Iran, Orientalism, and Western Illusions about Syria—A View from Tehran

Al Jazeera has published a brilliant op-ed—”Iran, Orientalism and Western Illusions about Syria”—by our Iranian colleague, Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Dean of the University of Tehran’s Faculty of World Studies.  It is powerfully insightful on the ways in which orientalist stereotypes about the Muslim world warp Western views of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the conflict in Syria, and the demands of Arab populations for more participatory politics.  To read the piece online, click here; we’ve also appended the text below.  As always, we encourage readers to offer comments both on this site and on the Al Jazeera Web site.

We also highlight here Seymour Hersh’s latest piece for the London Review of Books, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” see here.  Sy’s article makes a compelling case that the Obama administration knows its claims about the use of sarin gas by the Syrian government are false—and that rebel forces, supported by Turkish intelligence, are responsible for chemical weapons attacks inside Syria.

Given the accumulation of evidence on these points, we recall Hillary Mann Leverett’s prescient warnings about the veracity of the Obama administration’s “intelligence” purportedly showing that Syrian government forces had used chemical weapons in Ghouta last August; see here.

Iran, Orientalism and Western Illusions about Syria

Seyed Mohammad Marandi

One of the many strange paradoxes promoted for decades in the Western narrative on the Islamic Republic of Iran—consistently repeated by so-called “Iran experts,” government officials, and the Western propaganda machine in general—is that Iran is growing increasingly unstable and unpopular (if not imploding), yet simultaneously it is on the rise and its “menacing” influence can be felt throughout the region and beyond.

Of course, the internal contradictions of this discourse are linked to Orientalist stereotypes and attitudes prevalent in the West among mainstream secular liberals, pseudo-progressives, and neo-conservatives alike, who cannot grasp the possibility of a stable and legitimate political order that is not based on Western “values.”

For such people—even those critical of Western support for despots, extremism, apartheid in Palestine, mass surveillance and cyber warfare, hegemony, liberal capitalism, plutocracy, secret prisons and torture as well as the perpetual pursuit of “liberation” through coups, wars, drones, terror, assassinations, and carnage—these “values” and “ideas” are still somehow universal.  Thus, they view Western states as effectively exceptional or at least more civilised than others.  Even for the so-called “progressives,” despite these characteristics that have existed at least since the rise of colonialism, in the words of Joseph Conrad, “what redeems it is the idea only.”

Hence, pundits, academics, native informants, and other “experts” in Western think-tanks and corporate media, hold discussions and write books and articles, analysing the “pathologies” of countries like Iran for the benefit of a Western audience and often with an eye towards policymakers and funders.

At times they may critique Western governments, but mostly because they are not seen to be true to their values.  When it comes to the Islamic Republic of Iran, though, there are no values.  Hence, these people feel free to enhance Western “knowledge” and control with a free conscience, like their Orientalist forerunners.

Targeting Iran?

Nevertheless, despite immoral and inhumane US and EU sanctions, along with the constant vilification of Iran by these countries or the “international community” as they narcissistically call themselves, Iran arguably continues to be the most stable country in western Asia and North Africa.  Its model of participatory Islamic governance as well as its fiercely independent foreign policy has blunted Western, and particularly US, attempts to subjugate it as well as to portray it as some sort of regional if not global threat.  However, it would be useful to look at the case of Syria, where the Islamic Republic is regularly portrayed by its antagonists as a threat to stability and security.

From almost the start of the unrest in Syria, it became clear to Iranians that the main objective of Western attempts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government was to target Iran, not to bring freedom to the Syrian people.  After all, the US and EU alongside the Saudi royal family supported the Tunisian and Egyptian dictatorships until their imminent collapse; in Gaza, the Palestinian people continue to be punished for voting for the “wrong” party.

During the Egyptian regime’s final days, the US vice president stressed Hosni Mubarak is not a dictator, but rather an ally who should not step down.  Weeks earlier, as the Tunisian regime was collapsing in the face of revolution, the French foreign minister promised to help Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s security forces maintain order.  As to Bahrain, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to criticise the Saudi-led occupation and even attempted to legitimise it, while US President Barack Obama spoke about the Bahraini regime’s “legitimate interest in the rule of law,” and subtly implied that the protesters were a minority group.

Unlike these regimes, Assad had and continues to have significant popular support.  While the Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Bahrain’s al-Khalifa dictatorships were unable to muster any support in the streets, during the first months of the conflict in Syria enormous crowds took to the streets in simultaneous pro-Assad demonstrations in major cities, on multiple occasions.  In addition, according to a poll carried out by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, 88 percent of those surveyed in Syria in 2013, believed that the current Turkish government has been unfriendly towards their homeland.

While Iran was openly critical of the violence of Syrian security forces against peaceful protesters with legitimate grievances (though incomparable to the August 14, 2013, Cairo massacre), it also knew that, as in Kiev, a third force was fanning the flames by firing upon both security forces as well as protesters.  This was confirmed by the report of the 300-strong Arab League observer mission led by Sudan’s former ambassador to Qatar.

Iran became more sceptical and alarmed when the bombings and suicide attacks began late in 2011.  It was obvious that extremists were carrying out the attacks, yet the militant and foreign-backed opposition along with their regional and Western backers accused the Syrian government of attacking its own military intelligence buildings, just as they later provided highly dubious evidence to prove that the government carried out chemical attacks.

Minorities threatened

The Iranians believed that a number of oil-rich monarchies in the Persian Gulf, with Western coordination and logistical support were—in violation of international law—heavily funding sectarian extremists and al-Qaeda affiliates.  For over two years the Western mainstream media, experts and policymakers downplayed and even ridiculed such claims—until finally the problem grew so large that it became impossible to hide the monster that the West and its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf had created.

Instead of pursuing the Kofi Annan plan, which Iran had supported, these countries wrecked it as they thought they could steamroll their way into Damascus within weeks or months.  Apparently, for the US and its allies these were simply more “birth pangs of a new Middle East”—or perhaps a dagger through the heart of the Islamic Republic, where innocent Syrians must pay the price.  Now, over 100,000 deaths and millions of refugees later, the Western narrative often sounds quite similar to what Iranians have been saying for over three years.

Extremist and sectarian Salafi clerics repeatedly gave fatwas permitting the slaughter of minorities on satellite television channels.  The Saudi-based “mainstream” cleric Saleh al-Luhaidan also said:  “Kill a third of Syrians so the other two-thirds may live.”

As a result, this had become an existential threat to the people of the region.  Nevertheless, it was only after tens of thousands of foreign extremists had already entered Syria through this broad multinational support network that, with Syrian government approval, Hezbollah entered the Sayyida Zaynab neighbourhood in limited numbers to protect the shrine of the Holy Prophet’s granddaughter; their first casualty was reported in late June 2012. Hezbollah’s major involvement only began in April 2013 during the battle for al-Qusayr.  From an Iranian perspective, to blame Hezbollah for entering Syria is absurd.

In any case, it is clear that—as the Iranians were saying from the start—the Syrian government will not collapse and that the only way forward is for this reality to be acknowledged.  Continued support for foreign extremists and al-Qaeda affiliates is no longer simply a regional threat; it has become a global threat much greater than what existed in Afghanistan.  Setting preconditions for one side of the Syrian conflict or the other simply means more death and destruction.  The international community must come together to support an election where the Syrian people choose their own leadership and for everyone to accept the results.


285 Responses to “Iran, Orientalism, and Western Illusions about Syria—A View from Tehran”

  1. James Canning says:

    That the eruption of civil war in Syria had a great deal to do with efforts to injure Iran, is beyond questioning. I continue to seek the civil war as to some degree a regrettable outgrowth, unintentional of course, of the expansion of Iran’s nuclear programme.

  2. James Canning says:

    I recommend Deborah Haynes’ “Broken Libya is now a crucible of terror”, in The Times (London) March 26th.

  3. Karl.. says:

    I wonder how long Assad could keep himself alive. I am surprised that hes alive today.
    If Syria win this war they should make use of international court against UK, US, EU, Gulf states.

  4. kooshy says:

    Really John! All along I thought is 50 days, congrats seems like you guys were successful delaying it be a whopping ten days.Very impressing job

    “US warns on Iran ‘breakout’ capability as nuclear talks start”

    “(Reuters) – The United States said on Tuesday Iran has the ability to produce fissile material for a nuclear bomb in two months, if it so decided,
    “I think it’s public knowledge today that we’re operating with a time period for a so-called ‘break-out’ of about two months. That’s been in the public domain,” Kerry testified at a Senate hearing.”

  5. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “That the eruption of civil war in Syria had a great deal to do with efforts to injure Iran, is beyond questioning. I continue to seek the civil war as to some degree a regrettable outgrowth, unintentional of course, of the expansion of Iran’s nuclear programme.”

    Sure you would rather prefer Iran to be a Britton proxy dictatorship.
    That would be so much better flr the region !
    And Iran should avoid to develop nuclear tech or just a knowledge base economy !

    You are truly the idiot orientalist described in the Marandi article.
    The fact is that the onus is on the west and affiliate regimes in the ME.
    Not the other way around.

    Poor fool.

  6. Karl.. says:


    “You are truly the idiot orientalist described in the Marandi article”

    Period. This old man is stupid.

  7. kooshy says:

    In Vienna is high time to lower the bar that couldn’t be reached. So the no centrifuge should ever be spinning stand, is now compromised to an acceptable 2 month breakout capability, never less we still claim that it was the sanctions which made Iran to change and come to table and agree to our terms.

    Iran nuclear ‘breakout’ time at two months: John Kerry

    “Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez cited reports that said UN Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, along with Germany, should focus on extending the time it would take for Iran to produce nuclear weapons to between six and 12 months.

    Kerry said the ultimate goal was assurance that Iran never build an atomic bomb.

    “So six months to 12 months is — I’m not saying that’s what we’d settle for — but even that is significantly more” than the estimated two months to breakout, he said.”

  8. Don Bacon says:

    “Setting preconditions for one side of the Syrian conflict or the other simply means more death and destruction. The international community must come together to support an election where the Syrian people choose their own leadership and for everyone to accept the results.”

    Absolutely won’t happen. The US — AKA “international community” — goal in Syria, as in Iran, is regime change not people choosing their own leadership.

    I’m surprised that Dean Marandi doesn’t know that.

  9. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon

    I guess thats why he say:

    “..The international community must come together to support ”

    That US dont support that today is obvious.

  10. nico says:

    kooshy says:

    About Kerry and Menendez.

    The bankrupt US still trying to play the big guys and crusaders against the “evil” while they destroyed all international norms and common decency for decades and protected their sweet minions in their most loathsome form.

    ME people should thank soooo much Kerry, Menedez and co for their muuuch needed exceptionalism and benevolence.

    A totally discredited and disconnected oligarchy which is less and less listened to and is wallowing in intellectual prostitution and convolutions.

    That is not a democracy while all facts on the ground shout out dual standard, unprincipled and heinous policies as well as supremacism.
    Obviously covered by layers of lies, propaganda, pretense and excuses. If not directly and openly fascist.

    Regime change is urgently needed in the US.

  11. nico says:

    Don Bacon says:
    “The US — AKA “international community” — goal in Syria, as in Iran, is regime change not people choosing their own leadership.
    I’m surprised that Dean Marandi doesn’t know that.”

    It is pretty obvious that the “international community” in the mouth of the US is representing only themselves.
    Because obbiously the US are master of double speech, lies and are exceptionalist/unilateralist and they believe they represent the world.

    However fact remains that the “international community” real definition cover much more than the US.

    If the US believe in their own definition good for them and their orientalist views.

    It should not forbid others to choose the right term when needed or relevant.
    The US, their world views and the way their lies are not the standard for other to adapt.

    Rather let the US adapt to the fact on the ground in Syria…

  12. kooshy says:

    Don Bacon says:
    April 8, 2014 at 4:34 pm
    “The US — AKA “international community”

    No not AKA, it’s “so called international community”
    It’s a term only used by western official and media, no one else in the world accepts this American made up BS.

  13. James Canning says:


    Fine, argue that Iran was wise to step up its nuclear programme even if this brought catastrophe to Syria.

  14. James Canning says:


    You appear to argue, at least implicitly, that the programme to overthrow Bashar al-Assad had nothing to do with Iran’s enlargement of its nuclear programme. You simply are mistaken. My hunch is that it makes you uncomfortable to think about the obvious linkage between the two events.

  15. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “Fine, argue that Iran was wise to step up its nuclear programme even if this brought catastrophe to Syria.”

    Might does not make right.
    It may in a material sense.
    However it does not in moral sense.

    Morally the onus is on the west not Iran. The west rationale and policies are not excusable while Iran approach has been much more sensible. Diplomatically and rationally.
    Furthermore materially the Syrian Regime is winning.

    Obviously you have no morality.
    And are stupid enough to believe the West is winning materially in Syria.

    Thus you are doubly proven wrong.

  16. Jay says:

    BiBiJon says:
    April 8, 2014 at 3:27 pm
    James Canning says:
    April 8, 2014 at 1:11 pm


    What James has revealed about himself recently is nothing short of a revelation!

    In the last thread he made the outrageous claim that death and destruction upon the people of Libya, Iraq, and Syria was caused by bad PR by their leaders.

    What James stands for, in essence, is that counties and leaders either surrender or their resistance will be bad PR, which will be used in turn to justify destruction of said countries. He is very much at home with this view because his supreme Western view has entitled him!

  17. Don Bacon says:

    Far from pushing for elections in Syria, the US is pushing for regime change with uneven success.

    from Wall Street Journal:
    WASHINGTON—Frustrated by the stalemate in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry has been pushing for the U.S. military to be more aggressive in supporting the country’s rebel forces. Opposition has come from the institution that would spearhead any such effort: the Pentagon.

    Mr. Kerry and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power have advocated options that range from an American military intervention to weaken the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to using U.S. special operations forces to train and equip a large number of rebel fighters. Such moves would go far beyond the U.S.’s current engagement.

    In recent White House meetings, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel have pushed back against military intervention, said senior officials.

    They say the risk is high of being dragged into an open-ended foreign entanglement.

    TIP: If link is behind paywall, google the title (in quotes) and get the article.

  18. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 8, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Yet again, I urge you to go back and re-open your Rhetoric book fro your Public School days to remind yourself of different types of causes. I repeat them here for your edicifcation:

    ◾The Material Cause – this is the substance that something is made from. For example, a TV is made from glass and metal and plastic.

    ◾The Formal Cause – this refers to what gives the matter its form. For example, a TV is not just a piece of glass but glass and metal arranged in a certain way and programmed to work as it does.

    ◾The Efficient Cause – this refers to the reason behind something’s existence. For example, a TV exists because someone has the idea to build one and put all the parts together to make it work

    Iran had nothing to do with the war in Syria that was the initiated by the Axis Powers, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey.

    May God damn its designers, planners, enablers, and funders to Hell for a very long time indeed.

  19. fyi says:

    Don Bacon says:

    April 8, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    Yes, another day in the Court of the Mad King.

    They Mad King and His Baron have – in effect – declared Shia Islam to be their enemy and are in the process of adding Orthodox Christianity to that as well.

    And, at the same time, they want to Pivot to Asia to contain the Han people.


    No doubt.

  20. Pirouz says:

    Not much new here in Mirandi’s piece.

    I’d be more interested in his take on IRGC-QF participation in the Syrian conflict, their management of NDF along Basij militia lines and their management of allied Shia fighting forces including LH.

    Will be interesting to compare the upcoming presidential election in Syria to the American presidential election of 1864 (not polled in rebel held territory), which resulted in the surprising landslide victory of incumbent President Abraham Lincoln.

  21. Karl.. says:

    Just ridiculous

    US become more and more crazy for every day.

  22. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    April 9, 2014 at 6:31 am

    Diplomacy is about civil communication; if a representative is not found acceptable, another one ought to be found.

  23. Karl.. says:


    This man have been envoy for many years in europe. But as usual US try to stall the process with Iran.

  24. Fiorangela says:

    Nasser says:
    April 8, 2014 at 3:51 am

    re Mearsheimer, “Can China Rise Peacefully?”

    Mearsheimer has achieved Peter Principle status.

    Where are the fresh, non-Orientalist thinkers and future policymakers to come from if ossified perspectives like Mearsheimer’s prevail in the academy?

  25. Nasser says:

    “A Melancholy Perspective on Syria” by Yezid Sayigh

  26. James Canning says:


    There was no voting in areas of the Confederacy controlled by Union forces (in 1864 presidential contest). (And none in areas of the Confederacy controlled by the South, as you noted.)

  27. James Canning says:


    Ted Cruz is a horse’s arse. And what utter nonsense, to want to block Iran’s ambassador to the US from coming to the US, due to alleged events of 1979! Pathetic, in my judgment.

  28. James Canning says:


    More silliness from you, in claiming the US sees “Shia Islam” as an “enemy”. This perception explains why the US supports the Shia-controlled central government of Iraq, in your view?

  29. James Canning says:


    Of course Iran did not start the civil war in Syria. But that war was initiated in an effort to injure Iran. Correct? And why this determination to injure Iran? EXPANDED NUCLEAR PROGRAMME, in part.

    I think you simply do not want to accept the damage Iran has caused, unintentionally, to Syria.

    Your argument essentially is that the civil war should not have been initiated by Saudis et al, due to Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme. Even if it was, in part.

  30. James Canning says:


    I did not say that Gaddafi’s bad PR CAUSED the military intervention by Britain and France in Libya.

    I do say that Gaddafi’s utter idiocy in rejecting advice from European diplomats, to tone down his ranting on TV, helped the intervention to happen.

    Anyone familiar with the course of actions leading up to the intervention in Libya kinows this is correct.

    Gaddafi was a fool. You seem keen to suppress this fact.

  31. James Canning says:


    Saddam Hussein destroyed most of Iraq’s WMD soon after the Gulf War ended (1991).

    You implicitly agure that Saddam was wise to conceal this fact from the American public (or to have helped warmongers dupe the American public).

    I think Saddam was a fool. You apparently want to conceal this fact.

  32. James Canning says:


    Might does not make right. Agreed. But you apparently contend that Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme was a good idea even if it helped to bring catastrophe to Syria. Correct? You of course are entitled to your opinion. I am just trying to clarify what your opinion is.

  33. BiBiJon says:

    Time to test who runs foreign policy

    fyi says:
    April 9, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Hamid Aboutalebi’s nomination to the UN post might have been an oversight, but now has evolved into a test case. Can Congress legislate the minutia of foreign policy? If so, what chance there is of legislatively imposed sanctions to be lifted regardless of what gets negotiated over the nuclear issue.

    As Paul Pillar puts it:

    “This [can they lift sanctions] issue is a reminder of how an Iranian belief that the West and especially the United States will come through with positive action if Iran makes desired concessions is just as important as (and given how the issue has evolved, has become even more important than) an Iranian belief that it will be hit with still more negative consequences if it does not concede.”

    So, methinks, it is very useful to for Iran to test how weak a White House they are dealing with.

    After all, Jimmy Carter when asked if he should be given a visa, said:

    “Well I hope so. I see no reason to prevent this person from serving as the official representative of Iran. You have to remember that those people who took my hostages back in 1979 were college students, they were young people and I don’t think they should be held culpable for that incident now, 35 years later.”

    Watch from 1:40 _

  34. BiBiJon says:

    Wikipedia to GCHQ’s Alan Turing Department

    James Canning says:
    April 9, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    James, the page would benefit from any scrap of a citation you might care to provide for your suggestion that Iran’s nuclear program had even an infinitesimally small tangential part in Saudi support for Syrian Takfiris.

  35. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    In Iraq, US is entrapped.

    But make no mistakes – Axis Powers policy has made the Shia their enemy – Axis Powers chose to declare Shia the primary enemy for now.

    As things stand, all enemies of Israel are Axis Powers’ enemies.

    No doubt about that.

  36. James Canning says:


    Are you claiming Iraq is an “enemy” of Israel?

  37. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 9, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Mr. Bush, Mr. Hague, Mr. Cameron, Ms. Nuland, Mr. Kerry, Dr. Slaughter, Ms. Powers, Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Dunn, Mr. Danilon are also fools.

    But they are in power.

  38. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning —

    “Gaddafi was a fool. You seem keen to suppress this fact.”

    – – –

    Tony Blair was a fool; nobody drove a knife into his body, to the cackled adulation of the US Secretary of State. Thus, Blair remains a fool, and continues to cause havoc in the ME.

    You seem keen to forget these facts.

  39. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 9, 2014 at 2:45 pm


  40. James Canning says:


    The connection is fairly simple. Iran’s announcement of intent to treble production of 20% U helped to wreck the plans of the British government to improve relations with Iran.

    Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme raised tensions in the Gulf.

    Raised tensions in the Gulf caused some Saudi and other leaders to fear war would come to the Gulf.

    Possibility of war coming to the Gulf HELPED to prompt some Saudi and other Arab leaders to seek to foment civil war in Syria to overthrow government and “weaken” Iran.

    Any part of the above you have difficulty with?

  41. James Canning says:


    WRONG. I encourage comments regarding Tony Blair’s very foolish support for GW Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. The more the merrier, in my view.

  42. James Canning says:


    William Hauge opposed Britisn military interevention in Libya. He caught a good deal of flak for trying to prevent western military intervention.

  43. James Canning says:


    I take it you agree Saddam Hussein was an idiot or fool, to make it easier for enemies of Iraq to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  44. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    I do not see him flying to Moscow to help settle the mess in Ukraine.

  45. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 9, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    He was, like many Arabs, cunning but ultimately stupid.

    Stalin, he was not.

  46. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 9, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Your output is definitely English, your input superficially is what others have written. Seeing as how many responses a simple lagorithm gets, I must raise my hat to GCHQ and the predictions of Alan Turing.

    Please process the following phrase: “manufactured crisis.”

    Looking forward to your output.

  47. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “Might does not make right. Agreed. But you apparently contend that Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme was a good idea even if it helped to bring catastrophe to Syria. Correct? You of course are entitled to your opinion. I am just trying to clarify what your opinion is.”

    The nuclear case timeline is quite clear with the west denying Iran its right under the NPT and even a single centrifuge or to refuel TRR and pressuring Argentina to abandon cooperation through the AMIA flase flag.
    Iran escalated the issue with a rational and obviously legitimate reasons while he west did not.
    Just see the Garteth Porter Article about the west lies and false allegation.

    Thus the onus is on the west to close this artificially built up case.

  48. James Canning says:


    Yes, there have been many lies, etc etc etc, emanating from Israel and the West, regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. For years and years now.

    I personally hope a deal between P5+1 and Iran can be achieved.

    I assume you think the catastrophe in Syria is a very regrettable partial result of what you argue were irrational fears in the West and the Persian Gulf about Iran’s nuclear programme

  49. James Canning says:


    “Manufactured crisis”. To a certain degree, obviously, this is clearly correct (Iranian nuclear programme). The civil war in Syria was manufactured, to some extent.

  50. James Canning says:


    Yes, Saddam Hussein was cunning. But ultimately stupid, and he played directly into the hands of his enemies.

  51. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “Yes, there have been many lies, etc etc etc, emanating from Israel and the West, regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. For years and years now.
    I personally hope a deal between P5+1 and Iran can be achieved.
    I assume you think the catastrophe in Syria is a very regrettable partial result of what you argue were irrational fears in the West and the Persian Gulf about Iran’s nuclear programme”

    Yes I do.

  52. BiBiJon says:

    Pussy Trouble Makers


    In February, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers also tweeted an image of herself with the band members, calling them “brave ‘troublemakers.’”

    The U.N.’s Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin mocked her in reply, suggesting Powers join the group herself. “I would expect her to invite them to perform at the National Cathedral in Washington. Maybe they could arrange a world tour for them, you know. St Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, then maybe in Mecca in Saudi Arabia, ending up with a gala concert at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.”


    Just a reminder, not long ago, about a NY Mayor’s Catholic sensitivities

    MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI: If I ignored it [the offensive portrayal of Madonna], then the argument would be on the other side: How can you ignore something as disgusting, horrible and awful as this? And my view is you do what you think is right. I believe opposing this is the right thing.

    From _

  53. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 9, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    “Manufactured crisis”. To a certain degree, obviously, this is clearly correct (Iranian nuclear programme). The civil war in Syria was manufactured, to some extent.


    James, are you saying all manufactured crisis, false flag operations, excuses, pretexts, propaganda run-amok, for engaging in per-planned hostilities are inter-related? That’s deep!

  54. James Canning says:


    I say that Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme helped bring catastrophe to Syria.

  55. James Canning says:


    I tend to agree with you (that irrational fears in the Gulf and the West about Iran’s nuclear programme helped to bring on support for civil war in Syria). On the other hand, the expansion of that programme offered support for those who argued it was not strictly civilian in intent.

  56. kooshy says:

    James Canning says:
    April 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    “I say that Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programmer helped bring catastrophe to Syria.”

    Bibi sorry to insert in

    Gav James

    On the contrary, I say that Iran’s nuclear capability saved Lebanon, Iraq and now Syria becoming colonized by the west for another 100 years their people should thank god that their ally has a very advance nuclear enrichment program, if not they would have been western hand out countries for at least 100 more years. You see, in Iran’s region ME, only the countries that their governments are elected and are supported/ security aligned with Iran are the countries that are no longer colonized by west. Do you ever care to ask yourself why? what is the significance, why these countries no longer can be colonized, what do they have in common?, Gav if you or your Foreign Secretary, Billy Full Service ever did care to find out what is common with these four states mentioned, you will learn all 4 states mentioned share their security with Iran, an Iran which is too big to fight, besides is a fully nuclear capable state. None are Switzerland but all are more sovereign (at least on their foreign policy) than your country UK.

  57. Rehmat says:

    On February 28, 2014, Patrick J. Buchanan, a fundamentalist Christian writer and pro-White politician, wrote a post on his blog, entitled ‘Intervene? Or End Syrian War?, in which he said that Jewish Lobby which is crying for American military intervention (no fly zone or military boots) in Syria on the so-called “moral obligation” – is not good for the US interests in the region. He also said that since Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are calling for American intervention in Syria – shouldn’t they be sending their armies as part of their “moral obligations” to invade Syria.

    “And if there is a “moral” obligation to intervene, why does it not apply to Israel and Turkey, Syria’s nearest neighbors? Why does that moral duty not apply to the European Union, upon whose doorstep Syria sits? Why is it America’s moral obligation, 5,000 miles away?,” asks Buchanan.

    “It is not. The Turks, Israelis, EU and Gulf Arabs who hate Assad would simply like for us to come and fight their war for them,” Buchanan replies his own question.

    Buchanan adds that Al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which are all anti-American are being armed and trained by American allies in the Middle East. “And who is keeping these enemies of ours out of Damascus? Assad, Hezbollah, Iran and our old friend Vladimir Putin,” says Buchanan.

  58. Rehmat says:

    In order to put more obstacles in the ongoing US-Iran nuclear agreement talks – on Monday, the AIPAC controlled Senate voted unanimously to urge the White House to refuse visa to Dr. Hamid Aboutalebi, Iran’s newly appointed ambassador at the United Nations. The Jewish Lobby has accused Aboutalebi being one of the Iranian students who occupied the US embassy in Tehran, dubbed as den of espionage. The shredded documents found inside the embassy proved students claim to the seizure of the embassy building that both CIA and Mossad were planning to topple the newly established Islamic regime in Tehran.

  59. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    “I say that Iran’s expansion of its nuclear programme helped bring catastrophe to Syria.”

    Well, maybe. But I say, the unfortunate tragic demise of the one guy on the planet uglier than prince Bandar was more of a help.

    And I can cite just as many credible sources for my theory as you have for your theory. I would leave it at that, but I know from past experience your Do-Loop doesn’t have a ‘touche’ exit. So do keep keeping on dear GCHQ robot.

  60. Don Bacon says:

    “Breakout” is in the news, and it is often misunderstood (usually on purpose).

    Apr 8, 2014
    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today that Iran’s current breakout period is only two months. The “breakout” time is defined as how long it would take the country to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon.

    “I think it’s public knowledge today that we’re operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months,” Kerry said at a Senate hearing. (Reuters, 8 April)

    Kerry made the comments in response to a question about whether P5+1 negotiators were aiming for a 6-12 month breakout period. Kerry declined to comment on the question, saying the talks are continuing.(end news report)

    So they’re talking about how many centrifuges Iran should be allowed, so that the time for these machines to spin out HEU (highly enriched uranium) might be controlled, with the erroneous suggestion that HEU is directly useful for nuclear weapons. It isn’t. That is simplistic and inaccurate.

    There is insufficient appreciation of the nuclear weaponization process. Many observers incorrectly jump quickly from highly enriched uranium gas (HEU) to a nuclear weapon. The situation is further confused by labeling the achievement of HEU as “breakout”, incorrectly implying that a nuclear weapon somehow pops out of gas centrifuges.

    A nuclear weapon cannot be made of gas. The gas must be converted to metal, a difficult and very dangerous process because of the high potential for a critical accident (like a nuclear reactor without shielding) that would kill anyone in the room or nearby.

    Then an implosion warhead would have to be constructed. Warheads are complicated little machines. The entire detonation process happens within a tiny fraction of a second so the hard part is constructing a warhead with reliable separation capabilities throughout the various stages. Testing is mandatory to make sure the thing works.

    Even if Iran developed a basic nuclear weapon, it would require more advanced technology to miniaturize the warhead to fit into a small missile cone. Iran would need to conduct nuclear tests to prove its warheads. The USA and USSR conducted hundreds of tests over many years to develop this expertise.

    Iran has no experience with this process, and in any case the production of HEU and the diversion of uranium fuel to a weaponization program are controlled by the IAEA.

  61. Nasser says:

    I of course realize that such sentiments are not shared by the other southern Persian Gulf countries and such has no chance of happening but I still wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Ahmed Ali M. al-Mukhaini and to Oman.

  62. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    April 9, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    I refer you back to the rhetoric mini-lesson fyi offered. (fyi says: April 8, 2014 at 7:44 pm)

    Both the content and the context of what you said in many previous threads is for all to see. On more than one occasion you have effectively argued for PR as an excuse to destroy an entire population. Your recantations will only serve to diminish the value of your words.

  63. Karl.. says:

    US and Nato still trying to get a war with Russia
    Shows how pathetic EU are too, always pulling america.

  64. Rehmat says:

    Former British prime minister Tony Blair who has repeatedly called “Assad must go”, used to be an admirer of Syrian President when he was Prime Minister of Britain.

    In November 2001, Tony Blair met Bashar al-Assad in Damascus in a bid to enlist his support for US-British bombing in Afghanistan. Assad told him that his government is against killing innocent people. Assad also criticized Western double standard when it comes to Israel and Palestinians. Blair invited Assad to visit Britain which the later did in 2002. During the visit Assad was entertained both by the Queen and the prime minister Tony Blair. Tony Blair even recommended that Queen should bestow an honorary knighthood on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

  65. Rd. says:

    “Jordanian king in Moscow to discuss bilateral ties ….
    Is it a sign of Moscow’s positive expectations regarding a new Jordanian position towards Syria?”

    A good while back, IRI tried to provide support (energy, etc) to Jordan so they can chart a more independent course. That didn’t seem to pan out in the early days of the Syrian crises. If Jordan is moving closer to Russia, would there be better options to closer ties with IRI too? Are the saudis slowly being isolated for their crazy wahabi policies?

  66. Karl.. says:

    Arab League chief backs expect Israelis, Palestinians to extend peace talks

    The leader of the Arab League is confident that Israel and the Palestinians will resolve a crisis over the release of long-held Palestinian prisoners and extend their peace talks. Nabil Elaraby told AP on Thursday in Cairo that an April 29 deadline for the talks set by US Secretary of State John Kerry will be extended “for months.” He hopes the spat over the Palestinian prisoners release also will be shortly resolved. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is in Egypt, and he also held talks Thursday with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

    What a joke arab league are, do whatever US and Israel wants them too.

  67. James Canning says:


    ONE example, please, of a “recantation” you claim I have made. ONE.

    If you think Gaddafi’s stupidity did not help bring catastrophe to himself and his family, you simply are badly mistaken. Ditto with Saddam Hussein.

  68. James Canning says:


    If you are going to make a statement about a comment I have made, be accurate. I did not say bad PR was an EXCUSE

  69. James Canning says:


    C’d Bad PR was not an EXCUSE for illegal invasion of Iraq. But, bad PR by Saddma Hussein helped Iraq’s enemies set up the illegal invasion of Iraq. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

  70. James Canning says:


    I take it you think Gaddafi acted intelligently by screaming on TV broadcast to Europe that he would crush the cockroaches.

  71. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    April 10, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    “I did not say bad PR was an EXCUSE”

    James Canning says:
    April 10, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    “…bad PR by Saddma Hussein helped Iraq’s enemies set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.”


    Taking your two statements together, are you saying that bad PR helps provide an excuse?!

    Why is that pertinent? Anyone seeking an excuse will find one!! Whether provided or not!

    You simply are stricken by the neurosis that UK slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians in an act of aggression because she was not willing to tell the US “I will not follow you like a sheep!” Instead, you’d rather invent diversions. Excuses are not the same as causes!!

  72. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Sy Hersh on Democracy Now on his latest…

    Sy Hersh Reveals Potential Turkish Role in Syria Chemical Strike That Almost Sparked U.S. Bombing

    I’m amused that our old spammer Scott Lucas is quoted trying to refute Hersh’s article, and is dismissed by Hersh as “some blogger”… 🙂

  73. Sineva says:

    “Excuses are not the same as causes!!”
    Beautifully put,I could not have said it any better myself.

  74. Karl.. says:

    Mr Finkelstein on Iran/nuclear issue.

  75. James Canning says:


    Tony Blair made the decision to back GW Bush in his idiotic invasion of Iraq. I think Blair’s backing of the illegal invasion was a key component in the success of the conspiracy.

    Another key component in the success of the conspiracy was extreme incompetence of Saddam Hussein. Even if you seem to want to believe otherwise.

  76. James Canning says:


    Tony Blair thought GW Bush would back him in getting Israel out of Gaza and the West Bank, if Blair backed Bush in his invasion of Iraq. Bush in fact agreed to support Blair in that matter (getting Israel out of Palestine).

  77. James Canning says:


    You believe extreme stupidity on the part of a dictator of a country, that contributes dierectly to that dictator’s destruction (and the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in his own country), is of no relevance? Amazing.

  78. James Canning says:


    Are you implicitly agreeing with Jay that Gaddafi’s ranting on TV broadcst to Europe, that he would exterminate the cockroaches, was not extremely foolish?

  79. Jay says:


    this is not a winning argument on your part and I suggest you stop now!

    Here is your argument in a nutshell: If a bully starts pushing you around and you are silly enough to curse at your bully that gives him license (cause) to kill your friends!

    Now. Really, do you want to keep digging yourself in a bigger hole?!

  80. James Canning says:


    You seem not to grasp the fact Gaddafi was calling other Libyans “cockroaches”. That he would “exterminate”.

  81. James Canning says:


    My argument is totally sound. Even if you seem to have difficulty grasping it, no matter how simply expressed.

  82. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “My argument is totally sound. Even if you seem to have difficulty grasping it, no matter how simply expressed.”

    No it is obviously not.
    That is maybe one parameter but obviously a minor and secundary one.

    While the Western macro policies based on wolrd and ME dominance, colonialism, hubris and colonialism are the major ones.

    Thus your focusing on secundary parameters is simply misleading and sophistry.

    No surprise while you are the typical brainwashed exceptionalist, supremacist and orientalist.

  83. James Canning says:


    You seem unaware of the flow of events that resulted in western military intervention in Libya.

    Public opinion was hugely important in France and Britain, and of course other European countries. Gaddafi ignored advice from European diplomats who were trying to prevent western military intervention from taking place. His rejection of that advice obviously was foolish, or stupid, or whatever one wants to call it to indicate big mistake.

  84. James Canning says:


    And I am assuming you have forgotten that Obama and his generals wanted to avoid US military intervention in Libya.

  85. nico says:

    Nice global analysis from Paul Craig Roberts.
    For Canning to understand the stakes of the ideological never ever land that led to US bankruptcy and will lead to geopolitical desintegration.

    I totally agree with the conslusion.
    Which I “hinted” to many times here.
    Whether it will happen in 2014 remains to be seen.
    But we are seeing convulsions and it will happen tomorow or the day after.
    And surely US behaviour and policies do not show any change for such outcome to be avoided.
    Anyway it is tooooo late

    “One of two things is likely: Either the US dollar will be abandoned and collapse in value, thus ending Washington’s superpower status and Washington’s threat to world peace, or Washington will lead its puppets into military conflict with Russia and China. The outcome of such a war would be far more devastating than the collapse of the US dollar.”

  86. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    “And I am assuming you have forgotten that Obama and his generals wanted to avoid US military intervention in Libya.”

    That is useless babling of yours.

    The US is on the wrong track for more than 20 years and they will pay the price.
    As will the US citizens and everyone else.

    The US empire is finished.
    The more the agony last the more the landing will be harsh.

    Who cares about US leaders idiocy.
    That is past history.

    Obviously Obama did not learn the lesson and is too pathetic a leader to change that.
    A small man indeed.

  87. nico says:

    The issue with politicians, and nowadays “democracy” and western regimes is that they do not care about “vision” and greater good for their country and or the world.
    They totally are in a materialist, egotist and nihilist project.

    As I said many times here the west took a bad turn after the cold war.
    With bad consequences for others.
    But by not renewing their philisophy, world views in such time of massive geoplotical and technoligical IT revolution they left the world in shamble and the western civilization in a pathetic state of failure.
    Through lack of wisdom, hubris, exceptionalism, supremacism, lies and propaganda, lack of morality, dual standard, sophistry, inversion of values…
    That is inexcusable.

    Suffice tl see the level of US citezen positive opinion about the US congress or USG
    Exactly the same obtains in many EU countries

    Compare that to Russia or Iran and one will necessary comprehend who is on the wrong track and govern through lies and oligarchy.

    The western politicians have comptent for the good of the mass or their will.
    They have comptent for democracy and populism.
    They manage through their rotten ideology and philosophy for the gold of the “elite”.

    Obama is only the product of such pathetic state of affairs and to small a guy and puppet to impulse any needed change.

    He has no balls, maybe he is to narcissic or just fear for his own physical survival.
    Who cares ? He is a failure.

    In that I agree with RSH.

  88. nico says:


    As underlined by P C Roberts, surely the 9/11 false flag event and all who covered that from its inception until now are the one to blame. Not the ME leaders PR.

    Surely the UK frenzy to suck the US at that time is much more to blame than ME leaders PR.

    Surely Obama cowardice, selfishness, narcissim and failure are much more to blame.

    Surely the intellectual life in the US is much more to blame.

    Surely the Clinton presidency during which all anti financial and media concentration/monopoly laws were abolished are much more to blame.


    The fact remains that the US after the cold war had a SPECIAL responsibility as the only superpower.

    And the US failed that responsibility miserably.

    No the US are not exceptional and they just demonstrated that very fact for more than 20 years.

  89. nico says:


    By the way P C Roberts used to be a MSM editorialist (in addition to his political and academic careers)…
    But “amazingly” he was sidelined because of his so called liberty of tone and his free speech.

    Freedom of speech and opinion in the US ?
    Relevant and opposite opinions in the MSM ?

    Let laugh !

  90. kooshy says:

    nico says:
    April 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm
    On Obama “Who cares ? He is a failure.”

    6 years a go Obama project was a necessity and an strategic gain for the US internL and external image this lasted a short period. One must admit internally and externally it worked and fooled many people her and abroad.

    But currently, Mr Obama no longer has any strategic relevance or weight for US’s foreign and national policy goals. The problem no longer is Mr Obama and the new US image he had to make and sell, as our hosts have repeatedly said, the problem has “now” come to be that the US foreign (and I add internal) policy has became irrelevant and unacceptable to majority of the word and US citizens.

    This has more and more resulted in US’ incapability to manage her goals and policies diplomatically and rationally, therefore she ends up conducting and acting irrationally like a rouge desperate state.

    See there there conduct with respect to state ambassadors choice to international organizations

  91. Don Bacon says:

    FoxNews, Apr 11
    The White House announced Friday that the U.S. will not issue a visa to Iran’s choice for U.N. ambassador, over concerns about his involvement in the 1979 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran.

    The decision comes after Congress earlier this week approved a bill that would bar Hamid Abutalebi from stepping on U.S. soil. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the White House is reviewing that legislation but announced that Abutalebi would be barred anyway.

    The Iranian government, reacting late Friday, objected to the visa denial. The Iranian Mission to the U.N. said: “It is a regrettable decision by the US Administration which is in contravention of international law, the obligation of the host country and the inherent right of sovereign member states to designate their representatives to the United Nations.” (end Fox report)

    The US State Department won’t give a direct reason for the visa refusal to Mr. Abutalebi, but has said that categories where there was a limited exception to the general rule that, as a UN host nation, you should be granted visas. They included security, terrorism-related matters, and foreign policy concerns.

    The 1947 basing agreement between the U.S. and the United Nations stipulates that “the federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations.”

    Slate: Over at the international law blog Opinion Juris, Julian Ku writes that if Abutalebi’s visa is denied, “the U.N. would be well within its rights to claim a violation of the Headquarters Agreement and to demand an arbitration that it would have a good chance of winning.”

    Of course that would require someone in the uN going against the US on this matter.

    Mullah Hassan Rouhani in March appointed Hamid Abutalebi as the regime’s ambassador in the United Nations. Abutalebi is a career diplomat who has previously served as Iran’s ambassador to the European Union, Australia, Belgium, and Italy.

  92. nico says:

    Kooshy says :

    I agree.
    P C Roberts describes that quite well in the article…


    “With Washington out on a limb issuing threats hand over fist, Washington is pushing Europe into two highly undesirable confrontations”… “Europeans are in no mood to bear the brunt of a Washington-orchestrated conflict with Russia. While Washington presents Europe with war and sacrifice, Russia and China offer trade and friendship. Washington will do its best to keep European politicians bought-and-paid-for and in line with Washington’s policies, but the downside for Europe of going along with Washington is now much larger.”

    “Across many fronts, Washington is emerging in the world’s eye as duplicitous, untrustworthy, and totally corrupt”

    “The self-inflicted hammer blows to Washington’s credibility have taken a toll.”

    “China has been uncertain about the trade-offs between its trade surpluses with the US and Washington’s growing encirclement of China with naval and air bases. China has come to the conclusion that China has the same enemy as Russia has–Washington.”

    End quotes.

    The US emerged from their cold war victory with a huge soft power and moral credibility.
    They dilapidated that and nothing is left.
    They are also bankrupt and military and politically defeated in their plans and operations in the ME.
    Only the US rotten elite and their twin stooges in other western countries believe in their own exceptionalism.

    The US has no positive project in the ME.
    And they have nothing positive to offer to Europe.
    The US is alienating Russia.
    On top of that there is nothing left to offer to China as the US trade deficit is unsustainable and the US banrkrupted.

    The US are finished as an empire.
    The harder will be the fall.

    Surely those stooged as Valls, Cameron, Barroso, Monti and the like will only precipitate regime change in Europe by by sticking to their foolish alliance with the US and other zionists.
    Hope is that they will all finish with their head cut off.

  93. Don Bacon says:

    The US has been so ‘successful’ with Iran sanctions, it applied sanctions to Russia. And Russia is responding in a similar manner to Iran.

    news report:
    While media reports focus on Vladimir Putin’s next military move in Ukraine, the Russian president is deftly making economic changes to cushion the blow of international sanctions. He is also slowly pulling Russia away from the international financial system to promote greater economic self-sufficiency. //

    Russia, like Iran, has been overly dependent upon Europe but now both countries are becoming more self-sufficient as a result of western sanctions.

  94. Kathleen says:

    What about what was written about in numerous places that the Sarin gas used in Syria may have been tracked back to Israeli sources.
    “According to the UN report two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified origin – though perhaps not so unidentified. Shortly after the August incident, Foreign Policy published and made mention of these mysterious rockets which according to former UN inspectors bore a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon—the SLUFAE. Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several countries—namely Israel. According to the former UN inspector, “a very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions,” into Southern Lebanon”. Further, there is the strong possibility that the rockets with Cyrillic markings (attributed to the Soviets) can be traced back to the “Bear Spares” program.”

  95. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    April 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    My argument is totally sound.



    of course! There is some world in which bad PR justifies civilian slaughter.

    Yes, I do have difficulty grasping the world you live in.

  96. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    April 11, 2014 at 12:21 pm
    Yes James,Gaddafi was trust the west,who promptly turned on him at the first chance it got,but if it hadnt been that excuse it would`ve been another or another you see where this is going?,I`m with Jay on this one,all you`re doing is just burying yourself even deeper,its time to put the shovel down

  97. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Like I said before, James’ posts contribute nothing to the debate- in fact they are just there to derail real debate- and if he had good sense he would have fucked off long ago.

    Of course, he doesn’t have good sense and so we have to continue to read his shitty, dumbass, illogical mental stool samples.

    Hey dumbass, at least try to gather your thoughts in one-two posts.

    Apparently GCHQ and Saudi intelligence pay him by the post.

    Sorry, can’t be as polite as Jay and others.

  98. nico says:

    ‘No alternative for Tehran’s UN pick’Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:21AM
    Iran says Tehran is not considering any alternative for its newly-appointed envoy to the UN.»

    Iran is not playing into a single whim and is facing off the US step by step.
    Not a single or minor caprice will be accepted.

    Obviously it is playing against the US soft power again and is soiling the US standing.

  99. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    And all the more reason to move UN HQ to Geneva as has been proposed by many countries for many years.

    And let’s not forget the systematic bugging of UN by US.

    US can’t be trusted to manage UN HQ.

    Loss of dollar as hegemonic currency and moving UN HQ out of US- these would be two clear signals of the end US hegemony nearly 70 years after WWII.

  100. Sammy says:

    This one for our valuable nico: by Jim Willie

    “”The psychological warfare is like a gigantic fog, as people’s defenses are being challenged, even those based in fantasy and convenience. The world is undergoing change, the nightmare continues, while the Paradigm Shift moves into the fast lane by expedience. Entire swaths of wealth are being waterlogged, tainted, and ruined. The USDollar has been stuck in the corner for three years, finally pushed into the corner crack, sure to fall below the matt, where below lies a spittoon. The Hat Trick Letter informs and warns the public, converts the disheartened and confused among us, edifies clients, and provides forecasts like signposts to guide in the increasing fascist darkness. At the same time, it seems to drive families crazy, since when attempting to admonish and caution, the efforts are often seen as uncomfortable overturning of the temple tables (business and mental). So be it. Forewarned is forearmed, but many prefer their delusions and homes built upon false assumptions. The Jackass prefers reality accountable to the flow of events and verified facts, where actions can be taken in defense of livelihood and even life savings. The clash of worlds must be reported and properly understood…..

  101. Sammy says:

    Unfortunately ‘Mr.Pragma’, a brilliant commentator on MoA left the site due to some silly dispute with b.
    I like this guy as well, always to the point and straight forward.

    “”.. Well, it’s official. 9 out of 10 fake left, TED conference attendees just can’t STAND RB’s statements anymore because they detract from them being able to recycle their own posts from other “progressive” forums. Goddamnit!!! Don’t you know who they are RB?!!!! They read their own stuff regularly at any number of fake left sites and their own blogs and help to manufacture – loaded allusion there, fake lefties – the “cutting edge” of political thought in the fake left West. Why, it’s so sanitized and sweet I can feed it to my kittens and it doesn’t hurt their tummies! There’s no anger and certainly no attempts to investigate avenues that may be uncomfortable to some. Why, they’ve even invoked Proyect to help guide us all into more respectable avenues of thought. Holy shit.

    Yeah, it’s sad having watched the advent of the Third Way, fake left multiculturalism in the late 80s/1990s grow to become the dominant paradigm over the last 20+ years. You’d think that after giving us Clinton, Blair, Obama etc and all of the murder/mayhem that their namby-pamby polite feel-goodism is directly responsible for they would have the wherewithal to ditch a mindset that leaves them ineffectively analyzing issues into the ground while the world burns and they patrol for any deviant comments that may offend their group-mindset. But that’s just too much to expect in a world where they and their ilk are respected as wonkish experts on how the world works. At the heart of their objections is the nonsensical fear – that is part and parcel of fake leftism and relentless hammered indoctrinated into the minds of the youth – that if even ONE person says something that may be uncomfortable, why then, it’s obviously the beginning of yet ANOTHER HOLOCAUST!!! OH NOES!!!!!I smell the ovens warming up!!!Better nip it in the bud, Progressives United for a Safe and Sensible Internet Environment in Society.

    We will change the world and do it in a polite way that offends no one!!!!(or at least we will be polite!)
    Posted by: JSorrentine | Apr 12, 2014 10:35:13 AM | 119

  102. James Canning says:


    I opposed the western military intervention in Libya. But, Gaddafi simply made it much easier for that intervention to take place. Full stop.

  103. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    You claim there is “no logic” in my statements that Gaddafi very foolishly helped his enemies bring about western military intervention in Libya. This happens be be true, even if you do not like to accept that.

  104. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    Are you in effect claiming Gaddafi did not receive advice from a number of European diplomats, to tone down his denunciations of the rebels? I think you are, and you of course are simply mistaken.

  105. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    Do Saudi leaders pay me to make comments about how they helped bring catastrophe to Syria?

  106. James Canning says:


    Gaddafi said he would not have been allowed to build nukes, so that ending that tentative programme meant very little. Are you claiming Gaddafi could have built nukes? And should have?

  107. James Canning says:


    Bad PR does not “justify” slaughter. I amke no such claim.

    Your “thinking” on Libya would be regarded as “primitive” by Russian foreign policy experts.

  108. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    If Obama lacks the political courage simply to indicate the Hostage Crisis is no reason whatever to deny approval of entry into New York for a diplomat needing to appear at the UN, it is pathetic.

  109. James Canning says:


    I have assumed from day one, after the Aug. 21 CW event in Syria last year, that chances were fairly good the thing was staged by enemies of the Syrian government.

  110. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    April 12, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Axis Powers wish to keep Iran backwards – no doubt.

    Note how insistent they are on essentially gutting the Arak Heavy Water Reactor?

    Convert it into a Light Water one (they say), thus making Iran dependent on foreigners again – and, in effect, nullifying the enormous expense that Iran made in heavy water production and fuel fabrication from natural uranium.

    Or reduce its output to 10 Megawatts – rendering it unusable for further development of similar reactors.

    With Arak, Iran can never develop Darkhovin and without Darkhovin we will never see indigenous nuclear industry in Iran.

    In my view, Iran should walk away from any proposal that cripples Arak or impose obligations on Iran beyond NPT.

  111. humanist says:

    Garry Sick’s book entitled ‘October Surprise’ demonstrates how Reagan and Bush managed to extend the Hostage Crisis in order to win the presidential election.

    The following article by Robert Perry reveals some more details.

    That, among many other realities, indicates how cruel, apathetic and callous the Republican are, even towards the American citizens.

  112. humanist says:

    Re: Don Bacon’ comment, Apr 11, 8:48 pm

    Graph of Tehran’s Stock Exchange shows the dates of major upward jumps coincide with
    major Western sanction.

    Sanctions noticeably sped up the progress towards technological advance. Iranians must be thanking Israel and the West for that.

  113. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    None of the awful events predicted by some and wanted by US gov is going to happen in Iran.

    Here’s the Farsi

    From the English translation:

    “The purpose of agreeing with these negotiations was to change the atmosphere of hostility that the camp of arrogance has created against Iran. These negotiations should continue, but everyone should know that despite this, the activities of the Islamic Republic in the area of nuclear research and development will not stop in any way. None of the nuclear achievements of the country can be given up.”

    Maybe the whole thing is about SL giving US and western stooges in Iran enough rope to hang themselves.

    Hey, how about that?

  114. masoud says:

    I remember Zarif trumpeting his expertise and lecturing his predecessor’s about the harmful effects of pushing the West’s red-buttons:Why declare Iran a nuclear nation? Why talk about the second world war? Or aks questions about the September 11 attacks?

    So I’m finding this situation deliciously ironic. And let’s dispense with the fantasy that this situation is being driven by Congress. Aboutalebi gave his interview to khabaronline months before this situation hit the headlines in the western press. Obama admin could have easily approved Aboutalebi early in the year with no fuss at all.The point? To reinforce Iran’s second hand status, and obtain the IRI implicit endorsement to this effect.

    Since Iran can’t step back now, it’s going to have to go months, if not years, without a formal envoy at the UN, while this whole mess is sorted out via legal channels. What a disgrace. Nor can Iran retaliate diplomatically, since this will be spun/interoperated globally as intentionally sabotaging the p5+1 process.

    As talented a negotiator and spokesman as Zarif might be, this should be reason enough to dismiss him. Not immediately, of course. Majlis need’s to wait till everyone’s through playing sherades. Hopefully that’ll be in June.

  115. masoud says:

    *to reinforce Iran’s second class status*

  116. Don Bacon says:

    masoud says:
    April 12, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    What a disgrace.

    The US acts illegally and badly about something that happened 35 years ago and it’s a disgrace for Iran?
    Actually it isn’t.
    It rather highlights the impotency and pettiness of the United States to all of those non-aligned countries that have been pushed around also.
    And not having an envoy to the US-controlled UN — this control now obvious by the Aboutalebi affair — is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Dumping on Iran is easy. Many do it. Pick it apart. It will endure nevertheless.
    First class, in my book. (But then I’ve always rooted for the underdog.)

  117. Don Bacon says:

    Iran hasn’t complained to the UN yet, but look for it.
    Meanwhile, courtesy of Inner City Press, here is a 1988 UN ruling that Yasser Arafat must be admitted to the US.

    From the “Statement by the UN Legal Counsel concerning the determination by the Secretary of State of the United States of America on the visa application of Mr. Yasser Arafat, made at the 136th meeting of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, on 28 November 1988,” undocs/org/A/C.6/43/7:

    2. […] As you know, sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement provide, inter alia, that invitees of the United Nations shall not be impeded in their access to the Headquarters district, that this applies irrespective of the state of bilateral relations of the host country and that the necessary visas “shall be granted … as promptly as possible”.

    10. For the record, I wish to state that the United Nations has not acquiesced in such a practice. It is true that, on certain occasions, the United States has declined to issue visas to representatives of States or to persons invited to the United Nations, and the United Nations has not insisted where the requesting State itself, for reasons of its own, did not pursue the matter. The United Nations legal position regarding the obligation of the host country to grant visas has at all times been perfectly clear to the host country, as was the United Nations position with respect to the so-called security reservation…

    12. To sum up, I am of the opinion that the host country was and is under an obligation to grant the visa request

    As US Bans Iran Ambassador, ICP Asks of 1988 Arafat Ruling, 1953 Precedent

    By Matthew Russell Lee

    UNITED NATIONS, April 11 — For days the UN spokespeople have resisted saying if the US blocking Iran’s nominee to be Ambassador to the UN would violate the UN’s own agreement with the US as Host Country.

    On April 11, when the US said “we have informed the United Nations and the Government of Iran that we will not issue a visa to Mr. Aboutalebi,” Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN’s legal opinion in 1988 that the US had a duty to let Yasser Arafat in still applies. Video here.

    That is, since the Host Country Agreement hasn’t changed, why hasn’t the UN simply reiterated its precedential ruling on Arafat? Is the only difference the change in Secretaries General? Or the end of the Cold War and seemingly uni-polar world, or at least uni-polar UN?

    Dujarric said that it’s that neither the US nor Iran have asked for a ruling. But the US informing the UN of its decision should trigger some statement. Here is the 1988 (and 1953) background:

    From the “Statement by the UN Legal Counsel concerning the determination by the Secretary of State of the United States of America on the visa application of Mr. Yasser Arafat, made at the 136th meeting of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, on 28 November 1988,” undocs/org/A/C.6/43/7:

    2. […] As you know, sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Headquarters Agreement provide, inter alia, that invitees of the United Nations shall not be impeded in their access to the Headquarters district, that this applies irrespective of the state of bilateral relations of the host country and that the necessary visas “shall be granted … as promptly as possible”.

    10. For the record, I wish to state that the United Nations has not acquiesced in such a practice. It is true that, on certain occasions, the United States has declined to issue visas to representatives of States or to persons invited to the United Nations, and the United Nations has not insisted where the requesting State itself, for reasons of its own, did not pursue the matter. The United Nations legal position regarding the obligation of the host country to grant visas has at all times been perfectly clear to the host country, as was the United Nations position with respect to the so-called security reservation…

    12. To sum up, I am of the opinion that the host country was and is under an obligation to grant the visa request

    Even further back, document E/2397 of 10 April 1953 explains that:

    “Section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement establishes the procedures for handling any such dispute. If the dispute is not settled by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement, it “shall be referred for final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators, one to be named by the Secretary-General, one to be named by the Secretary of State of the United States, and the third to be chosen by the two, or, if they should fail to agree upon a third, then by the President of the International Court of Justice.”

    This will not be easy for UNSG Ban Ki-moon, a US puppet.

  118. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    April 12, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    Make him Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, and UN ambassador.

  119. Jay says:

    Dishonesty in three steps: A Tale of

    Step 1: word selection
    “bring about” is the synonym for “cause” according to Merriam Webster dictionary.

    Step 2: Use selected words to assign blame (i.e. Gaddafi was the cause)
    James Canning says: April 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    “… Gaddafi very foolishly helped his enemies bring about western military intervention in Libya. ”

    Step 3: Deny, deny, deny!
    James Canning says: April 12, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Bad PR does not “justify” slaughter. I amke no such claim.


    So James, we know that thousands of innocent civilians were casualties of the military intervention in Libya. You say Gaddafi was the cause (bring about) of military intervention because of his bad PR. But, according to you Bad PR does not justify slaughter. Please “untwist” this pretzel!

  120. Karl.. says:


    Just stop theres no point, he will never stop aslong as people reply to him.

  121. Karl.. says:

    In fact I think he should be banned by this time.

  122. masoud says:

    And let add this:

    Any administration in Iran worth it’s salt should be actively touting and celebrating the Capture of the Den of Spies: The most important turning point of the most important revolution in at least the past century.

    What do we get instead? Mealy-mouthed, ashe-faced apologies, delivered with hands clasped firmly behind the back, and eyes cast downward.
    ‘Wasn’t me, honest!’

    Not a single spokesperson has the mettle to look the accusers in the eyes and tell them:
    We didn’t like then idea of outsiders deciding what Iran’s political future should be after the pattern that Victoria Nuland and the US mission to the Ukraine have adopted in deciding the composition of the Government in Kiev.

    We didn’t want to give any outside powers the chance to Organize sniper attacks similar in nature to those Lady Ashton receives reports on from her associate foreign ministers.

    We don’t think that the deposition of Egypt’s only elected government by it’s US funded army, and the subsequent massacre of thousand’s of civilians that has gone unnoticed by those who constantly invoke Human Rights to justify their sins, was planned and executed independently of the undue influence that foreign embassies exercise in Cairo. We could not let that happen in Tehran.

    What do we get instead?
    ‘You don’t understand. Aboutalebi isn’t actually as crazy as you’d justifiably assume he is. He studied at the Sorbone! He’s one of *our most rational* diplomats!’

    Absolutely disgraceful.

  123. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    April 12, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    Being Iran’sto New York is probably his calling in life. The question is whether he can fill that role for anything other than a ‘reformist’ government in the light of some of the politically partisan comments he’s made as foreign minister.

  124. kooshy says:


    I meant to appoint Abotalebi as Iran’ Chief Nuclear Negotiator and UN ambassador with nuclear talks only accepted in UN headquarter or in Tehran.
    If it was me I would have appointed Saeed Jalili as UN ambassador better yet Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. Remember for a while US wanted to make slick willy as the SG of UN. There are options to slap back and use it politically.

  125. Sammy says:

    Masoud 9:37 am

    You expressed the bitter truth right to the point, very sad developments going on currently in the Zionist infiltrated government of Rouhani.
    God help us, and may the SL carefully watch the current events.
    Throughout the 8 years of AN’s administration I never had any worries about our foreign policy, but now as it seems we are ‘re-entering’ the ‘west-boot-licking’ phase, which of course could lead to the demise of the IRI, as we know and respected it.

  126. Rehmat says:

    Ed Miliband, HM Opposition Leader on his recent visit to Israel told students at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem that Israel is Jewish homeland. While throwing his support for a negotiated solution to the US objections to Iran’s civilian nuclear program, Ed added some sugar to his statement for Israel/Zionist consumption. “It isn’t just Israel’s concern, it isn’t just a regional concern, it is a very significant global concern,” he noted.

  127. yk says:


    They are faeces eating dogs and would say anything to remain relevant. These people have no moral compass materialism is their religion. I believe they are even an insult to dogs. If these are the best western nations has to offer as leaders then they deserve what ever hardship their policies has brought on them. As the saying goes people deserve the type of leader they have.

  128. Don Bacon says:

    A possible indicator that Israel understands the Russia/Syria advances in Syria.

    Haaretz, Apr 13:
    White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem’s “neutrality” regarding Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. Senior figures in the Obama administration have expressed great disappointment with the lack of support from Israel for the American position on the Ukraine crisis and with the fact that the Israeli government puts its relations with the United States and with Russia on the same plane.

  129. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    masoud, sammy, kooshy,

    Like I said, SL gave them enough rope to hang themselves.

    Like I said, this is going to be a one-term admin.

    It’s own voters are disgruntled.

    We’re keeping quiet until we reach “six months”, after that “all options on the table” if you know what I mean.

    Mahmoud-jan attended Friday prayers last week (with his minder Jenabe Elham). Of course didn’t sit in the front, but among the people. The other idiots just don’t get it…

    Everybody- EVERYBODY- was saying to him “khode omret bede” and asking whether he will run next time.

    He just smirked the Mahmoud smirk and kept quiet. Fuckin brilliant.

  130. Don Bacon says:

    on the Aboutalebi nomination:

    NPR, Apr 5:
    Iran’s reported decision to name Hamid Aboutalebi as its ambassador to the United Nations has ignited anger in the U.S. That’s because the diplomat was part of the student group that held Americans hostage in 1979. Now, dozens of lawmakers are urging the Obama administration to deny him a visa.

    It’s the latest sign of just how difficult it will be for Washington and Tehran to overcome decades of mistrust.

    By most accounts, Aboutalebi wasn’t directly involved in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. . But that makes no difference to retired U.S. Air Force Col. David Roeder, who along with 51 other Americans spent 444 harrowing days in captivity in Iran.

    “He was not one of those that held a gun to my head. He wasn’t one of those who beat me and kicked me and that sort of thing,” Roeder says. “But he was there. And he was part of it. And you are a product of your past.”(end NPR)

    “You are a product of your past.”

    David Milton Roeder
    Date of birth: June 21, 1939
    The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, July 2, 1926, takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Flying Cross to Captain David Milton Roeder (AFSN: FR-83066), United States Air Force, for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight as an F-105 Thunderchief pilot over Southeast Asia on 21 April 1968. On that date, Captain Roeder was a member of a flight assigned an interdiction mission deep in hostile territory. Without any flak suppression, Captain Roeder courageously braved intense hostile fire and only by placing himself in the most hazardous of conditions, achieved maximum results with his ordnance. The professional competence, aerial skill, and devotion to duty displayed by Captain Roeder reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.

    “You are a product of your past.”
    Everyone has a past, including Roeder who had previously bombed Vietnamese and later was beaten and kicked by Iranians.

  131. Don Bacon says:

    on the Aboutalebi nomination:
    Juan Cole, Apr 13
    …The other thing to say about the high dudgeon in Washington, however, is that the US has acted in equally or worse bad taste in the past toward Iran.

    In 1953 the US Central Intelligence Agency conspired with right wing generals and other anti-democratic elements in Iran to overthrow the elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. See Ervand Abrahamian’s recent study of this episode, “The Coup.” A liberal from an aristocratic background, Mosaddegh had committed the sin of coming to power just after the parliament nationalized Iran’s petroleum industry (i.e. declared that it belonged to Iran–as it did– rather than to BP’s then incarnation, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.). The US put Mohammad Reza Pahlevi back on the throne, and he became an insufferable dictator and pro-American stooge.

    An operative in the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s was Richard Helms, the “gentlemanly planner of assassinations. He rose to become deputy director of the CIA and then, 1966-1973, director. Helms was a serial murderer who attempted to rub out Fidel Castro and Salvador Allende among others.

    In 1973-77, Helms was sent by the Nixon administration to be ambassador to Iran. Sending a career CIA operative and former director of that organization as diplomatic envoy to the country where the CIA had destroyed democracy was a huge slap in the face of the Iranian people, and they knew it. . .

  132. nico says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    “masoud, sammy, kooshy”

    The UN still is in NYC and sending an envoy that would have participated in the hostage crisis could be seen by many as an act of useless provocation by other countries. Even those having a positive view of IRI.

    Thus it could be argued that as a matter of soft war it is much more efficient to not emphasize that aspect of the envoy background but to firmly hold ground and emphasize the principle of the US duty as the UN host country.

    As a matter of foreign policy as defined by the SL has always been against provocation but befending Iran standing and interests firmly.

    Besides I have come to be impressed by IRI (relatively) consistent stance through its various centers of power.

    It seems to me that such stance about the envoy issue has been centrally defined and applied.
    Actually neither the Majlis, the IRIG nor the SL made different declaration about that.

    Surely AN is a populist and would have inflamed the populace with harsh stance.
    Would has it been to IRI benefit ?

    As expressed many times here, my opinion is that some populism is necessary for the people to participate to the political life of a nation.
    On the envoy subject it does not seem to me the current IRIG trespassed the redline in term of the revolution principles.
    However the Rohani gvt surely is oligarchic.

  133. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    One does well to remember that Iran’s religious leaders favoured the overthrow of Mossadegh.

  134. James Canning says:


    I find it peculiar you seem to have difficulty comprehending that a more sophisticated PR programme by Gaddafi might have enabled him to avoid western military intervention. I opposed that intervention, and I was sorry Gaddafi ignored crucial advice from a number of European diplomats who were trying to PREVENT western military intervention in Libya.

  135. James Canning says:


    You have a tendency to object to the introuduction of FACTS into the discussion on this site. Where such FACTS do not support whatever conclusions you are promoting.

  136. James Canning says:


    Did France cause the First World War, by encouraging Russia to back Serbia unwisely?

  137. James Canning says:


    Did Gaddafi say that nukes were “expensive”? That nukes were “dangerous to the country that has them”? Simple yes or no please.

  138. Sammy says:

    One of my favorite subjects, Narco Banks in London and New York, reminds me of the true history of HSBC, here again the link to the J.Willie article a truly comprehensive overview , also to get the right perspective on why the West’s Ukraine rape is of so much importance


    Ukraine was clearly the Waterloo event for the USDollar, which requires the passage of time for critical changes in psychology and perception. Putin is in no hurry. Besides, when Russia does respond, it will be on the financial and economic front, where the US & British puppeteers are legless and without moral spine. The US-led Western NATO forces, joined by secretive mercenary forces and Blackstone thugs, invaded Ukraine and thereby fell into a significant trap set by Putin. The Germans had been making important moves toward a deeper alliance with Russia. The first interruption was Cyprus, where Russian banks conduct intermediary operations and where GazpromBank has offices, and where the Russians were purchasing gold in large quantities. The second interruption was Syria, where the Russians were working steadfastly to establish the Iran Shiite gas pipelines for Gazprom system integration, which would (will) supply the Western European market. The third interruption is Ukraine, the last ditch attempt to cut Russia off from Eastern Europe, using Western energy firms as the leverage device. Under the cloud of confusion, the Western fascists stole the Ukrainian central bank gold and diverted $70 billion of public funds into Swiss banks. The world is on the path to demanding a solution, as the fascists are being recognized and called out. The world demands a viable solution. It is coming. It will shake the world.


    Since the Black Monday 1987 event, the big US money center banks became dependent upon narco money laundering functions. Since the 2003 wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, the big US banks would fail without the steady narco fund injections. Managing reserve efficacy requirements in overnight accounting has become a daily challenge. In the following decade, these big banks, together with the big London banks, joined in service by the big French and German banks, have lashed themselves together with derivative rope, while working in deep collusion to rig the LIBOR, the FOREX, and the GOLD markets. The bold crimes and illicit activity and blatant malfeasance are in the open nowadays, have been in the open for over two years, yet without any semblance of prosecution, remedy, or restitution. The regulators continue in their musical chair exercises, which include sitting on their hands while saluting their bank masters. The big US banks have become control centers for criminal interventions in some bizarre service to preserve a corrupted system, while crafting legislation in the USCongress that serves their purposes. Their big bank structures are as filled with toxic matter as they are crime syndicate vault stores. The world demands a viable solution. It is coming. It will shake the world….

  139. Don Bacon says:

    James Canning says:
    April 13, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    Don Bacon, One does well to remember that Iran’s religious leaders favoured the overthrow of Mossadegh.

    Why does one do well to remember that miniscule factoid?

  140. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    You think the views of Iranian religious leaders are of no importance?

  141. Rehmat says:

    James Kirchick, posted on Israeli hasbara mouthpiece, the Tablet magazine on April 12, 2014.

    “The Islamic Republic might seem a strange ally for a group that describes itself as a radically patriotic Christian party. But, given Jobbik’s virulently anti-Europe rhetoric, anti-Western worldview, and undisguised antisemitism, it’s not hard to see why the party has embraced the mullahs,” wrote Kirchick.

  142. Rehmat says:

    @Dan Bacon

    Your source Juan Cole is a consultant to CIA. His only so-called “Islamic credential” is a secularist Pakistani woman as his second wife.

    Can you enlighten us here why Israeli government and the Jewish lobby groups couldn’t dig Aboutalebi’s involvement in the seizure of the embassy compound on November 4, 1979. They also forgot to show Aboutalebi’s anti-US part in the Hollywood propaganda movie Argo. William Daugherty, one of the 53 US embassy staff members, who spent 444 days inside the compound, called Argo, a political anti-Iran crap.

    The Lobby didn’t knew Aboutalebi’s ‘antisemite’ activities during the time he represented his country as ambassador to European Union, Australia, Belgium and Italy – all Zionist-controlled entities.

  143. Don Bacon says:

    re: continuing mindless attacks on Professor Juan Cole

    Jun 5, 2006
    Blackballed at Yale

    One of the most closely watched — and criticized — faculty searches this academic year is ending with Juan Cole apparently being rejected for a post in Middle Eastern history at Yale University.
    Cole, in an e-mail exchange,… repeatedly declined to say anything about the Yale search. But he did agree to comment on the criticism he has received during the Yale search. “These vicious attacks on my character and my views were riddled with with wild inaccuracies,” he said, adding that the criticism was “motivated by a desire to punish me for daring to stand up for Palestinian rights, criticize Israeli policy, criticize Bush administration policies and, in general being a liberal Democrat.”

    Rehmat, you would do better to confine your remarks to the issues and not waste space on ignorant ad hominem attacks on accomplished people.

  144. Jay says:

    Karl.. says:
    April 13, 2014 at 6:35 am


    Thank you for your comment. I carried the conversation far enough to demonstrate once again what is perhaps now abundantly clear to everyone on this site.

    I have now stopped. At least until I see the opportunity to demonstrate, through James’ own words, what he is really about again!

  145. Sammy says:

    **The governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) says Tehran is in talks with European businesses about potential investment in the country as soon as sanctions against the Islamic Republic are lifted.

    “France, Germany and Italy have had extensive economic relationships with Iran and they have kept that relationship,” Seif said.**

    Yeah sure , for every shitty spare part you had beg them on your knees and after tripling the costs and after extensive paperwork they would eventually export it to Iran.
    Why not lick the boots of US/UK and Canada as well ?? Pathetic !!
    Back to the same shit where we were in it seems…..

  146. humanist says:

    Re: Don Bacon’s comment on Apr 13, at 5:30 pm

    minuscule factoid?

    In my view Don Bacon is one of the few thoughtful and well informed commentators in this site. Yet it appears he is not aware that, in the last 2 centuries of Iranian history, how devastating the influence of the top clergy has been. They, by taking bribe from the foreign countries helped them to continue the pillage and keep Iranians illiterate and undeveloped.

    There are of course a few remarkable exceptions. When the British had the monopoly of tobacco sale in Iran, because of their aggressiveness in pricing and other reasons, a courageous top clergy issued a fatwa prohibiting all forms of smoking. Iranians complied. The result was of course disastrous for the involved British.

    The fact that the same type of clergy helped the British in 1953 coup is undeniable.

    Regarding Don’s comment, I didn’t know what factoid means so I looked it up in Wikipedia. There it is described as:

    A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact,

    Don can be no more wrong about what James is alleging. While I’ve disagreed with most of James’ analyses, specially as far as the developing countries are concerned, in this specific charge he is certainly right.

  147. Karl.. says:


    Someone that makes such comments (about the clergy) is often someone that try to deny the american, brittish involvement in the coup, basically it was the ayatollah themselves that kicked out mossadegh. I guess this is what Don meant.

  148. fyi says:

    humanist says:

    April 14, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    The analytical framework which posits the proposition that there obtains a substantive difference between mullahs (Mullahs are not clergy, Islam does not have clergy as understood by Christians) and the rest of the Iranian population is false.

    Mullahs are graduates of Islamic Universities which had been teaching Religious Sciences for the most part of the last 2 centuries; that is all of their distinction.

    Mullahs can be as corrupt as the next Iranian – no doubt about that.

    However, in every single undertaking that has asserted Iranian Will-to-Power over the last 2 centuries, they have been playing major roles – if not decisive ones.

    I agree with you that very many influential mullah’s – including the late Mr. Kashani – left the late Dr. Mossadeq high and dry to fail.

    One must bear in mind that the formation of modern Iranian state relies crucially on Shia Islam. In such a polity, Doctors of the Religious Sciences of Islam will always play an important role as interpreters of an arcane body of knowledge.

    You can consider the United States, with its almost religious insistence and adoption of the English Common Law as well as Constitutional Jurisprudence which confers almost privileged position to Juris Doctors in her political structures.

  149. James Canning says:


    Only a fool would claim the US and the UK did not conspire to overthrow Mossadegh. That said, religious leaders in Iran generally welcomed that overthrow.

  150. James Canning says:


    Thanks. Intelligent discussion benefits from establishing facts relevant to the discussion.

    Persian religious leaders also played a key role in the elevation of Reza Khan. They did not want a secular republic along the lines of Turkey.

  151. James Canning says:


    You appear unable to distinguish between a “contributing factor” and a “cause”, regarding an historical event. This inability impairs the effectiveness of your argument.

    Gaddafi’s incompetence did not CAUSE the western military intervention in Libya, but it obviously was a contributing factor.

  152. James Canning says:


    You labour under the same disability as Jay, from what I can see from your comments.

  153. Kathleen says:

    The Leveretts, Prof Cole and former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit have been writing about how U.S. economic etc support for”sectarian extremist and Al Qeada affiliates” in Syria are very much part of the reason that over a 100,000 Syrians have been killed. It is so incredibly inexcusable and shameful. Yet most Americans never get wind about what has really been taking place and who is responsible.

    Thank you for this very clear piece Seyed Mohammad Marandi.

  154. Kathleen says:

    “Of course, the internal contradictions of this discourse are linked to Orientalist stereotypes and attitudes prevalent in the West among mainstream secular liberals, pseudo-progressives, and neo-conservatives alike, who cannot grasp the possibility of a stable and legitimate political order that is not based on Western “values.”

    Another example of NPR’s agenda. Deborah Amos in Iran.

    Iran’s Culture Wars: Who’s Winning These Days?

    April 12, 2014

  155. James Canning says:


    The primary reason Iran is smeared by so many neocons, liberals, or whatevers, in the US, is simply that Iran is not friendly toward Israel. This factor is more important than all others, in my judgment. Another factor is Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is very annoying for some very powerful Sunnis with Lebanese connections.

  156. Dan Cooper says:

    Washington is putting the entire world at risk.

  157. fyi says:

    Dan Cooper says:

    April 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    The Barons are equally responsible.

    What does Ukraine have to do with Australia or Canada or UK?

    Are Italians to die once again on the Russian steppe – just as they did in World War II?

    Is the security of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania worth global thermonuclear war?

  158. Karl.. says:

    US are most responsbile then you have Poland, Sweden, UK, France and further away Germany that warmonger.

  159. fyi says:

    Kathleen says:

    April 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Yes, put women – specially those possessing young fertile wombs – under some sort of cover and then you have realized True Islam – the Islamic Nirvana would just be around the corner and Paradise at hand.

    God forbid that they actually do something against depredations of the state, or corruption, or injustice – no those things are not as important.

    What rubbish!

  160. Karl.. says:

    I think that if nato, us or eu began to arm ukraine more then we can see a russian response and then I dont think its such a long way until Russia sell the s-300s. As soon as the west start talking about arming kiev, it could be messy. I think theres a limit on what Russia can accept and they wont tolerate that^.

    I have never seen such propaganda actions by western MSM since..forever. Iraqwar didnt even top this and this conflict have only been going on for 1 mounth or so.

  161. Sammy says:

    There currently 2 world leaders with functioning brains, the SL and Putin.
    Here a picture where Putin learns first hand what real resistance against the Zio-Fascists NWO is all about and probably these days he will remember the words of the SL very well:

  162. Rehmat says:

    On April 14, Israeli finance minister, Yair Lapid, posted his Passover prayer on his Facebook page, asking his G-d to help Zionist regime get rid of Native Muslims and Christians from the Holy Land.

    After complaining that Arabs don’t want Jews to live in peace in Palestine which G-d promised to Abraham (he was not Jewish) – and the whole world turned against the “Jewish homeland” with antisemitism on rise among many European nations – Lapid asked his “vengeful G-d” to help Jews get rid of Arabs from Palestine.

    “I know You cannot remove this burden. But couldn’t You just role it to the side a bit? This (Palestinian) boulder is a heavy burden on our hearts. They say no one can stop a terrorist. But You can – and we need You in so many situations like that, where we have no other solution,” wrote Lapid as reported by Arutz Sheva newspaper on April 14, 2014.

  163. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    April 15, 2014 at 10:58 am

    If NATO starts arming Ukraine in any significant manner, Russia will invade under this or that excuse.

  164. Karl.. says:


    Response by Ukraine would be something like this:

  165. James Canning says: today has an interesting report on the great increase in illegal immigration into Europe from Africa since Italy late last year began to rescue passengers in boats that founder.

  166. James Canning says:

    I recommend Philip Giraldi’s comments at TAC: “Obama’s circle of bad advice – – Activist experts make bad ambassadors, especially when diplomacy is needed”.

  167. fyi says:


    You heard all of this from me on this forum sometime ago:

  168. Sammy says:

    Fyi , re : William Pfaff article…

    You mean you had predicted that ISR will bomb Iran, when and how?

  169. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Whose the bitch now?

    Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar replaced by his deputy: royal decree

  170. James Canning says:


    William Pfaff in effect says Turkey should not become a member of the EU. I of course agree with him.

  171. masoud says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    April 13, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    The best hope for the country over the short term, is that Zarif and Rouhani mess things up so horribly over the next two years that team-Ahmadinejad is actually allowed to run a proper list for the parliamentary elections.

    Over the long term, the only hope for the country is a radically less fossilized Guardianship Council.

  172. masoud says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    April 15, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    Apparently it’s only temporary.
    Only a royal born prince is allowed to ascend to such a post in the Kingdom Of Horrors.

  173. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    April 15, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    April 15, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    “Apparently it’s only temporary.”

    I think is more like the case of

    “ما را إز مدارسه بيرون ميرويم”

  174. James Canning says:


    Are you unhappy that Iran apparently was able to export about 1.6 million barrels of oil daily, during February and March of this year? More “failure” by Rouhani?

  175. Kathleen says:

    fyi what are you talking about?

  176. Sammy says:

    nico says:
    April 16, 2014 at 5:16 am
    Geopolitical desintegration to come ?

    nico , I read the same article in zerohedge and it makes sense.

    This one by Mike Witney is also worth reading :

    ….Bingo. That’s US policy in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with democracy, sovereignty, or human rights. It’s about money and power. Who are the big players going to be in the world’s biggest growth center, that’s all that matters. Unfortunately for Obama and Co., the US has fallen behind Russia in acquiring the essential resources and pipeline infrastructure to succeed in such a competition. They’ve been beaten by Putin and Gazprom at every turn. While Putin has strengthened diplomatic and economic relations, expanded vital pipeline corridors and transit lines, and hurtled the many obstacles laid out for him by American-stooges in the EC; the US has dragged itself from one quagmire to the next laying entire countries to waste while achieving none of its economic objectives.

    So now the US has jettisoned its business strategy altogether and moved on to Plan B, regime change. Washington couldn’t beat Putin in a fair fight, so now they’ve taken off the gloves. Isn’t that what’s really going on? Isn’t that why the US NGOs, and the Intel agencies, and the State Dept were deployed to launch their sloppily-engineered Nazi-coup that’s left the country in chaos?….

  177. Tuyzentfloot says:

    Re Hersh: his take on the killing of ambassador Christopher Stevens is different from the Leverett’s. In Hersh’s view – which in general I would describe as “not necessarily right but in line with well informed people from the intelligence services”, the main function of the consulate was as a cover for weapons trafficking to Syria and the attack on the consulate should be seen in that light. Now the Leverett’s argument was that the attack was blowback that shows that US policy is wrong. I think that argument is weak. That there is blowback from the NATO offensive on Libya I fully agree with. There’s blowback in terms of increased instability and in terms of depleting credibility with Russia and China. And others. And that’s important. But I just don’t understand what makes the attack on the consulate that significant for judging US foreign policy. Should the US have concluded in any way from the attack on the consulate that their foreign policies were wrong?

  178. fyi says:

    Kathleen says:

    April 15, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    I was commenting specifically on the “Iran Culture Wars” and indeed the religious war within Muslims societies.

    Wherever political forces with Muslim orientation have come to powers, their first act of Islamic Piety has been to force women – under duress – into their vision of Muslim female modesty.

    The control of young wombs seems to be the main issue of concern for these Muslim political forces.

    On the other hand, the fact that for 1300 years there has been no Muslim dispensation in which a Muslim has been safe in his person, property and namus does not seem to have elicited as strong response from same said forces.

    In other words, Piety for the womb, impiety for everything else.

    Under Qajars, women were under the hood, would that be the epitome of piteous society?

    So, by all means, go to Dizin and harass a few young women; Islam is in danger.

  179. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 15, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    He is saying much more; he is saying that the King & the Barons are deranged and all the while the structures that their ancestors built at great cost has been wantonly and deliberately destroyed out of ignorance, malice, and hubris.

    As I wrote before, the Peace of Yalta and its institutions are dead or dying – look no further than how US is destroying IMF due to the degeneration of her domestic politics.

    The ramifications for Iran, and the Shia Crescent is this: that they are indeed on the right side of this historical moment in as much as they are charting an independent course from the international system’s dominant players.

    Indeed the international system is disintegrating and with it the alliance structures of post World War II; local states such as Iran are best advised to forge alliances to protect themselves against the new age of barbarism (Warring States) that is fast approaching.

    Had the Shia Crescent not been forged over the last few years already, its creation should have been the first order of business for the national and religious survival of its member states and peoples.

  180. Rehmat says:

    Last week, in an open letter to John Kerry, some “Friends of Israel” asked the pro-Israel John Kerry to stop bending on his knees in front of Netanyahu and the Jewish Lobby.

    The letter was signed by Henry Seigman, former president of American Jewish Congress, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Polish national security adviser to the White House, Lee Hamilton, former Congressman and vice-Chairman of 9/11 Commission, Carla A. Hills, former senior White House official and currently Chairwoman of CFR, Thomas R. Pickering, former US ambassador to Israel, India, Jordan and Russia, and Frank Carlucci, former defense secretary and deputy director under president Ronald Reagan.

  181. Nasser says:

    Ambassador Bhadrakumar writes: “China calibrates distance from Russia”

    “There is a fundamental contradiction here as well. Whereas Russia is a dissatisfied power in the contemporary world order, China is a stakeholder and has no gains to make out of chaos and disorder.”

  182. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    April 16, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Yes, like the Tokougawa Shogun, waiting out other clans as they fought one another to death.

  183. James Canning says:


    Russia is a “dissatisfied power”? I think that is a bit of a stretch.

  184. James Canning says:


    The creation of the EU has been an astounding success, in my view. I think the EU’s success would be badly injured by Turkey’s admission into it.

    Provided Ukraine stays out of Nato, I think a unified Ukraine is in Russia’s and the EU’s best interests.

    The US has made some serious mistakes in the Middle East, and the reasons for those mistakes have a great deal to do with the Israel lobby.

  185. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 16, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    Canada, Australia, and indeed the entire EU are in support of US in her posture vis a vis the religious war for and in Palestine.

    As long as Axis Powers leaders and planners are unwilling to admit the religious nature of their war in the Near East, there will be no progress there.

    Given the cavalier way that the Axis Powers have been dismantling the Peace of Yalta and its institutions and the insane provocations against Russia – all the whole flirting with World War III, I see no immediate cause for hope.

    One must assume that the Axis Powers – the Mad King & Barons – will march down the current path; perhaps sometime after 2024 after the inconclusive petering out of the Axis Powers’ financial and economic war against the Russian Federation; the newer crop of planners and leaders will revisit the period from 1991 to 2025.

  186. Karl.. says:

    To follow up on my April 16, 2014 at 3:41 pm post

    I find it strange that syrian government havent infiltrated these groups and have stopped this arms supplying network.

  187. nico says:

    Sammy says:
    April 16, 2014 at 6:35 am

    Is it all about power and money ?
    It could be said that it is in the materialistic western mindset.

    But overall money and power may be gained through various policies.
    Cooporation may bring that as well.

    My take is that the heart of the issue is elsewhere.

    The US are after heinous policies that is confrontation and crimes everywhere for decades.
    The core of the issue is what always has been within illegitimate policies.
    That is extremism, supremacism, lack of respect for others, clash of civilization, etc…

    To sum it up the US are simply after an fascist project under the guise of “humanitarian” colinialism or power colonialism.

    No less.

    No matter the relic of the US moral grand standing… The political correctness (rather call it fear, cowardice, treasons or opportunism) in the international community vis a vis the only world super power that obtained after the cold war is vanishing through the shift of global power balance and US weakening.

    And the US policies are more and more broadly challenged and called for what they truly are.

    Obviously the US macro policies have been a failure for decades but the US are doubling down day after day after day.
    Well things need to get much worse first to get better afterward.
    Will it be through economic collapse, long agony or massive wars.

    That is the only unanswered and interesting question indeed.

  188. James Canning says:


    Chances a country conbtrolled by Muslims would somehow go through a process and emerge not in the control of Muslims, are near zero. Where is the “religious war”? The Sunnis are not likely to control central government of Iraq, no matter how much killing takes place here and there in Iraq over coming years.

    Perhaps you mean hopes on part of some fanatical Zionists, that Muslims (and Christians) can be expelled from the occupied West Bank?

    In Syria, it is of course conceivable that the Sunnis may end up in control of the central government. In Lebanaon, relative power of the Shia is likely to continue to grow.

  189. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    April 16, 2014 at 5:03 pm
    “Great text on western hypocrisy”

    Fortunately for the US and the western world order they way it was is over is gone as of the Ukrainian crises the western word order no longer can be governed.

    The sooner westerners accept the new reality the less damage is inflicted on them and the rest of the world. We have entered a new era of a few core western countries and their dimensions and on the other side is a lose coalition of everybody that don’t accept western concept and perception of world domination and order.

  190. kooshy says:

    I was watching the UK flag hanging from light post on WILSHIRE blvd in LA, due to some Brit event that I can’t read from the distance, but what I was really thinking, was, for how much longer that Scottish blue is going to remain on that flag?

  191. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 16, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    You, like very many Western people, are in denial of the current situation.

  192. BiBiJon says:

    So what?

    There’s a lot of boohoo out there about hypocrisy, provocation, aggression, inhumane treatment of other peoples, meddling in others’ sovereign affairs, etc. etc. etc.

    What is going on, methinks, is that the Western world, headed by the US, whether anyone is convinced is or is not in decline, is not going to stop. Why should it? Morality? Sanity? Puhleeze!

    The West will not stop pushing, containing, and harming anyone big or small that stands in her way. To borrow a phrase from Wendy Sherman , it’s in the DNA. To push effectively, for folks to realize you mean business, of course you would flirt with WW III. That is how the game is played. Let’s all stop moralizing what is in essence a contact sport.

    If there’s to be change, it would have to come from the outside: BRICS, NAM, whatever. There’s no way it will come from within. Sad fact is, the harder the non-western world tries to forge cohesion among themselves, the more the west will do to scupper that. Standing up is not for the faint of heart. Standing alone is simply silly.

    From what I see, it is all one big herd of faint hearts. No one is referring the sanctions to WTO, nobody is referring the unfair IAEA reports to a court of arbitration, no indictment of war criminals, no delivery of s-300 because Iranians are not Russian, etc. Everybody is sitting on one hand, and eating popcorn with the other hand.

    Fair is fair. The West is sacrificing a lot to maintain her forward leaning posture. Rest of the world, not much; In line with their limited visions.

  193. kooshy says:

    BiBiJon says:
    April 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Bibi in my opinion the non-western world as you mention or what I called everyone else is not a coalition, they are not aligned or allied, for now they are just, an at times (opportune) intersection of interests. I think for now this is the war of denying expansion of hegemony till the center no longer can hold, you have to be patient with a lot of popcorns of your own, watching and waiting for the expected script end to come, like the old Fardin movies. Admittedly “things” are not getting or going better for the west, on all of their concerned maters of policy internally or externally.

  194. kooshy says:

    China’s view?

    Commentary: West should cooperate, not threaten, Russia on Ukraine crisis 2014-04-17 09:30:24
    by Xinhua writer Huang Yinjiazi

  195. Kathleen says:

    Tuyzenfloot…so would you say the reason Stevens refused an increase in security is because he did not want more attention? And why would the State Dept agree to this when they had other officials saying the consulate needed far more security. Read part of the report and what the so called liberal MSM does not like to talk about is how those who were part of the investigative committee (both Dems and Rep) clearly sounded out that the attack could have “been prevented”

  196. kooshy says:

    This masked security state speaker through the semiofficial state media WP is signaling US’s accepted conditions before the Geneva talks on Ukraine tomorrow, how interesting more and more the west accepting Russian conditions. He clearly says what is Obaba’s administration will want for Ukraine, No NATO membership, possible EU membership not really necessary; a Finlandization is ideal etc. etc.

    The cost of Putin’s adventurism in Ukraine
    By David Ignatius, Published: April 15

  197. BiBiJon says:

    Kathleen says:
    April 16, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    Raymond Tanter says:


    Tehran is also bargaining by pushing the envelope of noncompliance. It is on a trajectory of cheating on its obligations in the Jan. 20 Joint Plan of Action. United Against Nuclear Iran states that, “Iran’s oil exports have increased 117% since October. It is now statistically impossible for the [Obama] administration’s assurances to be correct, unless oil sales go to effectively zero.”


    Paul Pillar says:

    Quote from

    The senators make it sound as if Iran has some obligation under the agreement to knuckle under to sanctions, don’t they? Otherwise how could Iran “violate” what they are talking about? But Iran has no such obligation. All the obligations in the preliminary agreement concerning sanctions are obligations of the P5+1 (including that very mild “pause efforts” clause, which does not entail rolling back the existing oil sanctions). All of Iran’s obligations involve restrictions on its nuclear program. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran so far is in compliance with those obligations.


    Raymond Tanter says:


    And while Bush said to the Iranian people, “As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you,” Obama declines to reach out to them with such inspirational rhetoric. Given the failing grade at midterm, now is the time to take a tough stand against Tehran in nuclear talks and to reach out to the Iranian people.


    Gallup asked Iranians:

    Given the scale of sanctions against Iran, do you think Iran should continue to develop its nuclear power capabilities, or not?

    Yes 63% No 17%

    Put another way, 79% of those who answered the pollster’s question, don’t need any “inspirational rhetoric” from Obama, whom they blame for unjust sanctions.


  198. A concerned world citizen says:

    Has anyone heard of the leaks regarding the nuclear negotiations and the treasonous nature of those Iranian officials involved?

    Inquiring minds, inquire…

  199. tuyzentfloot says:


    I’m distinguishing between tactical and strategic errors. It’s not good to argue tactical errors in order to point out that the strategy is wrong. What lessons should the US learn from their policy vis a vis Libya? From the change in attitude from Russia and China, and from the general instability in the wake of the overthrow of Qaddafi the US could (conceivably) conclude that the overall policy they were pursuing was wrong. But what should they conclude from the killing of the ambassador? That they shouldn’t have gone for regime change? Or that should have gone about it a bit smarter and upgraded the security of the consulate? That’s a different type of error. I don’t think the attack on the consulate should be used to support the claim that the US foreign policy of regime change is wrong. An argument could be constructed for it, but it’s stretched.

  200. BiBiJon says:

    kooshy says:
    April 16, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    You know, when Lula and Erdogan were humiliated by a sanctions resolution supported by the other BRICS members, Russia & China …

    When India votes against Iran in the BoG at IAEA …

    When South Africa’s ANC, long supported in its darkest days by Iran, starts lecturing Iran …

    When China equivocates about Ukraine ….

    Then one has to admit, James (20%, bad PR) Canning is not off the wall when he asks Masoud forthrightly:


    Are you unhappy that Iran apparently was able to export about 1.6 million barrels of oil daily, during February and March of this year? More “failure” by Rouhani?

    We are in a world, no sanctimony intended, where everybody is delighted that their wives eventually returned home after a long night’s work with a hand full $1 bills, and some loose change to show for their efforts at the oldest profession. Hey, at least we are keeping up with the Joneses!

    The Western world has a global narrative. The Shi’a narrative, the Russian narrative, the Hindu narrative, etc. are simply too parochial to be a match. Indeed, this kind of limited vision is precisely what allows the meddlesome to meddle. Iran’s hand has been stretched for decades to foster cooperation in pursuit of justice. Who has taken that hand?

  201. nico says:

    BiBiJon says:April 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    “So what?
    Let’s all stop moralizing what is in essence a contact sport.”

    Contact sport. Sure.
    Stop moralizing. Surely Not.

    Actions and policies have consequences.
    All is question of proportion.
    You can as well say that the US should feel free to nuke every countries.
    Those pushing for primitivism and immoral actions need to be held accountable.

  202. James Canning says:


    Some who follow this site may not know that 1.6 million parrels per day, in Iranian oil exports the past two months, is 50% higher than what has been the norm.

  203. James Canning says:


    I’m in denial of what? Since the 1920s, the Christian population of Syria has declined from 30% of the total, to 10%. You see “religious war” all over the Middle East. So, who is “winning” that war, in Syria?

    Perhaps you really mean that the “religious war” is the prevention of the elimination of Israel?

  204. James Canning says:

    Writing in the Financial Times today, Geoff Dyer says the Obama administration is reluctant to be too public about Ukraine’s not becoming a member of Nato in forseeable future, due to concern there will be shouts of “appeasement of Russia” in the US Congress.

  205. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    April 17, 2014 at 12:04 am

    Ignatius’ writings, the mouthpiece of the trial balloons in the beltway, should be taken with a pound of salt.

    The West has elected to challenge Russia on her backdoor, and it continues to fan the flames. Putin is not backing down, and this has angered the Axis. If Europeans don’t grow a spine, they will pay the price of US/UK adventurism. That is the adventurism journalists should be talking about!

  206. nico says:

    Bibijon says :

    “The Western world has a global narrative. The Shi’a narrative, the Russian narrative, the Hindu narrative, etc. are simply too parochial to be a match. Indeed, this kind of limited vision is precisely what allows the meddlesome to meddle. Iran’s hand has been stretched for decades to foster cooperation in pursuit of justice. Who has taken that hand?”

    Narrative ?
    Do you mean the PNAC global dominace narrative ?
    The preventive war narrative ?
    Fight against terrorism narrative ?
    Humanitatian wars narrative ?
    Or maybe the engineered colored revolution narrative ?
    Or the freedom fighters narrative ?

    Well maybe the economic narrative and social liberalism narrative or legitimate and have appeal…
    However the US long past that redline to enter fascism and oppression by fomenting wars and coups.

    Materrially the US in the last decades provoked much more bloodshed than any other country.
    That is hard fact.

    As for the social liberalism please ask the KSA…

    Maybe in the mind of western exceptionalists and other foreign house niggers your point is true.

  207. nico says:

    The point is one may suggest other to adopt one’s narrative.
    One should not force one’s narrative over others by way of wars or perfidy.
    The US trespassed that red line.

    And the point is that Iran or Russia are much more democratically representative than western stooges and puppet.
    Thus the US are not legitimate.

    One needs only to see the populace confidence and support for the “system” in each country.

  208. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “If NATO starts arming Ukraine in any significant manner, Russia will invade under this or that excuse.”

    ALA, Zbig, Afghanistan memo to Carter, its our pay back to the soviets re Nam.. so is the west trying to get the Russians involved in military and keep them busied knowing how badly the west has been bruised from is own wars and can’t stand up straight?

  209. fyi says:

    Rd. says:

    April 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    There will be now war for Ukraine like what happened in Vietnam.

    Russians – excepting Galicia – will be returning to their own country.

    There is no deep design here on part of the Axis Powers – just foolish hubris coupled to cognitive incompetence.

  210. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Now do not get fly off the rocker, nor shoot the messenger.

    The cause of Israel – ancient and modern – is near and dear to the hearts of hundreds of millions of people among the Axis Powers and associated states.

    There is no struggle that they would not wage on behalf of Israel.

    Look no further than the late Mr. Nixon – a lapsed Quaker – who put US nuclear forces on alert during the 1973 war between Arabs and Israelis.

    A rational Englishman bred in the empirical tradition of England, would ask himself: “Why?”

    Why does a nuclear-armed state – during a war among some third rate states – puts her nuclear forces of state of alert?

    Was US planning on attacking USSR if Arabs were on their way to Tel Aviv?

    Or was US to use a nuclear weapon against Damascus or Cairo – capitals of states that were not threats to the United States, did not seek war with the United States, and generally wished to have good relations with her?

    As said before: you are in denial.

  211. Richard Steven Hack says:

    The Ayatollahs’ Overlooked Anti-WMD Fatwas

    Notable quote from Porter’s book:

    Moreover, Iran’s leading politicians realized that nuclear weapons would be useless. “Those two points — the inutility of nuclear weapons, which implied their irrelevance to regional politics, and the fact that other powers would still have many times more such weapons — represented the core elements of a ‘realist’ strategic argument against possession of nuclear weapons that would later be articulated in greater depth.”

    Precisely what I’ve been saying all along…contrary to those here who think Iran “needs” nukes…

  212. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Most Reported Deaths in Syria Have Not Been Committed By Assad Regime


  213. kooshy says:

    Rd. says:
    April 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    fyi says:

    “If NATO starts arming Ukraine in any significant manner, Russia will invade under this or that excuse.”

    Russia don’t need to do anything in Ukraine, Russia has the useful Ukraine the non useful she don’t care about no matter what they will not ever be allied with Russians, even more effective Russia has the Europe with one hand on the balls and the other on the neck she don’t need to do anything.
    As can be seen Russia can destabilize the entire Europe’s security or economy any time she wants . Why should they invade Crimea was different it was a Russian territory they wouldn’t allow she be part of the board game, the rest of western and Eastern Europe is not part of Russia and can be on the board as far as Putin thinks.

  214. James Canning says:


    I am glad you called attention to the grave danger posed to the entire planet, by Israel and its wars with the Arabs. Specifically, the nuclear alert during the 1973 Arab-Israel war arose from threats by the Soviet Union to put troops into the Sinai, to prevent Israel from destroying Egyptian armies trapped there.

  215. James Canning says:


    The nuclear alert in 1973 during Arab-Israel war had ZERO to do with potnetial use of nukes in the Middle East.

    You forget that Egypt was nearing catastrophic defeat, when the alert was issued. ZERO danger to Israel from Arab armies.

  216. James Canning says:

    “I don’t give a damn what the international community thinks!” Response by David Wilder, in Hebron (West Bank), to comment by John Thornhill, deputy editor of the Financial Times that the Jewish settler community in Hebron was regarded as illegal by the international community. Wilder was born in New Jersey. (FT April 12/13)

  217. James Canning says:

    At, William Boardman has a great piece asking why the US Congress and Obama et al are so childish, about Iran’s nominee to serve as ambasador to the UN. Juvenile, immature, stupid. Etc etc etc. And pathetic, of course.

  218. BiBiJon says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    April 17, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    “Precisely what I’ve been saying all along…contrary to those here who think Iran “needs” nukes…”

    Slightly less narcissistic formulation might be: Precisely what many commenters including myself here have been saying all along.

    But, the larger point than the bleeding obvious realist rational is the religious ruling. Here we have the supreme religious guide declaring nukes are against god. This from the head of a country that has been deemed for years to have “the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so.” I.e. it is not that they can’t build nukes; It is that they regard it as supremely immoral. Such religious rulings have withstood the exigencies of war, the heat of battle, and the noxious odor of mustard gas: (quote from the article you linked)

    “Iran’s chemical sector was quite advanced and perfectly capable of producing the same range of chemical weapons that Iraq was using in the war,” Porter writes. He continues, “The real reason for Iran’s failure to use chemical weapons was not the inability to formulate the necessary mix of chemicals but the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini had forbidden it on the grounds of Islamic jurisprudence.” Porter notes that, according to a senior foreign-ministry officer, military leaders wanted to discuss a chemical retaliation against Iraq, “but Khomeini refused to allow it on the ground that it was forbidden by Islam.”

    James (20% bad PR) Canning imagines to be relevant that “1.6 million parrels per day, in Iranian oil exports the past two months, is 50% higher than what has been the norm.”

    Similarly, we have CSM say Iran merely “wants the release of $4.2 billion in frozen oil sale funds, part of a package of eased sanctions worth a total of $7 billion incorporated in the six-month initial agreement” which is why she is ahead of schedule in implementing the JPA.


    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at folks’ inability to grasp the dimensions of a higher civilization.

    According to _

    “In 1991, a declassified CIA report estimated that Iran suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq’s repeated use of nerve agents and toxic gases in the 1980s. Mustard gas — in dusty, liquid and vapor forms — was used the most during the war. It was packed into bombs and artillery shells, then fired at frontlines and beyond, including at hospitals.”

    Regardless, Ay. Khomeini’s ruling that no CW be used in response was the final and sacred word. Surely there could not have been a better way of honoring the patriots who were exposed to gas than by holding the higher moral/civilized ground.

    I encourage you to think a little out of the box. There’s more to our temporal lives than realism, and/or salivating for the next tranche of sanctions relief. There’s indescribable satisfaction in having teeth, and claws but not behaving like animals.

  219. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    April 18, 2014 at 5:48 am

    50,000 died, Iran was defeated in her war aims, and morality was satisfied.

    In war, there is no substitute for victory.

    You are in fact making a very strong argument for a nuclear-armed Iran.

  220. BiBiJon says:

    fyi says:
    April 18, 2014 at 9:12 am

    In life there’s no substitute for long term thinking. To the short-sighted, 80’s Iraq was the be-all and end-all, war. To the far-sighted, it was a mere battle in a generational, civilizational struggle.

    The self-deprecating may close his eyes to what unquestionably has proven to be not just any old narrowly defined victory, but a resounding one on a multitude of dimensions.

  221. Empty says:


    RE: In war, there is no substitute for victory.

    True and correct. However, the “untruth” and “incorrect” emerge if you state that victory can ONLY come through the possession of nuclear weapons.

  222. Rehmat says:

    The University of Tehran has announced that it will be holding Iran’s first conference on world famous British play-writer, poet and novelist, William Shakespeare. The one-day conference will be held on October 22, 2014. It will be chaired by two Iranian scholars of Shakespearean work, professors Maryam Beyad and Ismail Salami (University of Tehran).

    Shakespeare was author of 38 plays, 154 sonnets and two long narrative poems.

    Famous British Shakespearean scholar Dr. Martin Lings (died 2005), who later converted to Islam and penned a biography on Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), revealed in his book Shakespeare in the Light of Sacred Art (1998) that mysticism is clearly discernible in the works of Shakespeare.

    “No objective intelligence can be blind to the dazzling signs of God-given truth that Islam carries with it throughout its history,” said Martin Lings, PhD.

  223. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Like I told you, biroon az gowd harf zadan mofte jenab!

    If you want to spend the rest of your life that’s left on this forum pontificating to an aseer audience that’s fine, just a couple points you should keep in mind:

    The appropriate response by you- as one who has done nothing in his life for the defense of his country- on issues concerning the war, defense of Iran, “victory” or “defeat” is to keep your mouth closed.

    Don’t open your najis- and I mean that in the nicest way- mouth about 50,000 or whatever other amount. I’m trying to be as clear as possible.

    Ironically, by running away like a coward when time came to defend your country because you “didn’t want to waste your life”- you ended up doing exactly that.

    Contrary to the 50,000.

    Iran do not lose one inch of it’s territory, conducted elections every year of the war and saved the newly established Islamic Republic and it’s new, unique and historic constitutional order- against a coalition of over 30 countries- not just Iraq.

    Clausewitz of “war is politics by other means” would be proud.

    Today, we have the Islamic Republic as an awesome model versus the west and it’s racist, animal, medieval lackeys in the region.

    “V” for victory! Tu ruhet!

    This is a “victory” in everybody’s book except yours- maybe you’re just a smarter, deeper visionary thinker and analyst than the rest of us.

    It bothers you that by not responding with CW and by banning nuclear weapons we are clearly showing to the world who the “barbarians” and who the “civilized” are.

    Of course you bet on western “civilization” and the “polite” Americans and against the Islamic Republic 30 years ago- and now it looks like you bet wrong, you want us to fall into the same traps that led to the decline of your favorite civilization.

    Controlling wombs, no nukes- that’s the way forward for us! You disagree? Be darak! You have no credibility to disagree.

    We invented fuckin civilization!

    America had a good run in the 20th century, but alas when things started getting sophisticated it reverted back to the cowboy culture.

    Looks like it’s back to China, India and Persia.

    The others you swore allegiance to, were just historical hiccups.

  224. fyi says:

    BiBiJon says:

    April 18, 2014 at 9:27 am

    Had the late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s government been able to build nuclear weapons before 1979, I can state with metaphysical certainty that Iran-Iraq War would not have occurred; 298,000 souls on the Iranian side would have been alive today as well as their children and grand children and the material losses would not have been incurred either.

    I stand by what I said – without nuclear weapons Iran will not last.

  225. James Canning says:


    If Khomeini had not made so many threatending noises regarding spreading revolution in the Gulf, perhaps Iraq would not have been encouraged to attack Iran.

  226. James Canning says:


    In war, both sides sometimes emerge as the losers. “Pyrric victory”. “Winning” comes as too great a cost.

  227. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Yeki khartar az dige…

  228. James Canning says:


    What are the “teeth” and “claws” you advocate Iran obtain?

  229. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 18, 2014 at 1:05 pm


  230. James Canning says:


    You claim the Gulf monarchies had no reason to fear subversion, from Iran after the Revolution?

  231. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 18, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    The fear of Iran predated the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

    Facts of geography and history cannot be altered.

    Nor fears of Oil-Wells with flags could ever be assuaged except through incorporation through another state of equal or larger power.

  232. masoud says:

    BiBiJon says:
    April 17, 2014 at 5:44 am

    You know, when Lula and Erdogan were humiliated by a sanctions resolution supported by the other BRICS members, Russia & China …

    When India votes against Iran in the BoG at IAEA …

    When South Africa’s ANC, long supported in its darkest days by Iran, starts lecturing Iran …

    When China equivocates about Ukraine ….

    Then one has to admit, James (20%, bad PR) Canning is not off the wall when he asks Masoud forthrightly:


    Are you unhappy that Iran apparently was able to export about 1.6 million barrels of oil daily, during February and March of this year? More “failure” by Rouhani?

    India voted against Iran when the Khatami team was running the show. When Ahmadinejad came to power, came to power they applied pressure through the NAM, and India lost it’s seat on the BOG and the UNSC. They’ve since changed their policies, and regained the support of the world’s biggest voting block.

    Erdogan and Lula new exactly what they were doing with the 2010 proposal: Safeguarding their own rights by against the P5 and the Nuclear Suppliers Group by putting their hypocrisy on full display. They were neither embarrassed or surprised at the way China and Russia voted.

    I’m not sure what your referring to when you talk ANC or SA lecturing Iran. To the contrary they’ve both been very strong diplomatic allies. If you’re looking for a hoot, look up the youtube video’s of the songs Jacob Zuma still likes to sing to rev his crowds up.

    I don’t have the slightest idea why anyone, least of all China, should remain ‘steadfast’ on the Ukraine. Both sides to the conflict stink horribly. And China’s never been an emotional decision maker.

    Since Rouhani took over, he’s taken us back to zero enrichment, put our missile program on the table, made the US an active participant in our diplomatic appointment decisions, given the cold shoulder to the south american countries that did the most to support us in international forums over the past eight years, and had become our fastest growing trade partners, ceded any potential strategic partnership with Pakistan to the Saudi’s, and I suspect, almost triggered a full blown war in Syria back in August with their anti-Assad statements, and for what? To signal to the US that please talk with us, we’ve finally learnt our place in the world!

    And what does he have to show for it?
    The continuation of downward trend in inflation that started before the elections took place, an increase of 600 thousand barrels of oil export in addition to the 900 thousand previous volume and two million pumped for internal use, a 1980s era food hand out program, because we can’t trust poor people to know what to do with money, and the return of the oil mafia.

    You’ll forgive me if I’m not dancing in the streets.

  233. nico says:

    “James Canning says:April 18, 2014 at 2:09 pm
    fyi,You claim the Gulf monarchies had no reason to fear subversion, from Iran after the Revolution?

    fyi says:April 18, 2014 at 2:12 pm
    James Canning says:April 18, 2014 at 2:09 pmThe fear of Iran predated the Islamic Revolution in Iran.Facts of geography and history cannot be altered.Nor fears of Oil-Wells with flags could ever be assuaged except through incorporation through another state of equal or larger power.”

    Both rubbish.

    How it is that the stinky sheiks would fear Iran more after the revolution than before ?
    Before the revolution Iran had US support (or enslavement) after the revolution Iran has no support whatsoever while the stinky sheiks had US support and security guarantee…

    As for the Iran Islamic revolution threat…Let me laugh…
    How Sunni countries could feel threatened by shias ? Is that compatible ?

    The stinky sheiks are simply clinging to their thrones as they fear Iran model of democracy in the region.
    And they have all the help and support needed from to US.
    The US are clearly a dead weight over the region striving to pull the regional countries toward backwardness.
    And the stinky sheiks are simply a relic of times long passed trying to survive modernity.

    The point is that the US are usual using hideous lies, dual standard and propaganda to justify their supremacism.
    The point is that the US are enslaving ME slaves through unrepresentatives leaders.

    Suffoce to see who is using popular support, populace defense and self determination through suggestion and example.
    And who is using force and perfidy and hard power.

    Well the picture is pretty clear and inexcusable.

    You both shoule stop polluting this site with solid bull crap…

  234. nico says:

    So much for the US narrative…

  235. James Canning says:


    The Gulf monarchies were indeed annoyed, and more, by the Shah of Iran prior to his overthrow. But the Shah was not promoting subversion of monarchies.

  236. James Canning says:


    Under Ahmadineajd, production at Iran’s national oil co. dropped by half while employment at that company doubled. Output per employee decreased by 75%. Something you applaud?

  237. nico says:

    James Canning says:April 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    “Nico,The Gulf monarchies were indeed annoyed, and more, by the Shah of Iran prior to his overthrow. But the Shah was not promoting subversion of monarchies.”

    Do you suggest that Iran should still be a monarchy ?
    Are you suggesting that Iran should keep backward for the sake of not attracting the stinky sheiks enmity ?
    History prove that Iran is noy after interference in the PG states internal affairs.
    While the agressive nature of the stinky sheiks and their US patron needs no further demonstration.

    You are pathetic.

  238. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    April 18, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    “Masound,Under Ahmadineajd, production at Iran’s national oil co. dropped by half while employment at that company doubled. Output per employee decreased by 75%. Something you applaud?”

    What is your point ?
    Should the goal of a rich company and a national one on top of that be to downsize manpower to the leanest ?

    First as an economic matter your point could apply to private companies in a competitive market but does absolutely not apply to national state monopoly.

    Second you could argue that creates a distortion between the company employees and the rest of the population.
    Actually the profit from the state monopoly should be distributed to the rest of the population.
    Well that point is rather theoritical as a government budget is spent along policies which are necessarily not equal among the population.
    Anyway as a matter of policy it is Iran choice to manage its budget not yours.

    Third, the Iran nuclear program made its biggest advance during the AN adminstration.
    And Iran was pressured by the US during that time with more oil sanctions.
    As foreign companies left surely the Iran national oil company needed to hire more people.
    One would need to know the replacement rates and figures to be able to get a critical view of the Iran oil company and Iran gvt policies.

    And so on…

    Well you get my point, isn’t ?
    You are posting absolutely unfunded bull crap on this site.
    You are an absolute idiot.
    And a dangerous liar and sophist.


  239. kooshy says:

    In my opinion those who think after a successful nuclear deal with the west, Iran becomes a western aligned nation are just uninformed dreamers who have no idea how Iranians outside of the small Rafsanjani’s northern Tehranies think and expect.

  240. James Canning says:


    The Iranian oil minister says overstaffing (in Iranian Nat’l Oil Co.) is a big problem. He should know.

  241. James Canning says:


    The issue was whether the Gulf monarchies feared subversion, in wake of overthrow of the Shah. And whether this fear caused them to back Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran.

    The issue, in other words, is whether fear in the Gulf, after the overthrow of the Shah, helped to bring on the Iran-Iraq war.

    What is the “lying” about these matters, that you claim to perceive?

  242. thecelticinme says:

    James, you are aware that shah bailed out west in 73 no? You think for one second the west was about to allow a new, independent Iran to possess vast oil refining capabilities AND proven reserves after revolution? Not a chance. The decision by the west was easy, essential (in their mind) and completely wrongheaded and had absolutely nothing to do with posturing. It was, and always has been, about CONTROL.

  243. nico says:

    James Canning says:April 18, 2014 at 7:27 pm
    “Nico,The issue was whether the Gulf monarchies feared subversion, in wake of overthrow of the Shah. And whether this fear caused them to back Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran.The issue, in other words, is whether fear in the Gulf, after the overthrow of the Shah, helped to bring on the Iran-Iraq war.What is the “lying” about these matters, that you claim to perceive?”

    That is clear enough.
    The stinky sheiks are as much or more Iran enemy today than they were in the wake of the Iran revolution.
    Is Iran threatening or trying to overthorw the stinky sheik today ?
    Surely not.

    Yesterday was the revolution excuse, today the nuclear excuse.
    That is all LIES and EXCUSES for the stinky sheiks to cling to their thrones and the US to keep meddling and pulling the region backward.

    Your point is only the construct of your orientalist and supremacist imagination.

  244. fyi says:

    masoud says:

    April 18, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    All over the world, there are too many unemployable people with weak skills or weak cognitive abilities for the productive jobs that are available.

    Iran is not an exception.

    The difference between US, where tens of millions of unproductive workers have been sent home to subsist on “Medical Disability” pensions and Iran – where government is either providing subsistence level of support in cash or in kind – is a matter of degrees and not kind.

    Americans and Europeans used to create all these clerical and fake jobs for people with worthless university degrees for the longest time – which came to a crashing end after 2008.

    But US and Europe are many orders of magnitude more productive & innovative than Iran and thus capable of absorbing the cost of carrying these unproductive populations.

    In 1980s, EU was carrying 33 million unemployed people; although in places like Spain people actually worked off the books and received unemployment subsidies as well.

    Iran’s practices are not different – Iran’s labor productivity is the real cause for concern – in my opinion.

    Look at Australia, another country which, like Iran, survives on selling her natural resources.

    Her currency is now so expensive that she is going through a process of de-industrialization and if they continue marching down that path, they would surely become the White Trash of Asia.

  245. Nasser says:

    fyi says: April 19, 2014 at 12:20 am

    “All over the world, there are too many unemployable people with weak skills or weak cognitive abilities for the productive jobs that are available…Iran’s practices are not different – Iran’s labor productivity is the real cause for concern – in my opinion.

    – Is there any solution to this? What can Iran do? Or is this challenge insurmountable.

    Educational reforms is certainly necessary. The government should not subsidize pursuit of worthless degrees. Technical, engineering or professional degrees are much more worthwhile.

    Discourage or at least not actively encourage female participation in the labor force?

    And still maintain some form of social safety net to maintain a floor on the living condition of the poorest. But how does the government strike the balance between maintaining minimum social safety net and not encourage too much laziness in the population?

    Iran should have raised its oil and gas production level long ago. The money earned from energy sales can be used for industrialization and technological development. In theory! It hasn’t worked out that way though. The state has usually wasted the money from energy sales in wasteful consumption patterns and local businesses and import mafias have been only too happy to continue the pattern.

  246. nico says:

    Nasser says :

    Productivity in the real world economy (not tye gadget economy) is equal to available energy compounded by technology that allows to make use of that energy efficiently.
    That is the sum total of (real) productivity.

    Iran has energy and lacks technology.

    Thus Iran needs to strive acquire technology and implement all policies in that direction.
    And Western goal is to deprive Iran of technology in order to keep access to cheap oil and gas by maintaining Iran in a position to import expensive technolgy end products or, preferably, gadgets.

    Iran goal should be to avoid importing gadget but mainly asset based or long term infrastructure assets like road construction, trains, NPP, factories etc… with transfer of technology.
    All things Iran is already doing more or less with China or Russia.

    As for the west they will never transfer technology to an independent Iran.

    As provided by BIB and others sanctions are to Iran benefit in the long run if Iran makes use of it wisely.

  247. Sammy says:

    for nico :

    ….Collective Schizophrenia
    Mass or collective amnesia is a constant process in our society. Politically, it enables the elite to simply reproduce and replicate previous, provenly-defective, guaranteed-failure policies and programs, such as Keynesian mumbo-jumbo remedies for the economy, knowing the voting public has “forgotten all about it”. With massive backing from the glove puppet media to keep the public dumbed down or at least confused, the process bolsters the political elite’s deep or visceral contempt for the voting public, who are treated and viewed by the elite as worthless zombies and morons.

    Elite herd schizophrenia as manifested by the cult of mass amnesia pursues the basic goal of denying reality, which is the basic operating system of schizophrenia – deliberate and willful irrationality.

    On a daily basis in April 2014, Western elite schizophrenia is on view, with the Ukraine crisis. Daily shifts from megalomanic Nato-led threats of military force to “roll back the Russian Bear”, to plaintive and scarcely-concealed euphoric offers of increased trade and investment in Russia – can be heard from exactly the same mouths! Angela Merkel of Germany was the first Western leader to publicly and theatrically “cast out Russia” from the G8 group, restricting it to its 1975-era format of G7, which in fact has a sharply declining relationship with world economic power today, in 2014. Merkel’s asides that Putin was “being irrational’ was quickly transformed by the glove puppet media to Putin being a madman. The G20 foreign ministers meeting in The Hague at the Nuclear Security summit lost no time in pointing out the G7 group’s lost dominance – the G20 group has no intention of excluding Russia….

  248. Sammy says:

    for nico :

    …Money Velocity continues to fall rapidly in both the USEconomy and that of Canada, reaching 50-year lows in the Untied States. The indication is failure in monetary policy, as hyper inflation has killed capital on an extensive basis. The capital destruction is in its fourth year, probably having reached critical mass. Compared and contrasted with fast rising money supply, the systemic failure is obvious to conclude. The exception is to morons, Wall Street junkies, Big Bank criminal elite, and USGovt hacks. The fast decline in Money Velocity means that it is not moving in the body economic. The reason is simple. The blood system is contaminated with the USDollar, a toxic currency with no backing in a hard asset. The new money is toxic currency under phenomenal debasement by its own steward, the USFed itself. They redouble their harmful policy instead of abandoning it.

    The Money Velocity picture is not pretty. The declining rate has broken lows set 50 years ago. Technically, the velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically produced goods and services within a given time period, like an inventory cycle time. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy. The result would be that growth (as measured in GDP) should be rising. With falling velocity of money, then fewer transactions are occurring and a recession is indicated. Such is the present case in astonishing rapid deterioration. Consumers and business are holding firm their money rather than investing it, as they see poor prospects. New capital formation is not occurring inside the USEconomy, or pitifully little. Debts are being dissolved, usually in default. It should be noted that the velocity of money has also been falling in the EU and Japan. The entire global economy is in recession, the pathogenesis shared.


    The claim that the QE bond monetization is stimulus is pure propaganda, and could not be further from the truth. The claim disguises the nature of the hidden Wall Street bailout, which is to cover their worthless mortgage bonds, and to cover all manner of derivatives, in addition to the obvious coverage of USTreasury Bond sales. Nobody wants the USGovt bonds anymore, except for Belgium operating as hidey hole on behalf of the Euro Central Bank, and for Japan operating as the usual lackey servant. The claim of stimulus is 180 degrees wrong. The bond monetization is pure unsterilized monetary inflation, free money shoved into the system without offset. To be sure, Bernanke had a machine to produce money at no cost, except that like with acid it ruins capital. The result is pure inflation, and extreme motivation for the entire world to take on hedge positions with energy, metals, farmland, and more in order to protect themselves from the ruin of money. The effect is felt as a rising cost structure, felt across the world, and thus shrinking profit margins for the entire global business sector…

  249. Empty says:

    James Canning,

    Re: In war, both sides sometimes emerge as the losers. “Pyrric victory”. “Winning” comes as too great a cost.

    Have I told you recently that you look devastatingly intelligent and extremely open minded with your hands folded on your lap?

  250. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    April 19, 2014 at 2:38 am

    One solution is to encourage and subsidize small shops.

    Higher Education is a political demand of the masses – it has become equivalent to Liberty, Justice, and Representative Government. It is impossible to resist its senseless expansion to anybody with an I! above 90.

    Not everyone can be trained in technical fields; you would be surprised how many people cannot be trained in Numbers, Polynomials, Inequalities, Sequences and Sums, many types of Functions.

    In regards to women; there is a dearth of them in technical fields that require mathematical ability as well as dedicated hard work in hard environment. While it is understandable that women would be present in large numbers in mining, oil & gas development, and some types of construction due to the physical demands of such sectors; they are also almost equally absent from Computer Programming fields, circuit design, and so on.

    [I think generally women wish to get the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.]

    There really is not a resolution possible except bitter experience in which a BA or BS degree gets you no employment except as a garcon…

  251. James Canning says:


    Some people on this site argue that in war there must be “victory”. When both sides may in fact be the losers. You appear to argue this is all too obvious. Yet you seem to endorse the contention that “victory” is always available and must be achieved.

  252. James Canning says:


    An Iran exporting many millions of barrels of oil per day would EASILY be able to buy western companies and the technology controlled by those companies.

  253. James Canning says:


    Let us establish a fact or two. After the 1979 revolution in Iran, Gulf monarchies feared subversion emanating from Iran. True?

  254. nico says:

    James Canning says:April 19, 2014 at 2:00 pm
    “Nico,Let us establish a fact or two. After the 1979 revolution in Iran, Gulf monarchies feared subversion emanating from Iran. True?”

    Surely some people spred that allegation.
    Whether it is true is another matter all together.

    My take is that it is all lie and propaganda and rational cover up for far less avowable purpose.
    Just like the nuclear issue today.

    That is serious BS.

  255. nico says:


    Yes, the western financial system is broken beyond repair and will experience a final crumble in due time.

  256. James Canning says:


    You appear to be arguing that the Gulf monarchies feared too much, regarding potential subversion emanating from Iran after the 1979 Revolution.

    This is a fair argument to make. However, there seems no doubting the fact the Gulf monarchies did fear subversion emanating from Iran and for this reason they backed Saddam Hussein in his attack on Iran.

  257. Karl.. says:


    You need to stop posting replies to him and there seems that Leveretts have no plan to ban him like they did with “Sassan” some years back.

  258. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    nico, Karl,

    When James uses a word like “subversion” he means something else than we do.

    Yes the old pervert sheikhs fear that the example of the Islamic Republic- constitutionalism and republicanism, elected officials on local and national level, division of powers, institutionalized and legally binding checks and balances, public auditing organizations, public budgets debated and passed by a legislature elected in a one-person-one-vote system, national wealth oil, gas treated as public wealth- not belonging directly to ruling family, independent judiciary, press critical of government, mass literacy and healthcare etc. etc. etc…

    All these things are extremely “subversive” to James’ bedouin johns.

    Don’t forget he’s willing to sell-out the very core and heart of British political culture because of Saudi military orders to BAE and other British firms.

    He’s their bitch and he doesn’t even try to deny it.

    Ale Saud and western bitches will not spare any effort to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

    In the end, inshallah one day soon after Haifa and Tel Aviv are leveled in response to an attack, we will have to invade Riyadh and publicly “chop their heads off” takfiri-style- just like their daddy Abdul Aziz did in 1902 to establish the third Saudi state.

    That’s who the current takfiris learned chopping off heads from- from Big Daddy Abdul Aziz himself.

  259. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    As I said, one can argue the Gulf monarchies had no need to injure Iran, by backing Saddam Hussein. One can argue they should not have backed Iraq in its attack on Iran. Etc etc etc.

    Fact remains, the Gulf monarchies did fear Iran and that fear helped bring catastrophe to Iran. You dislike the facts of the matter.

  260. James Canning says:

    Bussed-In Basiji,

    “Subversion” is in the eye of the beholder. In Saudi Arabia, women driving cars is subversive.

  261. James Canning says:


    Are you actually trying to argue that the Gulf monarchies did not back Saddam Hussein in his attack on Iran in 1980? Nonsense.

  262. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    April 19, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    You do not understand the Southern Persian Gulf Arabs; you are prone to their cunning manipulation.

    Before the Iranian Revolution, many in Kuwait feared the young Iranian men working there for Iranian businesses; suspecting them to be dormant cells of the late Shah of Iran’s secret army, ready to pounce once the coded message from Tehran was received.

    The fact is that Southern Persian Gulf Arabs trust neither other Arabs nor Iranians. This has a very long pedigree; the Khlalifate in Baghdad also did not trust Arabs or Persians so its security was entrusted to the Turkish military slaves who – in time – became the source of real power there.

    So, they have manipulated US, UK, France to do their bidding in the Persian Gulf. They pay for that protection through arms purchases that keeps the US, EU arms industries humming – subsidizing US and EU’s arms industries.

    It is an eminently satisfying arrangement until war breaks out.

    Then those Arabs will pay the wages of their manipulations.

    God Willing.

  263. fyi says:


    From the Wall Street Journal:

    We read:

    “If President Obama will not defend the arrangements achieved by three earlier presidents over 20 years, everything our efforts and sacrifices achieved since the end of the Cold War will be eroded as quickly as sand castles with the tide.?”

  264. nico says:

    James Canning says:April 19, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    “”Nico,You appear to be arguing that the Gulf monarchies feared too much”

    “Subversion” is in the eye of the beholder. In Saudi Arabia, women driving cars is subversive.”

    Fait enough.
    The issue with your sophist kind is that you insidiously distort words and their meaning to perfidiously turn values upside down, to justify supremacism and all deeds from “allies” and to apply dual standard.
    That is the main core issue of western degeneration.
    And you are happily swiming in such water that you squirt in everyone eyes.
    Well daddy is not happy about that ..

    Would you be willing to inject a modicum sum of honesty in your squirts you would have posted something like…

    “The backward arab dictators of the PG felt threatened during the Iranian revolution by a people based outcry for social justice and representative society”
    “In that circumstance the US patron and stooge schemed a plan to snuff out the new born Iranian democracy”

    Well that is much closer to reality than your disgusting satanic version … Iran “PROMOTING” subversion

    M. Canning, you and your kind are the enemy of truth, moral and justice.
    You hold satanic position and promote satanism under the guise of nice words and allegedly reasonable posts.
    Good for you.
    But do no think you will not be held accountable here.

  265. James Canning says:


    You have great difficulty accepting facts as facts. FACT; exaggerated fear of Russia, on the part of German generals in 1914, helped to bring on the First World War. Why? Because they thought Germany needed to crush Russia while it was weaker than it would be in future.

    Fact: Iraq obtained backing for its disastrous attack on Iran, in 1980, from Gulf monarchies worried about Iran.

    What is “dishonest” about simply stating facts?

  266. James Canning says:


    Rubbish from Charles Fairbanks (in WSJ, that you linked)? Putin is “chewing off chunks of Ukraine”. He is? And the Geneva deal was a “defeat” for the US? Nonsense, in my judgment.

  267. James Canning says:


    I am not arguing that the fears of Gulf monarchs in 1980, that prompted them to back Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, were reasonable.

  268. Nasser says:

    James Canning says: April 20, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    I think you mistakenly believe that the Arabs attacked Iran because of fear and paranoia of Iranian subversion.

    They attacked because they sensed an opportunity; they thought Iran would be too weak to defend herself because of the revolutionary mess.

  269. nico says:

    James Canning says:

    “What is “dishonest” about simply stating facts?”

    What is dishonest and disgusting is you recklessly spinning the facts.
    You warping words definition and using sophistry in all your sentences.
    That is you are lying knowingly by distorting the events by false logic, manipulation.

    You are deeply dishonest.
    And typically perfidious… if you know what I mean …

  270. nico says:


    As an example of your sophistry… “Iran promoting subversion” is factually incorrect.
    Actually the term promote suppose there is a willfull Iran policy to meddle in PG countries affairs and topple tye stinky sheiks.

    That is sheer lie and propaganda.

    The issue with your kind is that all your sentences are agenda oriented.
    You try your best to be factually correct by spinning the facts in the most disgusting ways.
    However your agenda driven goals are fortuitously unveiled by that kind of factually incorrect statements.

    You are a second grade manipulator and spin doctor.

  271. nico says:

    Nasser says :

    “They attacked because they sensed an opportunity”

    Again that is factually correct but logically incorrect.

    Opportunity does not equate motive.