Nuclear Rights and the P5+1 Talks with Iran


Yesterday, while taping a discussion of the latest round of P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran on Russia Today’s CrossTalk that was broadcast today (see here or, on You Tube, here), Flynt said, “I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not particularly optimistic about a deal being reached this week.  I don’t think that there’s been a lot of progress on the issues that kept agreement from being reached the last time the parties convened in Geneva: 

There’s the issue of Iran’s nuclear rights, and how they get acknowledged or not acknowledged in an interim agreement

There is disagreement about how to handle, during an interim deal, this heavy water reactor facility at Arak which the Iranians are building

There are still disagreements about the disposition of Iran’s stockpile of near-20 percent enriched uranium

I don’t really see much sign that either the United States or the French are backing down from some of the positions they took on those issues ten days ago—and if there’s not some give on that, I don’t know how the Iranians will be in a position to accept the P5+1 proposal.

On the positions that the United States and France took on these issues in the November 7-9 Geneva talks, Flynt recounts,  

“Going into the last round at Geneva, I think the Iranians anticipated getting a draft from the P5+1 where they had clearly worked out understandings about how some of these contentious issues—about Arak, about the 20 percent stockpile, about some acknowledgement of Iran’s nuclear rights; the Iranians had expectations from their previous discussions about the kind of proposal they were going to see.  And, basically, the United States and France reneged on those understandings.  And so the draft proposal that went in front of Iran was different from what Foreign Minister Zarif and his team were expecting to see, and they weren’t in a position to accept that. 

Unless the P5+1—in particular, the United States and France—are willing to stick to understandings that the Iranians thought they had reached, at least verbally, on some of these issues, I don’t think that the Iranians are going to feel, either in terms of substance or in terms of the atmosphere of trust, they’re not going to feel comfortable with going ahead with an agreement.” 

Currently, the most fundamental sticking point in Geneva is—as we have long anticipated—the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize Iran’s clear legal right to enrich uranium under safeguards and to acknowledge that the Islamic Republic will have to be treated like any other NPT party.  As we’ve written before, see here, Iran and all other states have a sovereign right to pursue indigenous fuel cycle capabilities—a right recognized in Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as an “inalienable right,” which non-nuclear-weapon states pledge to exercise in line with Article II (where non-weapons states commit not to build or obtain nuclear weapons) and Article III (where states commit to conducting their nuclear activities under safeguards to be negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency).     

As Flynt explains, the Obama administration—like the George W. Bush administration before it—resists recognizing this legal reality:      

“There are basically four countries in the world that try to deny that the NPT recognizes the right of a non-nuclear weapon state like Iran to enrich uranium under safeguards.  Those four countries are the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Israel, which isn’t even a signatory to the NPT.  Those are the only four countries that take this position.  The rest of the world—the BRICS, the Non-Aligned Movement, key U.S. allies like Germany and Japan—have held consistently that the Treaty recognizes a right to enrich.  And what is so perverse is that…when the U.S. and the Soviet Union first opened the NPT for signature in 1968, senior U.S. officials testified to Congress that the NPT recognized a right to safeguarded enrichment.  That was the position of the United States until the end of the Cold War—and then we decided to try to unilaterally rewrite the Treaty because we didn’t want non-Western countries getting fuel cycle capabilities.”       

We’ll see if the Obama administration can do any better this weekend. 

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


546 Responses to “Nuclear Rights and the P5+1 Talks with Iran”

  1. James Canning says:

    I think it is clear that Obama, and John Kerry, are quite willing to see Iran enriching to low levels (below 5%), provided adequate oversight etc etc. I think Iran should continue suspension of construction of Arak, suspension of enriching to 20, and not bring online more centrifuges. Assume a deal can be reached and that sanctions can be much reduced over time.

  2. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    The deal as it is formulated by P5+1 will not be accepted by Iran – this much has been clear since November 10.

    US will not concede on the “Right to Enrichment” – now or ever – which underpins the entire justification for the economic war effort against Iran by the Axis Powers.

    Let us be quite clear also that US needs to keep the issue of “illegal uranium enrichment in Iran” alive so as to go to war with Iran in the most appropriate time.

    If US accepts the “Right to Enrich Uranium in Iran” that means her leaders and planners have decided not to go to war with Iran and dismantle their Cold War against Iran.

    That will not happen.

  3. Don Bacon says:

    Q: Why France?
    A: France wants to control uranium supply.

    First there is Iran’s experience with Eurodif, a multinational enrichment facility based in France. Read about it here.

    There’s also Areva–a major force in nuclear power and uranium. Areva SA is a French public multinational industrial conglomerate headquartered in the Tour Areva in Courbevoie, Paris. According to the company’s official website, Areva realized €9.104 billion in sales revenue in 2010 and €-423 million in operating income. In 2006, Fortune Magazine reported that Areva was the “Most Admired Global Energy Company.”

    Areva owns two mines in Arlit, Niger, where it employs 1,600 people; Niger is the world’s fifth largest uranium producer. Areva Resources Canada Inc, created in 1993, is a uranium mining, milling, and exploration company based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. In 2007, Areva signed a ten-year deal with the South Korean public company KHNP to enrich uranium in its forthcoming Georges Besse II enrichment plant. The deal is worth over €1 billion. The US recently denied South Korea’s plans to enrich and it complied. South Korea builds nuclear plants domestically and overseas.

  4. Don Bacon says:

    Iran has the sovereign right to mine and process minerals any way it wants to, as does any nation.

  5. Don Bacon says:

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in Geneva on Friday evening.

  6. Karl.. says:

    Not again!

    Soon we will read: “Fabius heading to Geneva”.

    Another failure.

  7. Don Bacon says:

    Another failure?
    I’s say not, unless you mean the West’s failure to control Iran.
    Iran has been successful, so far.

  8. Karl.. says:

    Yes reading right now that Fabius (and Cameron is coming). This is madness.

  9. Don Bacon says:

    recent news:
    Breaking: Reporters Covering Iran Talks in Geneva Are Incredibly Bored

    It’s like watching grass grow.

  10. James Canning says:


    I think it is clear Kerry and Obama are willing to accept Iranian enrichment to low levels. Surely you are aware of frantic efforts by Aipac stooges to block any deal.

  11. James Canning says:


    You seem to seek to put the terms of deal in such a way as to make it politically impossible for Obama to back it.

  12. James Canning says:

    Mitchell Pletnick has some comments on Mark Kirk, one of the most aggressive Aipac stooges in the US Senate:

  13. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Israeli fighter jets reported flying over Beirut

    If Netanyahu can’t get the US to take out Syria and thus prepare the way for Israel to take out Hizballah, he might well try it himself…at least to attack Hizballah again while some of its fighters are in Syria. I think the IDF has been preparing for this for at least the last year, if not longer.

  14. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    November 22, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    You still do not seem to grasp the fact that Iranians do not care for any deal that explicitly recognizes their enrichments rights.

    I have no sympathy for Mr. Obama; he has done his best to wound Iran and Syria and his posture in regards to Iran is regime destruction.

    And to preempt your “naval blockade” refrain; since US is going to go to war with Iran at the first opportune moment, it is better for Iran for that to be sooner rather than later.

    Let us see how war of the tankers and pipelines play in the Persian Gulf.

  15. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    November 22, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    You still do not seem to grasp the fact that Iranians do not care for any deal that does not explicitly recognizes their enrichments rights.

    They have been down this path before from 2003 to 2005; they are not going to play that game.

    I have no sympathy for Mr. Obama; he has done his best to wound Iran and Syria and his posture in regards to Iran is regime destruction.

    And to preempt your “naval blockade” refrain; since US is going to go to war with Iran at the first opportune moment, it is better for Iran for that to be sooner rather than later.

    Let us see how war of the tankers and pipelines play in the Persian Gulf.

    As I said before: Axis Powers, Russia and China have only a single strategic choice in Iran:

    Nuclear-ready Iran or Nuclear-armed Iran.

    Their call.

  16. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 22, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    Israelis will not do so.

    They know US will attack Iran – they just have to wait.

  17. kooshy says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 22, 2013 at 7:47 pm
    “Israeli fighter jets reported flying over Beirut”

    Rich give it up, would you !

  18. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    James Canning says: November 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    “Do I take it you do agree there would be no conceivable benefit for the US, in attacking Iran with nukes?”

    James, what I, or you think about this is immaterial. What matters what the stated position of the US IS

    I have provided you with a US government position. You need to provide something that supports your argument that – in effect – the SecDef was lying when he stated the US’ position.
    I know you cannot defend that, so consider yourself cornered on this. Find a way out please. Provide supporting materials. You can’t wiggle out of this one with ‘they make noises for domestic audiences’ and ‘you have no idea how politics in US works’, or better yet – the laughable – ‘I am stating facts.’
    Do you know anyone who says that he lied? Present them.

  19. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    November 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    Irans been there with the west before “suspension” was western double speak for termination.The problem should be easily solved with a deal no different to one for the fueling of bushehr with iran being supplied the fuel or using its own and the spent fuel being exported out of iran for reprocessing or disposal,combine that with rigorous inspections of the site and you shouldnt have any problems

  20. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    UU Jan,
    Thank you for your words. I wish I had a big چوب for that one.

    Words are all that I have and I don’t know how much more تر my چوب is going to get, when I show stated position of US, and quote the SecDef from US Gov website.

    I think that brick wall is certainly made of chodan.

    For a bit I was thinking he could read minds, but have come to the conclusion that those readings are the voices inside his head. Or, at least 20% of them.
    Anyway, good to see you posting here again.

  21. Empty says:

    Thank you for posting the cross talk discussion that included Flynt. I really don’t like the format of the cross talk and rarely try to watch it as it is superficial, lacks depth, and the whole “jump in anytime” approach is nonsense. Nevertheless, I thought Flynt outlined his key points rather well.

    Uuuuooofffff at the arrogance of the lady talking in the show. Another mouthpiece for “استکبار”…

  22. kooshy says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    November 22, 2013 at 1:42 pm


    ما در درون سینه هوایی نهفته‌ایم
    بر باد اگر رود دل ما زان هوا رود

  23. Jay says:

    Sakineh Bagoom says:
    November 22, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    There is an old joke; one form of it goes as follows:

    What’s the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic?
    A psychotic doesn’t believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
    A neurotic knows it’s true, but it bothers him.”

  24. Smith says:


    China, US, France, UK, their peasants or their nobles etc etc matter not.

    Iran must learn to live independently.

    If you can not build MRI, you are not entitled to benefit from it.

    If you do not have nuclear weapons, you are not entitled to protection provided by “international law”.

  25. Smith says:

    Another story of cousin smugglers, underground filthy economy, inefficiencies and incompetence of those in-charge:

  26. Karl.. says:


    Flying over Beirut is somethign Israel do almost every week. If a deal is made I think Israel will start fabricate more stuff about Iran/false flags.

    A bomb here and there to be blamed on Iran etc

  27. M. Ali says:

    How come whenever they show the Geneva talks on the news, its Ashton & Zarif laughing their heads off? What are they talking about thats so funny? Is Zarif trying to get into her pants?

  28. M. Ali says:

    If Iranian public and politicians had any sense, we’d build a huge statue to Ahmedinijad. It was his eight years of steady efforts in nuclear advancement that Zarif & co can negotiate from a point of strength. Eight years ago we had nothing to negotiate with.

  29. M. Ali says:

    An aspect that I don’t respect Zarif & co is that they are talking about a sanctions relief that is embarrassing to even sign on. USA MIGHT give us a small part of OUR OWN MONEY THEY HAVE BLOCKED. In increments.

    How insulting is that? Its our own fucking money! They don’t have to buy our oil if they don’t want to, and don’t sell us your products, fine, I’m okay with that, but they shouldn’t be allowed to blackmail us with our money. If I was Zarif & co, and if I agreed to a first stage of confidence building deals, I wouldn’t agree any deal that asked America to give back our money. I’d consider it stolen money and one shouldn’t make deals to get back their own money.

    Unfortunately, that is this mentality that has been accepted in today’s world and has seaped down to private companies. I had a bank account with HSBC in Dubai for more than a decade. A few months back, I got an email, saying they would close my account. Fine, their lose, I don’t care, so when I had the chance, a few weeks back when I was in Dubai, I decided to withdraw my account. Now, here’s where I got mad. They wouldn’t give me MY MONEY, because they say I used my credit card online from an Iranian IP. I told them when I signed the account 10 years ago, they never asked me that I’m not allowed to use it.

    They asked me to get several documents to release the money to me, and I got mad, I told them its MY money, and I shouldn’t have to run around to GET MY OWN MONEY. It is MY CASH. This, to me, is criminal.

    As the money is not that much, I’ve decided not to run around begging them to release my funds. Let it lie there for now.

    But this is the enviroment and the norm that has been created.

  30. M. Ali says:

    Maybe Zarif keeps sneaking in some grade A hashish and they are all smoking it behind closed doors. The Road to Peace: Getting High With Iran?

  31. kooshy says:

    Iran Would Eliminate Stock of Some of Its Enriched Uranium under Deal

    Based on this who else our own David Singer article, Iran has not given up an iota, basically processing current 20% to fuel not making any 20% for now , not installing any more new style centrifuge, but keep enriching , I don’t see this any different than what me and Arnold debated 2.5 years ago.

    The UNSC is accepting Iran enrichment meaning the UNSC resolution are diluted by her permanent NHS, after this 6 month deal and for a new permanent deal it will be impossible to reactivate this level of P5+1 unity against Iran, that is the real value for Iran. For Iran is not about a sanction relief it’s about dismantling the superficial 6 power unity, and making them back out. This interim deal without giving out much will do that.

  32. nico says:

    kooshy says:
    November 23, 2013 at 7:07 am

    Iran giving up near nothing against G5+1 unfreezing few cents…
    Well that would be truly ridiculous and a slap in the face of all those ministers gathered there explaining what a tough negotiation it was.

  33. M. Ali says:

    I think Iran is giving up a lot, if that article is right

    1) Don’t enrich to 20%
    2) Reduce all 20% to fuel
    3) More intrusive inspections
    4) No more installing centrifuges

    In return, we get 3.6 billion of OUR OWN FUCKING MONEY, in 6 months, which is 600 million a month, of again, OUR OWN MONEY.

    If Zarif & co agree to such deals, they have ruined all the progress the nation has gone through for the past 8 years.

    Because what would be the next step after this? How are we going to get additional relief. Would we have to stop all our enrichments ,to get a few more of our own money released? Would we have to allow US CIA’s in the country as “inspectors” to get, what, be able to sell our own oil?

    There shouldn’t be any confidence building measures. We’re going the Khatami route.

    I hope Khameini & the Majlis put a break on any such useless deals.

  34. Karl.. says:

    Seems that as soon as FMs come to Geneva there is failure.

    M Ali
    November 23, 2013 at 8:32 am

    I agree, also all these demands are the ones Israel demanded. Arak have never been up on this level as a issue it was only when Israel began to whine about it.

  35. A-B says:

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

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

    … Why exactly?

  36. Don Bacon says:

    M. Ali says:
    November 23, 2013 at 8:32 am
    I think Iran is giving up a lot, if that article is right

    1) Don’t enrich to 20%
    2) Reduce all 20% to fuel
    3) More intrusive inspections
    4) No more installing centrifuges

    Iran would be giving up nothing.

    1. Reportedly there is sufficient 20% for TRR
    2. Fuel rods are the intended purpose for 20%
    3. More inspection of nuclear facilities, and perhaps a token few others, would be well-managed by Iran
    4. Iran is only using half of its 19,000 centrifuges now
    5. There would be a full continuation of the current nuclear program

    So what would they be giving up?

  37. Don Bacon says:

    I’m sure that we can look forward to many statements in the US Senate very soon, that the US/EU got nothing as a result of all this navel-gazing.
    A win for Iran.

  38. kooshy says:

    Don Bacon says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:04 am

    I agree from what I know, Iran’s intentions never was to assemble a bomb, but rather was to be “legally” capable and recognized of her capability if she finds the need for making one. That capability is now recognized by the 5 legal NHS, which was the core of Iran’s nuclear issue the rest is up to when and if commercially feasible (making 20% etc.). From this point on I don’t expect much pressure; from both sides mostly what remains is sweeping the dust under the rug and a race to a lot of commercial interactions countries jumping on each other for Iran’s market and attention. I hope not but I guess the next phase for Iran’s enemies will come to make Iran internally unsafe (bombing, blowing up) to make Iran commercially not attractive and unsafe for investment.

  39. Smith says:

    چرا راکتور آب سنگین اراک مهم است؟

  40. Bibijon says:

    M. Ali says:
    November 23, 2013 at 4:30 am

    I actually feel sorry for that whole demonization, fear and hate mongering industry in the West. Yes a deal with an ‘enemy,’ to accept grants of what was your own, etc is very very difficult to swallow. And, that cuts both ways.

    But back to the ‘industry’, just think what is Roger Cohen supposed to use his well-developed ‘sense of smell’ for, if he is denied sniffing at Iranian elections. What will Mark Hibbs going to pontificate about? How will the cast of monkeys swing from the Iran-gravest-threat-the-US-faces branch to some other branch? That’s not to mention David Albright.

    Early retirement?

  41. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:16 am

    The P5+1 essentially have tried to make a deal similar to the one between EU3 and Iran.

    Iranians have turned that down.

  42. kooshy says:

    Meaning less if it was not for face saving ( As Bibijon says for years of demonization and denial remember JW/ Condi’s zero enrichment in Iran stand) the west would have jumped on this

    Here is another NYT asshole AIPAC/WMD reporter who now is hoping for a few weeks delay in Iran’s response time

    “Talks With Iran on Nuclear Deal Hang in Balance”

    Published: November 23, 2013

    “The deal would also add at least several weeks, and perhaps more than a month, to the time Iran would need to produce weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear device, according to estimates by nuclear experts.”

  43. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    The nation of shopkeepers is on the march.

    What is jolly ole England trading this time ’round, opium? slaves? cotton? silk? baseless derivatives? real estate to Russian oligarchs?

  44. James Canning says:


    The Chinese are investing $2.5 billion in a new container port east of London. I assume they have a good idea of what traffic will pass through.

    I don’t think the OECD tracks private property purchases, in calculating net investment flow.

    But, about 100,000 Russians now live in London. And many of them are indeed qwuite rich.

  45. James Canning says:

    M. Ali,

    You seem to think it would be better if Iran exported no oil? I know that is the thinking of some who post on this site.

  46. James Canning says:

    M Ali,

    Should Ahmadinejad get credit for inflicting at least $1 trillion in damage to the Iranian economy?

  47. James Canning says:


    I see you concede you were not aware the US has in fact a nuclear protocol, prohibiting first-strike nuclear attack against ANY country.

    You clearly have difficulty comprehending domestic American politics, and specifically the demands by very rich powerful Jews, that noises be made indicating “all options are on the table” WHEN THIS IS NOT TRUE.

  48. James Canning says:


    If I provide a link, regarding US nuclear protocol prohibiting use of nukes for a first-strike against ANY country, will you explicitly concede you were not aware of this?

  49. James Canning says:


    Are you still suggesting Saudi Arabia has no reason to think war could come to the Persian Gulf?

  50. James Canning says:


    I concur with your suggestion. Israel does not. Many rich and powerful American Jews do not.

  51. James Canning says:


    Do I take it that you also are not aware of the US nuclear protocol, prohibiting first-strike nuclear attack against any country?

  52. James Canning says:


    You claim Obama “has done his best to wound Syria”. Yet you are aware Obama has blocked delivery of heavy weapons to insurgents in Syria. A possible inconsistency?

  53. James Canning says:


    And yes, an American SecDef is compelled to “lie”, regarding potential measures that could be employed if hostilities erupt in the Gulf. Israel lobby.

  54. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Stuart Levey, Daniel Cohen and Juan Zarate, the “guerillas in grey suits,” would be very annoyed to give credit to Ahmadinejad for their actions in “hurting” Iran.

  55. nico says:

    Wow… 10 one liner posts in a single row.
    The troll James “squirt” Canning hit again.
    Would you care to leave the site to spare us your malvolance and your pollution of the thread ?

  56. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Are you daft man?

    We must be grateful to Mr. Obama for having revealed that US intends to militarily destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    We cannot be grateful to him for preventing the delivery of heavy weapons to anti-government military formations in Syria.

    Large caliber but portable weapons could not be delivered in sufficient quantity to them because of logistical limitations.

    Even when such weapons were received, they could not be used with sufficient concentration and duration since those military formations lacked quartermaster corps depots for maintenance of such weapons.

    Mr. Assad’s government has 1500 or so light tanks that is being used quite successfully against the rebels.

    Syrian Army is trained in use of such weapons has the facilities and personnel to maintain these weapons.

    Rebels could never hope to match that strength even with these “ghost” heavy weapons.

    You are entirely too forgiving on Mr. Obama – he has brought the world closer to World War III than Mr. Bush II.

  57. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    I see you concede you were not aware the US has in fact a nuclear protocol, prohibiting first-strike nuclear attack against ANY country.

    You clearly have difficulty comprehending domestic American politics, and specifically the demands by very rich powerful Jews, that noises be made indicating “all options are on the table” WHEN THIS IS NOT TRUE.”

    Sociology 101: What men define as real is real in its consequences.

    Edward Bernays, Propaganda 101: Repeat a thing often enough, it becomes accepted as true.

    per Ron Suskind, The Bush Administration: “”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” ” http www dot nytimes dot com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=0

    Chas Freeman: “As the former head of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) Legal Department has argued:

    If you do something for long enough the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries . . . . International law progresses through violations.”

    A colleague of his has extended this notion by pointing out that:

    “The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law.”

    Pontius Pilate: “What is truth?”

  58. James Canning says:

    William Hague: “We’re not here [Geneva] because things are necessarily finished. We’re here because they’re difficult, and they remain difficult.”

  59. James Canning says:


    I think that heavy pressure from very rich and pwerful American Jews, on Obama administration officials, to indicate, falsely, that the US could employ nukes in a first-strike, is intended to frighten tha American people.

    Many of those who apply this pressure are quite willing to undermine the national seucrity interests of the American people.

  60. James Canning says:


    And consider the idiotic advice from Sheldon Adelson, to hit Iran with a nuke to get its attention. PressTV covered that story.

  61. James Canning says:


    Sheldon Adelson may have put more than 100 million dollars last year, into his campaign to destroy the Palestinian people by bribing American politicians.

  62. James Canning says:


    You are simply DEAD WRONG: Obama does not want any eruption of hostilities with Iran. But you are correct, in thinking Iran would lose its navy and air force if hostilities break out.

  63. James Canning says:


    You would be correct, if you argued that Sheldon Adelson and a number of other extremely rich American Jews, are trying to force war with Iran on Obama.

  64. James Canning says:


    I do not think Bob Gates was pursuing “propaganda” when he reiterated the tiresome comment, that “all options are on the table”. Tiresome and dangerous comment, of course. And not true.

  65. James Canning says:


    Would you be happier if Obama had hit Syria with missiles? And if that in turn caused a larger intervention, destruction of all Syrian tanks, etc etc etc?

  66. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    The late Pontius Pilate was the quintessential rational bureaucrat.

    A man of good intentions to the right thing and yet without conviction to do good.

  67. James Canning says:

    Lady Ashton of the UK did a good job of keeping talks going on Thursday and Friday, when Wendy Sherman was doing little on that score.

    Jim Lobe has a good assessment today:

  68. James Canning says:


    You do not give Obama credit for not taking out all of Syria’s air force, tanks, etc etc etc. You should.

  69. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    I give credit to Mr. Obama for unintentionally revealing the true intentions of US towards Iran – military destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    That revelation negated – in my opinion – the substantial damages that he and EU leaders had inflicted on Iran and on Syria.

    It brought tremendous strategic clarity to all international actors.

    As to who helped prevent US war on Syria, unquestionably it was the English People.

    In a way, these negotiations in Geneva are no longer relevant as we all know that war is coming – barring a palace coup in the Court of the Mad King.

  70. James Canning says:


    I think you are so determined to encourage Iran to build nukes, that you claim Obama wants to destroy Iran even if you do not think this is true.

  71. fyi says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I have regrettably come to agree with the assessment of Mr. Richard Steven Hack subsequent to 08/21/2013 events.

    For years I could not credit that US leaders would be so mad as to contemplate a war with Iran – I have changed my mind now.

    Whether it is Mr. Obama or future US Presidents who would start the war with Iran is now only relevant to military planners in Iran – do they have 2 years or 6 years or 10 years to prepare for the coming war.

    My recommendation to you is to advise the English Baron to steer clear of the Mad King in the coming years – this is a religious war between Protestant & Jewish Champions of Israel against the Shia Fortress.

    Let us hope that this war will not bring about World War III.

  72. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning,

    Your analysis is off by about 100 years and 15 presidents.

    Wilson joined to destroy Germany on the expectation (fulfilled) that taking out the most productive economy in Europe would result in the economic betterment of the USA.

    When WWI harmed England & France more than expected and they profited less than expected — in fact, ended up in debt to USA– Churchill felt honor-bound to defend “Christian civilization”, redress his “Viet Nam” moment, and demand that USA pay for and BLEED for his battle against — Germany!

    Germany was the obvious choice for Churchill to work out his loser’s rage: Hitler having maneuvered around the central bank system that a banking cartel imposed-by-stealth (i.e. they “were compelled to lie” –h/t James Canning says: November 23, 2013 at 2:27 pm) on the US, and Germany was well on its way to once again best England in industry and cultural coherence. Carthago delenda est, and although neither the US nor England has yet confronted its guilt nor been called to account for the incineration of Germany by carpet-bombing, Germany WAS destroyed.

    Just as England starved Germany into defeat in WWI — see C. Paul Vincent, “The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919;”

    and firebombed it to defeat in WWII — see Jorg Friedrich, “The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945;”

    after Germany so impertinently resisted efforts (–see “My New Order,” ed. Raoul de Roussy de Sales

    of “very rich powerful Jews” (h/t James Canning says: November 23, 2013 at 2:16 pm) to “bring Germany to its knees” (see Jewish Virtual Library, Edwin Black)
    through a “strangling” seven-year long economic boycott, (see Edwin Black, “The Transfer Agreement”),

    in like fashion, “very rich powerful Jews” — and their French, Anglo and American accomplices — seek to:

    –>destabilize Iran’s society with the goal of toppling Iran’s gov’t from within — see Ed Royce Sept 26 2007 c-spanvideo dot org/program/USPolicyTowardIran25

    –>secularize Iran’s culture — see Ephraim Sneh Feb 22 2012 c-spanvideo dot org/program/IsraelIra

    –>”strangle” Iran economically — see Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett, Nov 17 2013 92nd Street Y, www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=CHSFIhm_oyc

    –>starve Iran’s children — see Mark Kirk, Oct 12 2011 thinkprogress dot org/security/2011/10/12/342194/kirk-food-from-mouths-iran/ “it’s okay to take food from the mouths of innocent Iranians”

    –> have AMERICANS drop nuclear bombs on Iran’s deserts and cities — see Sheldon Adelson Oct 22 2013 Yeshiva University, www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=6oSAPMYTuss

    WITHOUT A DOUBT those same “rich and powerful Jews” and their Anglo, French, and American accomplices will demand REPARATIONS from Iran for forcing these so unconscionably set-upon guardians of civilization cum victim-states to expend their weapons of mass destruction on a sovereign nation so inconveniently distant from their own arsenals.

    Did I hear somebody say Never Again?

  73. James Canning says:


    I very much doubt that China or Russia thinks Obama wants to “destroy” Iran.

    Name a country that agrees with you.

  74. James Canning says:


    Woodrow Wilson did not want to destroy Germany.

    Idiotic decisions by German generals brought catastrophe to Germany. And don’t forget Admiral Tirpitz.

  75. Karl.. says:

    Fiorangla / fyi

    Dont bother waste your valuable time on this person.

  76. James Canning says:


    Are you encouraging Iran not to make a deal with the P5+1?

  77. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    The late JP Morgan had loaned billion of dollars to the French Government that would have been forfeit in case of French defeat.

    So, he succeeded in getting his money, at US public’s expense.

    You are quite right to enumerate the numerous facets of the economic siege war against Iran.

    That Iranians have been standing after 7 years of such war and the combined Shia forces in Syria were winning was most likely the impetus for plans to wage a military campaign against both Syria and Iran.

    A military campaign against Syria would have led inevitably to yet another quagmire for the United States with all its attendant costs – like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    This campaign was opposed by US Military.

    It was a testimony to the madness prevailing in the Halls and Court of the King that in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the US planners and leaders were about to plunge US into another unwinnable war in less than a decade.

    A war which was to be followed by the war against Iran.

  78. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    And yes, an American SecDef is compelled to “lie”, ” —

    Is that practice by an American the same “America” whose US dollar is the basis for the world’s currency, and which dollar is based on the “full faith and credit of the US government”?

    Is the American Treasury Sec likewise “compelled to ‘lie’?”
    How about the Federal Reserve chair — “compelled to ‘lie”?

    Is there a “prince and the pauper” character in US government whose job it is to tell the TRUTH?

  79. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: November 23, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Norman Finkelstein, Jan 28 2009

    “people have the right to defend their country … from foreign invaders who are destroying their country…

    “Right after they were forced to leave, in 2000, the Israelis said, “We are going to knock out Hezbollah,” and they began planning for a new war right after they were forced to leave. They found their excuse, their pretext, in July 2006.
    “But there is no question among rational people that Israel was never going to let the Hezbollah victory go by. … The war could not have been avoided. There is no way that the United States and Israel are going to tolerate any resistance in the Arab world. [this may explain Saudi Arabian change of heart/sides]
    “Do you think there will not be another war? Do you think Israel is going to allow that defeat in 2006? Do you want to pretend that it’s Hezbollah that’s causing the trouble? There will be another war, and the destruction will probably be ten times worse. . . . Because Israel is determined, with the United States, to put the Arabs in their place and keep them in their place. How can I not respect those who say No to that?
    [4 min]”During the Spanish Civil war their was a woman called “La Pasionaria,” . . . from the Spanish Republic. And she famously said, “It is better to die on your feet than to walk crawling on your knees.”

    “If you want to live crawling on your [knees], I could respect that; people want to live. … But how can I not also respect those who would rather die on their feet? …

    “Israel and the United States are attacking because they will not allow any military resistance to their control of the region. That’s the problem. If Hezbollah laid down its arms and said, We will do whatever the Americans say, you wouldn’t have a war, that’s true. But you’d also be the slaves of the Americans…

    (6:41) “I like the Jewish attitude. Do you know what the Jewish attitude is? Never to forgive, never to forget. I agree with that. …

    Qaddafi crawled. He is dead.
    Assad remains on his feet. He is alive.

    Of course, Saddam attempted to remain on his feet. He is dead and Iraq is in ruins.

    What is the solution?

    Here is Finkelstein’s solution:

    (9:35) “Israel has to suffer a defeat.”

    — Hezbollah (Iran) is not the problem; Israel/USA are the problem.
    — Israel and the USA must suffer a defeat.

    The American people must also choose whether to stand on their feet or crawl on their knees. It’s up to us to stop our leaders from committing more crimes against humanity.

    nb. I disagree with some of Finkelstein’s analysis and proscriptions. “Never forgive never forget” is the battle cry of a backward culture.

  80. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Are you still suggesting Saudi Arabia has no reason to think war could come to the Persian Gulf?”


    are you still a racist, or have you reformed?

    Your question is a variation on: “when are you going to stop beating your wife?” An accusation wrapped into a question! It is not worth a response. However, maybe you can show me the quote.

    Show me the quote where I said that!!

  81. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    I take it that you are no aware of The Telegraph’s revelation in 2002 that Mr. Bush had drawn up a plan to strike Iran with nuclear weapons despite the presence of US protocol!

    I take it that you are no aware that the plan has not been changed since and that more than one US SecDef has repeated veiled threats of nuclear strike against Iran.

    I take it that you do not understand that hitting a country without nuclear weapons with a nuclear weapon is “first strike”!

    I take it that you would rather bend the facts to your situational argument rather than face the facts!

  82. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
    Must be tough to find yourself in a corner James.
    Like a moth trapped in spider’s web.
    You are resorting to exactly what I warned against.
    I must admit you are mastering the Goebbelsian art though. Good going James.
    I will not relent till you find someone who agrees with you that the SecDef lied.

  83. James Canning says:


    George W. Bush had an administration packed with neocon warmongers, crazed militarists, etc etc etc etc. ZERO CHANCE of a US nuke attack on Iran. ZERO. I do not care how many so-called “plans” were put together by these dangerous fools.

  84. James Canning says:


    Admittedly a stooge of the Israel lobby was in charge of the CIA. Even at that, ZERO chance of US nuke attack against Iran. The idea is preposterous.

  85. James Canning says:


    Yes, please keep a focus on this issue. And continue to argue that there is no US protocol prohibiting first-strike nuclear attack against any country. And Jay’s notion the US would hit Iran with nukes is rubbish. No matter how many “plans” were put together by deranged warmongers in the Bush admistration.

  86. James Canning says:


    You argued that Saudi Arabia has no grounds to fear unrest in Shia areas. I asked you why the Saudis suppressed the unrest in Bahrain. I don’t recall your response.

    If hostilities erupt in the Gulf, things could get very nasty.

  87. James Canning says:


    The Saudis in my view have good reason to fear war in the Gulf. FYI claims day after day that Obama is conspiring to set up a US attack on Iran. But you never challenge him.

  88. James Canning says:


    I doubt Geroge W. Bush drew up a plan for an American nuke attack against Iran. He was enough of a moron, however, to allow talk, and more, of such a plan.

  89. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Sakineh says: “You can’t wiggle out of this one with ‘they make noises for domestic audiences’ and ‘you have no idea how politics in US works’, or better yet – the laughable – ‘I am stating facts.’”

    James says: “You clearly have difficulty comprehending domestic American politics”

    I know you speak English James. I know you write English. I’ve see it here. But, I wonder if you think in English.

    Please James, children read the comment section here. Please don’t disappoint them.

  90. James Canning says:


    Yes, there was a conspiracy in Israel, to set up an attack on Lebanon in hopes of taking out Hezbollah. It was part of a larger neocon conspiracy, aimed at setting up war with Iran.

    I will never forget the idiotic comment of Condoleezza Rice, during the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians, that she heard “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

  91. James Canning says:


    Did you read Jay’s comment, that there was a nuclear protocol that prohibited a US nuke attack on Iran (on first-strike basis)?

  92. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    should read: I’ve seen it here

  93. James Canning says:


    I know people who talk to Bob Gates. There was ZERO chance of US nuke attack against Iran. If you like to dwell on so-called “lies”, go ahead. Ir must make you feel better.

  94. James Canning says:


    Did you answer my question? I said the US could take out the entire Iranian navy and air force, within days. What, then, would be the reason to nuke Iran? Nuke what? I think you may be delsuional.

  95. James Canning says:

    John F. Kennedy, Oct. 20, 1963: “This war in Vietnam – – it’s never off my mind, it haunts me day and night. . . The first thing I do when I’m re-elected, I’m going to get the Americans out of Vietnam.” (spoken to his next-door neighbor, in Hyannisport)

  96. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran digs in heels on enrichment at nuclear talks

    This is good – they realize this is the only thing they can get out of this deal and it’s worth fighting for, even if it turns out to be only a symbolic victory.

  97. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: November 23, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    “Admittedly a stooge of the Israel lobby was in charge of the CIA.”

    Not sure what time-frame you’re talking about, but CIA didn’t need an “Israel lobby stooge” to do evil things.

    Stephen Kinzer just published a book about the Dulles brothers who set the bar for CIA and covert operations and many activities that have been so destabilizing to the world for the past 70 years plus. The Dulles brothers were not part of the “Israel lobby.”

    What do all these people and agencies have in common?

    It seems to me to be useful to try to trace the ideology that makes men think that activities like those that the Dulles brothers established, are permissible in a civilized society. The “seven deadly sins” are common to human nature, but only a skewed ideology makes the institutionalization of those sins seem to be virtuous. The institutionalization of a culture of war — covert as the Dulles brothers practiced, or overt, or through missionary endeavors, Crusades, “democratization,” and the elevation of those practices to the status of virtue, seems to me to find taproots in Hebrew scripture: strong belief in that literature is common among Anglos, neocons, zionists– both Israeli and Christian, and evangelicals.

    Persian/Aryan culture, and Zoroaster, are older than Hebrew scripture, or at least are not inflected by the same ideologies. I’m not aware, for example, of a strong notion of “choseness” which entitles one to exercise supremecism, in Persian/Aryan/Zoroastrian literature and tradition.

    George Kennan urged “cold warriors” to read Russian literature to try to gain an understanding of how to “deal” with Russians. (It’s problematic that the study of a people’s literature was instrumentalized, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.) I suspect Wendy Sherman has not troubled herself to discover unique and differentiating features of Iranian culture and ways of looking at the world — she certainly did not display such an understanding in her comments before the US Senate. That’s truly shameful, and perhaps an abrogation of her duties and position in the State Department: she was in a position to educate US legislators; instead, she pandered to them.

  98. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 23, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    The immediate effect of this would be the nullification of the legal basis of UNSC sanctions against Iran.

    The second one would be the removal of enrichment in Iran as a cause belli.

    Of course, since the King is Mad, this would stop the war against Iran; only it would cause the Mad King to work a bit harder to find another cause belli.

    But these are both hypothetical consequences; the King is Mad but not Stupid.

    He and his 3 Barons (UK, France, Germany) will not be conceding this point.

    They need their cause belli.

  99. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 23, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Yes, Zoroaster lived 8600 years ago; before Hebrews showed up and his Songs in praise of the Wise Lord and the Lord of Light predates all other prophets.

    It is no accident that the Magi (Persian priests) were present at the Birth of Jesus nor that another religious seeker of Truth, Salman the Persian, became a close Companion of the Prophet.

  100. Fiorangela says:

    fyi, why would Germany serve as baron to the Mad King? UK & France I understand; I thought/think Germany has a slightly different outlook on the world, and also the economic strength to act with greater independence.

  101. fyi says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    2 reasons:

    They are a semi-sovereign state – like Japan and South Korea.

    Her population is deeply prejudiced against Islam.

  102. kooshy says:

    Iranian official: Deal ’98 percent’ done, but uranium enrichment still a … – ‎2 hours ago‎

    Emerging after day-long talks Saturday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told reporters that the talks had achieved “98 percent progress,” but that Tehran would not accept any agreement that does not recognize what it considers its right …

    This is getting very intresting, the irony is by enying NPT rights and publicly claiming that there is no soverign enrichment right for NNS the P5 will turn the whole word aginst themselves, I think the Iranian are playing their cards very claverly putting the burden of not accepting treaty rights right on the shoulder of the P5 for everyone in the world to see and get mad. If this continues I suspect Russians and Chines may publicly differ with their partners to save their credibility as Bricks.

  103. kooshy says:

    Iranians in an intense closely reported and watched news event by the whole word are, screaming to the world, hey you the world these five veto holding permanent members of the UNSC are odious enough to publicly deny non veto member’s sovereign treaty rights which they created and invited other states to join. Not a pleasant situation to be in.

  104. kooshy says:

    Congratulation and many thanks to great nation and people of Iran for their great exemplary unity and nationalism and thanks to all great young Iranian scientists and thanks to Iran leaders ayatollah Khamenie, and Dr Ahmadinijad Mr Jalali and Dr Zarif

  105. Smith says:

    Just listened to Obama.

    Good cop, bad cop finally worked.

    Rouhani bowed.

    Israel won.

    Iran lost.

    US is going to release 4.2 billion dollars of Iran’s money.

    That is 55 dollars per each Iranian living in Iran.

    The proverbial peanuts would cost more than 55 dollars.

    Iran is now trapped. Just like it got trapped in 2003 deal.

    Takabbor was flowing through Obama when he was speaking.

    Only nuclear weapons can secure a nation against the savagery of white man. Iran just lost its only deterrence.

  106. Smith says:

    It is now going to be only a matter of time before Iran will be bombed to extinction.

    Just a matter of time.

    The white man and his house niggers won and are congratulating each other.

  107. Pirouz says:

    Flynt, of all the times to be wrong with a hunch, this’d be the best.

    Very happy an agreement has been reached.

  108. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    We will need to see the details of the deal.

    If Iranian rights to enrichment on Iranian soil is recognized then it is a truly significant change in the Court of the Mad King.

    This is likely and if so I would be indeed pleased to have been proven wrong.

  109. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    John Kerry already said it:

    As per agreement, Iran has no right to enrichment.

    Iran will not build any more nuclear facility.

    Iran will not manufacture even a single more centrifuge and the no. of centrifuges will remain frozen.

    Arak reactor/IR40 is now in the dustbin of history.

    As RSH said, there will be teams of tens of thousands of spies who are to come to Iran to inspect each and every corner of Iran as they wish (Kerry was proud of this when he was saying it).

    The burden of proof will be on Iran, as Kerry said proudly.

    Iran is fvcked. For 55 dollars.

  110. Fiorangela says:

    obama’s talk was arrogant and triumphalist. ugh.

    I didn’t see anything about enrichment.

  111. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    And in six months Iran’s 20% stockpile is to be reduced to ZERO.

    And even more importantly, Iran will not start up the new IR-2m centrifuges (Iran’s current centrifuges are the ancient P-1 design of Pakistan which Pakistan itself stopped using in 1980’s and moved to P-2 in 1990s).

    All for 55 dollars. Even prostitutes will not sell themselves for this amount.

  112. Jay says:


    In the words of the late Ronald Reagan – “there you go again!”

    If the US president draws up a plan to nuke Iran, and a concerned “leaker” gives it to The Telegraph, which then reveals it for the world to see, your position would be that it is just all hype and we should not worry about it. Even though it is written, put into a plan, by a nuclear power, who is bent on invading several countries in the next 7 years. Nope. Nothing there to worry about.

    However, if a group of thugs (read Saudis) who have suppressed their own people (read majority) for decades, and have run into an internal security problem as a result, make a number of unsubstantiated allegations and express irrational fear of Iran, your position would be that now that is something to really be concerned about?!

    I do not need an analogy or a story to illustrates the absurdity of this. Or, Do I?

  113. Smith says:

    One thing which has not yet been much discussed about the implication of such a deal, is the fact that Iran’s political capital among Muslims will drastically be reduced.

    Now they will say, even Iran which was all the time boasting about resistance made a shameful deal with Estkebar.

  114. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    The issues that you have raised are unimportant.

    All steps are reversible by each side.

    The fact is that Iran already has the capacity to enrich for a bomb within 50 days.

    And much work is left to do on Arak – it is a meaningless deal to agree not to install anything there for 6 months.

    Getting some cash coming in is useful, it is a breach in the siege war against Iran that they would be able to exploit.

    If the rights to enrichment are recognized in this agreement, then we have truly entered a qualitatively new area in that the Mad King has indeed retreated.

    Just like early Spring of 2012 when Mr. Obama retreated from the war with Iran on behalf of Israel.

    So, evidently, there are different factions fighting in the Court of the King – some Mad, others less so.

    As for new centrifuges, it is fine if their installation is delayed – Iran has gotten this far and will go farther in expanding her nuclear facilities.

    Strategically, it seems, P5+1 have agreed to Iran being a nuclear-threshold state – their only other course would have led to a hostile nuclear-armed state.

    But since I have proven to be so wrong, I am now afraid to make any prognostications with much certainty.

    We really need to see the text of the agreement – in its absence each side will be trumpeting their gains.

    My sense, however, is that P5+1 did not prevail in Geneva.

  115. Smith says:

    And yeah, just to be clear that 55 dollars is actually Iran’s money that they are paying Iran with. It is like snatching 55 dollars from a girl and the use that money to buy her for a fvck.

  116. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Details of agreement according to farsnews:

    If true, then it’s a good agreement for Iran.

    حریم نفتی ایران متوقف می شود و سطح فروش نفت در سطح فعلی حفظ و در آمدهای نفتی آزاد خواهد شد.

    تحریم پتروشیمی به طور کامل رفع و تحریم صنایع خودروسازی برداشته می شود.

    تحریم طلا و فلزات گرانبها برداشته می شود و تحریم های بیمه و حمل و نقل و مرتبط با نفت کلا برداشته می شود.

    به گزارش فارس، حق غنی سازی ایران هم در عمل و هم در گفتار در دو جای متن به رسمیت شناخته شد.

    براساس این توافق ساختار برنامه هسته ای جمهوری اسلامی ایران به طور کامل حفظ می شود و هیچ عقبگردی وجود ندارد و غنی سازی ادامه می یابد.

    فردو و نطنز هم به کارشان ادامه می دهند.

    براساس این توافق، در مقابل جمهوری اسلامی ایران یکسری اقدامات اعتمادساز انجام می دهد.

    جمهوری اسلامی ایران به عنوان یک اقدام اعتمادساز ظرف 6 ماه آینده فعالیت های خود در اراک، نطنز و فردو را گسترش بیشتر نخواهد داد، ولی غنی سازی زیر 5 درصد و تولید مواد غنی شده مربوطه در فردو و نطنز همچون گذشته ادامه می یابد.

    تحقیق و توسعه در برنامه هسته ای ایران هم ادامه پیدا خواهد کرد.

    بر طبق این توافق تولید اورانیوم 20 درصد در شش ماه آینده به دلیل عدم نیاز ادامه پیدا نخواهد کرد. تمام اورانیوم غنی شده در داخل کشور باقی می ماند و هیچ ماده ای از کشور خارج نخواهد شد

  117. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    I wish this would be the case like you say.

    Alas, I do not see it.

    The problem is, if Iran reverses, then the same 2005 game will start. US will blame Iran for having walked out of the agreement. Kerry and Obama were quite clear. This is not a strategic deal and it is Iran that has to prove to the white man and his house niggers and satisfy them by whatever means. In effect if Iran ever decide to reverse, it will go through hell.

    The agreement does not give Iran anything. Kerry was very clear that there is no right of enrichment and that Iran’s program be rolled back.

    All for nothing. May be it was a good deal if some 80 or so billion dollars of Iran frozen outside of Iran would have been released. But 4 billion dollars? 55 dollars per Iranian? That is pure shame and it will not make much difference. A couple of smuggler families in Iran hold more in assets than this 4 billion dollar. Even Afghanistan would not sign an agreement with US under this price.

    The probability of war has just increased. They pulled the teeth out of the lion’s mouth.

    Now they have a new casus belli: “Iran is not abiding by this agreement”.

  118. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    If the agreement contains the text recognizing the enrichment rights of Iran, it gives UNSC a chance to undo the sanctions against Iran.

    At any rate, this agreement now codifies the secret understandings between Mr. Obama and Mr. Khamenei which included the Omani banks as the conduit of Iranian funds.

    My sense of it is that 2 weeks ago, P5+1 tried to leverage their strategic preponderance to extract one last concession out of Iran – in opposition to understandings that had already been achieved.

    They were reprising the role that US and Israel played during Oslo Peace Process period. US-Israel approach clearly led to where they find themselves – at war with Islam.

    I think Mr. Khamenei clearly stood up and was willing to walk away – his speech last Wednesday must be understood in that manner. That was after Mr. Putin, Mr. Xi, and Mr. Cameron all had telephoned Mr. Rouhani to urge him to accept the deal from 2 weeks ago.

    He declined and Mr. Zarif publicly declined that as well yesterday.

    We have to see the text to be certain but I think P5+1 reversed course.

  119. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    We will have to see the text of the agreement on the specifics of the enrichment rights – what Mr. Kerry has said before does not mean much.

    I agree with you that is not a strategic deal; as long as there are Mad Factions within the United States ruling circles, we cannot expect a strategic deal.

    Mr. Obama, I surmise, is kicking the war against Iran into the lap of his successor – he would not be attacking Iran; we can be sure of that now.

    I agree that as is said in business, “execution is everything” and we need to see how this agreement is implemented.

    Clearly, the French got to sell their car kits to Iran – alleviating employment problems in auto-manufacturing in both countries.

    Italians and Germans have got nothing in this deal.

    But then, they are semi-sovereign and no one cares about them in the Court of the King.

  120. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    Let’s see.

    I would not trust white man and his house niggers.

    Again, let’s see.

    I hope this is not another BIG GALLON OF POISON that was forced fed into stomach of Mr Khamenei via a huge nasogastric tube. As they had done to Imam Khomeini.

  121. Fiorangela says:

    Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program

    The P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) has been engaged in serious and substantive negotiations with Iran with the goal of reaching a verifiable diplomatic resolution that would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    President Obama has been clear that achieving a peaceful resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is in America’s national security interest. Today, the P5+1 and Iran reached a set of initial understandings that halts the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. These are the first meaningful limits that Iran has accepted on its nuclear program in close to a decade. The initial, six month step includes significant limits on Iran’s nuclear program and begins to address our most urgent concerns including Iran’s enrichment capabilities; its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium; the number and capabilities of its centrifuges; and its ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium using the Arak reactor. The concessions Iran has committed to make as part of this first step will also provide us with increased transparency and intrusive monitoring of its nuclear program. In the past, the concern has been expressed that Iran will use negotiations to buy time to advance their program. Taken together, these first step measures will help prevent Iran from using the cover of negotiations to continue advancing its nuclear program as we seek to negotiate a long-term, comprehensive solution that addresses all of the international community’s concerns.

    In return, as part of this initial step, the P5+1 will provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief to Iran. This relief is structured so that the overwhelming majority of the sanctions regime, including the key oil, banking, and financial sanctions architecture, remains in place. The P5+1 will continue to enforce these sanctions vigorously. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the limited relief and impose additional sanctions on Iran.

    The P5+1 and Iran also discussed the general parameters of a comprehensive solution that would constrain Iran’s nuclear program over the long term, provide verifiable assurances to the international community that Iran’s nuclear activities will be exclusively peaceful, and ensure that any attempt by Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon would be promptly detected. The set of understandings also includes an acknowledgment by Iran that it must address all United Nations Security Council resolutions – which Iran has long claimed are illegal – as well as past and present issues with Iran’s nuclear program that have been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This would include resolution of questions concerning the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program, including Iran’s activities at Parchin. As part of a comprehensive solution, Iran must also come into full compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its obligations to the IAEA. With respect to the comprehensive solution, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Put simply, this first step expires in six months, and does not represent an acceptable end state to the United States or our P5+1 partners.

    Halting the Progress of Iran’s Program and Rolling Back Key Elements

    Iran has committed to halt enrichment above 5%:

    · Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.

    Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium:

    · Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

    Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity:

    · Not install additional centrifuges of any type.

    · Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.

    · Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.

    · Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.

    · Not construct additional enrichment facilities.

    Iran has committed to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5% stockpile:

    · Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.

    Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track. Iran has committed to:

    · Not commission the Arak reactor.

    · Not fuel the Arak reactor.

    · Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.

    · No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.

    · Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.

    · Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.

    · Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

    Unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran has committed to:

    · Provide daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and shorten detection time for any non-compliance.

    · Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities.

    · Provide IAEA access to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities.

    · Provide IAEA access to uranium mines and mills.

    · Provide long-sought design information for the Arak reactor. This will provide critical insight into the reactor that has not previously been available.

    · Provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor.

    · Provide certain key data and information called for in the Additional Protocol to Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement and Modified Code 3.1.

    Verification Mechanism

    The IAEA will be called upon to perform many of these verification steps, consistent with their ongoing inspection role in Iran. In addition, the P5+1 and Iran have committed to establishing a Joint Commission to work with the IAEA to monitor implementation and address issues that may arise. The Joint Commission will also work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present concerns with respect to Iran’s nuclear program, including the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s activities at Parchin.

    Limited, Temporary, Reversible Relief

    In return for these steps, the P5+1 is to provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief while maintaining the vast bulk of our sanctions, including the oil, finance, and banking sanctions architecture. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the relief. Specifically the P5+1 has committed to:

    · Not impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months, if Iran abides by its commitments under this deal, to the extent permissible within their political systems.

    · Suspend certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue.

    · License safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines.

    · Allow purchases of Iranian oil to remain at their currently significantly reduced levels – levels that are 60% less than two years ago. $4.2 billion from these sales will be allowed to be transferred in installments if, and as, Iran fulfills its commitments.

    · Allow $400 million in governmental tuition assistance to be transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students.

    Humanitarian Transaction

    Facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. Humanitarian transactions have been explicitly exempted from sanctions by Congress so this channel will not provide Iran access to any new source of funds. Humanitarian transactions are those related to Iran’s purchase of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices; we would also facilitate transactions for medical expenses incurred abroad. We will establish this channel for the benefit of the Iranian people.

    Putting Limited Relief in Perspective

    In total, the approximately $7 billion in relief is a fraction of the costs that Iran will continue to incur during this first phase under the sanctions that will remain in place. The vast majority of Iran’s approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings are inaccessible or restricted by sanctions.

    In the next six months, Iran’s crude oil sales cannot increase. Oil sanctions alone will result in approximately $30 billion in lost revenues to Iran – or roughly $5 billion per month – compared to what Iran earned in a six month period in 2011, before these sanctions took effect. While Iran will be allowed access to $4.2 billion of its oil sales, nearly $15 billion of its revenues during this period will go into restricted overseas accounts. In summary, we expect the balance of Iran’s money in restricted accounts overseas will actually increase, not decrease, under the terms of this deal.

    Maintaining Economic Pressure on Iran and Preserving Our Sanctions Architecture

    During the first phase, we will continue to vigorously enforce our sanctions against Iran, including by taking action against those who seek to evade or circumvent our sanctions.

    · Sanctions affecting crude oil sales will continue to impose pressure on Iran’s government. Working with our international partners, we have cut Iran’s oil sales from 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in early 2012 to 1 million bpd today, denying Iran the ability to sell almost 1.5 million bpd. That’s a loss of more than $80 billion since the beginning of 2012 that Iran will never be able to recoup. Under this first step, the EU crude oil ban will remain in effect and Iran will be held to approximately 1 million bpd in sales, resulting in continuing lost sales worth an additional $4 billion per month, every month, going forward.

    · Sanctions affecting petroleum product exports to Iran, which result in billions of dollars of lost revenue, will remain in effect.

    · The vast majority of Iran’s approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings remain inaccessible or restricted by our sanctions.

    · Other significant parts of our sanctions regime remain intact, including:

    o Sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran and approximately two dozen other major Iranian banks and financial actors;

    o Secondary sanctions, pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) as amended and other laws, on banks that do business with U.S.-designated individuals and entities;

    o Sanctions on those who provide a broad range of other financial services to Iran, such as many types of insurance; and,

    o Restricted access to the U.S. financial system.

    · All sanctions on over 600 individuals and entities targeted for supporting Iran’s nuclear or ballistic missile program remain in effect.

    · Sanctions on several sectors of Iran’s economy, including shipping and shipbuilding, remain in effect.

    · Sanctions on long-term investment in and provision of technical services to Iran’s energy sector remain in effect.

    · Sanctions on Iran’s military program remain in effect.

    · Broad U.S. restrictions on trade with Iran remain in effect, depriving Iran of access to virtually all dealings with the world’s biggest economy

    · All UN Security Council sanctions remain in effect.

    · All of our targeted sanctions related to Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing role in the Syrian conflict, and its abysmal human rights record, among other concerns, remain in effect.

    A Comprehensive Solution

    During the six-month initial phase, the P5+1 will negotiate the contours of a comprehensive solution. Thus far, the outline of the general parameters of the comprehensive solution envisions concrete steps to give the international community confidence that Iran’s nuclear activities will be exclusively peaceful. With respect to this comprehensive resolution: nothing is agreed to with respect to a comprehensive solution until everything is agreed to. Over the next six months, we will determine whether there is a solution that gives us sufficient confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. If Iran cannot address our concerns, we are prepared to increase sanctions and pressure.


    In sum, this first step achieves a great deal in its own right. Without this phased agreement, Iran could start spinning thousands of additional centrifuges. It could install and spin next-generation centrifuges that will reduce its breakout times. It could fuel and commission the Arak heavy water reactor. It could grow its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to beyond the threshold for a bomb’s worth of uranium. Iran can do none of these things under the conditions of the first step understanding.

    Furthermore, without this phased approach, the international sanctions coalition would begin to fray because Iran would make the case to the world that it was serious about a diplomatic solution and we were not. We would be unable to bring partners along to do the crucial work of enforcing our sanctions. With this first step, we stop and begin to roll back Iran’s program and give Iran a sharp choice: fulfill its commitments and negotiate in good faith to a final deal, or the entire international community will respond with even more isolation and pressure.

    The American people prefer a peaceful and enduring resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime. This solution has the potential to achieve that. Through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States of America will do its part for greater peace, security, and cooperation among nations.

    White House Shareables
    Blog posts on this issue

    November 23, 2013 11:06 PM EST
    President Obama Delivers Remarks on Iran

    President Obama said that the United States — together with close allies and partners — has taken an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.
    November 23, 2013 6:00 AM EST
    Weekly Address: Working with Both Parties to Keep the Economy Moving Forward

  122. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:01 am

    I was quoting Kerry and Obama after the deal when they delivered their victory speeches.

    Both said, there is no right to enrichment what so ever.

    They were extremely arrogant. As Ms. Angela also noted above.

  123. Smith says:

    It is intersting to see how Iranian media will show this humiliation. Because even if they lie, people are going to expect to see “difference” in their life and economy which is not forthcoming.

    Alot of anti-IRI and greenies will blame IRI for having made a deal with US to remain in power and given up Iran’s nuclear program while people got nothing in return.

    The situation will get complicated. This is what happens when one gives up the path of resistance.

  124. Persian Gulf says:

    I think this is humiliating. What Iran gets in response is a joke. It’s also shocking to see the humiliating talk of Obama and Kerry after the deal. 41 years after that respectfull vist of Nixon to China, Iran’s leaders would be fooled to get anything meaningfull from a weak administration that is afraid of proudly defending a very good deal it has made.

    If Iran’s 5 percent enrichment will not be increased over the coming 6 months period, that essentially means an end to that level of enrichment. 20 percent stockpile will be gone…What kind of deal is this for Iran?

  125. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:05 am

    Each side will trumpet and accentuate their gains.

    Each side will de-emphasize their concessions.

    Each side will be stating that they have gained more than the other side.

    The P5+1 have meant to de-nuclearize Iran.

    That is certainly not achieved by this deal.

    Since the comprehensive deal is out of the question – most likely this deal will be renewed every six months.

    We shall see how things will go but my sense of it is that P5+1 wall has cracked and with it the siege war against Iran.

  126. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:18 am

    This is the heroic flexibility that Mr. Khamenei was speaking of.

    Strategically, the ability of Iran to build a nuclear weapon is intact.

    As centrifuges are broken, they will be replaced.

    Increased IAEA monitoring is also meaningless; in a crisis threatening the Iranian state they will be kicked out forthwith.

    My only concern is about Arak – but I trust that work on it will continue in some way shape or form.

  127. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:23 am

    I understand that.

    Renewal of peanut trade with Estekbar for six months. That I can force myself to understand too.

    But for 4.2 billion dollars of Iran’s own money? 55 dollars per Iranian? And then listening to patronizing Obama and Kerry? This, I do not understand. For 55 dollars you can not even buy a decent GalaxyIII cover. Nowadays, even Chinese massage parlors do not accept 55 dollars for their lowest massage service. This I do not understand.

  128. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:26 am

    Arak was so important. It was a technology demonstration project of immense technical value.

  129. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:29 am

    Arak will continue.

    The situation pertaining to Arak reactor has not changed; Iran will complete it.

  130. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:27 am

    If the agreement is bad, I expect Mr. Khamenei to quash it quickly.

    He might get the Majlis to do it, for example.

    Mr. Broujerdi’s comments on this agreement will be interesting and would indicate how it is viewed in Iran.

    The text has to be released.

  131. Persian Gulf says:

    400 milion dollars for student tuition fees. A completly unnecessary payment for Iran at this point anyway. I assume this is for propagenda purposes. Probably to silent all those folks commenting on mr.Zarif’s facebook comments and make them a voice to advocate the deal. I can’t believe the fate of a program in that nature was linked to things like student tuitions.

    This 4.2 billion will be quickly smuggled out by few hundered indivijuals with the likely reduction of dollars to rial value.

  132. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:38 am

    A few weeks ago, 500 million dollars was transferred to an Omani Bank – per secret Iran-US negotiations – to validate the flow.

    May be this is that.

  133. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:34 am

    From the way Kerry and Obama were speaking, they had no intention to allow Iran to build Arak in this century.

    Lets see how this plays out.

    Iran might soon need a divine intervention to save it. Just like when God intervened when they fed the poison to Imam Khomeini (at that time their excuse for feeding Imam was that, he could not provide them with nuclear weapons, today their excuse seems to be the opposite).

  134. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:41 am

    I do not think Iran would have access to this 400 million dollars. This is like the aid money US provides to third world countries, that only a certain type of students would be able to receive (people who will be studying things like humanities, human rights, democracy etc etc). US will give this money out of Iran’s money.

    At any rate, it is useless. If Iran wanted to help students they could have used Bitcoin for such matters.

    The deal is laughable. I expect it is going to start smelling in Iran big time in a short time.

  135. Photi says:

    Congratulations to the diplomatic teams who achieved success in Geneva this weekend. As Ms. Ashton said, may this be a good first step towards achieving more constructive relationship between the parties. This is a victory today for the NPT and, indeed, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons themselves.

    Flynt’s excellent point concerning Iran’s good faith effort in achieving a deal will convince other nation’s to turn away from imposing any additional sanctions on Iran.

    This is a win for Iran and the nations on the Security Council (Plus Germany) and a win for peace. Good work team.

  136. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Iran, six world powers clinch breakthrough nuclear deal


    The Geneva deal does not recognize an Iranian right to enrich uranium and sanctions would still be enforced, the U.S. official said.

    But Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Iran’s enrichment program had been officially recognized.

    End Quote

    So which is it?


    Kerry also told a news conference that while Obama would not take off the table the possible use of force against Iran, he believed it was necessary first to exhaust diplomacy.

    He said the limited sanctions relief could be reversible.

    End Quote

    So Iran got absolutely nothing but MAYBE up to $7 billion returned – over time, probably not within the six months. In exchange, their nuclear energy program is essentially frozen for at least six months, hordes of spies will be inserted into their country, and Obama and Israel get another six months to figure out how to attack Syria and Lebanon so as to enable an Iran war later.

    Talk about a “bad deal”…

  137. Photi says:

    “President Barack Obama personally authorized the talks as part of his effort – promised in his first inaugural address – to reach out to a country the State Department designates as the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.

    The talks were held in the Middle Eastern nation of Oman and elsewhere with only a tight circle of people in the know, the AP learned. Since March, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Jake Sullivan, Vice President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy adviser, have met at least five times with Iranian officials.

  138. Karl.. says:

    Is this what p5+1 and Iran have been talked about the past months?!

    Very bad deal, 4 billion is nothing and in return Iran give upp all things while sanctions is in place and Iran probably will le IAEA inspect militart bases (Parchin).
    It would be one thing if ALL sanctions were removed in 6 months..

  139. Photi says:

    From Fior’s post reproducing the White House statement:

    “Furthermore, without this phased approach, the international sanctions coalition would begin to fray because Iran would make the case to the world that it was serious about a diplomatic solution and we were not. We would be unable to bring partners along to do the crucial work of enforcing our sanctions.”

    Is this not an indirect admission on the part of the Obama administration that maximum leverage against Iran has been achieved and that we are on the declining side of that leverage? The sanctions are fragile and untenable over the long-run. The West cannot get a better deal with Iran short of another illegal war.

  140. Karl.. says:

    The text leaked says nothing, this is a huge win for the warcriminal in the white house and neoconservatives.

    I dont understand how Iran could have agreed to this, again one thing if they actually got the sanctions lifted in a deal but that is obviously not the case.

    Now Obama wont do anything against Iran and Syria until may/june 2014. Clever.

  141. Photi says:

    fyi, of all the things you say, this from you is rather insightful:

    “I think Mr. Khamenei clearly stood up and was willing to walk away – his speech last Wednesday must be understood in that manner. That was after Mr. Putin, Mr. Xi, and Mr. Cameron all had telephoned Mr. Rouhani to urge him to accept the deal from 2 weeks ago.”

    The SL, at just the right moment, displayed Iran’s spine to the Mad King and the world to see. Well played.

    If i were Iran, i would exploit every crack they can find in the ‘ready to fall’ sanctions regime. just to make sure that in six months the US follows through on its secret agreements with with Iran. The sanctions can see their dying day.

  142. Pirouz says:

    Reading the AP story of secret U.S.-Iran meetings over the course of the year, I couldn’t help thinking that Obama administration officials and possibly even Obama read “Going to Tehran”.

    Regarding the Parsi pic, I feel exactly the same way he does. Very happy.

  143. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Letter from President congratulating the SL on negotiations and SL’s reply thanking the negotiating team.

  144. Richard Steven Hack says:

    And now this is what will happen to Iran when the IAEA inspectors pour in…


    You recently reported an exercise in which the CIA was able through UNSCOM to monitor Iraqi military communications.

    What’s confusing here is there are actually two eavesdropping operations that went on for a long time against Iraq. One of them was devised primarily by UNSCOM, and carried out with help from the United States, Britain and Israel. This was the use of initially portable and later fixed scanners on the ground to listen to Iraqi radio communications during the course of inspections, and to get help from the United States, Israel and Britain at various times, to break the codes and translate from the Arabic those communications. And they could correlate those things with their inspection activities. They could learn after the fact, usually, that as they walked up to the front door of a site they wanted to inspect, there was a big burst of radio traffic and someone said, “Move the stuff. Bring it to the next site.” This was an important part of understanding how they were being gamed by the Iraqis and devising a plan for beating the Iraqis at their own game.

    Not everyone at UNSCOM knew about this. In fact hardly anyone did. But Rolf Ekeus knew, Richard Butler knew, Scott Ritter knew, and a few key operations people…

    Operation Number Two is something that the United States does without telling UNSCOM, and not primarily for UNSCOM’s purposes. And it goes like this: Everyone knows that UNSCOM has cameras that monitor distant sites in Iraq that have been used or could be used for making special weapons. This is part of the ongoing monitoring and verification system. There are some 300 sites involved. And the way the cameras used to work was they would run continuously, on batteries, record on the tape, and periodically someone from UNSCOM had to drive out to whatever city it was in, change the batteries, change the tapes, bring the tapes back for analysis.

    UNSCOM said, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could watch what was happening on the cameras remotely in real time?” The United States offered to build UNSCOM a system of radio relay towers which would feed that signal back to the Baghdad headquarters of UNSCOM. So you have from 300 sites around Iraq, you have cameras and actually other sensors as well, operating, and the information is being fed back to a room in the former Canal Hotel in downtown Baghdad.

    Now what the CIA did not tell UNSCOM is that the people that they sent to install these radio relays were also covert operatives. And they rigged this equipment to have a second purpose. It’s actually a joint operation of the CIA and the National Security Agency. They operate a service called the Special Collection Service, and it’s quite skilled at building hidden antennae and covert listening devices. And these are quite large mass, these antennas, and they’re spaced throughout the Iraqi countryside and they beam signals. They’re like repeater stations used in commercial radio transmissions.

    But they built into these a hidden antenna capable of detecting microwave communications. This is not their open purpose. And they stationed some of these antennae near critical nodes of Iraqi microwave communications. Now what do the Iraqis use these microwaves for? These are very high band width, high capacity communications links that operate from hilltop to hilltop, in line of sight. They beam a very tight, narrowly focused beam from one point to the other, which makes them relatively harder to intercept. They can’t be intercepted, usually, from space or from aircraft, because the angle’s too oblique and the signal gets dissipated. If you want to get at their signals, you need someone nearby on the ground to do it. So they essentially built a Trojan horse with these radio masts that they built for UNSCOM that was also feeding other Iraqi traffic back to the CIA. So you learned a lot about Iraq’s military from that. Most of it was not related to special weapons or to UNSCOM’s mission.

    So this is the CIA and the NSA essentially piggy-backing on UNSCOM, taking advantage of an opportunity that UNSCOM creates?

    That’s right. If you look at it from their point of view, they have a very high priority mission to collect information about Iraq, both conventional and special weapons, and the command structure, and how Saddam Hussein works, and who the inner circle is, and all the stuff that a military intelligence operation would want to know about a hostile power.

    They have all kinds of equipment overhead. They have readily available cover for human agents. There’s an international trade embargo on Iraq, so there’s no businessmen coming in and out, and no flights in and out. They don’t have academic exchanges and so on. They don’t have all the usual covers that they use. Here they’re given the opportunity, on a periodic basis, to include Americans on UNSCOM inspection teams, and to carry large amounts of equipment and to build things and leave them in Iraq. The temptation was simply too great.

    From their point of view it makes perfect sense. From UNSCOM’s point of view–

    From UNSCOM’s point of view it’s a betrayal. UNSCOM knows perfectly well that all these contributing states are pursuing their own agendas, are learning as much as they can, are putting the information they learn to their own uses. That’s part of the deal. But UNSCOM is trying very hard throughout its history to preserve its independence.

    For example, it established a principle from the beginning, that it would never swap intelligence. It would never say, “I’ll give you something you want if you give us something we want.” To the extent that they provided information to other countries, it was only because they had to do so in order to get the information that they wanted. Just for example, you go to the government of Germany and say, “We have reason to believe that Company X sold these fermenters to Iraq. We’d like to know if you know whether they sold any more fermenters or any other equipment, or any other company that did the same.” You can’t get that information without saying, “We know about these fermenters.” Likewise, you can’t get Israeli help interpreting photographs without showing them the photographs.

    But UNSCOM fiercely guarded its independence. It knew that it could become hostage to other people’s agendas. They insisted that there be no chain of command over its inspectors, which were lent to it, other than through UNSCOM. And so to have covert American operations using UNSCOM as cover, not only undermines UNSCOM, but these are dedicated arms controllers, and they’re very worried that it’s going to undermine the idea of intrusive multinational inspections in other agencies and other countries.

    End Quote

    Iran just handed over all its military secrets to Obama and Netanyahu…

    Not to mention, wait until the IAEA – now totally controlled by the US – starts demanding under the new inspection rules to visit EVERY Iranian military base in the country – and when Iran refuses – goes back to the UN and declares Iran is not cooperating, i.e., Iraq all over again…

  145. Karl.. says:


    Exactly what are you happy for? Please tell us what Iran gained by this.

  146. Karl.. says:


    November 24, 2013 at 3:54 am

    God sum at the end.
    If some people even here love the deal we are doomed.

  147. M. Ali says:

    I agree with Smith on this one. This deal is an embarrasment.

    Taking cue from Smith, this should be called the 55 Dollar Deal.

    The worst part about this deal, that no one seems to be talking about, is that from Iran’s side, it is an eternal limitation, but on US side, its just a one-off payment.

    What happens after 6 months? If USA doesn’t give any good deal (and why should they?), what can Iran do? If things stay As Is, USA has already paid them the 55 dollars, and Iran will forever be stuck at a limited nuclear programme. If Iran wants more, they have to give up much more, for additional relief. If Iran decides to grow balls, and cancel the deal, its the best excuse for USA to rally support AGAINST Iran.

    Ahmedinijad took a lot of shit, external & internal, to get Iran so far ahead, and these guys fucked it up in a few weeks. If Ahmedinijad was a Populist as they always call him, then that’s what he could have done. Sell up Iran short, reduce the dollar value in Iran, spin it, and be hailed as a negotiation hero.

    Smith, I have always disagreed with you on Iran’s need to get nuclear weapons, and I still disagree, because with governmental elites that we have, what would it matter? Instead of 55 dollars, they’d give us 65 dollars, and we’d ship all our nukes to them, as Confidence Building Measures.

    This is a sad day for Iran.

  148. M. Ali says:

    Enchanced monitoring:

    “Provision of specified information to the IAEA, including information on Iran’s plans for nuclear facilities, a description of each building on each nuclear site, a
    description of the scale of operations for each location engaged in specified
    nuclear activities, information on uranium mines and mills, and information on
    source material. This information would be provided within three months of the
    adoption of these measures.”

    Why not information on Nuclear Scientist’s names & home addresses too?

  149. M. Ali says:

    The thing that angers me most that I would have been okay with it if these limitations and terms agreed was the final product of a complete deal. Fine, Iran is a developing country, we can’t stand up to world powers, so okay, I’d be fine with Iran accepting a limitations on its right, as long as it is gauranteed no furthur hostalities.

    However, all these limitations is just confidence building measures, the first STEP.

    At least, years from now, I can proudly say I did not vote for Rohani (my man, Ghalibaf would have powerdrived Obama).

    I guess, when even Basijis like our brother Bussed-in-Basij is dancing in the streets because the west patted Zarif on the head, then what hope do we have?

  150. M. Ali says:

    I like how the agreement says “no new NUCLEAR-RELATED sanctions”. Meaning, hey, maybe, in a year or two, we’ll decide to put in a new sanction, and have it related to Terrorism or Human Rights

  151. Sammy says:

    ‘Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 4:11 am
    Exactly what are you happy for? Please tell us what Iran gained by this.’

    If you live in Iran , then I will tell you what Iran gained by ‘this’.

    Bibijon: Right on track :-), I repeat my statement to you 10 days ago during Geneva II

  152. Bibijon says:

    Well it wasn’t quite:

    Careful you don’t wind up pricing yourself at $55 when you’re trying to denigrate a deal.

    Kerry (and Teresa) will be in Tehran shortly after Thanksgiving.

  153. Karl.. says:


    Answer is of course that Iran didnt gain anything. Its sad if people in Iran think its a good deal.

  154. Sammy says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 6:46 am

    ‘Answer is of course that Iran didnt gain anything…

    To Gain or Not to Gain , who knows exactly…
    Al least Lady Ashton gained , as she got a HUUUGE hug from Kerry , one of her rare sexual moments….

  155. nico says:

    It seems it is essentially a freeze for freeze agreement
    No additional “embargoing” for no advancement of Iran nuclear program.
    As I said time and again “sanction” term should not be used.
    It is semantic propaganda with implying there is legal or truthful rational ground for embargo.
    While there is no ground, no truth and no balance.

    I am not sure to understand what Iran gains with such agreement.
    I fully understand what the US gain as it put a rest to the Iran nuclear program and the sanction are still there.

    Maybe Iran has nothing to lose in such an agreement.
    Actually there is no NPP to feed yet and plenty of centrifuges.
    New NPPs will tke years to be built and ty current one is fed by Russia.
    The Tehran reaserch reactor is working well with the necessary stockpile of plates for it to run until decommissioning.

    A 6 months deal is not that long.
    Even if it is rolled forward for 1 or 2 years.

    Iran can still prepare the ground for further expansion afterward by carrying out R&D for the Arak reactor and the next generations centrifuges

    Anyway the US or Iran may stop the deal after 6 months or find a rational to escape it as soon as they want after those 6 months.

    The major shortcoming of the current deal is that it does not adress the final step while the momentum was available.
    The end game should have been defined.
    But is Iran or the US are ready for that in one single agreement while the gap is so wide ?
    Maybe time should be left for every international actor to adjust to this new reality to be able to go further.

    The main goal for Iran should be now to build additional NPP.
    Once 2, 3 … 10 NPP reactors are built there will be no possibility for anyone to criticize Iran enrichment.

    Iran has enrichment like other Nuclear weapons states and weaponization ready states.
    What is needed now are the NPPs.
    If Iran is no t able to get support to build additional NPPs by the end of 2014 or launch a NPPs building program by itself then this interim agreement is as well dead.

    Let’s see how Russia will react and whether the building of additional NPPs called for by Salehi will be launched soon.

    The second aspect will be the geopolitical evolution in Afghanistan and Syria.
    Whether the US leave Afghanistan for good or not.
    And how the Syrian crisis will be closed.

    Anyway the US ability to wage war against Iran is zero for the time being.
    What does Iran care about western bragging and hullaballoo even if the deal does not achieve anything 1 year from now ?

    The balance of power is fought elsewhere.

    Thus at the end of the day not an idiotic deal for the time being.
    Much will depend on multiple other fronts in the coming year. Not the less the western economic crisis.

  156. Bibijon says:

    The meaning is not in the details

    Question for the board

    What does 6 foreign ministers of the most influential countries in the world sitting together with Iran’s FM and coming to an AGREEMENT (as opposed to the usual rancor, hectoring and disagreement) mean?

  157. M. Ali says:

    Bibijon, to me, it just reinforces USA’s position, because it turned out, their method proved effective. It didn’t matter what the Russias & Chinese said, USA’s method of sanctions brought Iran to the table, wherein the latter agreed to curb their activities in exchange of not putting any more sanctions on them.

    This is a huge victory for Obama. They got Iran to the negotiating table, had them pull back on their nuclear activities, and they (USA) wasn’t even forced to remove any of the major sanctions. Not only that, they did in such a way, that Iranians are HAPPY.

    Which was Obama’s plan all along. Instead of spending money to drop expensive rockets on Iran, just don’t buy their oil for a few months, block their money in the bank, and wait.

  158. Sammy says:

    BTW , today on the RT News Online , I read a ‘funny’ comment regarding Bibi’s rant of a historical mistake etc.
    One commentator wrote that the real ‘HISTORIC’ mistake was made by Benzion Mileikowsy ( Bibi’s father )nine months before his Bibi’s birth.

  159. nico says:

    M. Ali says:
    November 24, 2013 at 7:28 am

    Did you expect something else from tye US ?
    The US are a thug country.

    Iran lose nothing as there is no NPP to feed.
    And Iran leaders said time and again that there is no weponization goal.

    This is a freeze for freeze.
    Each party retaining its previous position and capability.

    Now that enrichment is secured what is needed is more NPPs.
    Surely Russia would not have helped with additional NPPs whithout an interim deal.
    Equally in my opinion there will be no final deal if there is no agreement on additional NPP to be built in Iran.
    Another solution would be for Iran to build NPP by its own. Is that possible in a short term basis ? I do not know.

  160. Karl.. says:

    More nonsense by Zarif

    Iran’s right is not even mentioned at all in the leaked documents.

  161. nico says:

    “The French Foreign Minister says the long-awaited deal over Iran’s nuclear program, confirms Tehran’s right to civil nuclear power.”

    Meaning the interim deal provide a freeway for Russia to build additional NPPs while Iran retain enrichment camability ?
    It will be difficult for Russia or China to deny it and to refuse support in that domain.
    Whithout such support to build NPPs right now the interim deal is as well meaningless and void.

  162. M. Ali says:

    The more news I get, the angrier I feel. Iran should just go the UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc route and stop pretending. Obviously, the leaders of Iran like USA patting their head, and so do the Iranians.

    I’m sorry for being so negative, but all our Marg Bar America & Slap in the Face of the enemey is just talk.

    Look at our OWN news. We’re acting like it is the deal of the century. Look at the headline in PressTV, “Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani hails the recognition of Tehran’s right to enrich uranium by the world powers as one of the achievements of the deal between the Islamic Republic and the Sextet. ”

    Wow, thanks, Rohani, lets see what the next administrative achievement is, I hope world powers recognize some other of our rights, such as the right to our money!

  163. M. Ali says:


    “Did you expect something else from tye US ?”

    I did not expect anything else from USA. But I expected a lot more from my own country.

    “Iran lose nothing as there is no NPP to feed.”

    What do you mean, we lose nothing?

    We lose the right to enrich to higher tha 5%, which is garanted under the NPT agreement we ourself signed.

    We lose the right to build more facilities if we want.

    We lose the right to our 20% stockpile and whatever the hell we want to do with them.

    We lose the right to nuclear constructions.

    We lose the right to building more centrifuges.

    We lose the right to privacy in our facilities and information.

    “This is a freeze for freeze.”

    This is not actually a freeze for freeze. This is freeze (sanctions to stay as it is) for reduction from Iran’s side.

    Freeze for freeze would mean, that

    1) USA adds no more sanctions OR HOSTILATIES
    2) Iran would not enrich to higher than 20%

    “Each party retaining its previous position and capability.”

    Our capabilities have been reduced.

    And will be furthur reduced, if the negotiations are to continue.

  164. M. Ali says:

    When Zairf & Co keep talking about this being the first step, then what exactly is the next step? What exlse have we to offer the west in the second step?

    We can’t just sit at the table, and say, okay, now that the six months are over, can you lift the sanctions because you love us now?

    Or, they will have to give something else up?

    This is the future I fear of Iran.

    Rohani will proudly hail that superpowers finally let us enrich, but this would be one centrifuge, spinning for 30 minutes every day, giving enough energy to power Zarif’s computer so that he can continue tweating. But hey, we’d be enriching! Wooooo

    In exchange, the next time any of the Britian princes and princesses are married, Iran presidents will finally be invited, and they’d be allow to shake their booty with the Saudi princes, and won’t feel left out, and have to be all mopey when they go on Facebook and see all the rest of the Presidents tagging each other and having fun at parties, while they are left out.

  165. Karl.. says:

    M ali

    November 24, 2013 at 8:03 am

    Correct – there will be no next step, the leaked doc doesnt say anything about lifting sanctions etc as a next step. I would have no problem with a deal if the sanctions, were lifted at the end. But instead, in the end there is no reward at all for Iran.

    I wonder if Maijlis even will agree to this deal.

    Now we all understand why US didnt want to talk to Ahmadinejad administration, Ahmadinejad actually demanded things back in a deal compared to Rouhani.

  166. M. Ali says:

    The way Ahmedinijad dealt was, you step forward, we step forward. You step back, we step back.

    The way Rohani deals is, please don’t step forward anymore, we promise to start stepping back. Hooray, they aren’t steping forward anymore! …for now! hooray!

  167. Fiorangela says:

    The standard by which to assess this deal is, of course, Nixon to China.

  168. Karl.. says:


    Yes and obviously obama have no such courage or plans.

    I sense Leverett’s new post will be negative of this deal.

  169. M. Ali says:

    I updated my facebook with this, so I’ll repose it here:

    The 55 Dollar Deal

    With us Iranians, we have always signed agreements with the west, that we have lost more than we gained. The deal that has been agreed today is another step in this direction.

    But this 2013, and we should educate ourselves to what our leaders are signing.

    This is what Iran has agreed to:

    1) Instantly reduce all our 20% uranium stock to half, that is 50% of it should be diluted to 5%. We can use the rest, but this will be reduced day by day. There will be no replacement for this remaining stock because,

    2) Iran will not enrich over 5% anymore

    3) Iran will not advance its activities at the its facilities, those being, Natanz, Fordow, or the Arak

    4) No new locations for enrichment to be allowed

    5) No construction to be allowed for reprocessing uranium

    6) Iran to allow much more intrusive inspections, including daily visits and access to sensitive information

    And what does Iran get for giving up our SOVEREIN rights?

    1) The most important apparently is that USA will give a part of our OWN MONEY, that they have blocked in the banks oversees, back to us. Not any extra money, our own money. Not all of it, less than 5% of our own money. This is the money we were supposed to get for the oil that we sold. But they suddenly decided to block our money and wouldn’t give it to us. Now, they have decided to give 4.4 billion of it back to us. In installments of six months. This money amounts to USD 55 per Iranian, or USD 9 per month per person.

    2) They agree not to INCREASE our sanctions on oils. That is, it is not reduced, the previous sanctions are in place, but they will just not increase it.

    3) Suspend sanctions on:

    a. Petrochemical exports
    b. Gold & precious metals
    c. Auto industry
    d. And some spare parts for our civil aviation

    4) No new nuclear-related sanctions. Not ANY sanctions, just no nuclear related sanctions.

    5) Because USA is so kind, they have decided to pay for the tuition of Iranian students. How nice of them, except the payment apparently comes FROM OUR OWN REVENUE BLOCKED BY THEM.

    In summary, what we have gotten is reducing our rights as an independent nation in exchange for each of us Iranians getting 55 dollars of our own money.

  170. A-B says:

    Kerry said to reporters: (see PressTV ‘Kerry appeases Israel on Iran deal’)
    “I know that there are those who will assert that this deal is imperfect. Well they too bear responsibility to tell the people what the better alternative is. Some might say we should increase pressure; just turn up the screws; continue to put sanctions on and somehow that should push Iran towards capitulation or collapse. Not by any interpretation that we have from all the experts and all of the input that we have from all of the countries the p5+1 that took place in this today none of them believe that would be the outcome.
    In 2003 when the Iranians made an offer to the former administration WRT nuclear program there were 164 centrifuges. That offer was not taken. Subsequently sanctions came in and today there are 19000 centrifuges and growing. So people have a responsibility to make a judgment about this choice and I’m comfortable as is president Obama that we have made the right choice.”

    As I said before, Iran is at a century old war with the West; a war as epic as between Light and Darkness. One must keep in mind how morbid a charade this nuclear ‘issue’ is on the background of what the West (with tacit agreement of Russia and China) has already done to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt, etcetera, AND Iran. This should convince you that Iran is confronted with pure Evil from a bunch of Arrogant Fascists. In light of this any postponement of war is a victory, exactly as Iran-Iraq war was a victory for Iran. Recall, the WWII didn’t end for Germany until Germany reunified in 1990; even then one wonders if the EU ‘project’ isn’t just a temporary state of non-war. After all, as I likened the West to tyrants of the old, they are master of death and non-death, not life; they don’t know what Peace is, period.

    To call them Savages or as Imam called them GREAT Satan is not just slur; look what Kerry, this leader of ‘civilized’ world is saying. He says that they ‘turned up the screws’ as hard as they could (as the sadistic torturers they are, after all, the US brags that the sanctions imposed on Iran is the severest EVER) and FAILED. He swears the US did its best, as his “experts” is his witnesses; that is the other members of the immoral gang; EXPERT in murdering and torturing people: UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China. How many people have these Savages killed together? (Well, you could have consulted the Dutch, the Portuguese and Spaniards as well; they KNOW one or two things about cruelty, for sure!!) Then of course we have Israel and Saudi-Wahhabia. So, as I said before and now Kerry admits, they were FORCED to change their ways; this is victory. I am glad to hear Prof. Marandi on RT using this expression with the same emphasis.

    It’s funny how some AMERICAN pundits (in alternative media) who during Obama’s first term called him a worse warmonger than Bush (which he very well may be) now making him champion of this ‘peace’ when this state of non-war is ONLY thanks to Iran’s resistance. On February 28 I wrote “Why not giving Iran (Khatami and his reconciliatory approach to the West) credit for the war that didn’t happen in 2005-6; why give it to GW Bush? And why not giving Iran (Ahmadinejad & Co) credit for preventing a war in 2011-12; why give it to Obama? I mean [Iran] made a war more expensive option for the West.” Kerry is giving me right!


  171. Smith says:

    In other news, it appears Afghanistan is going to allow US occupation till 2025 at minimum and possibly even longer than that. This means more illicit drugs production and smuggling to Iran, more terror against Iran, etc etc. But the Afghans would atleast get tens of billions of dollars a year in aid and services (much better price that Iran got for selling herself to US).

    Big victories for Obama in a week. He must be really happy.

    I was wondering even if Shah the taghot would have agreed to this humiliating deal that Iran just agreed to:

    Will there be a radio address by Mr Khamenei having drunk the poison, like the last time around? The bigheirat, bikhasiat, bibasirat people finally sold Iran out.

    You gotta give it to Pakistanis. The whole nation stood up and said, no matter what, we want nuclear weapons. No money, no deal, no nothing will get Pakistanis give up their nukes.

    Even Turks still hold on to some 90 NATO nuclear weapons.

    Israel ofcourse is going to of course keep its 400 nukes.

    And PG arab states, are going to be given the most modern fighter jets, stand off weapons, etc etc all against defenseless Iran (Kerry even mentioned UAE).

    Ahmadinejad was giving this nation 55 dollars per month per person while adding advancing Iran’s scientific, technological, space, nuclear fields.

    Now everything seems to be lost with arrival of tens of thousands of spies back to Iran. Just like the “mostasharan gharbi” during Shah’s time.

    Why we had this revolution and the high price paid for it both in wealth and blood? Anybody still remember? No, it was not for a few smuggler brothers and bibasirat people who have today fallen in love with Americans.

    I think now the sane among us, can safely and confidently now agree with Mr. RSH predictions that Iran will be invaded. I had not agreed earlier with Mr. RSH because I did not think the Iranian government would sell herself infront of world media for gang bang at 55 dollars. But apparently gheirat has died in Iran under sanctions.

    One huge international implication of this deal is a message to the world that resistance against Estekbar is futile. Hyper-Sanctions and military threat and threat of a nuclear strike will work to make even a nation like Iran to bow and start licking the American penis. Vigorously. Other nations should take note (minus those with nuclear weapons already).

  172. Fiorangela says:

    several interesting comments at Mondoweiss:

    “Even Netanyahu isn’t crazy enough to bomb facilities with full time IAEA inspectors put there by the P5.”


    “Taxi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:45 am

    What is clear is that the big shot USA has finally and quietly agreed with Russia to share influence in the middle east. Their first and foremost shared goal is not the promotion of the interests of either isreal or saudi arabia, but the global war on terrorism.

    Thus begins the ‘real’ war on terrorism era, a terrorism that for decades has been manufactured and exported by the terrorist states of israel and saudi arabia – saudi and israeli state sanctioned terrorism that has for decades destabilized the region (and the world) by creating brutal oppression, regression, misery and death for millions.

    Now it is USA, shoulder to shoulder with Russia, versus mideast terrorists!

    But fasten your seatbelts, folks, the terrorist buggers will be showing the world their displeasure at the Iran peace deal soon enough. Actually they already started with the carbombs outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut four days ago.

    BTW I really think it should be called a peace deal and not a nuclear deal.”

    Sounds like Iran is to be, once again, a “neutral,” but occupied by Russians and Americans. For Iran’s own good, of course.

  173. nico says:

    M. Ali says:
    November 24, 2013 at 7:57 am

    “Freeze for freeze would mean, that
    1) USA adds no more sanctions OR HOSTILATIES
    2) Iran would not enrich to higher than 20%”

    Not true. Whether you like it or not.

    Continuous stockpiling by the tons of enriched uranium that is not intended to be used in the forseeable future for civilian purpose is proliferation. Even at 3.5%.
    Stopping growth of the current stockpile is “freeze”. Even at 20 or 3.5%.

    Transforming the current stockpile in oxyde not easily diverted is confidence builduing in line with Iran stated policy. Thus not something “expensive” or worth noting.

    Well if your view is that Iran should look for weaponization right away this is not line with the SL views.
    You should tell the SL and criticize his fatwa…
    Not the deal by itself.

    Iran has plenty of capability and location by now.
    There is no need for additional enrichment site or additional heavy water reactors.
    Thus committing no additional site cost nothing to Iran and it allows confidence building
    What Iran needs is tens of NPPs !
    But I make no mistake and I think that if Iran feel the need for additional site they will just declare it openly and do it.
    Because it is Iran sovereign right.
    And the current agreemnt is NOT a treaty, it is voluntary and not binding. That much is clear.
    So what is the issue ?

    And the most important: It is a 6 months deal.

    If Iran was ready to face western enmity by starting enrichment from 10 centrifuges to close 20000 today, I have no doubt that Iran will start the program again past the few months if the results are not satisfactory.

  174. nico says:

    “Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi underlined that Iran has accepted to stop its 20-percent grade enrichment for a period of six months in a voluntary move to build the opposite parties’ confidence.
    Salehi pointed to a final agreement concluded by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday morning, and said, “We will not stop any of our nuclear activities, but we will only voluntarily limit the level of our enrichment for a six-month period until comprehensive negotiations are held and a relevant decision is made for enrichment above the 5-percent grade.””

  175. Rehmat says:

    It seems Zionist regime’s defenders (the US, France, Germany and Britain) have thrown Iranophobic Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi) under buse at the third P5+1 and Iran talks which concluded in Geneva today. They, along with Russia and China, have signed an interim nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The agreement, however, gives Netanyahu another 6-month grace period to reck a possible US-Iran rapprochment.

    The deal shows Iranian victory as it accepts several of Iran’s ‘non-negotiable’ rights; Iran’s rights to continue its civilian nuclear program, retain 50% of its 20% Uranium stocks for TRR fuel rods, and a freeze on any advanced activity at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant1, Fordow2, or the Arak reactor3, designated by the IAEA as IR-40. The P5+1 has agreed, in return, to lift several of UN, EU and the US imposed sanctions against Iran in the oil, banking, food and medical sectors. The deal also promises no additional sanctions against Iran by the Jewish Lobby controlled US Congress.

  176. Smith says:

    So for those going crazy happy over this “deal”, how does it taste and smell? I mean the American phallus. Even taghooti shahanshah had never taken it so deep in the throat. Please share your “joy” over here over the next 6 months. Make sure you take your prophylaxis medicines for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea etc etc. And do not choke on it.

  177. Sammy says:

    A-B says:
    November 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

    Superb comment , merci….

  178. A-B says:


    Please, calm down!! Have FAITH!


  179. Karl.. says:

    Why did Khamenei accept this deal now and not 6 years ago?
    If US only knew Iran could sell itself for 55 dollars the deal could have been made years ago and Iran could have been stronger on all issues.

  180. fyi says:


    This deal is acceptable for Iran since it does not weaken strategically.

    In case of an emergency, inspectors can be kicked out.

    Iran has enough capacity now to build nuclear weapons – something she did not have in 2006 when freeze-for-freeze idea was first mentioned.

    The agreement both in its preamble and in its comprehensive solution section mentions enrichment – that is no longer subject to elimination.

    On Arak, the work on fuel assemblies etc. had already been completed to a large extent – the remaining work is on pumps and cooling systems that is not covered in this agreement. That work will continue.

    Necessarily, Mr. Obama and others have to obfuscate the amount of financial relief Iran is receiving; I think we would not know this accurately for many more years – I suspect that it would be much more that $ 6 billion.

    I believe there already are cameras of IAEA in Natanz and in Fordow – reporting real-time.

    I agree that we need to see how quickly Russia moves in to start the second unit at Bushehr.

    And finally, Arak will be completed, no doubt.

  181. paul says:

    Obama appears to be like the cat who, having leapt at a bird, missed, and fallen to the ground, sits there grooming and pretending that this was what it had intended all along. Thus Obama, having leapt at war against Syria, and fallen into peace, seems to have decided to seek a deal with Iran that he could have had at any time during his presidency (or something near enough to it), as if to make it seem that peace was what he wanted all along. How weird though that he spent the last five years pursuing war when it turns out he really wanted peace the whole time! Maybe he really was the Secret Peacemaker of legend the whole time? More likely this is really about returning Iran to the petrodollar, which would be an important surrender of sovereignty for Iran, gaining control over Iran’s oil, etc.. Or maybe it is just a feint, a set up for increased ratcheting for war.

  182. fyi says:

    Smith says:
    November 24, 2013 at 9:13 am

    I do not think so.

    Iranians are in a comfortable place in terms of their ability to enrich.

    The deal is truly “heroic flexibility” during a war of attrition.

    Evidently, a saner – but not completely sane – faction in the Court of the Mad King has realized that they cannot leave the Iranian Crisis going on and, to at the same time, pivot against China.

    In a short notice the King would find himself in another quagmire while China expands.

    So that faction has succeeded in putting in place a temporary truce in the war against the new Shia Irani Power.

    One would hope that it could be followed by a strategic settlement – but I doubt that could be done under Mr. Obama.

    We now know that Mr. Obama will not initiate the war against Iran, he has passed that now to his successor.

  183. fyi says:

    A -B says:
    November 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

    You are right.

    They are all thugs.

    Only a nuclear-armed Iran could ensure her safety and the safety of allied people and countries.

    One only needs to read about the Hazara in Afghanistan.

  184. masoud says:

    Forget Estiza. The negotiating team should be lynched at the airport. Why the hell was Zarif calling these negotiations ‘tough’?

  185. masoud says:

    But US Secretary of State John Kerry, who signed the deal with Iran for the Obama administration, put a different interpretation on the issue, telling the media that the agreement did not recognize Tehran’s right to enrich nuclear fuel.

    “The first step, let me be clear, does not say that Iran has a right to enrich uranium,” Kerry said.

    This is not a deal. It’s an unconditional surrender. Most disgracefully, it’s a surrender that’s been pre emptively blessed by Khameini. Maybe his age is gettting to him.

  186. Fiorangela says:

    from Moon of Alabama, “A Temporary Deal with Iran”

    “There is now a temporary deal between the U.S. (and some sideshows) and Iran about some reduction of illegal U.S. sanctions against Iran in exchange for some freeze of legal Iranian industrial nuclear activities. Since March secret negotiations were held between the Obama administration and Iran to achieve this break through. But it is dubious that the deal is a real change of course. The White House “fact sheet” on it is still typically condescending.

    Some preliminary thoughts:

    – The deal is limited to six month and chances are that no permanent deal will follow. We will likely be back to the usual animosities and renewed calls for war some six month from now. There are many who do not want a more permanent deal and they will do their best to prevent one. When, in six month, the U.S. will stop adhering to the agreement Iran will be blamed of breaking it. This clause in the “Fact Sheet” is the decisive one:

    Specifically the P5+1 has committed to:

    • Not impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months, if Iran abides by its commitments under this deal, to the extent permissible within their political systems.

    Translated: Congress has ways and means to increase sanctions and thereby break this deal and will likely do so.

    – A much better deal, from the U.S. perspective, could have been had in 2003, 2005 and 2007.”

  187. Fiorangela says:

    I feel your pain, Smith, but it can’t be all bad if Netanyahu is truly miffed — and isolated.

    It might just be that Obama-Kerry are working on behalf of American interests, and those interests include snipping the apron strings of the 68-year old boomerang baby still living in the basement.

  188. Fiorangela says:

    I feel your pain, Smith, but it can’t be all bad if Netanyahu is truly miffed — and isolated.

    It might just be that Obama-Kerry are working on behalf of American interests, and those interests include snipping the apron strings of the 68-year old boomerang baby still living in the basement.

    PS No wonder Netanyahu likes to come to the White House and have his picture taken. Take a look at the dreadful room where he meets with his cabinet. Compare it with Zarif’s video the other day. Bibi’s undergrad training was in architecture.

  189. Karl.. says:


    November 24, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Yes the deal say nothing about Iran’s rights. Zarif is lying.
    Zarif/Khamenei doesnt seems to understand that they are getting ripped off and that in a temporary deal!

  190. Fiorangela says:

    Karl — Lavrov seems to think the deal acknowledges Iran’s right to enrich —

    QUOTE: The agreement means that “we agree with the necessity to recognize Iran’s right to the peaceful atom, including the right to enrichment, with the understanding that all questions we currently have for the program will be [settled] and the whole program will be put under the IAEA’s strict control,” he said. “It’s the final aim, but it’s already fixed in today’s document.” END QUOTE

  191. Sammy says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 11:49 am
    Zarif/Khamenei doesnt seems to understand that they are getting ripped off and that in a temporary deal!

    In order to ‘rip off ‘ the SL you would have to get up very very early in the morning.

  192. kooshy says:

    In my opinion this comment in MA is good assessment/analyses of this nuclear deal and its relativity to future of ME

    After all as everyone here always agreed this issue and animosity was never about the nuclear issue / why should it be now or later

    From MA
    Everyone on this site who immediately thought the chemical weapons deal was bad for Syria is also wrong about yesterday’s agreement being meaningless or bad for Iran.

    1. Iran achieves an important rapprochement with important global powers.
    2. Iran finally gains de facto recognition of its NPT rights.
    3. A process is started for ending the sanctions.
    4. A process is started for unwinding tendencies towards war between the US and Iran.
    5. The US and Iran were directly negotiating for months — and now will turn to work on other issues.
    6. The REAL DIPLOMACY around other more significant regional issues will now begin. In fact, yesterday’s agreement was a COVER for more important negotiations on other files and for other US grand strategies.
    7. Obama carried out secret negotiations for months in order to counter the Israeli/Neocon/Saudi power configuration in Congress/US media, etc. This is a good sign — perhaps the *best* thing Obama has done since 2008.
    8. The US wants and needs a final deal with Iran. It cannot achieve any ME or global goals without one. Do not underestimate the US interest in this deal.
    9. Israel and Saudi are furious because the White House is fed up with their lunacy and pure evil.

    To reiterate, a lot of people on this site were totally wrong about the Syrian chemical weapons deal being a massive surrender and US victory.

    Without forgetting the power dynamics at play, there are many up sides to the current deal with Iran too.

    Last point: Ignore all of Obama’s hostile rhetoric. He is simply trying to sell this to Congress — ie, to avoid new sanctions.

    Posted by: wevin | Nov 24, 2013 10:38:37 AM | 31

  193. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 11:49 am

    “Zarif/Khamenei doesnt seems to understand that they are getting ripped off and that in a temporary deal!”

    Do you mean like back when there was a deal for a stop of enrichment years ago ?
    That right was that much ripped off that by now Iran has 20K enrichment stuff in Natanz.

  194. Fiorangela says:

    a challenge to the “American left,” (whatever that is)–

    regarding Moon of Alabama’s (“b”) comment —

    ” We will likely be back to the usual animosities and renewed calls for war some six month from now. … When, in six month, the U.S. will stop adhering to the agreement Iran will be blamed of breaking it.”

    firedoglake responds:

    QUOTE: My sense is that “b” . . . has a too severe, exaggerated analysis in which Israel does and _must_ rule U.S. policy on the Middle East. Tale wags the big U.S. dog. And that means “THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE!”

    Well, maybe some of us need to pull back from that a little. Yes, it’s true that the Israeli far right (i.e., Israel’s government) and their allies in the U.S. oppose any concessions. And they are a mighty strong lobby. But maybe there are too many military people, trade partners, and non-oil industry people who fear where the Likud/Israeli line is leading. Can the U.S. afford to bankrupt itself again, with another Iraq, i.e. another several trillion dollar war in the Middle East? Because that’s where being led around by the nose by the present-day Israel would lead.

    Here’s my comment under b’s analysis:

    I wouldn’t dismiss the deal as ‘temporary, back to confrontation in 6 months, Iran gets nothing’. Iran does get $4.2 billion and Iran gets positive (“Not a pariah anymore”) PR, which it can leverage into to better relations with other countries individually. [remember all that the Leveretts been telling us about soft-power]

    The broader take might be the “bridge too far” concept regarding U.S.-based imperialism. Limits people! Can’t have everything.

    In sum, without Russia and China on board, Western sanctions have limits, and so what do you do? This might be the first step toward acceptance of Iran as part of that small club of nations (Russia, China) that the West grudgingly allows to be sovereign.

    Expanding on the public relations reference: Not that it can break the united Western front against it, but there are several big ‘non-aligned’ countries that Iran can profitably improve relations with. This is where pulling back from 20 percent enrichment is helpful: it shows again that Iran is determined to have a nuclear _power_ program, that it is determined in a larger (and inspiring) sense to be a sovereign non-Western country, but that it does _not_ want a nuclear weapons program. This may make it permissible for a Brazil, a Khazakstan, an Azerbaijan or a Turkey to break with the West on sanctions. END QUOTE

  195. Karl.. says:


    It doesnt matter what Lavrov says, there is no such right thing in the leaked documents.

  196. nico says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    “FiorangelaIt doesnt matter what Lavrov says, there is no such right thing in the leaked documents.”

    There is no right to be granted or recognized by the US. Enrichment is a sovereign right.
    The only recognition that could be granted by the US is end of hostility and lifting of all sanctions.
    Were you expecting that to happen in a single step and in a overnight negotiation ?

  197. nico says:

    Iraq sanctions have been lifted 10 years after tye ned of the Iraq war.
    Chance are that the Iran sanctions shall not be lifted anytime soon short of regime change.
    Maybe in 10 or 20 years.
    See the Cuban case…

    The negotiation were likely not about the US sanctions.
    They were likely about boosting relation with non US led countries.

    NPPs from Russia or China anyone ?

  198. Karl.. says:


    Yes if people claim that US now recognize Iran’s right to enrich at 20% I expect to find that in the text, which I dont.

  199. Sammy says:


    thanks for the comment from MoA.
    I first thought it was bevin , but later bevin said that it wasn’t him.
    In MoA I always have my eyes on Mr. Pargma ( who also posted a comment in the Iran thread ) and actually bevin , who has brilliant views
    Here he is in action :

    **It ain’t bevin, guest, though I’m in agreement with much of what he, and most other posters here say.

    This deal needs to be seen in the light of two important facts.

    The first is Israel.
    It is true that Israel has long exerted disproportionate influence over US foreign policy. But it is not true that Israel has dictated policy over a long period. The basic fact is not Israel’s weight in US politics, either in terms of numbers or money, but the existence if a vacuum, much to nature’s disgust, in US foreign policy. Apart from the general desire to dominate everything, always-a not uncommon desire among the very young- there isn’t much purpose. Business pursues its own interests and while the iron fist of the Pentagon is nice to have, it really isn’t necessary. All business really needs from Washington is ever lower taxes, a tight lid on wages, and a regulation free environment. It has them all; and democrats and republicans compete to take credit for it.
    What Israel, led by single minded fascist fanatics does very well is to give the Pentagon and the State Department something to do. It ensures by keeping them busy chasing ghosts, such as terrorism, Iran’s nuclear threat, another holocaust being planned and other amusements for empty minds (the end times!) that nothing is done about implementing decades worth of promises regarding a Palestinian state, the end of the occupation, the return of Syrian and Lebanese territories, civil rights in Israel. Not to mention ceasing the sponsorship of terrorists and standing on its own feet economically.
    Israel, with 200 nuclear weapons and a regional monopoly on WMD, cries wolf and the Military Industrial Complex in the US seconds those cries but there is no future in a policy of eternally escalating hysteria.
    And the past isn’t as long as it sometimes looks. One of Obama’s first actions in 2009 was to appoint Mitchell as a peace envoy. It didn’t go anywhere, although George Mitchell did, but it was an indication of a commitment, half hearted but real, to negotiations. Israel’s partisans were horrified and they made sure that the mission was aborted, but it took them a lot, including political credit, to achieve that. The current attitude of letting Israel do as it pleases in settlements and build and annex at will is not only new but linked directly to the “Arab Spring” civil wars raging or impending from Aden to Beirut, the Mahgreb to Sudan. It cannot go on.

    The change in US Foreign policy is only partly to do with the “pivot to Asia.” Much more likely than which is a revaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current strategy of building bases and starting fights everywhere. The costs are enormous, the benefits non-existent: US military adventures abroad are a self conducted propaganda campaign against the USA. From Okinawa to Mukhalla the stars and stripes are hated. And, increasingly, not feared. Those who talk of “soft power” and “cultural reach” clearly don’t get out much.

    I recollect, in the mid fifties, being in a cinema full of Malayan schoolchildren where a Hollywood movie about Korea was being shown. How it ended I have no idea, because there was a riot which lasted all day. Sixty years later the brand, tainted by decades more of riding roughshod over the world, is tainted beyond repair. W was right: those not with the US are against it. The latter are many, the former are few, cowardly and mercenary. Soft power only applies to a sliver of treacherous intellectuals in every country always ready to trade their country for crumbs in America and comprador businessmen.

    Netanyahu and his Congressional friends make a big noise but in the end they are going to be arguing that tens of millions of hungry or desperate or unhappy Americans should sacrifice living standards and hope in order to bankroll Mussolini’s last surviving comrades as they pursue Zionist fantasies in Palestine. Once Congress gets something real to do, it will stop obsessing about Israel.

    My prediction is that, by next Spring, a populist opposition in the US will be talking about the need for more social security, more secure pensions, cheaper housing, interest free student loans, a reversal of job exportation, tariff protection, a living minimum wage and other practical policies which will require big cuts in Defense expenditure and an end to million dollar a year private soldiers. In such a wash, Israel will shrink rapidly to its proper size.

    The Second important fact is Fukushima. Iran’s nuclear programme goes back to the halcyon days of the fifties when nuclear power was touted as a miracle whose power would be too cheap to meter. And the Shah, always looking for cheap electricity for the torture chambers, was daft enough to buy into it.

    For a variety of reasons, many to do with Iran’s proper refusal to be denied its sovereign rights, the programme has survived and become a talisman. But the truth is that nuclear power is a disaster in urgent need of dismantling. And economically the power produced would have to be really inexpensive to justify, over a thousand years, what it has already cost.
    The next months afford Iranians a perfect opportunity to look into the implications of nuclear power and reconsider the advantages its proponents claim for it. At the same time the situation is one in which pressure ought to be put on Israel and its enablers, (from Germany which is building its nuclear armed submarine fleet, France, the UK and the US) to begin the long process of dismantling its nuclear arsenal.
    If, by reaching an agreement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to take shelter under its members’ nuclear umbrella, the threat of nuclear attacks on Iran are deterred all the better.

    I have no illusions, that I know of, about the perfidy of the Empire but this agreement represents a welcome split in its rulers’ ranks. It also represents a refusal to be intimidated by AIPAC and its clown chorus in Congress.

    Unlike b I do not believe that Congress will be able to impose new sanctions on the government. It certainly has no power to impose them on the EU or the rest of the world. I believe that Iranian sanctions are going the way of those against Cuba, and that increasingly counties will work around them. I also believe that sanctions include some benefits by forcing countries into self reliance and breaking global trade patterns.

    Sorry to have written at such length- I’m unsure whether I would read a piece this long- but I had no time to compress it.

    Posted by: bevin | Nov 24, 2013 11:37:57 AM | 36

  200. Fiorangela says:

    from the quote at Nov 24 12:09 —

    “This may make it permissible for a Brazil, a Khazakstan, an Azerbaijan or a Turkey to break with the West on sanctions. ”

    I hope universities — and high schools — in Iran develop programs to teach Spanish to young Iranians, and form relationships with Mexico and other Latino states — and the fastest growing demographic in the US.

  201. fyi says:

    Sammy says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    The statements regarding nuclear power are rubbish.

    Iranians are correct about their nuclear power generation policy; there is no other long-term solution to energy needs of this planet except nuclear power.

    Fukishima design was flawed – they had buried the diesel generators for fear of aerial bombardment; they got flooded instead and the core melted when power was lost.

  202. James Canning says:

    On another note: “The growing numbers of rich Asians looking to emigrate have tended to focus on the US, New Zealand, Canada and Australia.”
    – – Tanya Powley and Lucy Warwick-Ching, writing in the Financial Times Oct 19/20 (“Where to live”).

  203. James Canning says:


    Britain’s nuclear power programme adopted decades ago, is now seen as having been an expensive mistake.

  204. James Canning says:


    The continuing stupidity of US policy toward Cuba owes everything to the peculiarities of the politics of electing a president in the US. And Florida politics in particular. Just look back to the election of 2000, for a refresher.

  205. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Thank you for your confirmation that the US politics is degenerated, unaccountable and can not be trusted in any way and that that countru needs to be deterred. That is the only way.

  206. James Canning says:

    As expected, Bibi Netanyahu is disturbed by the deal with Iran. And unhappy.

  207. James Canning says:


    US politics are “degenerated”, in your view? “Degenerated” from what previous level?

    If George W. Bush had said during the 200 campaign, that he favored ending all sanctions aginst Cuba, he would have lost the election. By losing Florida. (Leaving aside issue of whether Bush actually did lose the vote in that state.)

  208. James Canning says:


    During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct 1962), General Curtis LeMay accused JFK of “appeasing” Krushchev, in the style of Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938, by
    imposing a quarantine rather than launching an immediate US attack. I assume you can see the relevance.

  209. Sammy says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    fyi , did you know that currently Japan , the world’s third largest economy is running without nuclear energy , ZERO , truly unbelievable for a country with virtually no fossil energy resources. ALL nuclear power plants in Japan are switched off. ( I think they have 16 NPP)
    Tepco is trying to get the permission to restart the biggest nuclear power plant(I forgot the name ) , but so far they were not granted the permission , as the security requirements after Fukushima are so harsh and strict that it might take up to 2 years to start that plant and will cost Tepco billion of $.
    When I was in Japan 3 months ago , it was a bit warm in almost all places , restaurants , shops etc.
    Later I found out that people follow the recommendations of the government to save on energy by reducing the energy consumption of A/Cs and thousands of other measures , which by the way would only work in Japan , as the people are seemingly from another planet , nothing compared to Westerners.
    I have to admit that it truly made me sad when I compared this exceptional behavior of the Japanese with our own people who ‘kill’ energy as if there’s no tomorrow , same for the environment and many other things.
    Thus everything is possible !

  210. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Here is a link to the 4-page agreement, together with the money quote (on what Iran gets out of it):

    In return, the E3/EU+3 would undertake the following voluntary measures:
    • Pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s crude oil sales, enabling Iran’s current customers to
    purchase their current average amounts of crude oil. Enable the repatriation of an agreed
    amount of revenue held abroad. For such oil sales, suspend the EU and U.S. sanctions on
    associated insurance and transportation services.
    • Suspend U.S. and EU sanctions on:
    o Iran’s petrochemical exports, as well as sanctions on associated services.5

    o Gold and precious metals, as well as sanctions on associated services.

    • Suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.
    • License the supply and installation in Iran of spare parts for safety of flight for Iranian civil
    aviation and associated services. License safety related inspections and repairs in Iran as well
    as associated services.6

    • No new nuclear-related UN Security Council sanctions.
    • No new EU nuclear-related sanctions.
    • The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the
    Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.
    • Establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian trade for Iran’s domestic needs using
    Iranian oil revenues held abroad. Humanitarian trade would be defined as transactions
    involving food and agricultural products, medicine, medical devices, and medical expenses
    incurred abroad. This channel would involve specified foreign banks and non-designated
    Iranian banks to be defined when establishing the channel.
    o This channel could also enable:
     transactions required to pay Iran’s UN obligations; and,
     direct tuition payments to universities and colleges for Iranian students
    studying abroad, up to an agreed amount for the six month period.

    • Increase the EU authorisation thresholds for transactions for non-sanctioned trade to an agreed


    Conversely, Iran can continue all its activity in all the sites (Natanz, Fordow, Esphahan, Bandar Abbas, Tehran) at their current levels, and can convert half the 20% stockpile to fuel plates and dilute the rest back to 5%.

    Now. Put all this in the context that Iran has truly been squeezed by the sanctions, especially by SWIFT and on the Central Bank, so much so that the government’s coffers are empty, because although Iran is a creditor nation (has over $100 billion dollars in its treasury), most of that money is in foreign banks as Iran is unable to repatriate it under the current sanctions regime – and you end up with the inevitable question: Why did Uncle Weasel & Co. blink when they had us by the short and curlies?

    Obviously, Uncle Weasel has grown a pair (bayzatayn), and has managed to get the claws of the ZOG off of its neck temporarily. Where this will go between now and 6 months from now, no one knows. The Devil’s Triangle of Yehudistan, Wahhabistan and Neo-Conistan will do everything in their power to restore the status quo ante, of course. But it seems the Syrian Precipice was indeed a watershed moment.

  211. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Wow. I already see a lot naysayers parroting Netanyahoo here, calling the deal a bad deal and put a price on it ($55) and trying to denigrate the achievement.
    What these naysayers don’t realize is that Iran hasn’t given up anything in this deal. It has kept its sovereignty over the indigenous fuel cycle, and cracked the wall of mistrust that will eventually lead to removal of all sanctions.

    [I’ve always maintained that this was never about the percentages in enrichment anyway. There are multiple countries that have exact same situation as Iran without all the attendant headaches.]

    This is not about the initial dollars and cents. This is about coming together and getting a deal done. This is about taking baby steps before you can run. This is about becoming the 4th or 5th economy in the world– yes, moving up from the current 12th place position. This is about is about taking advantage of your resources – oil and gas in north and south, and minerals and mines in the middle. All this with smart young population with a can do attitude.

    I never realized what kind of effect Netanyahoo could have on people’s psyche. Now I do. It is confirmed here. Keep saying it’s a bad deal in lockstep with Nutty. Of course you know better than Iranian leaders, right?

  212. James Canning says:


    And I assume you are aware Germany announced some time ago it would close all the nuclear power plants in that country. Whether this in fact will take place, one cannot say.

  213. kooshy says:

    The funniest term of this agreement is the daily inspections of declared Iran nuclear sites, really, for what? Worried that Iran may make a bomb with one day worth of LEU, obviously that was inserted for western internal consumption; I suspect the next agreement will be for hourly inspections. What is not elaborated in western press is that the west has effectively agreed with Iran’s and others enrichment rights has effectively nullified her own UNSC resolutions requiring Iran stop enrichment at once. This agreement and what west is getting effectively shows that the beef with Iran is not about any nuclear enrichment or issue, nor is about Israel (since effectively Israel was thrown under the bus even by France), but their problem as since the IRI always was and will remain about recognition of Iran as a regional independent actor perusing her national interests. One can argue they are and eventually will come to term with as well.

  214. James Canning says:


    I commend you for noting that a number of those who post on this site, were angry about the Syrian CW deal. When, in fact, that deal was a necessary predicate for any chance of the government to win the civil war.

  215. James Canning says:


    Sometimes it is to the advantage of a party to a deal, for an element of that deal not to be in written form and included in the deal as revealed to the world. Krushchev wanted US ICBMs removed from Turkey and Italy, in Oct. 1962. He did not insist that this element of the deal (resolving Cuban Missile Crisis) be part of the deal as revealed to the world. Simple good sense on K’s part.

  216. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    Congrats Iranian Men’s vollyballers beating US 3-2 in FIVB.

  217. James Canning says:


    Obama is not “trying to pivot against China”.

  218. Karl.. says:


    UNSC sanctions is still there, this is just a interrim agreement. Another deal have to make Iran to give up even more, 20% for one I guess.
    The deal is clever for the US, I still wonder why Iran agreed to it..

  219. James Canning says:


    Obama in fact was highly reluctant to intervene in Syrian civil war. CW attack of Aug 21 nearly made it impossible for him to avoid some action, that could have led to intervention in significant way.

  220. Karl.. says:

    I mean giving up 20% permanently

  221. James Canning says:


    The moron in the White House (2001-2009), allowed many foolish things to take place on his watch. Stupifyingly incompenent national security adviser (Condoleezza Rice), helped make this possible.

    But George W. Bush was not going to hit Iran with nukes. The idea is simply absurd.

  222. Rehmat says:

    @Karl – It was Khamenei who offered the deal but the US under Israeli pressure rejected six years ago. It’s Khamenei’s same deal which the so-called “P5+1” have accepted six years after. The only missing player is the Zionist regime which has lost much of its ‘arm-bending’ after its failure in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

    And fyi – The United States is still holding Iran’s assets worth over $26 billion which Jimmy Carter promised to release in 1981 as bargain for the release of 52 Americans diplomats spying for CIa and Mossad.

  223. James Canning says:


    You appear to argue that the wishes of Saudi Arabia should be ignored. I simply think you are dea wrong.

    And tell me what you think would be achieved, by a nuke attack against Iran? Global recession? Worse?

  224. James Canning says:


    Let us continue to keep in mind, a moron occupied the White House 2001-2009.

  225. kooshy says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    “The deal is clever for the US, I still wonder why Iran agreed to it..”

    Karly Joon

    Since you asked, I think they both (US and Iran) as well as everyone else in the planet got tired of Bibi Nut case and thought it’s time to agree throwing some Zionist ass under the bus, Karly do you also agree to this aspect of the deal which everyone in the world enjoyed including you, me and the our own warm up act seeing Bibi-nut’s ass under the bus.

    Karl are you worried for Iran?

  226. James Canning says:


    I think you are right, to suggest the deal will allow five nuclear power plants with fuel eventually supplied by Iran itself, rather than Russia.

  227. James Canning says:

    I think the deal works in favour of Rouhani’s plans to entice up to $100 billion in investment in Iranian oil and gas, by European and American (and Canadian) oil companies.

  228. Sakineh Bagoom says:

    James Canning says: November 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    “When i have time I will give you a link.”
    Have you had time yet James? I am not getting any younger. Tap, tap, tap…

  229. Karl.. says:


    Yes I am indeed worried that Iran made a bad deal and I am very confident that as the “deal” keep on going we will all see that clearly.

  230. kooshy says:

    Bibi nut case is opting for a standup political comedy show, he was at the podium commenting on this new Iran nuclear deal and said “Israel is not bound by this agreement” is there anyone in the occupied Palestine to remind their idiot PM that Israel is not a party in this agreement, is not even mentioned in this agreement how the hell you feel that Israel might be obligated to be obeyed by this agreement? unless like the case of KSA he knows his country is a powerless client state and knows and feels with this agreement between his owners and his enemies Israel’s continued existence in current format may become difficult , this is what he means when he refers or feels he unwantedly is a party to this agreement and deal. This idiot contrary to what he thinks he constantly shows his country’s weakness somebody in that occupied land got to shut him up.

    Karl would you think the PM should shut up

  231. Sammy says:

    By Robert Fisk

    … Assad’s continued tenure in Damascus is assured. Peace in our time. Be sure we’ll be hearing that Chamberlonian boast uttered in irony by the Israelis in the weeks to come.

    But there’s no doubt that Geneva has called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s bluff. He may huff and puff, but if he wants to bash Iran now – on the basis that Israel must remain the only nuclear nation in the Middle East – he’s going to be on his own when his planes take off to bomb Iran’s nuclear plants. The Aipac attack dogs can be sent up to Congress again by that most infamous of Israeli-American lobby groups to harry Republicans in support of the Likudist cause, but to what purpose? Did Mr Netanyahu really think the Iranians were going to dismantle their whole nuclear boondoggle?..

  232. kooshy says:

    This I believe this will be the next step to shape and take place between US and Iran the E3 are clients and politically their policies don’t matter (our own Bibi the sane one and not the Zionist nut case is closer to reality with his analysis)

    US and Iran: Seven questions beyond the nuclear deal
    What are the ramifications of Iran’s deal with the West on Middle East politics?
    Last updated: 24 Nov 2013 09:35
    Marwan Bishara

    “After three rounds of talks in less than two months, Iran and six world powers have reached a preliminary agreement in Geneva on curbing Tehran’s nuclear programme in exchange for some sanctions relief. The breakthrough came amid a history of failed negotiations, and could be the first step towards a detente between Western powers and Iran after 35 years of hostility. Noticeably, the agreement came less than three months after Iran’s new President Hassan Rouhani committed to changing Iran’s relationship with the world.

    The deal will have immediate regional and international ramifications, and once a long term deal is reached, possibly within a few months, rapprochement between Washington and Tehran is likely to pave the way towards major realignment in the greater Middle East region.

    It’s also expected to open the way towards the recognition of Iran’s regional role starting with Syria, Iraq, the Gulf region, and eventually in Afghanistan.

    As the US downsizes its overall military presence, it expects the Iranian leadership to be less of a nuisance and more cooperative towards crisis management in the greater Middle East.

    And it seems, many in Tehran, and among its supporters, are pleased to see Iran replace Saudi Arabia or Israel as a reliable intermediary for the United States in the region”

  233. Karl.. says:


    He wont shut up until he gets what he wants and with a guy like Obama in the whitehouse, he might get his way.

  234. kooshy says:


    Wishful thinking can only serve as policy for the chosen people, if that’s how he thinks so be it. So far he got jack, and a world class humiliation.

  235. Karl.. says:


    Not at all, its not the first time US and Israel doesnt agree about things. AIPAC is not going to vanish anytime soon. Besides the whole idea about stopping Iran is an israeli idea.

  236. Persian Gulf says:

    This is obviously a bad deal for Iran. Iran has essentially agreed to freeze her enrichment, because the amount of 5% enriched uranium won’t go up, without getting UN sanctions lifted. A veiled recognition of Iran’s sovereign right is by no means a recipe for a decent deal. AP will be implemented too. It will be written in history books decades from now as an ultimate folly for a country to allow her enemies unrestricted access to her critical sites. Iran just agreed to freeze her nuclear activity for a promise to get more sanctions in future (exactly what Jalili said, and rightly ridiculed, in the presidential debate). The amount of money to be freed is more than a joke.

    Someone just enlighten me how Iran can still enrich to lower level when the amount of that enriched uranium will not be added up.

    It’s obvious that Mr.Khamenei was boxed in. He did not want to be condemned for not making a deal and reluctantly (“دستیابی به آنچه مرقوم داشته‌اید…”. he refereed to Rohani’s letter not to the actual deal) accepted it. Once again he has carved into reformists’ propaganda. Reformists are excellent propagandists. He seems to be afraid of his legacy. and is sure that a Qaddafi scenario won’t be applied to him due to his age.

    He gave up Iran’s nuclear option.

    As was seen back in 2005, Iran will be blamed hugely to start Arak reactor down the road. The 2003 scenario has just been renewed.

    Natanahoo obviously played a very good “bad cop” in this show. The Kudos goes to him for even deceiving some people in this forum.

    Anyone believing this will be a China moment needs to first see Obama and particularly Kerry’s speeches after the deal was signed and secondly to get his/her head examined! They were throwing insult after insult.

  237. Sammy says:

    Berri in Tehran

    …“Who said that there are no births in politics? Right now, politics is being born in Iran, specifically in Tehran, after this (nuclear) agreement, or this international deal,” Berri was quoted as saying by Lebanon’s National News Agency.

    The speaker reminded that he had noted that such an agreement would represent a “political nuclear bomb,” adding that the deal is “in the interest of peace in the Arab region and the Islamic world.”

    Berri also hoped the agreement will “pave the ground for a settlement in brotherly Syria” and for “restoring confidence” between Arabs and Iran…

  238. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 11:01 am

    Maybe you are right.

    But when I put this deal next to the deals Iran has made with the west over the past 4 centuries, I find it among the most humiliating ones.

    Let’s not forget that IR-1 (P-1) centrifuges are very unreliable, prone to breakdown, highly inefficient and are obsolete. Now Iran will not be even able to test its IR-2m centrifuges and perfect them.

    It is one of the worst deals Iran has ever made during its history. No matter how we try to put make up on it. It would not work.

  239. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 24, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Thank you for your feeling.

    You are innocent. You are like that kid, who has been brought in to a police station and locked up with good cop/bad cop implemented on her. She thinks by having agreed to the “good cop”, the bad cop is now isolated.

    That is wrong.

    Israel is not isolated. It is a nuclear armed power. Look around yourself. They are running everything.

    It is Iran that has become isolated. It is Iran that just lost its bargaining chip.

    Anyways, you would never be able to understand fully since you are not Iranian.

    Only nuclear weapons can secure Iran and bring respect and tranquility for this nation. Only nuclear weapons.

  240. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2013 at 2:54 pm


    I thought you were more worldly!

    George Bush also said that he had no plans to attack Iraq – we found that not to be true later.
    We also heard Susan Rice, under Obama, tell us that the idea that they would use the UN resolution to attack Libya was absurd.
    We also know that Obama said that US was not involved in a war against Libya because there were no US boots on the ground!

    It is absurd until it happens, and then it becomes routine – like the constant violation of sovereignty by drones in Pakistan, Somalia, ….

  241. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 10:26 am

    It is irrelevant. Basically Mr Khamenei had cornered himself long time ago, by issuing an irrelevant (to international law and norm) and rather stupid fatwa against nuclear weapons.

    Iran had reached the moment that it either needed to move forward and become a full fledged nuclear armed state necessitating Mr Khamenei to have the backbone to take back his rather strategic defeatist fatwa OR, that Iran give up, bend and accept defeat in front of Estkebar. He apparently has chosen the later. For 55 dollars per head.

    This thing is going to hit the fan big time. Just watch it. Till now the people were angry with US, France and UK. But from now on they will be angry with IRI. They will demand better quality of life. They will blame all economic failures, unemployment and shortages on IRI. Because, people will justly say, IRI has made a deal to enrich itself and its cronies, giving up the option of nuclear weapons, and throwing people of Iran under the zionist bus. After all there is so much you can do with 55 dollars.

    The sanctions apparently are to remain. And even possibly strengthened. Remember that US still has the choice to sanction Iran for terrorism, human rights, democracy, missile development, medical research, vaccine development, internal combustion engine R&D and for failure to allow tens of thousands of white man spies and mostasharan to fvch Iranian women in the asss.

    This is just the beginning.

    Mr. Khamenei can only absolve himself from this shame and the blood of martyrs by taking back his irrational fatwa and make Iran a nuclear armed state. Masses can live with hunger but they can not live without purpose. IRI has just made its biggest strategic mistake. They should rather fast rectify it with in the next 6 months. Or the fate of Iran, IRI and Mr. Khamenei himself will not be much different from Libya and Qadafi.

    Make no mistake. Iranian military is a third world military. It will never be able to stand up to mechanized forces of US/NATO. Iran’s only hope at independence is to be nuclear armed.

  242. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2013 at 2:56 pm


    I appear to argue what?!

    Quote me where I argue such a thing.

    Why do you insist on rubbish accusations?!

  243. Karl.. says:


    Yes I have always thought that the iranian leadership have been on point when it comes to making moves but this is nothing but a defeat.
    I think in the coming days people will realize how bad this is and especially iranians themselves.

  244. Smith says:

    As I had said, many times before, China deal happened because China at the time was nuclear armed.

    Without nuclear weapons, white man does not consider a colored man, a man. But rather an exotic animal.

    Compare how Nixon was talking to nuclear armed China and how Obama gave a speech on Iran:

  245. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Iranians will be expecting to see an economic miracle in the next few weeks. They will see only disappointment. Iran’s economic problems are internal and structural. Even if all sanctions are removed, Iran’s economic situation will not improve much. Just watch the faces of Iranians on street 3 months from now. They will all be blaming IRI.

    The Iranian auto sector did not even react to the news of “sanction relief”. So much so for confidence of economic experts and markets in this sanction relief.

    Rouhani has basically done what Israel/US could not do for over 3 decades.

  246. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Closet-case Rajavi intestinal parasite material (aka IQ 147),

    Nuclear weapons are forbidden/haraam in the religion you claim to follow.

    Famidi dadash?

    Either deal with it or you can change your religion.

    Like I said from the beginning, you’re a fraud.

    Go join your monafeqin friends in Albania.

  247. Neo says:

    Sammy says: November 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Great link Sammy!

    for Richard and fyi (and other impatient friends here), I’d like to repost the same:

  248. Neo says:

    Basiji jan,

    Was pleasantly surprised to see you happy with the ‘historic’ deal. I would guess that the SL’s endorsement sealed it for you…?

    Am keen to see how our Richard and fyi will react now. I’ve often asked them to admit that they are being proven wrong, but never got a straight admission.

    Most of all, am looking forward to the immediate economic benefits of this deal for average Iranians.

    Regardless of its content or even the reasons for it, a deal that is so openly and widely described as ‘historic’ is going to be good for Iran. Just look at the state of the Saudis and Israelis today…!

    Who would have thought that shale gas would be so detrimental to zionism and salafism…!

  249. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    This is a good interim deal and a strategic victory for Iran.

    When NPT mentions right of “production” this includes enrichment and when the agreement says, “this comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein..” this means enrichment- doesn’t matter how Obama or Kerry want interpret it.

    None of the awful consequences that are claimed by some will happen to Iran.

    None whatsoever.

    Iran IS the regional hegemon as we speak and currently and actually and really and strategically deters US/UK/Israel/whoever from attacking and will do so in the future -without chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

    Iran does not need weapons of mass destruction for anything.

    US will not attack- conventionally or unconventionally- not now, not in the admin after or the one after or …

    Whoever claims that it does is mistaken and does not have real knowledge of Iran’s capabilities- deterrence and retaliatory.

    And as SL said if Israel makes a mistake, Tel Aviv and Haifa will be leveled to the ground…

    No? Just watch…

    Enjoy the rest of your day.

  250. Karl.. says:


    So whats so good about the deal and what money to the people are you refering to, it is 50 bucks per capita.

  251. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    The difference between “real” Muslims and monafeq is that real Muslims obey their Imam- whether it’s accepting temporary peace (Imam Hassan a.s.) or going to battle (Imam Hussein a.s.) with tyrants.

    Remember in these months of Muharram and Safar God is giving you a chance to return to Him.

    Don’t screw it up like last year.

  252. James Canning says:


    Neocon warmongers in the George W. Bush administration long had conspired to set up an attack on Iraq. The “9/11” events gave them their chance.

    Bush himself expressed serious doubts about the merits of attacking Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with “9/11” attacks. Bush was duped by the liar warmongers. His own gross incompetence helped this disaster to come about.

  253. James Canning says:


    Maybe I have difficulty understanding your position. You said Sunnis in Saudi Arabia had no reason to see a potential problem in Shia areas of the country, in event of war in the Gulf. Correct? Did you offer your explanation for Saudi crushing of the uprising in Bahrain?

  254. James Canning says:

    On a different note (JFK assassination 50 years ago):

    “Another of Kennedy’s mistresses at the time was Mary Meyer, wife of Cord Meyer, a senior CIA agent and one-time agency station chief in London. [She] was shot and killed in 1964 while walking along the towpath of a canal in Washington [C & O Canal, Georgetown]. As soon as her death was discovered, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA counter-intelligence chief, went to her house and removed all evidence of her affair with the President.”
    – – Richard Beeston, London W6 (in letter to Times of London Nov 5, 2013)

  255. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    So what does all this mean and what does it have to do with the question at hand?

    Am I to take your point to be that when threats are made they may be carried out despite legal language to the contrary?

  256. James Canning says:


    Bernard-Henri Levy convinced Sarkozy that the West should intervene in Libya. Sarkozy convinced Cameron. Cameron convinced Obama. The attack was regrettable, but obviously not “absurd”. That lies were told, apparently, is not surprising.

    By contrast, there was near-zero support in the US or any country, for a nuke attack against Iran. Idea indeed was preposterous.

    Nothing absurd about drone attacks etc. Doubtful legality, yes. Possibly counter-productive in major way? Yes. But not “absurd”.

  257. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Saudi royals have a problem because they have been brutally suppressing their majority. Full STOP.

    Why would you see Iran responsible for this is beyond comprehension! Maybe you are suggesting that the Shia in KSA have the sympathy of Iran. Okay! The Shia in KSA have the sympathy of HRW as well! So what?! How does Iran’s nuclear program add or take away anything from the brutality of KSA?

    James, you are making a claim that at best is very tenuous. It is incumbent upon you to layout the details.

  258. fyi says:

    Sammy says:
    November 24, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    I recommend you read either Dr. Cohen or the late Sir Fred Hoyle on the energy budget needed for human life on this planet.

  259. fyi says:

    Neo says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    I have already stated my opinions about this deal; scroll-up and read them.

  260. Richard Steven Hack says:

    From the articles mentioned above, it’s awesome how the Pollyannas literally swarm out of the woodwork, assuming that not only is this deal significant in some respect, but that it means wholesale changes in the diplomatic policy of the US for the entire world, let alone the Middle East, and that it means the US has totally turned a corner, Israel is “isolated”, Iran is now a “partner” in the Middle East, yada, yada, yada…

    Unbelievable…Everyone is on crack.

    Amazing how one day’s news can completely turn everyone’s perceptions around – until the next day’s news…No historical comprehension whatever. Everyone hangs on the 24-hour news cycle like robots…

    I’ll wait until this deal – or the next one in six months – collapses, or the Syria/Lebanon situation turns military, to make any further comments, i.e., I’ll wait until the hysteria wears off.

  261. James Canning says:


    Surely you accept that war in the Gulf could prove a source of considerable difficulty for Saudi Arabia. Fine, you hate the SAudi royals. Perhaps you even hope for a revolution. But, fact remains: Saudi Arabia had good reason to fear war in the Gulf. No matter whose fault, that war could come to the Gulf. (Though, of course, we hope it will not.)

  262. James Canning says:

    Full points to the Sultan of Oman, for facilitating this deal etc etc.

  263. humanist says:

    Text of the Iran-P5+1 Agreement:

  264. Don Bacon says:

    Huge win for Iran— and Netanyahu recognizes it as such.

    The Real Deal:
    –recognition of democracy in Iran
    –Iran’s willingness to negotiate in good faith
    –rupture of anti-Iran coalition
    –an example, for other countries, of Western defiance
    –highlighting of UNSC malfeasance

    h/t Bibijon

  265. Persian Gulf says:

    When I complained 3 years ago about lending 1200 kg enriched uranium in Turkey, people here were lecturing me how good a friend Turkey is, or how it’s impossible for Turkey to turn around, and how tied up he has become in the rigion with her zero problem policy. It took less than a year for these people to get ridiculded. Indeed, from May 2010 till April 2011 when Turks became arrogant. Is there anyone with a right mind here to believe Turkey would have returned back that package to Iran?

    This deal is a sell out of Iran’s soveriegnty. If fully implemented it has the potential to bring down mr.Khamenei amd current goverment.I am young and patient enough to watch this eventuality infront of my own eyes.

    I think Qaddafi’s son in prison is quite satisfied that he and his father were not the only fools in the greater ME because it turned out that there is another one in another corner of the muslim world that is even more worse than them. To give up the most effective detterent in human history, specialy after paying such a high price, for a promise from his sworn enemies not to increase sacntions is beyond the pale. This is utter lunacy.

  266. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 24, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    I agree with you this deal does a strategic settlement make.

    I would also insist that the a war against Islamic Iran remains on the agenda of many in the Court of the King.

    This deal gives some room for all involved to take a breather from the war.

    There are many variables in this for me to be able to predict – especially now that I have been proven wrong – what future course of events will unfold.

    If one looks at the Agreed Framework Agreement with DPRK as well as at the Tehran & Paris Declarations in case of Iran, one cannot but be pessimistic.

    Americans can raise claims of Iran cheating to scuttle the deal.

    Iranians can raise the claim that what they have been promised has not been delivered to them.

    I do not think, however, that it makes sense for Iranians to continue the deal much beyond November of next year – depending on the status of final negotiations.

    Should the United States tries, like Mr. Clinton with the Agreed Framework – to drag this out, Iranians likely will walk out of the agreement.

    Axis Powers, Russia, and China might be trying to freeze Iranian nuclear industry at this level for years at zero cost to them.

    I personally doubt that Mr. Khamenei will go along with that.

  267. fyi says:

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 24, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    I agree with you this deal does not a strategic settlement make.

    I would also insist that the a war against Islamic Iran remains on the agenda of many in the Court of the King.

    This deal gives some room for all involved to take a breather from the war.

    There are many variables in this for me to be able to predict – especially now that I have been proven wrong – what future course of events will unfold.

    If one looks at the Agreed Framework Agreement with DPRK as well as at the Tehran & Paris Declarations in case of Iran, one cannot but be pessimistic.

    Americans can raise claims of Iran cheating to scuttle the deal.

    Iranians can raise the claim that what they have been promised has not been delivered to them.

    I do not think, however, that it makes sense for Iranians to continue the deal much beyond November of next year – depending on the status of final negotiations.

    Should the United States tries, like Mr. Clinton with the Agreed Framework – to drag this out, Iranians likely will walk out of the agreement.

    Axis Powers, Russia, and China might be trying to freeze Iranian nuclear industry at this level for years at zero cost to them.

    I personally doubt that Mr. Khamenei will go along with that.

  268. kooshy says:

    Rich this article was written for you, in all hnesty if you knew the region and Iran, US and her allies are lucky US didn’t attack Iran

    Iran’s Mullahs Have a Vote

    November 24, 2013

    Read more:

    “It’s easier said than done. In February 2012, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff described Iran as a “rational actor,” and as super-strategist Thomas Schelling has emphasized, “You can sit in your armchair and try to predict how people will behave by asking how you would behave if you had your wits around you.”

  269. Fiorangela says:

    Smith says: November 24, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    “Anyways, you would never be able to understand fully since you are not Iranian.”

    – – –

    Quite right, I am not Iranian and cannot experience fully what an Iranian experiences.

    Neither am I “innocent.” My country is doing this evil crap, with tax dollars that I pay to it. If the USA is a government “OF the people, BY the people,” than I am part of the government that is behaving in such an arrogant fashion.

    Each of the two opposing perspectives being argued on this forum are persuasive. My perspective is cynical — I do not trust the Obama administration to follow through in good faith. To be proven wrong, that is, for the US & the “international community” (which represents ~37% of the world’s population, btw) to actually recognize their own boundaries and Iran’s sovereignty, would mark a First in US behavior over the past 30, or 50 or even 100 years.

    One ray of hope is that Netanyahu is so desperate that he has called out the auxiliary — This is the equivalent of the pope in the Vatican calling upon Elmer Gantry to plead his case. Pathetic. Bibi is displaying for all the world to see that zionists do not have the brains, character or capacity to govern a sovereign state.

  270. Sineva says:

    How many of us here think that the west will have nothing new to offer after the 6 months is up,that it will try to turn the interim deal into a permanent one as it tried to do with the temporary enrichment suspension back in 2004

  271. Persian Gulf says:

    If the right for even low level enrichment was recognized in the deal, I assume the bastard in this forum, that is mr. James Canning, would have jumped in several times by now and mention it. The fact that he is very quite about it speaks volumes. We say in Farsi: ﺩﺍﺭﻩ ﻗﻨﺪ ﺗﻮ ﺩﻟﺶ ﺁﺏ ﻣﯿﮑﻨﻪ. ﻓﻼﻥ ﺟﺎﺵ ﻋﺮﻭﺳﯿﻪ ﺍﻻﻥ.

    I’m sure this MF can’t believe Iran agreed to sign such a deal.

  272. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 24, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    I agree with that. Humanity has no other solution except nuclear power. And this fact is going to get more and more important as we near the end of this century.

  273. Fiorangela says:

    The clause that requires Iran to disclose the design details of Arak may be the booty France sought.

  274. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 24, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    Plz dont take it wrong. What I meant is that the daughter of a butcher would have immense difficulty to understand what the chickens are going through. It is just natural.

    And hundred years is short. You have to go further back in time. Say to this time or even further back:

    The war with Iran is coming. Millions of Iranians will die. Tens of millions will suffer the consequences for a century. This happens to countries without nuclear deterrence. As it happened to Qaddafi (Go and see his pictures shaking hands happily with Obama, Sarkozy, Blair etc etc). Iran’s faith is not going to be different. US military is the most efficient nation killing machine, the earth/universe has ever seen. Iran without nuclear deterrence is a chicken in slaughter house. It can hide for a while, it can charm the butcher for a few days, but at the end, its fate is sealed.

    People like Kenneth Waltz were not stupid. Humanity needs nuclear deterrence to keep peace on earth. Without nuclear deterrence, white man’s sickness will not allow others to live in peace. Iran is the most vulnerable nation on planet earth. The most spied on nation by NSA. And the fools in Iran want now to bring in facebook, twitter and the rest in addition to tens of thousands of on the ground spies.

  275. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 24, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    France is a nobody. Every thing was planned by US. They tricked via France to force Iran to give up Arak, which Iran obediently just did. Like that.

    And at any rate, it appears even the 5% enrichment is to be stopped completely. Since Iran’s stockpiles must remain frozen at their current weightage. It means that the entire nuclear program of Iran is to be frozen completely for just 55 dollars. Our fault. You are innocent. Really. And “from the people for the people” is just a propaganda. I am sure by now you know that.

  276. Smith says:

    Sineva says:
    November 24, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    I agree on that. This is just a trap.

    I mean what these guys were thinking? Giving it all up for 55 dollars?

  277. Smith says:

    Even the BBC Persian can not believe Iran sold herself so cheap:

  278. Don Bacon says:

    From the Interim nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers

    “Iran announces that it will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of the 6 months.”

    The six powers agreed with Iran’s announcement that it will continue to enrich and thereby recognized Iran’s right to enrich.

  279. Don Bacon says:

    The US has no legal standing to claim that Iran doesn’t have rights.

    countries known to operate enrichment facilities:

    Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States

    –also Israel
    –Australia has developed a laser enrichment process

    Who gave these countries (besides Iran) the right to enrich? Nobody.
    Has there been any recognition from other countries of this right? No.
    Every country has a sovereign right to mine and process minerals, without any recognition that they have the right to do so.

  280. Don Bacon says:

    from the Agreement:

    In return, the E3/EU+3 would undertake the following voluntary measures:

    • Pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s crude oil sales, enabling Iran’s current customers to purchase their current average amounts of crude oil. Enable the repatriation of an agreed amount of revenue held abroad. For such oil sales, suspend the EU and U.S. sanctions on associated insurance and transportation services.

    –Any move to impose additional sanctions at this time would justifiably be used by Iran to question the good faith and veracity of the six powers, and to further lower their already contemptible world standing.

  281. kooshy says:

    This one is for the warm up act to read

    Marathon bargaining that led to Iran nuclear agreement was a wild ride at times

    President Obama is hailing a weekend accord that he says has “halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program,” and we devoutly wish this were true. The reality is that the agreement in Geneva with five Western nations takes Iran a giant step closer to becoming a de facto nuclear power.

    Start with the fact that this “interim” accord fails to meet the terms of several United Nations resolutions, which specify no sanctions relief until Iran suspends all uranium enrichment. Under this deal Iran gets sanctions relief, but it does not have to give up its centrifuges that enrich uranium, does not have to stop enriching, does not have to transfer control of its enrichment stockpiles, and does not have to shut down its plutonium reactor at Arak.

    Mr. Obama’s weekend statement glossed over these canyon-sized holes. He said Iran “cannot install or start up new centrifuges,” but it already has about 10,000 operational centrifuges that it can continue to spin for at least another six months. Why does Tehran need so many centrifuges if not to make a bomb at the time it pleases?

    Then there is the sanctions relief, which Mr. Obama says is only “modest” but which reverses years of U.S. diplomacy to tighten and enforce them. The message is that the sanctions era is over. The loosening of the oil regime is especially pernicious, inviting China, India and Germany to get back to business with Iran.

  282. Don Bacon says:

    This agreement was signed between six powers and Iran. So why pick on Obama who represents only one of the six powers.
    In other words, the agreement is over his pay grade, and he is justified in vetoing any bill that might weaken the six power — Iran agreement.
    Obviously the Agreement supersedes the Security Council resolutions, since the permanent members of the UNSC were involved. So there are no canyon-size holes.
    Too bad for the UN.
    “The message is that the sanctions era is over.”
    Yes — the Iran trade door is now open.

    –Now I’d like to see a benevolent Iran offer to the US the use of Chabahar port as a connection to the Delaram–Zaranj Highway, also known as Route 606, which is a National Highway in Afghanistan, connecting Zaranj in Nimruz Province, near the Iranian border, with Delaram in Farah Province. That would allow the US a better route for evacuation direct to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea without a troubled Pakistan transit. But I probably won’t. **sigh**

  283. M. Ali says:

    I am astonished the amount of Iranians here who are excited about the deal. It seems the Resistance is just a facade, a case of sour grapes, its like how Iranians talk about how useless Dubai is and how much they hate Arabs, and how great Iran is, and all the time, trying desperatly to get a residence visa for Dubai.

    Remember how Bussed in Basiji used to talk about how if US opens up an Embassy in Iran, they’d burn it? I think now, all they’d do is take the consulates to Daraka and Darband for some ghelyoon and chelo kabab.

    Are you guys happy that USA agreed that we have the right to enrich? This right has always been our right, and by signing the NPT, it was just reconfirmed, and recognized by the world. So, if USA just ignores that agreement, why does this agreement suddenly seem so important?

    And then there were Iranians here, who for the past few years, were arguing about James Canning about Iran’s independance & freedom of choice, but now suddenly, Iranians here are, “do we really need 20%? do we really Arak? do we really additional centrifuges?” What else don’t we need dear brothers & sister? Do we really need 10,000 centrifuges? Maybe we can do with 10. Do we even need that, since we do have oil as the west been telling us? Do we need all our land? Like how we didn’t really need Bahrain, do we really need Abu Mosa islands?

    Lets not forget that this is not a final deal. People keep forgetting the major part. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP. This is supposed to be our conifdence building measures. This is the phase where we have supposed to be taken baby steps. YOU tell us what else are going to give up in the next step? Once you scale down from 20% to 5%, what else will you reduce in the next step? Once you stop work on Arak and Natanz and, what else will you have to give up in the next step?

  284. M. Ali says:

    In all 8 years of the previous governments terms, Iran could have agreed to such a deal. Ahmadenijad & Jalili could have done something like this with their eyes closed and in 2 minutes, and they could spent the rest of the 6 days of “tough negotiations” to smoke some hashish.

  285. M. Ali says:

    What fools we are,


    “The Associated Press said preliminary and secret talks were held in Oman and other locations. The US envoys for the meetings were the deputy secretary of state, William Burns, and Jake Sullivan, a foreign policy adviser to Joe Biden. Al-Monitor reported that a senior national security council official, Puneet Talwar, also took part. AP said there had been five meetings dating back to March, implying the first contacts came three months before the election of the reformist Hassan Rouhani as president. It is not clear which Iranian officials were involved in the talks.”

    Rohani and the other elites had everything planned out well in advance.

  286. M. Ali says:

    20 questions about the Iran nuclear deal:
    What it says, what’s at stake, what’s next

    Just look at the questions and the answers. All very boring, but to me, what jumps out is,

    “What’s in it for Iran?

    Billions of dollars.”

    That’s it. Simple as that.

  287. M. Ali says:

    And in their meetings, I bet this is what Rohani said to Obama, “Hossein-jan, don’t forget to tell my dadash Bibi to make a lot of noise about the deal. The more he slams it, the more my people will think its such a great deal. If he comes out and says the deal is good, then I’m screwed back home. A little huffing and puffing would be fantastic, I’d really appreciate it. “

  288. Karl.. says:

    M ali

    November 25, 2013 at 2:15 am

    I agree fully with you, it was the same with Syrian WMD deal. Suddenly Syria’s WMD was usless anyway some here said and that it even was even good that they got rid of their deterrence.

    Just wait soon they will realize how bad this is.

  289. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Like I said, it’s a good interim deal and strategic victory for Iran.

    Whoever doesn’t recognize this doesn’t understand anything about international relations and global affairs.

    Nobody is “dancing in the streets” or getting ready to open the US embassy in Tehran.

    When in 3-4 months prices in Iran haven’t come down substantially because of the greed of the businessmen, even the most del-baste to the west will understand that there is no point in trying to get a deal with west “to improve the economy” and you can be sure that that is what we will be saying here.

    Like Agha said, this will be another “experience” for the Iranian nation.

    A final deal will not happen the way the US/west wants.

    Either they accept Iran’s framework- which includes no nuclear weapons- as the basis of a final deal or there will be no deal.

    And the point is that Iran is powerful enough today to walk away from a deal which is the important historic point in all this.

    Iran has proven to the world that it doesn’t want nuclear weapons and when no final agreement is reached the way the west wants, the west won’t be able to use that as an excuse for an attack.

    Maybe they’ll find another excuse, but it’s very unlikely given there own crappy situation.

    And again as SL said if Israel does a “renegade” action, Tel Aviv and Haifa will be leveled- inshallah.

    The next round has just started and will be finished in 1-2 years.

    Way too early for so many to be talking so much out of their asses at this point.

    And finally, let us not forget that whatever “awful” things are happening today (which I don’t believe to be the case) it is because the Iranian people democratically elected a person who promised to “close” the nuclear file.

    That’s what happens in a democracy- you get what you vote for (which again I don’t think is as bad as some are claiming).

    You wanted Rohani and Zarif, well you got them and you will have to live with them for the next 4 years.

  290. Karl.. says:

    Bussed in Basiji

    I ask you too, exactly what is good with the deal? Name those good things.

  291. M. Ali says:

    “A senior administration official in Washington said the primary U.S. sanctions against Iran’s oil and banking sectors would remain fully intact, which means that Iran would lose roughly $30 billion in oil revenue over the next six months, far more than it stands to gain as part of the agreement. “Iran will actually be worse off at the end of this six month deal than it is today,” the official said. “

  292. M. Ali says:

    Yesterday I watched Esterdad (Reclamation) in the cinemas. Its apparently based on a true story where Russia was supposed to compensate Iran for WW2 with 11 tons of gold, but they cheated us or something and never really gave us the money.

    This is the film,استرداد

    Anyway, my question is, does anyone have a link with the real facts of that story? Do the any of the Iranians have any knowledge on this?

  293. M. Ali says:

    I was watching something else on Youtube and noticed this video made by a Pakistani comparing how Musharaf talks & how Ahmedinijad talks. The video is bit old,

    but I needed some nostalgia.

  294. M. Ali says:

    Here’s one more video, and I promise I won’t post a million videos,

  295. Don Bacon says:

    What we have here are several Iranians and maybe others who can’t see the forest for the trees, who delight in losing and whining about it, and who are then so accustomed to doing so that they can’t recognize a victory when they see it.

    They keep asking: What’s good about this? Make a little effort to look up-thread and you’ll find plenty of answers. Unless complaining is enjoyable. (Karl, this includes you.)

  296. fyi says:

    Mr. Smith:

    This deal is a partial truce with a marginal gain in the right-to-enrich.

    It is not a strategic gain for Iran.

    Iranians must use this to erode further the siege war against them.

    The disclosure of Arak’s design files is of no import – it is based on an Russian design that P5 already have – it was another of those meaningless – technically and strategically – items that P5+1 has included into this deal to indicate hat he has gained something for nothing.

    The other restrictions on Arak are also meaningless; the major work to be done in Arak – as far as I have been able to discern – is the cooling & control systems.

    There is no restrictions on developing them somewhere else and be ready to install at a short notice.

    Which is what I expect Iranians to do.

    Significantly, the English Baron had recognized earlier – almost a year ago – that since Iran has not been crushed by the economic Siege War, it was time to dismantle tat war.

    It has taken that long for the Mad King to admit that much.

  297. Unknown Unknowns says:

    For several months before the deal, the dollar hovered in and around 3,000 Tomans per Dollar. Yesterday, the dollar fell 90 Tomans to 2,910. Today it fell another 30 Tomans to close at 2,880. The 3,000 datum had been reached once Rowhani was elected and started to talk about wanting to come to an agreement with the world powers; before that, for a year or more during the dying months of Ahmadinejad’s administration, it cost anything between 3,500 to 4,200 Tomans (centering on the 3,600 – 3.700 mark). The talk is that it will settle around 2,550, which is where the government wants it. This should help reign in inflation, which is one of the major clean-up operations handed over to this administration by the last. Just one benefit of the deal. Another more urgent one, as stated in my post of yesterday, is that it gives the government the liquidity it needs to operate. They were in a straight-jacket before thanks to the SWIFT embargo.

  298. Don Bacon says:

    Of course it’s a strategic gain for Iran.
    -splintered the opposition
    -weakened sanctions regime
    -recognized right to enrich
    -put opponents on the back foot
    -gained legitimacy for Iranian diplomacy (v. “Mad Mullahs”)
    -encouraged other small countries to defy the West

  299. Karl.. says:

    Don Bacon

    1 splintered the opposition
    2 weakened sanctions regime
    3 recognized right to enrich
    4 put opponents on the back foot
    5 gained legitimacy for Iranian diplomacy (v. “Mad Mullahs”)
    6 encouraged other small countries to defy the West

    Great now lets see if they can be backed up.

    1. What opposition is splintered?
    2. Weakened? The sanctions arent lifted. Contrary more sanctions are on the way.
    3. Bold lie. No such thing is to be found in the deal/text.
    4. What oppponents?
    5. P5+1 including the US have dealt with Iran for years diplomatically and Iran is still the “mad mullahs” according to the west.
    6. What?

    I ask again what did Iran gain by this deal, this isnt about subject views this is about hard facts that one can value objectively. Where are those facts?

  300. fyi says:

    Don Bacon says:

    November 25, 2013 at 10:22 am

    I do not think so and certainly Mr. Khamenei’s reaction has been rather muted.

    He did not hail it as a strategic gain at all.

  301. Fiorangela says:

    Something(s) Trita Parsi said on C Span Washington Journal this morning contribute to my sense of cynicism.

    First, he worked hard to dial back the euphoria he e-blasted yesterday morning. “Iran has given up most in this deal, with the expectation that US will give up some things in the second round.” A surrender for a promise of things to come –ask Crazy Horse how that worked out.

    Second, to explain how Iranians greeted the agreement, and to demonstrate how movement from “the nuclear issue” would create space for Iranian moderates to strive for human rights in Iran, Parsi described the scene that greeted Zarif as he arrived at Tehran airport: a thousand people cheered him there, and they carried signs, “Free Mousavian,” “free the political prisoners.” [Parsi subscribes to the notion that the 2009 election was fraudulent].
    My assessment of that scenario is that the color revolutionaries (h/t Thierry Meyssen) — Green Movement — got an advance on cakes and ale from Uncle Jeff Feltman (or his doppelganger) and was primed to rock-n-roll. Ordinary Iranians are, like most Americans, working too hard trying to keep food on the table to have the luxury of organizing to “free Mousavian.” (apologies to Iranians who know far better than I what is really going on; I speak as an American deeply suspicious of the motives of my country and its leaders).

    I also know without a doubt that Americans have been thoroughly propagandized to hate and fear Iran; this is exactly how the USA has waged war since 1917 when Wilson was blackmailed by zionists, and Bernays sauce was poured over the American public to incite hatred of “the Hun.” The Creel Commission gravy boat worked so well in WWI that it was poured out in double helpings to incite hatred of Germans in World War II.

    Americans — and propagandists– still rely on that massive propaganda effort to activate hatred of an alien Other, transferring only the identity of the Other — in the current iteration, “terrorists,” “Islamofascists,” “Eye-ranians.”

    I submit that a majority of Americans function in a foreign policy fog (switching metaphors), but it is being lifted in scattered places and ways; eventually, it will burn off. It’s a race to see whether enough Americans will awaken quickly enough to control their zionist-addled legislators, or if the Netanyahu party in US government will be able to buy up so much of US media and congress that the fog descends like a mushroom funnel cloud.

    In 1990, the former director of Voice of America, Phil Nicoliades, organized a group that opposed Bush Senior’s war in the Persian Gulf. The organization was called, Avert Middle East Holocaust. His effort was unsuccessful, but his warnings were 100% accurate: a military campaign against Iraq in 1990 would impair US interests and would result in years and years of suffering and devastation.

    Never again?

  302. fyi says:


    Note that there is, de jur, no International Treaty in this case but a “Joint Plan of Action”

  303. Photi says:

    Karl and all the naysayers, i would suggest watching Trita Parsi today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal He was well prepared, well spoken and rational, and proves himself quite capable of discussing sensitive issues.

    As Trita points out, everything in this first step is reversible by both sides. What this initial agreement does is it creates a good air of optimism in achieving a much longer term deal. In this good air, the respective leaders of the nations involved in the negotiations can begin to “sell” this deal to their publics and begin to move their national political processes. The tension and animosity which has existed between the West and Iran for decades will spoil any possibility of otherwise working out an agreement. This is a pause and nothing more; it remains to be seen if the air can be cleared. Repeating Secretary Kerry, this is not about trust, it is about building a working (ie, effective) procedure.

    Again, watch Trita Parsi today on C-SPAN.

  304. Persian Gulf says:

    Wooow We have reached to a point to be educated by Trita Parsi!! What an achievement was this deal.

    I prefer I accept it temporarily under the guise of “heroic flexibility” rather than a sickening Parsi telling me how good a deal is this.

  305. Photi says:

    Watching British House of Commons discussion of the nuclear deal. The British do appear to be serious about this deal, and William Hague has said they will be resisting any attempts to undermine this agreement by Israel or the KSA or anyone else (though he was unaware of any “practical” attempts at wrecking it). The debate there is so refreshing when compared to the level of debate in the American Congress.

  306. Karl.. says:

    Persian Gulf

    On point about parsi, never read anything good by that guy.

  307. Fiorangela says:

    Hillary Clinton’s Qaddafi-laugh applied to Iran

  308. Persian Gulf says:


    ﻣﺎ ﺭﻭ ﺑﺒﯿﻦ ﭼﻘﺪﺭ ﺑﺪﺑﺨﺖ ﺷﺪﯾﻢ ﻣﯿﮕﻦ ﺧﯿﻠﯽ ﺧﻮﺑﻪ ﻃﺒﻖ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺮﻓﻬﺎﯼ ﺗﺮﯾﺘﺎ ﭘﺎﺭﺳﯽ. ﺁﺩﻡ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺮﯾﺖ ﺑﺰﻧﻪ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻩ ﺗﺎ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺣﺮﻓﻬﺎﯼ ﺗﺮﯾﺘﺎ ﭘﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﯿﺢ ﺑﺸﻪ.

  309. M.Ali says:

    Unknown Unknowns says:
    November 25, 2013 at 10:17 am

    Don’t you think the movement of dollar is manipulated so that this is exactly what people would say?

    There was a huge push against Ahmadenijad’s government to raise the dollar as much as possible, after he won, it instantly was brought to 3000, and brought furthur down to help with the psychological effect.

    What I’m really surprised is how Obama & co has been successful on his strategy, when Iranians here were naysayers, and now suddenly, you think we have succeeded? This is exactly where Obama wanted Iran and Iranians to be in. They didn’t HAVE to drop bombs. Push the sanctions on us, pressure the elites, use the stick (sanctions) and carrot (less sanctions) approach, and they got what they want. Now all Iranians care is how much gold is, how much dollar is and if now milk wants to come down?

    And if we lose 20% or 5% enrichment? Well, so what, apparently, we didn’t need them anyway.

  310. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 9:55 am

    I agree with that. Let’s hope this deal is not going to become permanent. Iranians certainly do not need another Turkemenchai. By His Grace, may this deal become an excuse for Iran to leave NPT and become a nuclear armed state.

  311. M.Ali says:

    What I want to know is why were all of you guys against James Canning? He has been arguing that Iran should reduce its enrichment from 20% and you were all mocking him, but suddenly in a day or so, its okay if we give it up, because why do we need 20%, anyway?

    How was James Canning wrong?

    Is this the epic resistance? I guess heroic flexibility, means heroic bending over.

  312. Photi says:

    Karl and Persian Gulf, the American public needs connection points to Iranians generally, and people like Parsi provide those points. He speaks as an American to Americans, and given his heritage and academic background he also can provide insights into the Iranian side of things. On that evaluation i think he scores high and brings legitimacy to efforts aimed at peace between the US and the IRI. Maybe he can’t educate you (Karl and Persian Gulf) but he can educate the public. Furthermore, it is never about one person, it is about the goal. The goal is peace between Iran and the West, and i think Mr. Parsi contributed to that goal this morning.

  313. Sineva says:

    M.Ali says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:31 am
    No,James was arguing that 20% enrichment should have been given up unilaterally without any prior agreements in the hope that the west would reciprocate

  314. Smith says:

    For ignorants:

    The rise of Rial is actually a bad thing. It kills the local industry and poisons Iran’s economy, exacerbating Iran’s chronic Dutch Disease. A stable currency is made on top of a knowledge based stable economy where wealth is generated by innovation eg Germany OR alternatively by a rentier economy linked and controlled by US eg Saudi Arabia. The latter is not a choice for Iran and the first one, Iran has not yet achieved. Inflation is not a function of dollar exchange rates. The ignorants should learn that inflation is the function of buying power and production/supply of goods.

    When a government does not have a modern taxation system and can not generate its budget from direct taxation and resorts to printing money to feed its budget, inflation is flamed. When a government resorts to import mafias who love to keep the value of Rial low in order to kill the local industry and smuggle every thing in from China from grave stones to car parts to medicines to clocks then Iran’s economy will always be crippled. But then we have too many ignorants (or rather traitors) inside Iran that want to turn Iran into a colony of imperialists.

    4 billion dollars in an economy larger than 1000 billion dollars is nothing. Iran’s economic problems are internal. They have no external solutions.

  315. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    November 25, 2013 at 11:30 am


    I watched an analogous situation during 2003-2005 period and I was as frustrated then as you and others may be at the present time.

    Strategically, this deal is not altering Iran’s capabilities; let the IAEA come in and install their 24-hor real-time cameras etc. (which they already have done). They are useful toys that provide political cover for the P5+1 leaders as well as Iran.

    Iranians as well as P5+1 will claim accurately that Iranians have bent backwards and forwards and gone beyond NPT.

    In the meantime, South Korea and Japan satrapies can start receiving Iranian oil that they so desperately need.

    If there is a serious political re-evaluation among the P5+1, this deal will permit them to start climbing out of the hole they dug for themselves.

    This is a tactical cease-fire.

    Iran could not agree to these terms in 2006 since she was not – at that time – had not reached a nuclear-ready state.

    She has reached that state now and she can afford to leisurely pursue further nuclear developments.

    Sometime in April of 2014 we can assess the extent to which Axis Powers, Russia, and China have come to accept the status of Iran as a nuclear-ready state.

    By April of next year we will know if the Axis Powers and Russia are willing to dismantle their economic war against Iran.

    Needless to say, just like the 2003-2005 period, Axis Powers and Russia will try to stretch this cease-fire period without committing to dismantle their siege war against Iran.

    And I think, just like 2003-2005, very likely Iranians will let the agreement expire. Since, 6 months from now, with this deal implemented, it would be politically very difficult for Axis Powers and Russia to go back to their previous posture.

    Iranians are well advised to create as many facts-on-the-ground during this period to make it very painful indeed for Axis Powers to re-impose their siege war against Iran.

    Unquestionably, this has been a tactical retreat by Iran.

  316. Smith says:

    Fiorangela says:
    November 25, 2013 at 10:42 am

    For people like Trita, it is not nuclear tech, independence, justice etc that matter. For them, it is the collapse of IRI that is important. Some like a myriad of terrorist groups from MKO to Jeesh and Jundullah are violent while some others like Trita and others believe in soft overthrow of IRI. Democratic party of US has always been more inclined towards soft overthrows and Republicans towards terror but alot of times they switch roles too. He is just a puppet. For these people the overthrow of IRI has become a religion. They can not think for themselves anymore.

  317. Photi says:

    M.ALi, my objection to Canning’s obsession with 20% is that he was reducing a complex issue with many tension points into an issue that appeared to be more about 20% than anything else. In doing so, blame then follows to Iran, which is my objection because the Western march to war is more about getting Iran to surrender than to come to an agreement. Canning’s focus on 20& contributed to making that “stick” in the minds of other people. Concerted propaganda efforts like this are always questionable and always suggest a deeper, unspoken motive.

    Could it be that IRan’s tripling of 20% was meant to pressure the West into negotiating a deal? Possibly, because in years previous, before Iran had achieved 20% enrichment, the Iranians were willing to put limitations on its program (which, incidentally, would have stopped Iran from ever reaching 20% enrichment levels) and did voluntarily put limitations on its program with its prior acceptance of the Additional Protocol to the NPT, but the West kept on insisting on full capitulation on Iran’s part, which will never happen. Had the US been willing to negotiate in good faith a decade ago, Iran’s program would be much less advanced than it is today. So did Iran lose on this deal 3 decades in the making?

  318. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    November 25, 2013 at 11:47 am

    You are right again about direct taxation and its importance as the single most characteristic of a strong state.

    But 60 years of dependence on oil income to fund the state activities cannot be overcome in 30 years.

    I think Mr. Ahmadinejad’s governments moved in that direction more than any other Iranian government and I suspect that would continue.

    The Iran-Iraq War exposed many shortcoming in Iran that the Islamic Government went on to address over the next 20 years.

    The economic siege war against Iran by US, EU, and Russia also revealed numerous weaknesses that I am sure that the Islamic Republic will address over the coming decades.

    In their zeal to destroy the Islamic Republic, the Axis Powers actually helped create, realize, and consolidate a figment of their imagination – “The Shia Crescent”.

    Thanks to them, Iran is again a Mediterranean Power – 2300 years after the Fall of the Achaemenid Rule.

    This is a long story and we are in the middle part of it…

  319. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    M Ali-jan,

    Please read the agreement, we didn’t “give up” 20% enrichment. We voluntarily halted it for a specific amount of time.

    Like I said a new phase has started that will last 1-2 years.

    When prices don’t come down substantially in Iran- as they never have- some will realize the false linkages and the mood will be different in 6 months.

    It will be an “experience”.

    That is why SL is chilling for the time being.

    Strategically Iran is in a much better position than years previously and yes it is in large part because of Agha and heroes like Mahmud and Jalili- who are still there and fear of their return is motivating the west to “reach an agreement”.

    Netanyahu and Bandar are the “crazies” and “organ eaters” and IRI is the force for peace, political solutions in Syria, rational discussions, following rules, tolerance of minorities, democracy, etc.- in short- “civilization”.

    This brings with it great amounts of political credit in international relations, something armchair generals and chicken hawks with no practical experience don’t understand the value of.

    At the same time everybody knows that militarily and security wise you can’t mess with Iran.

    And yes even if Iran leaves NPT, it will never have nuclear weapons because they are haraam per fatwa of wali-e amr- even if armchair generals and chicken hawks disagree.

  320. Karl.. says:


    Parsi is one of those that have caused the anti-Iran stance in public. Hes views are not the one of Bush on Iran of course, but hes very similar to that of Obama and I hope that all here recognize that Obama’s policies have not been good.

  321. M.Ali says:

    ” Sineva says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:45 am

    M.Ali says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:31 am
    No,James was arguing that 20% enrichment should have been given up unilaterally without any prior agreements in the hope that the west would reciprocate”

    Which, frankly, would have been more honorable than getting a few dollars of our money back.

  322. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:50 am

    I agree.

    Very good on the part of Iran. But the white man and house slaves, I know will become even more belligerent at the end of this six months.

    I think eventually, Mr Khamenei will have to rescind his fatwa and make Iran a nuclear armed state (similar to how Ayatollah Hasan Shirzi had done so in Tobacco Protest Movement).

  323. Fiorangela says:

    Photi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Parsi is not an American, he’s a Swedish citizen.

  324. M.Ali says:

    Bused in Basiji,

    I think you make some valid points.

    Lets hope reformists, elites, and gharb-parasts don’t fool the Iranians, and our public realize it when its too late.

  325. Sineva says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 9:55 am
    Agreed,arak was never going to be finished in the next 6 months let alone commissioned

  326. A-B says:

    fyi (November 24, 2013 at 11:07 am)
    Yes, we share the same opinion about “the thugs” and this ‘deal’, but no thanks to the A-bomb! – As I’ve said before, based on rational, moral and pragmatic – that is religious – reasons. Again as I said, it hasn’t helped even Russia from being harassed by the West, nor has it helped the nuclear armed Pakistan from being ‘sodomized’ by the US. Then, of course, we have the fatwa of Ayatollah Khamene’i, or if one prefers Ahmadinejad, who also categorically has denounced it; for people who claim they keep any (or both) of them in high esteem.

    On July 24 I said: So, under such disparate conditions [of power between Iran and the West] – where tit-for-tat (of attributes [‘might’ in general, A-bomb in particular]) is futile, if at all possible – in your attempt to protect yourself from that ‘I’, you …improvise. There are other ‘A-B’s.

    Well, to me ‘improvise’ is synonymous to ‘heroic flexibility’.

    Further; I said to that these thugs or the Arrogant live by “I AM RIGHT, and I make right by my might”. And my solution was: “So, you go for the ‘I’, not for the ‘might’ that you don’t have or shouldn’t have (after all, WMD are forbidden, because they are attributes of the Arrogant!!).”

    What Iranians (as people) should do is go for an all out assault against the Western ‘Identity’; exactly as the lying West methodically have attacked Iranian identity, culture and history. The difference is that the West, as Liar, is fear-mongering to justify injustice; Iran needs to attack the West based on reason and ample empirical evidences of its lying nature, to break free from the slavery to Western fascism and commercialism. I, for one, will boycott ANYTHING French! Maybe ‘international community’ is getting scared of the fact that people [of culture] in Iran-Iraq-Syria even Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan due to AWAKENING will come together to CLEANSE the region of Western filth (including Israel and Saudi-Wahhabia).

    After all – here comes truism of the day – Science is universal, Western Culture, per se, is NOT. But lo and behold; the West vehemently deprives Iran of Science and Technology and wants to impose its Western garbage. So certainly I don’t give a rat’s ass what Western pundits or even Academia has to say. I have no love for its people either; why should I? But, certainly I don’t want to ‘A-bomb’ them; I’ll ‘A-B’ them 🙂


  327. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    November 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    The late Mr. Khomeini had also called weapons of Mass Destruction Haram.

    That was a religious opinion that is no longer binding now that he is dead.

    Mr. Khamenei can rescind his fatwa, or let it expire once he dies.

    That fatwa is not part of the Iranian Constitution or Iranian Legal precepts.

    It is not considered to be pertinent to the Primary Principles of Islam, therefore there is no “Ijma’a” doctrine operating to sustain it.

    The next Supreme Jurisprudent may chose to confirm the fatwa of his predecessors in that office.

    Or he may decide not to confirm that fatwa – depending on the strategic situation.

    At the moment, the sane faction seems to have gained ascendancy in the Court of the King – they realize that they need to refocus on East Asia.

    All factions in the Court of the King desire the destruction of the strategically autonomous power of the Islamic Republic and now the Shia Crescent.

    That is still their consensus.

    The only thing is that at the moment they cannot wage that war without fear of spending another 10 years in the Middle East while being unable to reassure their allies in East Asia.

    We are still years – if not decades – away from US strategic settlement with Iran.

    And I observe here:

    Mr. Khamenei – and indeed the Supreme Jurisprudent of Iran – is not Commander of the Faithful nor is he the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian people.

    The Office of Supreme Jurisprudent is only meaningful within the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    [When the representatives of the Green Movement asked Mr. Khamenei to annul the 1388 elections, he declined – stating that he did not have that authority.

    The late Mr. Khomeini was also very meticulous on his observance of the Law; at one time getting very angry when his driver went through a red light.]

  328. Fiorangela says:

    But Parsi has organized the Iranian-American community, which as I understand it, is very smart (stands to reason: many Iranians in US were those wealthy enough to get here, or were in universities in US at time of Revolution and voluntarily or otherwise trapped in USA).

    Iranian American community is wildly diverse — NIAC polls its members re what they want the organization to focus on. Human rights is selected by enough dues-paying members of NIAC that the organization accedes to that demand.

    My Iranian American friend (who attended an East Coast Ivy league university) tells me that WEST Coast Iranians are disgusting degenerates interested only in money and plastic surgery (a reticent person, my friend). Lots of monarchists in Tehrangeles — the largest Iranian population in the world outside Iran. East Coast Iranians are more conservative, more family oriented, usually very well educated, entrepreneurial and prosperous.

    Interesting article by a non-Iranian who attended the NIAC conference last October — My Iranian Learning Curve

  329. Karl.. says:

    One way Parsi have caused anti-Iran views in west is his stance that the 2009 election was a fraud without showing any evidence.

  330. Photi says:


    I did not know Parsi was not a US citizen (his English sounds American). Regardless, he speaks as though he plans on being here a while, he is head of an organization claiming to represent some subset of Iranian Americans that wish for a more constructive relationship between Iran and the West (US particularly), and he is already in place in the American/Western system. It is not who we wish was there, it is who IS there. He is not THE representative of Iranian Americans, he is A representative of Iranian Americans.

    I don’t care two wits about peoples’ bitterness and vanity. They will smear just to smear, a semi-conscious projection of anger better dealt with projected inward.

  331. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    Thank you for those sharp points. I fully agree with them.

  332. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:59 am

    It is really bad that till now Iranian government has not been able to create a well monitored economic system. No one in Iran submits tax returns. One might be a very successful businessman in Bazar making millions of dollars per week but not pay even a single cent of tax in a decade.

    There are no capital tax. One can buy three hundred houses and apartments as “investment” keep them empty and not pay any tax on it.

    The situation is hilarious.

  333. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    November 25, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Islam was an urban trader’s religion.

    Middle Easterners income was made largely from acting as middle-men in the trade between Europe and the Far East as well as the Indian Ocean Basin.

    When Europeans circumnavigated the world, the economic decline of the Near East accelerated as the Europeans by-passed the Middle East for their trans-Indian and Trans-Asian trades.

    Of course, that culture has persisted to this day – Dubai is a perfect manifestation of it.

    Poorer Muslim countries, such as Tunisia and Turkey, at least understood what needed to be done but lacked the capital to do so.

    In Iran, the situation is somewhere between Dubai and Turkey – a productive sector that is being kept down because of government’s suspicion of the “modern people” who staff it and a traditional sector which the government feels more congenial to.

    But even in the Tehran Bazar, the younger traders (now in their 50s and 40s) are aware of the opportunities that globalization has offered them.

    But they are powerless to change them; they have to wait for the men currently in their 70s and 60s to die to be able to proceed with their new undertakings and ideas.

    You really need to wait for these older people to die and vacate the scene.

  334. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    So accurate and true.

    There were some smart people but they were made irrelevant in chaos of revolution and by Mousavis’ government eg. Hajji Barkhordar.

    And on the issue of these dinosaurs and their smuggling mafias: May God hasten their death, Ameen.

  335. James Canning says:

    As one would expect, the Financial Times today has a leader supporting the deal with Iran, while the Wall Street Journal is attacking it.

  336. James Canning says:


    Advances in navigation during the 15th-16th centuries cut Venice out of a good deal of what had been its share of trade between Europe and Asia.

  337. James Canning says:


    I know a considerable number of well-educated Americans and Brits. A high regard for Persian culture and history is the rule amongst these people.

  338. James Canning says:

    M. Ali,

    Regarding suspension of enrichment to 20%, I argued that if no deal was going to be achieved between Iran and the P5+1, of any kind, then Iran on its own accord should suspend enriching to 20.

  339. James Canning says:


    I think you are quite right, in arguing that Iran announced its intention to treble production of 20% U, as a means of applying pressure on the West to gain sanctions relief. This strategy was a mistake, in my view, but one can understand easily why it was undertaken.

  340. James Canning says:


    There are of course a number of issues apart from the 20% U. But, focusing on that issue had the benefit of clarity, and simplicity. No deal on 20U meant no deal at all.

  341. James Canning says:


    Yes, incredible incompetence on the part of George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, et al. Regarding dealing with Iran. We had a moron in the White House 2001-2009. And I think you are well aware of the neocon conspiracy that largely controlled actions of the Bush administration 10 years ago.

  342. fyi says:


    Energy or Extinction?: The Case for Nuclear Energy

  343. James Canning says:


    I was arguing for Iranian suspension of 20U in order to avoid further sanctions, if not deal was achieved. Other unilateral measures would also have been indicated.

  344. James Canning says:

    M. Ali,

    Surely Iran’s position, that it buy TRR fuel from the West, made sense. This position focuses attention on the stupidity of the George W. Bush administration (in blocking IAEA application to buy TRR fuel).

  345. Smith says:

    And yet more sanctions:

    It is like violence against kids and women. The more you give in, the more violent the offender becomes.

    The only thing that can stop the vicious cycle is by having a fool proof deterrence in place in the form of nuclear weapons. Then even the most anti-communist republican rascal like Nixon will go to China to choke himself on the petite Chinese phallus. Proudly.

    Until Iran is not nuclear armed, the white man and his house niggers will not accept Iranians as human beings. That much is clear now.

  346. Smith says:

    In coming days, expect more pressure on Iran to give up the entire nuclear program and even more pressure on issues of human rights, sexual rights, animal rights, the right of white man pedophiles to adopt Iranian children, the right to dismember Iran to smaller and more manageable fiefdoms etc etc.

  347. Sammy says:

    A-B says:
    November 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Superb comment , merci 🙂

  348. nico says:

    Want a view about the US goal ?
    Hmmm, details are needed but it seems unworkable.

    “Kerry says Iran should dismantle nuclear sites – Trend News Agency 24 November 2013
    Some Iranian nuclear facilities will have to be shut for good in the next phase, US Secretary of State John Kerry says after a deal is reached to temporarily halt its nuclear programme, dpa reported.
    “That will require dismantling certain things, that will require stopping certain things,” he says of a future comprehensive deal that the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany are seeking.
    Such steps would provide the ultimate proof that Iran does not aim to build nuclear weapons, Kerry says in Geneva.© Trend News Agency 2013″

  349. A-B says:

    @ Sammy

    You’re welcome X2!

    Sorry for grammatical errors. In the last post maybe it should be ‘consumerism’ and not ‘commercialism’.

  350. Karl.. says:

    I think all should read nico’s link that nico posted:

    “Kerry says Iran should dismantle nuclear sites”

    How can anyone say the deal is good? What will p5+1 offer in next deal? 100 dollar per capita?

    Unfortunately Iran have now put itself in the corner.

  351. Sammy says:

    It’s Monday and Pepe Escobar time on atimes:

    …Predictably, the very restricted circle of those against even the idea of Geneva completely freaked out. That starts with neo-cons and assorted Republicans who have backed every demented horse in recent geopolitical history, from the embryo of al-Qaeda in 1980s Afghanistan to the Contras in Nicaragua, from the Mujahideen-e-Khalq “exiled” in Iraq to Bandar Bush’s goons let loose in Syria.

    In the Wahhabi petrodollar front, the House of Saud’s King Abdullah had already met in extreme urgency with self-deposed emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and Kuwait’s Sheikh Sabah in Riyadh on the eve of the breakthrough in Geneva.

    And then there’s that sociopath posing as Israeli Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. Imagine his reaction when he read those finally unfrozen reports about months of secret US-Iranian negotiations in Oman. [1] The bottom line: Bibi was totally frozen out of the New Great Game in Eurasia by the Obama administration….

  352. Rd. says:

    very well said by Cyrus;

    “One of my favorite apocryphal quotes attributed to Churchill is that “Americans will eventually do the right thing but only after exhausting other alternatives.”

    Remember those many, many magazine articles which we all read for years detailing how Israel and the US would attack Iran, complete with glossy pull-out maps showing blue arrows pointing to red explosions surrounded by dramatic nuclear or military symbols? Or the various claims about Iranian misdeeds that could never quite be corroborated or turned out to be outright hoaxes but were accepted as true and promoted in the media anyway? Well, save a few just so that we never forget that THAT is what we had to contend with…before we won.”

  353. James Canning says:

    Remember Osama bin Laden? An interesting comment from Charles Moore:

    “The [Court Circular] bulletin from Clarence House said that the Prince of Wales had that day. . . [received], as Patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Sheikh Khalid Alireza and Sheikh Bakr Bin Laden. If only, years ago, someone had thought of casting some of the lustre of this patronage on Bakr’s kid brother, Osama, how different life might be today.”
    – – Charles Moore, in The Spectator 9 Nov 1913

  354. James Canning says:


    Israel would benefit from normal relations between the US and Iran. But this fact is not likely to be accepted by Israeli leaders.

  355. James Canning says:


    How could it be to Iran’s loss, for it to stop enriching to 20 and, instead, to buy TRR fuel from the West?

  356. Karl.. says:


    I ask you too, whats good about this deal?

  357. Fiorangela says:

    Be still my heart.

    the estimable Suzanne Maloney of the (anti) Iran desk at the Haim Saban bazaar at Brookings, teams up with the estimabl-er Kenneth Pollack to explain to us dumb schmucks the ins- and out- of the Iran deal.

    Iran should get $55 for every hack International relations graduate who has scratched out a career expostulating on Iran.

  358. James Canning says:


    Nixon went to China in 1972 to obtain cover for final withdrawal of US troops from the Vietnam quagmire. China’s possession of nukes was of little importance in this regard.

  359. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning says: November 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    If only, years ago, someone had thought of casting some of the lustre of this patronage on Bakr’s kid brother, Osama, how different life might be today.”


    the tragedy

    all. that. luster, er, lustre —


    it could have turned an otherwise fully formed human bean into that rarest of all diadems, an Anglo clone.

    Well cheer up Charles Moore.

    3-D printing is coming your way.
    Soon all you’ll have to do is dial up an English gent, choose the “lustre” option, trick out in bib & tucker, press the button, and voila. A human being worthy of rubbing elbows with a member of the royal family.

  360. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 25, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    Under the Shah, Israel did not enjoy normal relations with Iran.

    Israel will not enjoy normal relations with Iran.

    The Palestine Republic – modeled after Lebanon – would.

  361. Irshad says:

    I have to say when I read the initial deal, I was disapointed and suprised! How can Zarif (who seems to behave like a used carpet salesmen, when his on the news) have accepted this? But after thinking about it and reading various commentators here and elsewhere, I have cone to the conclusion that although it was bitter, Iran did the right think by signing it (yes my hands still tremble writing this). I guess the SL is correct to allow heroic flexibility policy play it out – if worst comes to worst – Zarif can go on tv and say that Iran tried very hard to make a deal but US/EU are not serious! This also gives her the option to leave NPT, and she will have the understanding of most of the world when she does. China and Russia now need to sell some serious SAM systems to Iran to prepare her for the next phase.

  362. Irshad says:

    fyi says:
    November 25, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    What was Irans relationship with Isreal under the Shah? Is there any good articles on this? Wasn’t Isreal gona help Iran build small NPP to be run by Isrealis in Iran?

  363. Irshad says:

    Part of a comment re: appeasement by Chamberlain, by a commentator by the name of David Habakkuk:

    “Unfortunately, perceptions of ‘appeasement’ in the United States are still in thrall to Churchill’s accounts. And although he was a great man, he was not someone who, in giving an account of the events in which he had been involved, was primarily concerned to do justice to the views of his opponents. Sometimes he did justice, sometimes he was wildly unfair.

    A few observations:

    It is simply wrong that, confronted by the emergence of Hitler, Britain did not rearm. From 1934 onwards, ‘appeasement’ proceeded in conjunction with rearmament. But British rearmament was:

    1. constrained by the need to balance with other priorities, so that it did not, as Hitler’s did, disregard considerations of economic sustainability and maintaining political consensus, on the basis that one could wage wars of plunder which would render such concerns irrelevant;

    2. premised – also in sharp contrast to Hitler’s rearmament – on the view that another major global conflict was likely to last a long time, so that the development of the relevant military-industrial capabilities was critical; and

    3. based upon a quite rational anticipation that if such a war was to come, it was unlikely to come in the immediate future, but would in all probability happen some years along the line.
    The assumption behind the crucial development of the air force was all along that the most sensible date for which to plan was 1939. As a result, rather than a precipitate rearmament which would have squandered vast sums of money on biplanes which would have been shot out of the sky, Dowding and Keith Park were able in 1940 to deploy what turned out to be an adequate force of Spitfires – and also, crucially, Hurricanes.”

    Is Iran/US buying time/delaying any coming war that nutters in Isreal, US and Wahabistan salivating for???

  364. James Canning says:

    Writing in the Daily Telegraph, David Blair said of the press conference conducted at 4:00 am in Geneva Sunday: “[Kerry] was fluent and persuasive [but] there was none of Zarif’s wry humour or generosity.” Full points to Lady Ashton too.

  365. James Canning says:

    Writing in the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman notes that Obama will have to take on Israel and the Israel lobby to get the deal through. Obama is confident of success.

  366. James Canning says:


    Re: Munich 1938, one also should bear in mind that Britain simply was not prepared for war, in Sept. 1938. And hopes that Hitler was not insane were not entirely unreasonable.

  367. James Canning says:


    Russia and China want this diplomatic route to succeed.

  368. James Canning says:


    I was not suggesting Israel would enjoy “normal relations” with Iran. I said the deal is a good thing for Israel, even if Israeli leaders argue to the contrary.

    Iran will not attack Israel, on a first-strike basis. Of that we can be sure.

  369. Fiorangela says:

    “American,” a participant on the Mondoweiss blog, has said this a few times:

    ” Except for the chaos and dead it would cause I almost wish Netanyahu would try bombing Iran. I think it would speed up the Zionist demise in the US and everywhere else in the world. – American


    “Maybe the goyim can rig an Israeli World Cup Championship to let them save face and let some of that narcissistic rage out in a healthy manner. Otherwise, and realistically, there could be an already planned orgy of Samsonian destruction. It’s such a warrior culture, just more deceptively so.”


    “Even better I wish Netanyhau would try it and the US would shoot down Isr’s bombers—“for the sake of World Peace”….. Naturally we would express our undying ‘regrets’ at having to do this. LOL. – American”

    Two points:
    1. In USA there is a strong undercurrent of resentment of zionist influence.
    2. In USA there is cowardice & impotence that is willing for another nation to suffer to remove zionism.

    The deal that Iran has been forced to submit to may have been informed, in part, by that sentiment on the part of some of the American negotiators. Surely American negotiators were aware of the reaction to be expected from Israel, and also of the danger that Israel now presents, not least to Iran. Having scourged Iraq and as we punish Iran, we look to Iran to get us out of the quagmire we got ourselves into.


  370. James Canning says:


    Did I suggest Israel enjoyed “normal realtions” with Iran under the Shah? I doubt it.

  371. James Canning says:


    Osama bin Laden was more “Americanised”, than Anglicised. Before he lost his bearings.

  372. James Canning says:


    You may (or may not?) be aware Osama bin Laden, late in life, saw a good deal of futility, and worse, that were the results of his efforts.

  373. James Canning says:


    Tell me: are you annoyed the Prince of Wales does so much, to foster better relations between Muslims and Christians, in Britain and in other countrues? Or do you simply lack an adequate understanding of this programme?

  374. Fiorangela says:

    James, I lack an adequate understanding of the programmmeeee.

    My life was cursed, you see, James; I was not born English.


  375. kooshy says:

    This guy (Walt) understand what the issue is, Iran has past the threshold of having a nuclear capability, now is the time using that capability for getting recognition of her regional status and the change in the balance of power, which just happened. Face it, Iran is not going to bomb anybody nor she is going to be bombed as long as everyone knows what she can do if someone made a mistake of attacking Iran (like what ayatollah Khamenei said regarding Haifa and Tel Aviv a while back), so there is no reason not capitalizing on getting the world to see how she is recognized by world major powers.
    So Mr. Walt is right giving and taking a few tactical points in return for the P5 nullifying her own resolution without requiring or even asking a full UNSC vote should be jolly for the world and a death threat to those who only survive by dependency on what is left of the US power.

    What’s Really at Stake in the Iranian Nuclear Deal?
    Posted By Stephen M. Walt

    “In fact, the real issue isn’t whether Iran gets close to a bomb; the real issue is the long-term balance of power in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Iran has far more power potential than any of the other states in the region: a larger population, a fairly sophisticated and well-educated middle class, some good universities, and abundant oil and gas to boost economic growth (if used wisely). If Iran ever escapes the shackles of international sanctions and puts some competent people in charge of its economy, it’s going to loom much larger in regional affairs over time. That prospect is what really lies behind the Israeli and Saudi concerns about the nuclear deal. Israel and Saudi Arabia don’t think Iran is going to get up one day and start lobbing warheads at its neighbors, and they probably don’t even believe that Iran would ever try the pointless act of nuclear blackmail. No, they’re just worried that a powerful Iran would over time exert greater influence in the region, in all the ways that major powers do. From the perspective of Tel Aviv and Riyadh, the goal is to try to keep Iran in a box for as long as possible — isolated, friendless, and artificially weakened.”

  376. Dan Cooper says:

    The White House
    Office of the Press Secretary

    Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program

  377. Fiorangela says:

    Irshad says: November 25, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    re: “But British rearmament was:

    1. constrained by the need to balance with other priorities, so that it did not, as Hitler’s did, disregard considerations of economic sustainability and maintaining political consensus, on the basis that one could wage wars of plunder which would render such concerns irrelevant;”

    = = =

    There are holes and historical inaccuracies in this statement that are extremely important to examine in order to make proper comparisons.

    1. Germany then and Iran today were/are subjected to economic warfare. According to all the pundits, the “success” of economic warfare brought Iran to the bargaining table. Hitler took a slightly different approach — but only slightly different:
    a) in a fashion similar to Iran, Hitler opted out of the predatory capitalist system of London and New York bankers. Raoul de Sales writes in “My New Order,”

    QUOTE: “Besides having promised his followers that Germany would become strong again, Hitler also promised to cure all the evils of the postwar period, and first of all unemployment.
    . . .
    “It was always to be one of Hitler’s greatest boasts that of all civilized countries Germany had been the only one to find a cure for this world evil, unemployment. Naturally he gave credit for this achievement to the transformation of society by the National Socialist Revolution. Unemployment was cured, according to him, as soon as the concept that the wealth of a country was not its gold nor its capital, but its powers of production and its labor, was accepted. Germany having no gold and being, in fact, financially bankrupt, the problem had to be solved by unorthodox methods. And there is no disputing the fact that Mb<the system evolved by the German economists and financiers under the pressure of necessity did succeed in producing an apparent recovery which baffled the world. In a very short time after Hitler’s advent to power, not only was unemployment wiped out, but a shortage of labor began to appear.” END QUOTE [p. 133]

    de Sales next claims that the German economy succeeded as it did because it was put on a war footing, but that ignores the facts that in addition to creating an armed force (admittedly, contrary to the dictates of Versailles Treaty)–

    –Germany undertook a campaign to vastly improve workers’ housing, a project that Hoover remarked upon, and congratulated Hitler for, in 1938 (see “Freedom Betrayed,” by J. Edgar Hoover).

    –Germany built a major portion of the Autobahn, which became the model for Eisenhower’s push to create an interstate highway system in the United States.

    –Germany hosted Olympic games.

    –Germany made tremendous advances in sciences during the NSDAP era.

    –Hitler created programs to bring opera and classical music and theater to many towns in Germany, making these arts available to the masses

    –In the NSDAP era, subsidies were provided to workers to enable them to vacation abroad to expand their knowledge of the world beyond Germany’s borders.

    All of this was accomplished during the same time that zionist Jews in the United States and England persecuted Germany by means of an international boycott intended to “cripple Germany’s economy” and “bring it to its knees.” (see “The Transfer Agreement,” by Edwin Black).

    In contrast, England, which also was close to bankruptcy due to heavy borrowing to wage the first world war, solved its economic problem by sending over a thousand propagandists to the United States to engender anti-German fervor so that the American people would support measures such as Lend-Lease — giving England war materiels. (see “Those Angry Days,” by Lynne Olson). England — as well as the United States — did emerge from economic depression by committing resources almost solely to military production.

    Thus, Hitler WAS “constrained by economic considerations,” that were, perhaps, more stringent than England’s, but Germany resolved them in a far different fashion than did England.

    2. According to A. J. P. Taylor in “The Origins of the Second World War,” that war started on September 3, 1939, when England and France declared war on Germany, consequent to Germany’s invasion of Poland. Patrick Buchanan argues (in “The Unnecessary War”) that England and France had NO COMPELLING INTEREST in Poland. That pair’s treaty with Poland was a scheme, all the more cynical in that neither Britain nor France had either the military capacity or intention to come to the aid of Poland. Indeed, England and France abandoned Poland to Stalin both in 1939 and from 1944 onward. Neither state ever fulfilled their treaty obligation to Poland.

    Churchill’s underlying and all-consuming interest was in destroying Germany, which posed the threat of competition to England’s hopes of maintaining and expanding its empire (see “FDR and the End of Empire,” Christopher O’Sullivan). Like Hitler, Churchill, as well as Wilson before him and also Franklin Roosevelt, were keenly aware of the threat that Bolshevism posed to Europe and the West. In 1917 Wilson sent American soldiers to Siberia in a plan to undermine Bolshevism. (It backfired. See “When the United States Invaded Russia: Woodrow Wilson’s Siberian Disaster,” by Carl Richard).

    In 1932-33, Stalin and his henchmen caused the deaths, through famine and outright brutality of other kinds, of between 1.8- and 5-million Ukrainians. Were Churchill and FDR unaware of the crimes of Stalin, such that they chose to ally with Stalin AGAINST Hitler, rather than follow Herbert Hoover’s suggestion, which was to give Hitler free rein in his obsession with eliminating Bolshevism (see “Freedom Betrayed,” H. Hoover).

    When you stack up those facts, something really stinks.

    Fast-forward to 1946, when Churchill suddenly perceived in Stalin a threat rather than an ally, and ushered in a war against Russia with Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech.

    Less than a decade later, Churchill once again called upon American aid to topple Iran’s government, in order to maintain Anglo domination over Iranian oil.

    So who exactly, then and now, was waging “wars of plunder;” and who required military buildup to move his nation out of an economic depression and engineered wars to rationalize same, vs. what nation pulled itself out of depression by providing for its people and the state’s civilian infrastructure?

  378. kooshy says:

    One should wonder if it was not for the rich western Jews, how Israel would survive having so many strategic idiots running the country they don’t even attempt to understand the mentality of the Arabs.

    Livni: Israel must advance peace talks to help Iran deal”

    “Solving the conflict with the Palestinians would enable a united front with Arab countries against Iran,” Justice Minister says.”

  379. Don Bacon says:

    six power agreement
    Suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.

    Nov 26, 2013
    Peugeot, Renault shares rise after Iran nuclear deal
    Peugeot has experienced an estimated four billion euros in lost sales after cutting ties with Iranian automaker Iran Khodro in February 2012 under pressure from its American partner company General Motors.

    The decision by Peugeot also resulted in 8,000 workers losing their jobs.

    On July 26, Renault reported a huge fall in profits for the first half of 2013 after writing off the entire value of its business in Iran due to the US-led sanctions against Tehran.

    The firm took a 512-million-euro (680-million-dollar) charge after halting its activities in Iran.

    Nov 24, 2013
    Peugeot Set to Benefit Most in Europe From Iran Accord
    Peugeot and Renault have suffered more than most other European competitors as sales in their home region slide to a two-decade low. Eased sanctions on Iran come at particularly opportune time for Paris-based Peugeot, which vied with Korea’s Kia Motors Corp. for the sales lead in the country. Peugeot is seeking to stem cash burn and boost sales outside Europe.

    Peugeot, Europe’s second-largest carmaker, sold 458,000 vehicles in 2011 in Iran prior to the trade sanctions, making the country the automaker’s second-biggest market after France. Chief Financial Officer Jean-Baptiste de Chatillon said last year that the sanctions had cut 10 million euros ($13.5 million) a month from operating profit.

    “Any indication that we could resume doing business with our partners in Iran goes in the right direction,” said Jean-Baptiste Thomas, a Peugeot spokesman. “We’ll see how we can do that the day sanctions are lifted.”

  380. Don Bacon says:

    six power agreement
    Suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.

    Nov 26, 2013
    Peugeot, Renault shares rise after Iran nuclear deal
    Peugeot has experienced an estimated four billion euros in lost sales after cutting ties with Iranian automaker Iran Khodro in February 2012 under pressure from its American partner company General Motors.

    The decision by Peugeot also resulted in 8,000 workers losing their jobs.

    On July 26, Renault reported a huge fall in profits for the first half of 2013 after writing off the entire value of its business in Iran due to the US-led sanctions against Tehran.

    The firm took a 512-million-euro (680-million-dollar) charge after halting its activities in Iran.

    Nov 24, 2013
    Peugeot Set to Benefit Most in Europe From Iran Accord
    Peugeot and Renault have suffered more than most other European competitors as sales in their home region slide to a two-decade low. Eased sanctions on Iran come at particularly opportune time for Paris-based Peugeot, which vied with Korea’s Kia Motors Corp. for the sales lead in the country. Peugeot is seeking to stem cash burn and boost sales outside Europe.

    Peugeot, Europe’s second-largest carmaker, sold 458,000 vehicles in 2011 in Iran prior to the trade sanctions, making the country the automaker’s second-biggest market after France. Chief Financial Officer Jean-Baptiste de Chatillon said last year that the sanctions had cut 10 million euros ($13.5 million) a month from operating profit.

    “Any indication that we could resume doing business with our partners in Iran goes in the right direction,” said Jean-Baptiste Thomas, a Peugeot spokesman. “We’ll see how we can do that the day sanctions are lifted.”

  381. Don Bacon says:

    Walt: “Iran has far more power potential than any of the other states in the region.”

    True, and it’s not doing badly now.

    GDP (PPP)
    2012 est.

    16 Turkey
    17 Iran
    19 Saudi Arabia
    48 UAE
    49 Israel
    51 Iraq
    57 Qatar
    60 Kuwait
    67 Syria
    74 Oman

  382. Richard Steven Hack says:

    That didn’t take long…

    US Officials Hint at Reservations on Final Nuclear Deal


    Some news stories on the “first step” agreement have referred to the possibility that the negotiations on the final settlement could stall, and the status quo might continue. But the remarks by senior US officials suggest the administration may be hoping for precisely such an outcome.

    End Quote

    Just what I said…kick the can down the road until Obama and Netanyahu can figure out how to restart the Syria/Lebanon war..

  383. Richard Steven Hack says:

    We can imagine…

    Shifting gears, Israeli team heading to US to try to shape final nuclear pact

  384. M. Ali says:

    “Don Bacon says:

    November 25, 2013 at 10:45 pm

    six power agreement
    Suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.

    To me, that’s the biggest joke about this deal. The offers they are apparently giving us, is basically to their own advantage, EVEN if Iran does nothing.

    For example,

    1) The autoindustry lift helps France and the west more than it does Iran. As you mentioned, Peugot alone can create 8000 jobs in France. But how many jobs does it create in Iran? It doesn’t make much difference, it might even have us LOSE jobs, because instead of making certain parts, we can go back to buying it from the west.

    2) Paying us part of our money in installments, thta is, 4% of it, is like paying us interest for our own money. By signing the document, we have legitimized them holding our money.

    3) Paying for students. They are using OUR money to go to their OWN universities. Basically, this means that the money we got from selling our oil doesn’t come to us, it goes to their universities.
    Also, they will probably grab the best students for their own socities. What a joke.

    4) No more oil sanction increase. We know what has been happening for the past few months. Countries didn’t WANT to be told to not buy oil from Iran, so USA had to keep giving exceptions.

    Now, they don’t have to give exceptions for 6 months, they can just consider it as a favor to Iran!

    The biggest disgrace about this agreement is not what we have given up, but what we have gained out of it.

  385. M. Ali says:

    “nico says:

    November 25, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    “Kerry says Iran should dismantle nuclear sites”

    And we know what we Iranians will say when that happens. Did we REALLY need that all unnecessary space used for those sites? With a deal with USA, we could convert the newly empty land to build a shopping mall with some McDonalds!

  386. M. Ali says:

    Photi said, “What this initial agreement does is it creates a good air of optimism in achieving a much longer term deal. ”

    Of ocurse there is an initial good air of optimism, because Iran has stepped back a mile. Why wouldn’t the west feel optimistic, because after Ahmadeinijad restarted the programme, they didn’t get any fall back from Iran. Now this, as fyi says, “strategic retreat”, will obviously cause them certain happiness, because they can now be more positive about the end game, which they clearly say, dismantling the programme and beyond.

    But again, even with such a deal, we have statements like,

    “Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said his country will maintain its sanctions on Iran.

    “People of #Iran deserve freedom & prosperity denied them by regime’s nuclear ambitions,” Baird tweeted. “Until then, Canadian sanctions remain in full force.””

  387. Karl.. says:


    ” What this initial agreement does is it creates a good air of optimism in achieving a much longer term deal.”


    Kerry made clear that a long term deal will force Iran to end parts of their nuclear program permanently. How is that good for Iran? You think Iran will agree to that?

  388. nico says:

    How a final step could be agreed ?
    Listened to Gary Samore opinion.

    “Gary Samore, a Harvard professor who served as a top proliferation official in Obama’s first term and now heads the hawkish United Against a Nuclear Iran. “I just don’t think they’re going to shoot the country in the foot,” he told a teleconference sponsored by the Wilson Center on Monday, calling the accord “good enough to get started on the process which is going to be very challenging”. 

    He said Israel’s insistence on zero enrichment as an end-state in negotiations was “not an achievable objective” and that the US and its allies should instead focus on finding agreement on three specific issues: the permissible level of enrichment; the fate of the Arak reactor; and the terms of the final monitoring regime, particularly regarding its ability to detect any covert facilities. 

    He expressed doubt that a comprehensive agreement could be reached in six months. Instead, “I could imagine another interim deal” that would include more limitations on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for more sanctions relief, he said. “

  389. Bibijon says:

    Be reasonable, think about it my way!

    So, according to reports, US officials were meeting their Iranian counterparts in Oman and other places since March of 2013.,0,2689052.story#axzz2lkQuG6am

    What is significant here is not who was meeting whom, but who was shut out of the meetings: Israel and Saudi Arabia. The meetings led to ‘understandings.’ The ‘understandings’ had to be christened. Obama’s General Assembly speech at the UN was that Christening.

    Having shut out, and therefore, irreparably miffed the Israelis and the Saudis, there is no going back. Not only the direction (rapprochement), but even the speed of attaining it (within 12 months) have been cast in solid granite.

    I say to the bean counters here, that the significance of the deal is not in the details. Actually the significance is not even the overall deal in Geneva. The two sides have come to an understanding which for the US means the ability to reengage in the Mid East WITHOUT throwing her lot with a bunch of Saudi supported al-Qaida cannibals, or the extreme wing of the Likudniks. It is a huge realignment that if you keep counting centrifuges, and dollars of sanctions relief, you might miss it altogether.

    US’ pillars of support in the Mid East have gone completely wobbly, or totally rogue. And, not just rogue. KSA, and Israel have failed to produce anything tangible. Yes, they constantly blame Iran, but comparing the restraints on Iran to the complete freedom of action that KSA and Israel have enjoyed for years, tells me their “Iran” excuse was beginning to fall on US’ deaf ears. It was time to find an actor capable of delivering, a partner proven to act/behave like a world power.

    During the negotiations both US and Iran knew that the first step, no matter how tentative, would lock them into an irreversible course, because the costs of credibility with ‘old’ allies was going to be an upfront cost.

    There is nothing that either US or Iran can do other than accelerate the process of rapprochement. I strongly suggest that Mr. Kerry accept an invitation if extended to go to Tehran as soon as possible. The misplaced hope of derailing the US-Iran relationship that KSA and Israel may be harboring is profoundly destructive to themselves. The sooner they give up hope, and adjust to new realities, the better for both of them.

  390. A-B says:

    I don’t know if spewing (often contradictory) quotations from Kerry or others really proves anything; after all some of them are known as pathological liars. The same people or others in their positions have said and promised a lot of things 5, 10 or 15 years ago, including the impending collapse of the Islamic Republic; how much of it has come true? If you want to quote Kerry, I refer to his remarks that I posted above in which he clearly says that the previous strategy of the gang of P5+1 has failed. What do you prefer; a hot war?

    Don’t take me wrong; I’m not overly happy about this. But Iran IS at war with Racist/Fascists, period. Again, the only remedy is a change in attitude towards the West.


  391. nico says:

    In truth could it be an end state agreement ?
    Gareth Porter portray a bleack future.

    I was feeling something was not right in the current agreement.
    Reading various articles it seems pretty clear the US and Iran goal and objectives are not reconciliable.
    The US are still in a cold war type containment policy and the oil as well as financial sanctions are here to stay indefinitely.

    Iran is expecting the sanctions to be lifted soon.
    Do Iran leaders based on experience in Irak, Cuba, Soviet cold war and so on truly believe that the sanction will be lifted ?
    I do not think so.

    I was not so sure about the interim deal when Rohani took power.
    The tone was pretty better than what previously obtained.

    But obviously there is an ocean of differences regarding substance.
    Those differences of substance are political. Nothing to do with proliferation or confidence.

    There will be no major additional lifting of sanctions neither end step agreement WITHOUT change in the POLITICAL equation.

    My assumption is that the first step shall be the last step. And Iran has nothing more to bargain.
    But my assumption is that the US are trying to find a sustainable containment policy and would be happy to keep that way fir the foreseeable future.
    My assumption is that Iran obviously does not share this position and will take the opportunity to crack the sanctions in the coming months and years.

    But for the time being I see the odd for a final agreement as near zero.
    And I see the odd for the deal to unravel some time in the not that far future to unravel in failure.

  392. nico says:

    All in all the interim deal is still good deal for Iran even if the prospect for a final deal is more than dim.
    actually it is chess play and yes it is tactical retreat.

    What is at the heart if the matter of the chess game is the momentum and who leads that game.

    The US hawks are furious because the US do not lead the game anymore and Iran is now the master of Time as Iran can escape the deal as soon as it wants. That is each 6 months.

    The US needs to keep time mastery and that is the whole issue of the next sanctions in US senate and congress.
    The sanction being imposed at the end of the 6 months if no end deal is agreed upon.

    The issue is that additional sanctions will lead to the destruction of the interim deal and uncontrollable escalation.
    thus the US seem cornered fir the tile being to wait for Iran next move.

    Iran is again leading the dance with the US is trying to follow clumsily.

  393. nico says:

    Why Gary Samore doubt there will ever be a end deal ?
    Simply because he fully knows that what the US demand fir that to happen is way beyond what is just and fair.
    And he fully knows that Iran will not accept that.
    Nice confession from Samore regarding the Anglo dictature over the world.

  394. M. Ali says:

    The only way this deal can be useful to Iran is that Rohani & Zarif work overtime, in these 6 months, to strengthen their relationships with non-US partners and build a strong contigency plan in six months time.

    USA’s golden sanctions success was oil & financial restrictions. These won’t be removed anytime soon, and it is now Rohani’s job to find ways to make them less harmful to Iran.

    I hope USA’s gold and precious metal sanction remover doesn’t mean that Iran will dump its reserves in the global market, to get access to cash. This would be Iran’s biggest mistake. Instead, they should use the opportunity to buy as much gold as possible. Gold has been purchased by China & Russia.

  395. Bibijon says:

    nico says:
    November 26, 2013 at 7:06 am

    Nico, Gareth Porter’s suspicious does not compute. If this “joint plan of Action” is a ruse and no long-term detente/rapprochement with Iran is on the horizon, then why would the US alienate the anti-Iran coalition irreparably?

    Gareth is reading way too much into ambiguous rhetoric. The actions, the phone calls, the high-fiving FMs of the world powers represent a fait accompli. The actors who needed to be on board for the new Mid East paradigm, UK, France, Russia, and China have consented. Those who would be losers, were shut out.

    IMHO, the verbal acrobatics “senior officials” put on display in “private briefings” is to distract and push back against too much scrutiny.

  396. nico says:

    Bibijon says:
    November 26, 2013 at 8:20 am

    “Gareth is reading way too much into ambiguous rhetoric. The actions, the phone calls, the high-fiving FMs of the world powers represent a fait accompli. The actors who needed to be on board for the new Mid East paradigm, UK, France, Russia, and China have consented. Those who would be losers, were shut out.”


    I just finish reading the original agreement.
    It seems well balanced.
    It provides a 1 year deadline. Time will tell.
    In addition it recognizes that Iran is entilted to enrichment in line with Iran needs for civilian purpose.
    By the way I read somewhere an interview of Fabius in which he clearly recognizes that.

  397. fyi says:


    Why World War I and World War II were good events for the non-European world:

  398. Fiorangela says:

    A little background on the loudest voice in the Iran-West nuclear agreement

    Psychobibi: What Makes Bibi Fail

  399. Fiorangela says:

    A little background on brothers who, from childhood, were bullies, and one of whom spent several years whispering in President Obama’s ear

    Rahm and Ari Emanuel Beat Me Up — Do Childhood Bullies Make Powerful Adult Leaders?

  400. Karl.. says:

    Remember what happend to Qadaffi when he thought it was ok to make “peace” with the US.

    It seems Iran is going that way too.

  401. Don Bacon says:

    This could be the kiss of death – headline:

    Leno: Obama Promised Iran ‘If You Like Your Uranium, You Can Keep Your Uranium’

  402. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    November 26, 2013 at 10:35 am

    No, the late Mr. Ghaddafi was a fool, no doubt.

    Power had gotten into his head – like so many tyrnats before him or after him.

    Iranians have gotten their nuclear program to an acceptable state (for them).

    They are acceeding to monitoring measures beyond NPT for the duration of the current stand-off.

    Depending on the political situation in the world, they have suspended the economic war for a spell.

    Very likely, tens of billions of dollars will now be spent by Iranians – it all depends on the way the banking mechanisms work – Iranians do not have to repatriate money to Iran. The $ 6 billion figure, in my opinion, could be a cover with actually more funds being transferred.

    We will need to wait to see what happens next – at the end of next year.

    P5+1 wil try to impose a 30-year or 20-year deal on Iran.

    Which I doubt the Iranians will accept.

    This will go back and forth for a while.

  403. Don Bacon says:

    Professor Juan Cole:

    The Middle East warmly welcomes Iran Deal, sees it as Step toward Denuclearizing Israel

    –Turkey, a NATO ally of the US that has some disputes with Iran (notably over Syria) nevertheless warmly greeted the announcement.
    –Iraq, with a population of over 30 million and a GDP of $212 bn., also enthusiastically greeted the news.
    –Lebanon’s Foreign Minister, Adnan Mansour, welcomed the agreement as “positive.”
    –Egypt, a country of 84 million with a GDP of $254 bn, took much the same tack as Lebanon.
    –The spokesman for the Jordanian government, Muhammad al-Mumini , said that the agreement was “a step in the right direction.”
    –The Gulf Cooperation Council of oil monarchies was not as negative as the US media keeps reporting. The cabinet of the United Arab Emirates praised the agreement and said it hoped it would lead to regional stability and an end to nuclear proliferation.
    –Algeria, a country with a population of 38 million and a GDP of $209 bn, warmly welcomed the deal.

  404. fyi says:


    A cooment from the Arms Control Wonk:

    Magpie | November 24, 2013

    They look like they lost, but they won.

    There’s been talk about the red line, but Bibi’s line don’t make no sense.

    At 20% enriched, you’ve done 95-odd-% of the required enrichment to get to 90% enriched. That is, you’ve pulled out 95% of the chaff that’s stopping things from getting all boomy.

    At 5% enriched, you’re down to 85-odd-% of the effort you needed to do. Which is A Thing, sure, but it’s hardly a deal-breaker if Iran feels like making a run for the line.

    Iran is “known” to have pushed pretty close to a full SQ through the 20% enrichment mark (then converted most(?) of it to fuel plates), plus I-dunno-how-much at 5%, plus god-knows-what that’s been diverted from domestic uranium mining into that secret cascade under Ramin Rahimi’s house. And then we note that a Significant Quantity is itself a pretty dopey measure (being something like 2-3 Realistic Quantities), and we see that, if Bibi’s red line is “having enough U-235 in the system to rush a bomb”, Iran is so far past the red line that it can’t even SEE the red line from where they are, not even standing on Bibi’s shoulders.

    This is an interim agreement, and on the surface it sucks for Iran, but honestly, I see this as the first part of the process called: “admitting that we couldn’t realistically stop you, so we’ll treat you like you’ve got nukes, and in return you don’t actually make nukes, kay?” Given the subtext, Iran won an epic win. As it was always going to.

    Again (again): if Iran’s national pride is publically put into NOT making nukes, they won’t (publically) make nukes (unless they feel seriously threatened). The immediate payoff for them is a reduction in current and future destabilisation attempts (not naming any names, but DAMN that KSA has been quiet about all of this, hasn’t it?). For your long-term-dynasty thinkers, this is a pretty huge deal. The partial lift in sanctions is chicken-feed by comparison.

    So the oversight will be tight(ish), but is sorta beside the point: Iran has shown they CAN, and no-one (not even them) actually wants them to DO it, so we’re all going to act like it’s a fait accompli and just get on with business. Iran is de-facto nuclear, with none of the messiness that would have gone along with the real thing (messiness such as, for example, KSA claiming they need nukes now, too). As long as the deal doesn’t completely prevent any chance of a rush to a bomb (and it won’t), it’s a win-win situation for everyone but those few holdouts who had convinced themselves they could realistically beat Iran up over the issue more than they already have, without potentially REALLY messy outcomes for everyone.

    Hurray for sense in diplomacy.

  405. Rehmat says:

    Israel will try to disrupt Iran’s nuclear deal at any cost. Iran will be accused of not following the conditions of the deal. Washington will seed to Israel’s demands until Iran dismantles its nuclear program and submits to Israel’s dominance in the Middle East. AIPAC controls the US Congress and the US presidency, make no mistake about that. Many of Obama’s supporters believe that Obama is trying diplomacy, a road to peace. But this is the same president that almost launched a war against Syria and is continuing his drone strike policies at unprecedented levels. Remember the US and Israel are staunch allies to say the least, regardless of what the American Main Stream Media outlets say about the so-called “difficult” relationship between Obama and Natanyahu. After all Obama declared America’s commitment to Israel’s security last March when he visited the country and said “I see this visit as an opportunity to reaffirm the unbreakable bond between our nations, to restate America’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and to speak directly to the people of Israel and to your neighbours”.

  406. paul says:

    Remember that old phrase, “trust and verify”? I think that implies here, in the wake of Obama’s startling ‘volte face’. It would appear that Obama, having made one last, herculean attempt to ‘give war a chance’, when he sought open war against Syria, leapt gracefully, balletically, onto the peace train. Wow. `Perhaps he has had a change of heart, similar to the one that JFK seemed to have in the throes of his presidency? Perhaps. I doubt it. Trust and verfiy. And keep the pressure on for peace.

  407. fyi says:

    paul says:

    November 26, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    President Rafsanjani, Khatami, Ahmadinejad, and now Rouhani had all expressed the desire of – in the words of Mr. Khamenei – “the Islamic Establishment/System” to have equitable relations with the United States.

    Mr. Obama’s policy with Iran was always one of doubling down and escalation.

    In early Spring of 2012, he was on course to war with Iran while war was raging in Syria.

    In August of this year, he was going to war with Syria and then with Iran – either under his or his successor.

    When peasants revolted in UK and some of the Barons joined the peasants, there must have occurred some re-thinking among US leaders and planners.

    We will have to wait and see if this re-thinking is tactical or strategic.

    We will know it is strategic when Iranian nuclear file is effectively closed.

    Since I have been proven to be wrong, I think I best stop here.

  408. Karl.. says:


    Stupid in what sense? He like Iran surely believe(d) that making a deal with west would be something they would gain something from and not something he eventually died from.

  409. James Canning says:

    BBC America had a brief clip of William Hague, speaking in the House of Commons about the deal with Iran. Hague said Britain did not want Israel interfering with the deal.

  410. James Canning says:

    Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times today: “Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu detest each other. Now they are about to stage a very public showdown.”

  411. James Canning says:


    I do not know where you get the apparent idea Obama wanted to go to war with Syria. He did not. Obama, however, very nearly was forced to attack Syria. Which in turn could have led to deeper involvement in the civil war.

  412. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 26, 2013 at 10:34 am

    That is scary. But quite possible since Iran has no deterrence. And it would not be the first time. Iran has already been the victim of American ally WMDs. Iran’s fate could the worst among the fates of likes of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc etc. At least they did not get nuked, but Iran might.

    Let’s hope the Mad King is as wise as Peer Gynt’s Troll King. It is certainly full of suspense:

  413. James Canning says:

    Financial Times today: “Saudi Arabia. . . and {UAE], Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar also welcomed the six-month deal . . . “

  414. James Canning says:


    If you actually believe Iran is in danger of getting “nuked”, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

  415. James Canning says:


    You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the history of Libya this century.

    Gaddafi saw he needed to get rid of WMD programmes. No option. Full stop.

  416. James Canning says:


    You think the Second World War was a “good thing” for Japan? Devastation of Japan was good for that country?

    As to Iran, the occupation of the transit corridor (by USSR, UK, US) was a good thing? You may remember that the Communist party boss for Azerbaijan wanted to annex Iranian Azerbaijan.

  417. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 26, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    You still refuse to accept what has happened.

    The text about the “chemical weapons” was put in Mr. Obama’s speech and delivered in April of 2013.

    Saudis agents passed sarin gas to the anti-government forces.

    Iran had already notified UN of this – that sarin is being sent to Syria.

    In due course, and incident was created on August 21, 2013, that could serve as Mr. Obama’s cause belli.

    However, months before that event, in fact all through 2013 and much of 2012, the realization that murderers and thugs are being supported by Axis Powers in Syria had downed on people in UK – if not elsewhere in Europe.

    Peasant population in UK, across the political spectrum, was against the Baron and the Mad King’s policy in Syria.

    They could not be persuaded to support their own enemies in Syria to wound Iran – regardless of how low an opinion the English people have of Iran.

    That revolt torpedoed Mr. Obama’s Syria policy which had been announced 3 years earlier by Mr. Danilon.

    That is all.

  418. James Canning says:


    I wonder if Fiorangela will challenge your claim that the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was a good thing for Iran (Persia).

  419. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    November 26, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Politically, a nuclear attack by Israel against any state would be her end.

    It is truly suicidal for them.

    But in the Halls of the Mad King – so in Love with Israel – nothing is insane as long as it supports Israel.

    US has a long way to go to clear this rubbish and garbage from her Halls – they are still going on as though filth is perfume.

  420. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 26, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    I am not sure I understand your points.

    But think you for bringing up World War II – a neutral country being overrun by her enemies – this time Allied Forces.

    Belgium and Holland and Norway get invaded by Germany.

    Iran gets invaded by USSR, UK, and US.

    In a war not of their making nor of relevance to them.

    That is called “International Law” of Jungle.

    Only the strong and the paranoid survive.

  421. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    History cannot be re-lived.

    I am neutral about the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

  422. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 26, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    “…. Obama, however, very nearly was forced to attack Syria.”


    do I take it that in your view there is no point in which a “leader” takes responsibility – they are “forced”.

    In other words, going back to my comment a while back, you subscribe to the view of “sh?t happens”!

    Who forced Obama? Who forced the people who forced Obama? etc.

    Your simplified “forced to..” view leads to either a logical “chicken and egg” problem, or an irrational master conspiracy – someone ultimately makes a decision, don’t they?

  423. James Canning says:


    Obama was told that if he failed to hit Syria with missiles, after the Aug 21 CW event, Iran would feel free to build nukes. Obama indeed would have been “forced” to launch the attack, had Syria not agreed to get rid of the CW.

  424. James Canning says:


    I regard the First World War and the Second WW as two of the greatest catastrophes in world history. Some on this site think they were good things, because many white people were killed.

  425. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 26, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    As the Russian saying goes; “One man’s disaster is another man’s salvation.”

    It is inconceivable for me that the political domination of Euro-Americans all over the world – and Japanese in parts of East Asia – could have been eliminated any other way.

  426. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 26, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Mr. Obama, as an autonomous moral agent, bear responsibility for his own decisions.

    No one had put a gun to his head to compel him to attack Iran with the Stuxnet, to organize the destabilization of Iran during the 2009 elections, to double down on Iran, to initiate the war against Syria to wound Iran.

    Those were all his doings.

    He bears personal responsibility for them.

    As for Iran building nuclear weapons – US attack on Syria would have let to that very outcome.

    Just about the only thing you can say about him is that he has probably realized the extent to which he has been poorly advised.

  427. Fiorangela says:

    fyi says: November 26, 2013 at 10:34 am

    (quoted from the linked article in Foreign Policy, 25 November 2013) —

    “refraining from discussing Israel’s bombs is more a self-imposed constraint than a socially constructed taboo in the D.C.-centered foreign-policy world. Moreover, I have found Israeli policymakers and analysts much more willing than their American counterparts to talk about (if not explicitly name) the impact that Israel’s nuclear arsenal has on its regional relations and to explore under what conditions that policy of amimut [ambiguity] may no longer make strategic or political sense. . . .

    Either Israel’s nuclear capabilities play no role vis-à-vis strategies to prevent an Iran from acquiring a bomb, in which case why have them at all, or they matter in terms of the missions they support, in which case they should be open for discussion.”

    = = =
    Colin Kahl to audience member at NIAC conference, Oct 2013

    (at 1:12) “We are all concerned about Israel’s security. However they are not signatory to NPT and Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years, but in the past 60 years Israel has been the bully in that area, attacking their neighbors; they’re the ones who used chemical weapons in Gaza. Yet we still blindly protect their interests. So the other countries should not have the right to protect against a bully, yet you speak as if they have the only rights … How would you justify that? I understand the politics but …You cannot fool individuals any longer, they see what the reality is. So how do you sell that to the citizens of Iran, or the world, for that matter?”

    ANSWER: Kahl: “I think that the focus on Israeli behavior in the current context is not productive. It’s not productive for anything. It’s not going to change the uh um th- uh um th- th- uh the approach to the negotiations with Iran nor its outcome. So I understand that many people share the audience member’s views, I just think it’s not a helpful way to think about it.

    I also think it distracts from the very real obligations that the Iranians have. Why does Iran have an obligation not to build nuclear weapons? Because they signed the NPT. If they want to pull out of the NPT, they should do it, and make it clear [the audience member who asked the Question is shaking his head from side to side] that they want to leave open the option to pursue nuclear weapons. But they didn’t do that … the Shah signed the NPT … and the IRI has said they plan to abide by it… So, they’re signatories. It’s not about hypocrisy … A lot of international regulations and rules and norms –some are complied with, some are not. But if the argument is that absolute consistency has to be applied in diplomacy, then I would argue that the Questioner has never actually engaged in diplomacy.”

  428. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 26, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Your notions of “forced to attack” do not agree with international and customary norms of “forced response”. It bears strong resemblance to the absurd notion of pre-emptive war proposed by the likes of Mr. Bush – someone you have expressed strong disagreement with.

    Perhaps you may wish to reconsider?!

  429. Karl.. says:

    Israel news report that UK and France are in Israel regarding Iran deal.
    Another proof that west still please Israel on Iran nuclear deal.

  430. James Canning says:


    I opposed a US missile strike on Syria, as a response to the Aug 21 CW event.

    But, Obama clearly was being pressured to strike Syria, and he would have. My opposition meant nothing.

  431. James Canning says:


    I understand Obama regrets taking bad advice from Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates, in 2009 (regarding Afghanistan).

    I think it is clear Obama did not want to strike Syria, but that he would have (if Syria had not agreed to get rid of CW).

  432. James Canning says:


    Obama did not “initiate” the civil war in Syria.

  433. James Canning says:


    In 1920, the British official in charge of Kenya said Britain would be getting out at some point in the not-too-distant future.

    Second World War delayed British withdrwal from India.

    ZERO need for gigantic wars, to end European empires. This would have taken place anyway.

  434. James Canning says:


    Japan, however, might have been different. Keeping Korea and Formosa (Taiwan) would have been appealing to the militarists who controlled the country. (Assuming no Second World War.)

  435. Neo says:

    Karl.. says: November 24, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    “So whats so good about the deal and what money to the people are you refering to, it is 50 bucks per capita.”

    Karl (and M. Ali),

    It’s not about the 50 bucks. It’s about the fact that the biggest 6 powers have lined up to grab the opportunity of Rohani’s friendly overtures to make a historic deal (as they all are describing it) with Iran in direct opposition to zionist and salafist extremism.

    I mentioned before that the content is not important. What is important is that the mere act of making a landmark deal with Iran recognises Iran’s power and status as a world power, and it removes the threat of war. The sanctions were designed as a form of economic terrorism and warfare against Iranians, and the current deal effectively neutralises their effectiveness and drive, albeit in a stepwise fashion. How can this not be seen as a positive outcome for all concerned? Most importantly, this deal paves the way for Iran to expand her trade links with the rest of the world.

  436. Neo says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says: November 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Well Islam comes from taslim, and I for one am happy to hold on to my own common sense, and to judge god, your imam and yourself based on my own understanding rather than your (or their) stated beliefs.

    Ashura to me is an ironic and irrational hero worship of a failed and non-strategic leader who did not have the sense or the moral fortitude to avoid unnecessary bloodshed (like the revolutionary hotheads and suicide bombers of today) for the sake of power, but ostensibly in the name of god or justice or ‘heavenly rewards’ or some such supernatural pretensions.

    The Shia ideology in Iran is a subset of Iranian nationalism, as it always has been, and this is why you make such crude and cruel judgement on other muslims with no hesitation. If it really were about islam and god, you would be busy building bridged with other muslims.

    You and I agree on so many things – in terms of geopolitical analysis – because we are both nationalists with a keen interest in world affairs. And we agree despite God, Hossein or the SL etc. This is how I dissect reality from ideology. You, my friend, cannot rise above your superstitious leanings.

    I still respect you (for I am no more important or right than you), but I will tell you exactly what I think of your corrupt ideology for as long as you are willing to discuss it with me.

    Btw, this ‘historic deal’ is likely the greatest threat to the Islamic Republic since the revolution.

    Once the foreign enemy is gone, you should expect to meet far greater internal Iranian resistance to a religious regime in Iran.

    So far, their (our) lot has been silenced in the name of a foreign threat.

    Now the threat is gone, what are you basiji thugs going to do next? Heroic non-muslim bashing?

  437. Neo says:

    M. Ali,

    “How was James Canning wrong?”

    You raise a good question about the 20% issue.

    My understanding is that Iran used the sanctions and non-availability of medical isotopes very cleverly to up the ante so that later on it could be used as its strongest bargaining chip.

    In other words, Iran started to produce 20% enriched Uranium on a large scale so that it could be given up as part of a deal later on.

    This makes sense only if one assumes that Iran never planned to build a bomb.

    This is how James Canning was wrong. And I told him the same over a year or so ago, if I remember right.

    Correct James?

  438. Neo says:


    I did check, and appreciate your nuanced position. But you are still convinced that a war is coming.

    I believe you are wrong. The main reason is simple: Iran is no threat to those powers. And this makes war simply pointless.

  439. James Canning says:


    Iran probably did in fact announce its intent to treble production of 20% U, to obtain leverage re: sanctions. I think it is very clear this was a blunder.

    Iran was forced to enrich to 20%, by abject stupidity on the part of the US. Iran should have kept the focus on this abject stupidity on the part of the US.

  440. Castellio says:

    For the record, I do not believe that the Israelis were unaware of the Iran-US negotiations in Oman.

  441. Don Bacon says:

    Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll

    According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in Geneva last weekend, and 22 percent oppose it.

  442. Fiorangela says:

    Well Castellio, don’t hit and run.
    What make you believe that Israelis were unaware —- ?

  443. Bibijon says:

    One more day, one more poll

    “Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.”

  444. fyi says:

    Neo says:
    November 26, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    I hope you are right and I am wrong.

    I hope to God for peace and a better future for the young people in the Middle East.

    I pray that the scourge of war and strife comes to a speedy end and concord and prosperity to reign.

    Let us hope.

  445. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    November 26, 2013 at 11:43 pm

    Most have similar thoughts, including me.

    But the truth is, peace without nuclear deterrence is only a fool’s dream.

    Unfortunately game theory, does not leave much hope for those without nuclear deterrence.

  446. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Pepe Escobar on Global Research TV…
    Follow the Money: How Lobby Interests are Spinning Iran Nuclear Deal


    PE: No, we have to follow the letter of the agreement. This means enrichment until 5 percent OK, no further enrichment till 20 percent for the next six months, no new centrifuges. If Iran follows this – they are abiding by the deal, no problem.

    The thing is, if among these IAEA inspectors [who] should be in Iran practically on a daily basis from now on, if you had the usual Eiffel traders [Parisian residents who fraudulently “sell” the Eiffel Tower to unsuspecting visitors – RT] who start spinning something else.

    End Quote

    Got that right…

  447. Karl.. says:


    November 26, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    The deal doesnt remove the “threat of war” at all doesnt recognize Iran as a “world power”. The sanctions are still there and are not “neutralized” and doesnt “pave the way” for expanding trade with the world. In fact one MUST look at the “content” of the deal to see if Iran gained something.

  448. M. Ali says:


    “What is important is that the mere act of making a landmark deal with Iran recognises Iran’s power and status as a world power, and it removes the threat of war. ”

    USA was always willing to make a deal with Iran and so did the others. The only reason it didn’t happen during the last 8 years, was because the previous administrative didn’t agree to the west’ terms.

    Making a deal is not good in and of itself. Its the detail of the deal that is important.

  449. Bibijon says:

    Castellio says:
    November 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    For years now, Netanyahu’s antiques directed at a sitting US president must have been a matter of deep concern for the Israeli security establishment, who have from time to time publicly made contradictory comments/assessments which have pulled the rug from under Netanyahu particularly vis-a-vis Iran.

    It is therefore reasonable to assume that Israeli security establishment were apprised of what was going on between US and Iran interlocutors, if not actually participating in it through safely retired IDF generals, etc.

    Netanyahu is not just internationally isolated. He is very alone in Israel itself. I stick to my prediction that Netayahu will not be in office come this February.

  450. A-B says:

    Re. pundits and the likes of Trita Parsi discussed above

    IMHO, there seem to be 3 SECULAR indicators for a ‘pundit’ with an independent and truthful (i.e. free from Western bias) view of Iran – that they denounce or, at least, are deeply critical of:

    1. The occupying Apartheid racist regime of Israel (that is Western)
    2. The occupying anti-human tribal regime of Ale Saud (installed by the West)
    3. The ‘Greenies’ (and their associates, Mojahedin-e Kharr – of course, Western stooges)

    For example: I attacked Pepe Escobar WRT point 3 and his support for Mir Hossein Mousavi. He has now taken my own position on items 1 & 2 and changed his attitude towards Iran which makes him – at least appear – ‘non-Western’; good for him! Things (attitudes) have changed radically in just 3 years: before, Iran – if mentioned at all – was a mere pawn for the ruskies; now people (like Pepe) consider Iran a major independent player in (eur-)Asia. It is funny though, how it has become in vogue for some ‘independent’ pundits in the West to – rightfully – bash Saudis. It is as if they just recently have ‘discovered’ what scum these are. However, these ‘progressive’ ‘anti-imperialist’ pundits seem to use Saudis to muffle criticism of Israel. It makes you go hmmm!

    Trita Parsi and his ilk, however, fail on every point, and is all Western and everything but Iranian; he is a masochistic slave to the West as was Mammadrezasha Pahlavi. Yes, send him back to Sweden; the country of bigots who love secular authoritarianism and ungodly mass-murdering strongmen. I recall this Jan Eliasson, the ‘peace broker’ during Iran-Iraq war, expressing his awe for Saddam while in Iraq, but in Iran he would condescendingly quote something from the Quran (as if he’s an exegete!!) to make Iran surrender, and then in the heat of the war go for a visit to the Carpet Museum in Tehran to the puzzlement of the Iranians. Well it has now made this ‘career diplomat’ vice general secretary of the UN; go figure!! Then we have ‘experts’ like Hans Blix according to whom Iran may have rights but she has the right to abstain from them to please the Bullies including, of course, Israel – this colonial(istic) experiment in ‘secular’-racist-socialism. Well, people like Hans Blix have the right and my blessing to F-OFF!


  451. Fiorangela says:

    James M. Wall, contributing editor of The Christian Century magazine and journalist with extensive experience in the Middle East, prepared this review of the career of William J. Burns, one of the participants in the back-channel diplomacy with Iran.

    The Secret Mission of William J. Burns

  452. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    Iran was forced to enrich to 20%, by abject stupidity on the part of the US. Iran should have kept the focus on this abject stupidity on the part of the US.”

    I am glad you at-least recognize the abject stupidity. You just need to spread the net a little wider. (ie do not forget the poodles). LOL

  453. Photi says:

    M. Ali says:
    November 27, 2013 at 3:56 am

    M. Ali, are you saying the Islamic Republic is incapable of overseeing the interests of Iran?


    i.The Islamic Republic of Iran is the legitimate governing power of the nation of Iran.

    ii. Representatives from the Islamic Republic of Iran were present at the negotiations in both Geneva and Muscat and so Iranian officials are therefore privy to even the secret details of this agreement and any future agreements.

    iii. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a formidable defender facing a war weary world ready to move beyond this dispute. Nobody wants war except the far-right Israelis and their misguided but rich and connected friends in America. Everybody else understands their desired war is good for no nation, good for least of all the Israelis. I also believe (ie, not a fact) the wiser heads in Israel understand this equation, understand Iran is not an existential threat to Israel will proceed to block their Prime Minister from committing national suicide.

    M.Ali, i think you need to explain why the Islamic Republic of Iran is not capable of looking out for the best interests of Iran, please and thanks.

  454. Jay says:

    ames Canning says:
    November 26, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Your notions of “forced to attack” do not agree with international and customary norms of “forced response”. It bears strong resemblance to the absurd notion of pre-emptive war proposed by the likes of Mr. Bush – someone you have expressed strong disagreement with.

    Perhaps you may wish to reconsider?!

  455. James Canning says:


    When I say “forced to attack”, I was referring to domestic political pressure on Obama. And to advice Obama was taking, that failure to hit Syria with some missiles after Aug 21 CW event, would encourage Iran to build nukes.

    Again, I opposed the strike.

  456. James Canning says:

    Interesting report on front page of today’s Financial Times: “Iran courts western oil majors in preparation for end of sanctions”. Well worth reading.

  457. James Canning says:


    I have been shouting from the rooftops, regarding stunning incompetence of George W. Bush administration, in dealing with Iran. For many years now.

  458. James Canning says:

    The Financial Times interviewed Bijan Namdar Zanganeh, the Iranian oil minister (“Veteran gears up to revive Iran’s oil industry”). In today’s FT. He seeks to: “raise production and exports, bring in foreign partners and secure access to technology.”

  459. James Canning says:


    I think you likely are correct, and that Israel did know about the secret talks taking place in Oman. Interesting point.

  460. James Canning says:

    Henry Precht has good advice for John Kerry and his team, regarding how to improve relations with Iran in the shorter term:


  461. James Canning says:

    When sanctions are lifted, Zanganeh said, Chinese and domestic [Iranian] companies, including those of the Revolutionary Guard, would have to compete with western companies in a bidding process. FT interview, in today’s FT.

  462. Neo says:

    Karl.. says: November 27, 2013 at 3:28 am

    No Karl, the content of the deal is open to interpretation and therefore unimportant, as any side can decide to act the way they like regardless of the stated content.

    The important thing is the intention behind the deal. Whether the pessimist in you likes it or not, the West NEEDS to make peace with Iran, and it HAS done so.

    Witness developments with China almost immediately. USA cannot be in the middle east and east asia at the same time.

  463. Neo says:

    James Canning says: November 26, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    “Iran probably did in fact announce its intent to treble production of 20% U, to obtain leverage re: sanctions. I think it is very clear this was a blunder.”

    What nonsense! I won’t even bother with you.

  464. Neo says:

    M. Ali says: November 27, 2013 at 3:56 am

    “USA was always willing to make a deal with Iran and so did the others. The only reason it didn’t happen during the last 8 years, was because the previous administrative didn’t agree to the west’ terms.”

    My understanding is that it was in fact the internal enmity against Ahmadinejad that stopped him from making a deal. He was willing and so was the West. In fact he was willing to ship out the 3.5% waste in exchange for 20% medical isotope.

  465. Karl.. says:


    November 27, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Open interpretation? Complete nonsense. The text is there for anyone to read.
    You really think west or Iran would be so stupid that they dont agree to the wording/meaning of agreements?!

    There is no peace with Iran.

    US wont leave middle east anytime soon and you are wrong if you think US will start attacking China or vice versa.

  466. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 27, 2013 at 1:06 pm


    If you are using “forced to attack” in place of “choose to attack in order to alleviate political pressure”, then it is very poor use of language. It deprives the “actor” from the opportunity to accept responsibility for the “action”.

  467. Rd. says:

    Neo says:

    “No Karl, the content of the
    The important thing is the intention behind the deal. Whether the pessimist in you likes it or not, the West NEEDS to make peace with Iran, and it HAS done so.”

    Perhaps another way to highlight the deal to the pessimist point of view is; if the deal is viewed as a football match with undesired results, then just consider, Iran moved up to the next round.

    it is not just about the score board..

  468. James Canning says:


    Obama apparently saw the “need” to attack Syria with missiles, to avoid eroding his ability to deter Iran from trying to build nukes. In this way, he would have been “forced” to attack Syria, had not the deal to get rid of Syrian CW come along.

    You will have noticed that quite a few of those who post on this site, have claimed Obama is only bluffing (regarding his determination that Iran not build nukes).

  469. James Canning says:


    You may recall that Britain felt “forced” to declare war on Germany, after Germany invaded Belgium (and Luxembourg) in 1914.

  470. James Canning says:


    Ahmadinejad’s tendency to make comments etc that were unnecessarily inflammatory, made it easier for neocons and others to block any deal between P5+1 and Iran, during the G W Bush administrations.

  471. James Canning says:


    Your explanation for reasoning behind Iran’s announcement of intent to treble production of 20% U is __________________.

  472. James Canning says:

    “People close to the current government say [that Ahmadinejad] was feeding Mr Khamenei a distorted picture [of the Iranian economy]. When a credible assessment was handed to his office two months ago, says one government adviser, the leader was ‘astonished’.”
    Roula Khalaf, writing in the Financial Timess Nov 27

  473. Jay says:


    I suggest a reading of your former lord chief justice Tom Bingham’s book “Rule of Law” would be helpful to you.

    International law and norms of practice does not lend support to your political definition of “forced to”.

  474. James Canning says:


    I have not contended Obama would have been conforming to international law, if he had hit Syria with missiles in wake of Aug 21 CW event. And I opposed any such attack.

    The US encourages Israel to trample on international law, day after day after day.

  475. James Canning says:


    For that matter, I do not think the US attack on Gaddafi conformed to international law. Others may disagree.

  476. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 27, 2013 at 6:36 pm and 6:38 pm

    As former lord chief justice succinctly points out, the colloquial notion of being compelled to respond (or defend) is hopelessly flawed. As you concede, the idea that Mr. Obama had been “forced” to respond would not have had any legal force, and having not been of necessity, would not have been qualified as “forced” to respond in the legal sense – as I said, perhaps in a convenient political sense.

  477. kooshy says:

    From what I understand this is correct Iran has had this capability for many years and nothing can change that

    Iran Deal: 10 Facts You
    May Have Overlooked
    by Gary Sick

    In the avalanche of reportage and commentary on the nuclear deal with Iran, here are a few tiny facts that may have escaped your notice:

    1. France’s President François Hollande made his triumphal trip to Israel (a hero because he put a speed bump in the way of an agreement); a few days later, France returned to the negotiations and quietly signed the text. Can he still wear his hero medal?

    2. Opponents of the deal denounce the “shredding” of the United Nations Security Council resolutions (which demanded that Iran stop all enrichment) but fail to notice that all five Permanent Members of the Security Council negotiated and signed off on the text. These are the same countries that passed those resolutions.

    3. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just a year ago used a cartoon drawing of a bomb to illustrate that Iran was getting perilously close to a nuclear weapon; the agreement moves Iran far away from his famous red line. Is that a “historic mistake?”

    4. Netanyahu in 1992 said that if no one intervened Iran would have a bomb within five years — and he has been saying the same thing ever since. He has been consistently wrong for more than two decades.

    5. If you look carefully at the words of the opposition, you’ll see that they base all their objections on the supposition that Iran will renege on its commitments and the US will acquiesce. Do they have an alternative? Whining is not a policy.

    6. The dog that didn’t bark: since the last Iranian election there has not been one peep from our old friend Ahmadinejad. Several American politicians who relish conflict in the Middle East have said they miss him. I don’t.

    7. The other dog: the strangely silent Revolutionary Guards. Ditto.

    8. Have you noticed how many of the people opposing the nuclear agreement are the same ones who thought invading Iraq was a nifty idea? War good; talk bad.

    9. Iran is so determined to build a nuclear weapon that it renounces them under any and all circumstances, reduces its production of enriched uranium, and invites the largest group of inspectors in history to monitor its activities. Hmmmm…

    10. Iran has been able to build a nuclear device for at least seven years and has not done so. In the eyes of some that is absolute proof of their deviousness.

  478. Neo says:

    Karl.. says: November 27, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    “Open [to] interpretation? Complete nonsense. The text is there for anyone to read.”


    The Bible says: thou shalt not kill.

    Christians and Jews interpret it as: thou shalt not kill unless you want to

    The Charter of the UN states that all nations are sovereign and equal in their international rights.

    The permanent UN Security Council members add: …but some are more equal than others.

    The NPT states that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy.

    Kerry says: no they don’t.

    Everything in life is open to interpretation. Just look at all the religious sects fighting each other, over the same text, over the same god…

  479. Neo says:


    The biggest blunder is that you habitually elect and then reelect war criminals to lead your country. I guess it’s in your blood?

  480. Neo says:

    Rd. says: November 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm


    well put! the only part in the agreement that can be described as a retreat by Iran is the suspension of Arak for 6 months.

    It’s no more than a clever tactical move to get to the next round, as you put it.

    I’d say that Iran is currently at the top of a league of 7 because of a superior goal difference!

  481. Karl.. says:


    This isnt the bible but a an agreement between 2 parties.

  482. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 28, 2013 at 3:39 am

    You’ll enjoy this:

  483. paul says:

    It seems to me that Iran has given up a lot, for not much. It seems suddenly popular to blame Ahmadinejad for the confrontation between the US and Iran. The US is the one that has been driving that confrontation. Rouhani’s concessions carry the implication that Iran’s activities have in fact been, at the very least, suspicious. As for Obama, he has finally sought a deal when he could have had a deal at any time with Ahmadinejad, and in fact in at least one case that we know of had a deal handed to him on a silver platter. Why now? Why now is Iran suddenly willing to offer up a chunk of its sovereignty on a silver platter to Obama, and why now is Obama, who up to this point has absolutely adored bombing other countries, seemingly willing to forsake bombs, seeking agreements? It’s all so strange. I think the bottom line is that the US wants in on Iranian oil and there is a faction in Iran, a very powerful faction, that is quite eager to go along with this.

    But the important thing that everyone seems to be losing sight of is that Obama could have had a deal at any time. He even had one handed to him. So why now? And please, don’t blame it on Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad was nowhere near as unreasonable as he has been painted, and never has the US been unwilling to deal with unreasonable leaders anyway.

    I think part of the answer is oil and part of the answer is Iran being now willing to give up sovereignty (we have seen how allowing inspectors in worked out for Saddam, for example) and part of the answer is simply that Obama got pushed off the war train and happened to fall on the peace train…

  484. paul says:

    Another point that I don’t see being made in the rush to declare the Iran deal a step forward for peace: the US was conducting an illegitimate economic war against Iran. Iran was engaged in legitimate nuclear operations. The US agreed, basically, to not ratchet up its illegitimate economic warfare for a little while. Iran agreed to substantially ramp down its legitimate nuclear operations for a while. See how Iran gave up a lot and the US didn’t? And how does the cause of peace benefit when this ‘peace’ negotiation seems to demonstrate that savage economic warfare by the US against a nation it doesn’t like, accompanied by the constant threat of open war, and apparently various covert and proxy operations of war, is a perfectly legitimate way for a nation to behave?

  485. Don Bacon says:

    Another tiny fact that the media gets wrong is when they call the IAEA “UN watchdog.”

    Actually the IAEA was a creation of the NPT for the sole purpose of ensuring non-diversion of nuclear fuel to weapons programs. The IAEA is NOT a UN agency and it is NOT an overbearing “watchdog.”

  486. Karl.. says:


    Probably bad economy made Iran surrender in my opinion. I think iran like Qadaffi once thought that one would gain something by agreeing to these kind of deals.

  487. Don Bacon says:

    The fact that Iran’s nuclear program will remain unaffected by the Geneva accord, and that Iran will experience a remarkable relief from the sanctions shows that the Iranian diplomacy is working effectively. — Kourosh Ziabari

  488. Don Bacon says:

    Iran and the United States are to establish a joint chamber of commerce within a month, with direct flights also planned, an Iranian official said Wednesday in a newspaper report.

  489. Don Bacon says:

    All Turkish banks will be able to make Iranian transactions as sanctions on Iran are eased in the wake of a deal between Tehran and six world powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear programme, Turkey’s economy minister said on Thursday.

  490. kooshy says:

    One would think the reason Iran has and will survive past this last 3000 years is just because Iranians are pragmatic and practical, with that in mind and what ayatollah Khamenie prepared our nation with before this nuclear agreement, which in his term is a heroic flexibility, let us figure out what just happened and if there are less expensive better choices than taking a strategic advantage by showing and using a tactical flexibility.

    One can’t ignore “still” there is this biggest power in planet ( a big gorilla in the room) although her power is receding but still holds plenty of political, economic, and military power that can and will create headache for Iran for many years to come. This unleashed gorilla has made some bad calls and has cornered himself by saying no enrichment no centrifuges we will bomb we will kill, etc, etc for years, he knows he is in trouble by putting himself out like that and he wants a way out a face saving way out, now what is a best way for Iran to deal with this gorilla to continue challenging his might till he is broken and in his way down gives you more headache or even brake a few more body parts or show some heroic flexibility a tactical move getting him out of our way.

    I think Iranians and ayatollah Khamenei wisely saw an opportunity to use some tactical flexibility to see is they can win on technical points instead of risking for a total knockout. That is what just happened Iran didn’t give up anything since Iran’s intentions is not to be an overt nuclear state. With now fully accepting enrichment in Iran by way of negotiating with Iran to keep her enrichment temporarily at some level, Temporarily halting production on levels you don’t really need which will serve as an act of face saving for the gorilla power own internal use which for years at a high cost to his own and his allies has insisted no enrichment in Iran is a little cost by Iran in a heroic flexibility tactic that SL was telling us. He knew (through secret negotiations that had started before Iran’s new administration) what was happening and how much and how little non-strategic temporary flexibility is good to be thrown to guerrilla to let him go away in a face saving way, and if he didn’t Iran has not lost anything as Mr. Gary Sick knows and the known knowns know, Iran has had a capability for number of years that can’t be taken away.

    Iran has not given up any of her NPT rights Iran has temporarily and voluntarily agreed to cap some activities for 6 month let say for nothing for zero dollar per head imagine if this tactical move will make the gorilla save face and give up and leave you alone is worth trying.

  491. A-B says:

    I just listened to RT crosstalk (Iran: Good Deal?) with poo-pee Escobar; I was wrong! He fails gum-bu-leet-ly [that is ‘completely’ for your ears] on item 3 in my list: he is a fanatical anti-Ahmadinejad greenie; same with the [Gary] Sick guy; maybe he’s a sick sheep afraid of the dogs!


  492. Bibijon says:


    Karl and Paul,

    I assume you want Iranian readers to feel bad about and ultimately oppose the current “joint plan of action” and whatever winds up being the final agreement. In the process you make Obama out to be the supreme strategist, and the victor. Not to detract anything from Obama, but …

    That this is not a surrender ought to be obvious. But, lets consider a few issues. Iran has “rights” including nuclear rights such as the inalienable rights (e.g. enrichment), as well as NPT-granted rights (e.g. assistance from NWS). All rights come with responsibilities, e.g. not to provoke insecurity, pollute the environment, jeopardize safety etc.

    Sorry to be stating the bleeding obvious, but any nation should exercise her rights while taking other nations’ legitimate concerns seriously. If we add to this the fact that it is not in Iran’s interests for her neighbors to entertain any doubts about Iran’s intentions — doubts which may may lead to runaway proliferation with profound security disadvantages to Iran, then you begin to see why Iran for years has been offering exact same deal, in fact even before the sanctions.

    I cannot claim any originality as Hassan Rohani wrote in Time on May 09, 2006:,8599,1192435,00.html

    Hope all this clarifies how a “responsible” nation behaves.

  493. James Canning says:


    Once again you indicate a remarkable lack of understanding of Libya’s business dealings with “Europe”, in the years following Gaddafi’s agreement to get rid of WMD.
    Numerous deals. Things would have moved along faster, but for the tendency of the Gaddafi family to try to gain much if not most of the economic benefits of proposed deals.

  494. James Canning says:


    What is your estimate of the value to Iran’s economy, of what Iran “gave up” to achieve the deal? Any value whatever? And what is your estimate of the value of what Iran may gain, as result of the deal?

  495. James Canning says:


    What country are you talking about? You think Cameron is a “war criminal”? Obama? Someone else?

  496. James Canning says:


    I find it peculiar that you seem to think I somehow am to blame, for Obama’s position taken in the wake of CW event in Syria Aug. 21st. When I opposed a US missile strike on Syria.

    But, getting rid of Syrian CW surely is a good thing. You agree?

  497. James Canning says:


    Once again, do you have an explanation for the thinking behind Iran’s announcement of intent to treble production of 20% U? Surely you have a point of view on this issue.

  498. Fiorangela says:

    Bibijon says:
    November 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    What a mature statement.

    Thank you.

    Thank you Iran for teaching the world how to behave responsibly. You have been forced to endure great hardship for your efforts.

  499. James Canning says:

    “Netanyahu’s harsch condemnation of the deal made in Geneva. . . will only serve to reinforce the view among US policymakers and in particular President Obama that they’re on the right track.”
    Michael Cohen, writing in the Guardian Nov 26th

  500. Karl.. says:

    November 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Giving up your rights for nothing is indeed a surrender, btw US dont recognize the NPT for Iran.

  501. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 28, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    I find it peculiar that you give Obama cover for decisions he makes by using the suggestive colloquial “forced”.

    Yes, I do find the removal and dismantling of all weapons of destruction a good outcome.

  502. James Canning says:


    I adamantly opposed any US missile strike against Syria. How am I giving Obama “cover”, by saying what his thinking appears to have been?

  503. James Canning says:


    What is your response, to those who argued that if Obama failed to hit Syria with some missiles, his determination to prevent Iran from building nukes would be seen as having been undermined? Remember, a number of those who post on this site argue that Obama was bluffing.

  504. James Canning says:


    And how much economic loss to Iran, from not having its full NPT rights recognised? Zero? Something more than nothing?

  505. James Canning says:

    Peter Oborne has an excellent piece at the Daqily Telegraph ( “Iran nuclear deal: ill-informed friends of Israel are refusing to fact facts”.

    Oborne notes that the Conservative Friends of Israel claimed: “the world’s most dangerous regime has taken a signficant step towards obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon.” Rubbish, of course.

  506. James Canning says:

    “Another fight on [Bijan Namdar Zanganeh’s] hands is the urgent, and politically senitive reform of energy subsidies, which cost the government $80bn a year. ‘You can’t ignore this figure, said Mr Zanganeh. ‘We can’t continue in this manner.'”
    Interview of Iran’s oil minister, in the Financial Times Nov 27th

  507. kooshy says:

    Fior / Bibi

    Since the Geneva Agreement the Israeli propaganda machine is now working on both sides, one side headed by the Israeli politicians and their western lobby operatives is portraying western appeasement and the loss to west to backup and help making it easier for their political apparatchiks in the western capitals trying to break up the agreement on this end. A second group mostly made up of supporters of Israel is tasked to make the Iranian side feel that has lost her sovereignty and independence by signing to Turkmanchai this group mostly relies on the social media and blogs that Iranian frequent since they don’t have much penetration in Iran’s political class or media. This was expected, I don’t expect they can change anything for time being everything is going against the if nothing substantial happens. At this time it looks like the US military has finally overcome the paid Israel lobby paid US congress.

  508. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    I told you once already, the reason who end up spewing crap is because you know that you can neither overthrow the Islamic Republic democratically and peacefully nor can you do it undemocratically and violently.

    Unfortunately for you, the vast majority Iranian people believe in God, the Prophet (sawas), the Imams (as), Islam, Sharia in Imam Khomeini the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic.

    These are the “facts”. “Superstition” would be closer to the view of those who “believe” otherwise. Hey we all have our “beliefs”, right?

    And no you and whoever you do taqlid of are wrong and have been wrong for 35 years about “the foreign enemy” thesis.

    As pointed out to you by others every administration since Rafs has publicly and openly stated that we would be open to relations with the US.

    More important than that Imam and Agha- may God continue to bless us with their political-religious leadership- have always said that if the US gov changes its attitude we can have relations.

    I’m afraid you will have to grasp for other straws to fulfill your phantasy of the end of the IRI.

    Keep trying, think of some other things and keep them coming- chances are I will have an answer to dispel these delusions as well.

    So your appearance of tolerance for me leaves me unmoved as I know what your heart desires for me and the likes of me.

    As Imam Ali (as) said about Ibn Muljam- may God curse him: “I want his life and he wants my death”.

    The fact that we agree on so many things also leaves me unmoved. As things stand currently you are going to hell definitely and I’m going to hell probably- with hope that God will forgive my many sins and vast ignorance just for the fact that I was not so arrogant as to deny Him.

    You see it’s not your sins that will be your problem over there, it will be your arrogance that denied the possibility and probability of His existence.

    There is a big difference between somebody who says, I’m not sure, I’m confused about certain matters relating to You, I don’t like the behavior of those who claim to follow you- but I don’t deny you and the possibility of you…there is a big difference between that and somebody you “behaves well”, “is good” but denies his existence.

    Try to be of the first kind.

    And please don’t put me in the same category as yourself concerning nationalism. Your nationalism is the spiritual equivalent of polytheism and devil worship.

    The only reason Iran is worth defending is because it is the land of Ahlul Bayt and the Shia fortress of Imam Zaman- may God hasten his appearance.

    Without Ahlul Bayt Iran has no intrinsic value.

    I guess we are different after all, right?

    Also I have said to you before that denying absolute reality/truth/God/whatever you want to call- is the peak of irrationality.

    First go learn and understand the precise meaning of “rationality” and then I would be happy to discuss anything to your hearts content.

    Hint: it’s different than “empiricism” which itself is based on “rational” non-empirical assumptions.

    I’m happy you seek to understand things from your own judgement which would mean you don’t want to do intellectual taqlid. Don’t just repeat what you have read and heard. If you REALLY don’t believe in God than become a leading expert in it, not just a parrot repeating things you don’t really understand.

    How dumb to spend eternity in hell for somebody else’s irrationality.

    Anyway, God out of His vast mercy and love for you has given you time on this earth to think about things thoroughly.

    Try not to die as a kafer. A good place to start is to go figure out the literal meaning of kafer.

    I pray to God- by the blessedness of Imam Hussein (as)- that I don’t die as a kafer.

  509. Jay says:

    Nearly one hundred and fifty years ago, another man, standing with his conviction, having endured withering criticism, and under far more trying circumstances, stated it eloquently, that, “…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…”

    Mr. Obama is forced only to the extent that he does not have the courage of his convictions. The test of leadership ultimately is to strive to “do the right thing” irrespective of what some may argue.

    If Mr. Obama chooses to bend to the political wind, that is his choice – Lincoln chose not to bend.

    Convenience is not a defense for bad acts.

  510. Jay says:

    The above message was directed to James
    James Canning says:
    November 28, 2013 at 3:55 pm

  511. Rehmat says:

    On May 18, 2010, I warned Iranian leaders that the world powers have no intention to accept Iranian position concerning its civilian nuclear program. These powers are putting a trap to disarm Iran’s nuclear capability in order to make its easier for them to invade Iran and bring a pro-western regime change as they did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I was not much off the mark then. Now after more than three years, Tony Cartalucci, has come to the same conclusion. He says the so-called P5+1 deal with Iran is prelude to war.

    “The West has no intention of striking any lasting deal with Iran, as nuclear capabilities, even the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran was never truly an existential threat to Western nations or their regional partners. The West’s issue with Iran is its sovereignty and its ability to project its interests into spheres traditionally monopolized by the US and UK across the Middle East. Unless Iran plans on turning over its sovereignty and regional influence along with its right to develop and use nuclear technology, betrayal of any “nuclear deal” is all but inevitable, as is the war that is to shortly follow,” he said.

    “Exposing the duplicity that accompanies Western “efforts” to strike a deal will severely undermine their attempt to then use the deal as leverage to justify military operations against Iran. For Iran and its allies, they must be prepared for war, more so when the West feigns interest in peace. Libya serves as a perfect example of the fate that awaits nations reproached by the West who let down their guard – it literally is a matter of life and death both for leaders, and for nations as a whole,” he said.

  512. Don Bacon says:

    This latest agreement was between the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Iran. It wasn’t a “western effort,” and it concedes Iran’s peaceful nuclear program virtually intact.

    So all your claptrap about the West and an impending invasion is irrelevant.

  513. Bibijon says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 28, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    No. Nobody has given up any rights.

    A more interesting conversation (with you) would be about the fate of Netanyahu, his die-hard supporters, and their ideology.

    The Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood is reporting that the doom monger in-chief, Netanyahu, was prophetic after all: his own political doom.


    For years now, an entire Iran Demonization Industry has been funded, and lavished with political and media support to wipe Iran off the map. The Industry’s CEO has been Mr. Netanyahu. Under his stewardship, who knows how many politicians, journalists, editors, and pundits have been paid or otherwise coerced into saying what they had been saying all these years. Who knows what political capital, and how many $billions have been spent on the ‘wipe Iran off the map’ propaganda effort.

    Then it turns out that Obama was using Netanyahu’s Iranphobia to drive a wedge between Iran and India/Russia/China. Once that was accomplished, US had no further use for the Industry, nor her CEO; started negotiating in secret to align Iran’s interests with that of the US. Add to that the fact that after all the propaganda against Iran which must have cost the Industry a lot, opinion survey after survey reveal significant majorities support putting Iran on the map. This is not just a colossal waste of money on a propaganda machine, the intensity of the propaganda must have had majority of Americans roll the eyes in disgust; subliminally the Industry has achieved the opposite of their goal: folks view Israel as irrational, dangerous, etc. It is hard not to interpret the opinion polls this way.

    Karl, do you think it is time for the Industry to hold a shareholders meeting?

  514. paul says:

    Don Bacon seem seems to be claiming that if the US and Israel and allies hadn’t been stoking this fake controversy over Iran for years, China and Russia would have done it anyway. Does anyone other than rabid supporters of US hegemonics also claim to think this? Differently put, isn’t it ludicrous?

    Don Bacon also seems to claim that no nation should leave any other nation doubts that it might have any negative intentions. Well that is a fine idea – if it’s applied to all nations. When applied to one nation, what is it? The behavior of a responsible nation, as Bacon claims? Or is it the appeasing behavior of a nation that lies bleeding at the feet of a bunch of bullies?

    I mean, really! In this situation, just this situation, taken by itself, both the US and Israel have repeatedly threatened war, and have carried their threats at least as far as staging ominous exercises repeatedly, piling up weapons all around amongst allies, and massing forces repeatedly. Is that the behavior of nations that are responsible, and that want to avoid any possible perception that they may have negative intentions?

    Again, how ludicrous.

    If the US and Israel hadn’t been pushing this charade, Russia and China would surely have had nothing to do with it. Still, it’s significant that Russia and China have basically signed on every step of the way. I think this reflects several factors. One is that they, like Iran, are ringed with US and allied military threats, could be subjected to further proxy wars (Russia has already tasted this in Chechnya according to reports, and China ditto in its western regions) and they could also face economic war such as was applied to Iran. They would be bigger, tougher targets, but that doesn’t mean they particularly want to be in the crosshairs of the hegemon.

    We have to use the word “hegemon” these days. It’s frowned on if you say “empire”, though that would probably be more honest.

    The more one thinks about this deal between Iran and the US (and that’s what it is), the more it looks like a mugging. Iran made a lot of major concessions, and the US gave up a couple of bucks, basically. That would seem to show how desperate Iran has become. Many in the US seem to want to crow about this. Obama, they want to claim, has finally shown that he was a peacemaker all along. Consider that it took the US nearly severing the ties between Iran and the global economy to bring Iran to its knees; that was an economic war, and it shows how powerful the US’ (and allied) global position continues to be. It remains a colossus astride the global trade routes. Based some trumped up allegations, which even if true wouldn’t amount to much, they were able to force/cajol the rest of the world to exclude Iran from the global economy. Wow. They were able to put a whole nation, a very large and powerful nation, under seige.

    But what is even more ‘wow’ is that so many supposed ‘progressives’ and ‘lefties’ in the US not only seem to support this, but seem to praise Obama for his peacefulness, and even his ‘effectiveness’! One year after the brutal attack on Libya, one week after nearly doing the same to Syria, and possibly unleashing global war with Russia and China, Obama stretched out his hand and allowed desperate Iran to fall into his open palm. And this is a good thing? Well, it’s better than bombing Iran, yes. Yes, a club to the back of the head is better than a bullet to the head.

    Still, it’s a fairly good bet that bombing Iran will still happen. US posturing suggests that the concessions already made by Iran will have to go much, much further to satisfy the US’ hunger for dominion. Some of the slightly more reasonable folks here defending the deal say that Iran can always walk the concessions back themselves, if the US and its allies don’t negotiate in good faith. No they can’t. That’s easy to say in words, that Iran could back out, but it would be nearly impossible in reality. In the real world, Iran has painted itself into a corner for a couple of bucks. They have commited themselves to surrender, and the US has not even committed itself to accepting Iran’s surrender.

    So let’s say Iran decided to tell the UN inspectors to leave, while restarting its various programs, how would that go over? Would the US shrug its shoulders and say ‘well, ok, that was your right. We’ll just go back to the negotiating table’? Obviously not. No, it would be portrayed as the ultimate repudiation of peace by Iran, and basically as an invitation to war. No Iran, can’t walk away from the concessions it has already made. It will be forced to make more. Many more.

    That could change if Russia and China step up, finally, and establish some solidarity with Iran, forcing the US and its allies to back off. If they had any sense, they’d have done this long ago, but they are locked into an endless and endlessly hopeless double game, trying to appease the hegemon and its allies on one side, while trying to pose as a defender of little countries on the other, as a kind of balancing force to the rampages of the hegemon. They won’t likely stick out their noses very far for Iran at this point, now that Iran has entered the US’ cattle pen.

    “But”, praisers of the deal say, “Iran has gained acknowledgement of its right to enrich fuel!” Really? Technically, that was never denied to them, I think. The right itself is an abstraction though. How it gets worked out in reality either gives an abstract right real existence or denies it. It’s like freedom of speech. If you technically have freedom of speech, but can only exercise it at times, and in ways that are chosen by the state (eg. ‘free speech zones’ and the like), does it exist in reality? If Iran has the right to enrich uranium, but only in ways that are watched over and hedged in by the US, then does it?

    Already Iran has thrown its gates open for the ‘inspectors’. We saw how that worked out for Iraq.

    Beaten and bleeding, Iran has pled to its mugger for mercy. Well, who can blame them. It’s just strange to see even ‘defenders’ of Iran claiming that, if only one understood the subtleties of geopolitics, you’d see that it’s a fine deal all around, and there’s one even seeming to claim that if you criticize the situation for any reason, you must be an Israeli agent! I think rather that what we need is more people calling on the hegemon to stop its bullying.

  515. Karl.. says:


    Iran gave up its right in this deal, sure its temporary but the permanent deal that is supposed to come next will reduce Iran’s right (no above 3,5% enrichment etc). That is a surrender.


    Well said.

  516. Bibijon says:


    “In 2005, when Iran offered to cap centrifuges at 5,000 so long as it was allowed to continue low-level enrichment of uranium, western governments balked. Not a single centrifuge would spin in Iran, the US said.”

    Today, Iran has around 19,000 centrifuges installed and enrichment levels have been raised to 20 per cent, closer to what is required for military purposes and therefore of greater, and more urgent concern.”

    (From FT: “Iran’s supreme leader keeps his options open with nuclear deal”)

    Oh, so beaten and bleeding!

    “What has changed is that the costs of confrontation with Iran have escalated for the US; the credibility of an all-out attack on Tehran is now vanishingly small; the west’s Arab allies are in turmoil or immersed in an unwinnable regional sectarian war – and Iran holds a key to conflicts the US wants defused or settled, from Palestine to Afghanistan.”


    “The behavior of a responsible nation, as Bacon claims? Or is it the appeasing behavior of a nation that lies bleeding at the feet of a bunch of bullies?”

    Folks realize that the mere appearance of aggressive intent, let alone war mongering bluster will cause other nations to engage in their own militarization, and alliance formations to balance a perceived threat. This is the kind of blowback that sensible realists understand too well. Our Israeli friends in this forum should not try and palm off what has led their country to wallow in self-inflicted abject insecurity to anybody else as some wonderful kind of machismo to aspire to. One apartheid pipsqueak is plenty enough for the world.

  517. Bibijon says:

    “Already Iran has thrown its gates open for the ‘inspectors’.”

    When Seymour M. Hersh Reported June 6, 2011 that:

    “In the past six years [i.e. since 2005], soldiers from the Joint Special Operations Force, working with Iranian intelligence assets, put in place cutting-edge surveillance techniques, according to two former intelligence officers. Street signs were surreptitiously removed in heavily populated areas of Tehran—say, near a university suspected of conducting nuclear enrichment—and replaced with similar-looking signs implanted with radiation sensors. American operatives, working undercover, also removed bricks from a building or two in central Tehran that they thought housed nuclear-enrichment activities and replaced them with bricks embedded with radiation-monitoring devices.

    High-powered sensors disguised as stones were spread randomly along roadways in a mountainous area where a suspected underground weapon site was under construction.”

    I remember thinking Iranian intelligence services must have been watching Americans watching. In other words, Iran for the longest time has seen it to be in her interests for there not to be any doubts about a her threshold capacity, as well as removing any doubts about her lack of intention to militarize that capacity.

  518. Rd. says:

    paul says:

    “But the important thing that everyone seems to be losing sight of is that Obama could have had a deal at any time. He even had one handed to him. So why now?”

    In politics, sometimes, it takes a while for things to fall in their place.. perhaps early next year, the picture will be more clear to look at .

    “UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed was the first of his Gulf counterparts to visit Tehran to show his country’s support, calling for stronger ties between Iran and the UAE — “ties beyond the normal relations between neighbors and partners.”

    Read more:

  519. Rd. says:

    In politics, sometimes, it takes a while for things to fall in their place.. perhaps early next year, the picture will be more clear to look at . or look at the pictures from ten years ago to today.

    “He believes that the West won tactically, while Iran strategically from the accords: “I feel déjà vu from the Western behavior. The West is running into the same trap which caught it in 2003. It believes that once the Iranian program is stopped, it will develop the situation. That’s why no basic sanctions were eliminated. It seems sanctions will be loosen, but the crisis won’t be resolved. The first step was made due to Iran, but there is no future for the settlement. The accords don’t enable to form a basis for further development. $7 billion which could be given to Iran is such a minimum for the big state. Iran needs absolutely different money for development. The West made a mistake, insisting on a deadlock approach which was implemented in 2003. Then, for two years Iran hadn’t been enriching uranium, but in the end we returned to the situation which we have today.”

  520. Karl.. says:

    Read that Iran/Argentine talks on AMIA is ongoing, hopefully a deal there could reduce any accusations that iranian government was involved.

  521. Fiorangela says:

    Not beaten and bleeding.

    Each time USIsrael said to Iran, “STOP or else we’ll punch you harder,” Iran said NO and put on another padded shirt.

    All that is happening now is Iran is being “forced” to take off the shirts — that were impairing its freedom of movement anyway.

    The US & Israel are on trial here: Israel has already failed, and not just via Netanyahu’s hissy fit. Dennis Ross was in a conference the other day at which the extremely clever Mr. Ross propounded the same strategy he, and Naftali Bennett, and Netanyahu, and Bill Kristol, and every ziobot down the line has declaimed for years. They really should team up with Tim LaHaye and write another Left Behind book.

    If Obama cannot deliver the US Congress, then what? THAT is the question.

    I don’t really believe the citizen response to proposal to bomb Syria is what stayed Obama’s hand; citizen outcry re Iraq did not stop Bush, and it was worldwide; citizen opposition to the bank bailout was massive and vocal — and ignored.

    The US Congress is on trial in the eyes of the world. At stake is the economic future of the US. Stuart Levey and Juan Zarate — and Dennis Ross— think that running around the world twisting arms to keep transnational corporations from doing business with the 73 million-strong Iranian market is a kewl game for “guerillas in grey suits” who see the world as their gameboard. But the US is running out of ability to consume sufficiently to absorb all the product that industrializing states supply. Bottom lines trump grey-suited frat boys. Time for Levey, Ross, Zarate et al to retire to some stolen settlement in the West Bank.

  522. Photi says:

    Paul, your attempts at framing the deal as a sucker’s deal for Iran is a) ad hominem and b) is based on your own ideas of where Iran’s nuclear program should go, not on Iran’s stated goals of its nuclear research, which is for peaceful purposes.

    The international acceptance of uranium enrichment within Iran is of significant value to Iran’s energy research program. Enrichment levels are one of the main tension points in this manufactured dispute. This was a liability for Iran which is now gone. Iranian officials have been saying for at least a couple of years now that 20% is negotiable. If you remember from years past, Iran was forced to undertake the enrichment of 20% when it could not secure the fuel to operate the TRR. The Iranians wanted to BUY the fuel, not produce it, but the US kept blocking any progress on attempts by Iran to BUY this necessary fuel. I think Iran sees 20% enrichment as an unnecessary liability to its nuclear energy program (so long as it has enough fuel for the TRR). they were forced to 20% enrichment to begin with due to the US and Israeli insistence on zero-enrichment.

    re: the inspectors, no deal can be reached without them, and so this is a burden Iran will have to carry and they will have to limit the security breach as much as possible. Despite being inherently vulnerable to espionage, “open societies” are more progressive than closed societies, and are the innovation leaders of science and technology in the modern world. Open societies, if organized and governed properly, set the potential of their human resources in motion. America and Iran are two nations in motion. the opening between the Iranian government and the American government begins to clear the way for a more harmonious mingling of the motions of our two nations..

  523. James Canning says:


    When Obama was considering a missile attack on Syria, this was not a welcome programme in the eyes of the American public. Political expendiency was not the driving factor.

    Do I take it you agree Obama’s concern that failing to “punish” Syria would erode the credibility of his stance on Iran, was reasonable? I personally did not see things that way, however.