural healthcare in US.

  342. James Canning says:

    Bibijon,

    Your confidence France will accept Iran’s retention of 20,000 centrifuges, the heavy-water reactor at Arak, etc etc is simply mistaken.

    Rouhani told the Financial Times that there were power elements in Iran that were not particularly interested in a deal with the P5+1.