Obama’s Failure to Make the Strategic Case for an Iran Nuclear Deal: The Leveretts on CNN and CNBC

The Iran nuclear talks may be getting close to some sort of conclusion in Vienna, but American political and policy elites remain, to an appallingly large extent, clueless as to what is really at stake in the negotiations.  (This was a significant theme yesterday in Hillary’s appearance on CNN, see here, and in Flynt’s appearance on CNBC, see here, to discuss the Vienna talks.)  And, while the headline from a recent NBC News poll notes that Americans favor an Iran nuclear deal by a “2 to 1” margin, in fact, the polls shows that a plurality of Americans say they don’t know what to think about a possible Iran nuclear deal.

These observations underscore a point that we have been making for some time:  President Obama has yet to make the case to his fellow Americans for why an Iran nuclear deal—and, beyond that, a potential realignment of U.S. relations with the Islamic Republic—is not just profoundly in American interests, but is strategically imperative for the United States.

–This failure will almost certainly make it more difficult for Obama (and his successor) to implement a deal.

–Furthermore, this failure will severely circumscribe the strategic benefits that the United States can accrue from a deal.

At the moment, many American elites convey particular distress over the Obama administration’s inability simply to dictate the terms of a prospective United Nations Security Council resolution that would endorse a final nuclear agreement and, to help implement such an agreement, remove international sanctions previously authorized by the Council against the Islamic Republic.

–In its approach to drafting a new Security Council resolution, the Obama administration has been demanding that previously authorized limits on exports of conventional weapons and missile-related technology remain in place.  Iran, for its part, resists any text that would imply its “acceptance” of continuing international sanctions.  Moreover, Russia and China are not going along.

–Likewise, Moscow and Beijing have rejected the Obama administration’s demand that UN sanctions be lifted only for six months at a time, subject to renewal—renewal which the United States, on its own, could veto, thus realizing U.S. ambitions to be able to “snap” sanctions back into place without being blocked by Russia and China.

That the Obama administration has been pushing these positions reveals much of what is so fundamentally wrong with the U.S. approach to diplomacy with Iran.  As Flynt pointed out on CNBC, “This was an approach that not only were the Iranians going to object to it, but I don’t think the administration ever had a serious chance of getting consensus within the P5+1, among the permanent members of the Security Council…It was foolish, really, for the administration to take those positions on those issues.”  Yet these are the positions the administration took, and now it must either find a way to walk back from them or (foolishly) embrace diplomatic impasse.

Of course, this reflects weakness on Obama’s part—but not the sort of weakness for which neoconservatives and others constantly lambaste him.  As Hillary noted on CNN,

“We have tried [the interventionists’] version of strength—invading Iraq; invading Libya; occupying Afghanistan for more than a decade; arming, training, and funding various jihadis in Syria and all across the Middle East.  And all it has brought us is damage to ourselves.

The real strength would be, just like Nixon and Kissinger went to China and accepted the People’s Republic of China, we need to go to Tehran, as we wrote in our book, and make our peace with Iran.  It will help us.  It will resurrect our position in the Middle East and around the world.  And if we don’t, we will see ourselves continue to flail across the Middle East and around the world…

The Islamic Republic of Iran is here to stay, like the People’s Republic of China.  What we need to recognize is that rising Iran, just like rising China, is a strong, independent power.  And we need to work with them, not constantly try to bring them down and align with other countries like Saudi Arabia that get us into strategic disaster after strategic disaster.”

But that is precisely what Obama has been unwilling to do.  Could the United States still “walk away” from the process?  As Hillary said on CNN, “A decision by the United States to ‘walk away,’ to cut off talks with Iran would be just as strategically damaging, if not more so, to the United States than the decision to invade IraqIt would have enormously devastating consequences for the United States in the Middle East, keep us on a trajectory to get into one never-ending, unwinnable war after anotherAnd it would have repercussions for us globally, in economic terms and military terms.”

Stay tuned.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett  


74 Responses to “Obama’s Failure to Make the Strategic Case for an Iran Nuclear Deal: The Leveretts on CNN and CNBC”

  1. Karl.. says:


    A friendly tip, unless you have a bandwidth issue I dont see any reason why you should shut down the comment section before any new article has been posted. You lose traffic and the site lose interests since it becomes ‘dead’.


    No artificial deadlines for Iran nuclear talks: Russia

    Ive read that the arms embargo is being debated, apparently US is not willing to lift that.

  2. James Canning says:

    I agree with Karl that it is a good thing to keep the comments section open.

  3. Cyrus_2 says:

    As much as I love to read the analyses of the Leveretts and most comments here, this site really needs a new approach, IMO.
    Why not transform it into a forum where all kinds of topics related to Iran can be discussed?
    The Leverett’s analyses and a news section would get a prominent place.
    Of course, such a forum would need time, money and manpower to maintain/update, but I think you will find plenty of help among your current readers/commentators here.

  4. Karl.. says:


    I fully agree, its time to revamp this site imo too,

    Maybe a forum or atleast some kind of threading management could be added?

    I find it a bit weird that such a great analysis by Leveretts doesnt generate more commentators, we are like, what only 5-6 users here regually commenting, sure not every visitor is commenting but still, it should generate more people.

    Another tip for LEveretts could also be to start a Facebook site, adding your analysis there, and generate interests/comments.

    Another way to spice up the site could be this users question box that the Leveretts could respond to like once a mounth or something.

  5. Rd. says:

    “–This failure will almost certainly make it more difficult for Obama (and his successor) to implement a deal.”

    Perhaps this failure is by design. after all, we are talking about the commander in narcissism! The US is not an honest broker, even if there was to be some signature on some paper.

  6. Fiorangela says:

    Rd. says:
    July 8, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    I choose not to impugn Obama but to take a very close look at the scurrilous Senate and House, and their pig-blind obeisance to rogue state Israel.

    US congressmen are the most thoughtless, easily seduced, unprincipled lot one can imagine.

    To the credit of the American people, the majority do not approve of the job Congress is doing.

    To the shame of the American people, they are doing nothing meaningful to register their displeasure with Congress.

    In my view, the American people have a political and moral responsibility to
    a. Inform themselves appropriately about US policy vis a vis Iran. It is NOT an excuse that MSM is an organ of disinformation; there are plenty of sources for sound, objective information about US policy and the nature of Iran, its history, government, policies, etc.

    b. speak out in every way possible about how MSM disinformation deviates from reality;
    about the perfidy of Congress;
    about how the American people wish, even demand that their nation behave in international affairs.

    These are the obligations of a citizen, they are not the stuff of a hobby or diffident past-time.

    And if speaking out with information that offends some in one’s family, or social circle, or even career, it’s essential to remember two things:

    — the issues are those of life-and-death;
    — the Founders of the USA pledged “their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor.”

    The American people have lived fat and happy on the risks these men made.
    It’s payback time.

  7. Fiorangela says:

    It’s terrific that Hillary Leverett gets a voice on MSM, and she said all the right things to smooth Peter Beinart’s feathers, but it’s more than I could have done.

    Beinart is a fly-weight whose job is to transmit the Israel pov but put an oh-so-moderate/progressive/un-neocon face on it.

    Cuomo is a downright cipher who might well have a button that he taps with his toe to ensure that he repeats the Luntz-defined appropriate number of times, “Iran is bad, Iran can’t be trusted.” I wonder if he wears a collar like a dog inside an invisible fence, and if Cuomo gets a shock to remind him to get the last word and make sure it reinforces a message Cuomo (or his handlers) deem of crucial importance:

    “And Peter’s point is obviously that you also want to harness the domestic discontent in Iran, because that will help create pressure on both sides of the ball.”

    Now sit up and beg, puppy Cuomo; Can you say ‘regime change?’

    Flynt’s interlocutor was far more objective and sophisticated, but she, too, managed to insert her (pre-programmed?) point of view into Flynt’s discourse: “It sounds like you are saying Iran cannot be trusted.”

    Gosh, where did she hear that meme? It was not from Flynt, and he handled it deftly, by refusing to snap at the bait but rather to respond with the objectively verifiable reasons why Iran might experience a wee teensy tiny bit of mistrust of the American negotiators — because they have moved the goal-posts from the April framework agreement.

    C Span invites members of congress to register their position on the Iran deal, and almost to a man/woman, they recite the bullet point, “Iran cannot be trusted.”

    It’s almost like they were handed a script and fed Kibbles-n-bits to reward them for reciting it perfectly.

    I wonder who drew up the bullet points and paid for the Kibbles-n-bits, and was the dog food kosher?

  8. Fiorangela says:

    Hillary and Flynt Leverett have a far better informed understanding of this deal than I do, but I must say, Hillary’s assessment seems to be, “Either a deal or war.”

    I’m not convinced that’s an appropriate analysis.

    Obviously, Iran is not going to initiate a war against the USA.

    If a war is started, it would be by USA or Israel.

    And if so, on what basis? What would be the casus belli — that Iran refused to capitulate to a deal that they discerned was not in their best interest?

    As the three interlocutors in the interviews stated, the US has a larger agenda in what is called a negotiation for a nuclear deal, and they are treating the pressure being applied in the same manner as the tools of a hot war: the US wants regime change, they want the citizens of Iran to comply with US will to overthrow their own government. If the US cannot accomplish this by means of the nuclear deal or of sanctions, then they signal that they will wage a hot war to do so.

    That would be an obvious and blatant act of aggression.

    Moreover, history has demonstrated that no nation’s government has ever been brought to capitulation by attacking its citizens, which is precisely what sanctions are crafted to do, and which is what Cuomo stated is the goal of sanctions and of the pressure being applied via changing the goalposts on a nuclear deal.

    Specifically — the same strategy — to so terrorize the civilian population that they would force their government to capitulate — was the defined strategy of the terror bombing of Germany 1940 – 1945 (see, for example, http colon slash slash www dot c-span.org/video/?196223-1/book-discussion-fire-bombing-germany-19401945 @ about 15 min.

    It was also the strategy and, indeed, the expectation of the George H W Bush team that made the decisions to wage war on Iraq in 1990-91 and the concurrent decision not to march into Baghdad to actively unseat Saddam. As Jeffrey Engel, director of the George Bush Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University stated in a discussion of a book he edited, “Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War,”

    “There’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not AMERICAN FORCES SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED ON TO BAGHDAD in 1991.

    This was not a discussion within the White House FOR a VERY IMPORTANT REASON: THE ULTIMATE GOAL or one of the the ultimate goalS BEYOND THE LIBERATION OF KUWAIT WAS THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER. THERE WAS A 100 PERCENT CERTAINTY on the part of high level American officials THAT THIS was going to HAPPEN ANY WAY.

    Saddam HUSSAIN had been EMBARRASSED; HIS OWN PEOPLE rising up against him, HIS OWN ARMY was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 TIMES OUT OF 1,000 I think THAT IS exactly HOW THINGS WOULD HAVE PLAYED OUT, THAT Saddam WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED.

    Unfortunately FROM THE Bush administration’s PERSPECTIVE, GEORGE H. W. BUSH’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that GIVEN THE QUESTION AND Those ODDS again I suspect THEY WOULD TAKE THE SAME bet again. http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war @ about 50 min

  9. Amir says:

    Fiorangela says:
    July 8, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    What you say is commendable, but what makes you believe the US wouldn’t initiate a war of choice, with a flimsy pretext, and the US public wouldn’t readily buy into it?

    You yourself have said the US public is ignorant (and doesn’t care) and the US government is arrogant.

  10. Fiorangela says:

    Amir, Unfortunately there is a possibility the US would not do just as you say — initiate a war of choice.

    The US Congress is certainly primed to do so.

    I want to believe it would be a harder lift to bring the American people along, but that may be wishful thinking.

    Yes, the American people are easily misled, but some are waking up; some groups are forming to resist the empire; and we do have this blog and our own voices.

    There’s a saying about the Power of One: “Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never tried to fall asleep with a mosquito in the room.”

    The suggestions made above that the Leveretts ramp up this blog are good ideas. Get a whole roomful of mosquitos buzzing around the US Congress.

  11. masoud says:

    I just feel so bad for Javad Zarif. Apparently the sheikh of diplomacy’s diplomatic sheikh has been forced to stoop to participate in yelling bouts in order to get his point of view across.

    It must be hard to go through almost two years of tough direct negotiations to find out at the last minute that the only relief on offer is to last a quarter of the time it took to complete your negotiations. Hopefully though, this will disgust China and Russia enough that they stop waiting for a 5+1 consensus before reestablishing serious financial relations, and Javad can spend the balance of his time as foreign minister on more fruitful endeavors.

  12. masoud says:

    The only real chance the world has of escaping this status quo ante is Rand Paul in 2016.

  13. Amir says:

    Fiorangela says:
    July 8, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    Hmm… I think we (you and I) have two different views about the way the US behaves.
    The US citizens take pride in their perceived Exceptionalism; its politicians nurture and share that perception; its intellectuals think their victory over “the rest” is preordained; their military personnel call themselves the greatest superpower EVER (even though they know there have been greater powers and empires before them, which have succumbed to nothingness); their children and youth are indoctrinated to keep their heads up and walk on earth with pride; we don’t call the US the world arrogance for nothing. There’s nothing wrong with aspiring for greatness, but there’s a lot wrong with losing perspective.

    They call it “hubris”, “the Empire”, “American Exceptionalism” etc, but I think all that is needed is a limited number of defeats, so that maybe some sense would be beaten into the Yanks.

    I think raising awareness of the US public is like reasoning with the deaf; you can’t get your message through. Although that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what you have suggested.

  14. Amir says:

    Forgive me for my naivete, but I think we’re going to have the worst of two worlds in the coming years; (I) not only negotiations wouldn’t result in any meaningful sanction relief, foreign investment or technology transfer, (II) BRICS and SCO wouldn’t throw us any lifelines either; (III) nuclear agreement would be used as a pretext for inspections, espionage, further restrictions and even coercive actions deemed legal, internationally accepted and multilateral enough (as opposed to ad hoc decisions of Bush II term); (IV) a new “dual-containment” policy would emerge, trying to balance Iran and KSA against each other; (V) all of this while we have given up our cards one-by-one.

    Rouhani (Iranian president) is giving a speech at Ufa (joint BRICS and SCO summit) in 24 hours, and I’m sure this cite would be filled with comments about geopolitical significance of the realignment of … whatever, but I think kicking the can down the road should be stopped someday; our problems mostly originate from within, so the solutions need to be developed here, not in Beijing, Washington, or Berlin (or pretty much anywhere else).

    I understand that not everyone on this is Iranian (so they wouldn’t share my concerns) and not all Iranians here live inside Iran (so they wouldn’t see the problems the way I see them). I was just stating my opinion.

  15. Smith says:

    One side of the problem is US economic, political and military establishment still believing in their alliance with fringe groups in the region and the “royal” families. Any colonial power can not shred the cornerstone of its empire just for ethical and moral purposes. Specially if there is no alternative for this colonial power to be replaced by another. Other side of the problem is the masses of middle east who have no practical vision for their own future except perhaps Iran which is directly irrelevant due to it being Shia and non-Arab in its national character.

    This makes US a colonial power presiding over a religious war between very confused people. The next best solution (in retrospective) to a Nixon-Mao option, would be for US to disengage from middle east. There is some (and very weak and obviously not guaranteed-in-future) indication that Obama has opted for this second option. If this happens to be the case, it is even better for Iran. Though rationally not as good for US and definitely detrimental to traditional US allies in the region.

  16. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    June 23, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Italians are great people. Tight families/communities that occasionally look down on each other, religious, abit kalak and definitely with great culture and history. They very much resemble Iranians except in matters of thinking.

  17. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    June 23, 2015 at 9:57 am

    I would say I am agree, Iran can not do anything directly. But I can say based on my empirical observation that Iran can have great influence over the Sunnis, Arab and specially non-Arab. The problem with this 1.5 billion confused people is, they have no ‘domestic’ model to look at and build upon. A progressive, innovative and thinking Iran would be almost an insult to Sunni countries forcing them to change, as there is alot of jealousy between Sunnis and Shias. This jealousy can be put into good use. It can change the destiny of these people.

    I do not think Turkey can be burdened with this. There are only two broad forces in Turkey. Otto-manic and nationalist. One is regressive and the other is for status quo.

  18. Smith says:

    Nasser says:
    June 23, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    Thank you for the courtesy you extended to me. But I think credit should go to Mr Fyi. He is really a beacon of light here.

  19. Smith says:

    Sazman Barnameh va Bodjeh working hard to make Iran’s future bright: http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/433500/Economy/energy

    No need to invest in developing refinery technology when Swiss have already done the hard work.

  20. M.Ali says:

    I think the Leverett’s touch on THE most important factor when it comes to Obama’s approach to Iran. Two years of negotiations is dragging on because the narrative is still that it is a deal to STOP Iran for acquiring nuclear weapons. This means that Obama is giving the impression to his public that he is talking with the bad guys.

    This is fundamentally wrong, and I can’t imagine how even a deal could be in any way helpful, because if it takes 2 years to agree to a frigging thing and then two or three years to implement it, imagine how easily it is t o unravel it? It would take a few weeks to go back to square one, because the narrative isn’t changing.

  21. Smith says:

    Mr Fyi,

    The Cypriot mules were not needed after all. Indigenous solutions were found to keep export of oil going: http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/433558/Economy/energy

  22. Smith says:

    Mr Fyi,

    The laws stay the same: http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/432130/culture/cinema

    Imagine the kid sister of a young entrepreneur in Sweden being imprisoned because her brother’s business failed.

  23. M.Ali says:

    Amir, I agree with what you are saying.

    It’s very obvious now that the deal is useless. From day one, the leader explained that the only useful deal would be a simple, straightforward, clear cut deal. Iran does certain things, and 5+1 removes all sanctions. Not all this silly phase craps.

    I mean, the “good” news a few days back was Amano going to Tehran and coming back, and the headlines said that IAEA could finish its report on Iran’s PMD by end of 2015. How is that good news? That itself shows that report will be used as an excuse to not give us certain relief, and the report will drag on and on and on…

  24. Smith says:

    The intellectual level of our “deep thinkers”: http://www.gharavian.ir/index.aspx?pid=99&articleid=28119#

    With this shallowness, no wonder then.

  25. M.Ali says:

    Great. Was looking forward to the comments section being opened to discuss the current nuclear negotiations with other posters here, and already I have to scroll through Smith’s spam links.

    For the love of anyone, Smith, please please please stop spamming unrelated stuff in this thread. I beg you, I plead with you, I am even willing to proclaim to everyone here that Smith and Fyi and Nasser are the smartest people in this site, just please stop derailing the discussion.

    Why not talk about the topic on hand? I’m sure you have very good points and a lot of value to add to the discussion. You already made your point on cargo cults and Muslims being idiots, no one is disputing it anymore, we all agree that you are right, so please, let’s stop with the off topic stuff.


  26. Smith says:

    Dr Parvez Hoodbhoy on NL Dr Abdus Salam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRHR14yXM48

  27. Smith says:

    I did not know that even the money itself had to be imported: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/world/middleeast/irans-supply-of-currency-may-be-at-risk-in-sanctions.html

    Now that is truly shocking even for a cargo cult. I guess afterwards they started importing from China and Cambodia. Let’s hope the deal gets through only if for this reason alone. After all the country needs its “national” currency.

  28. Smith says:

    درس گرفتن از تجربه تحریم‌ها و آن چه بر سر اقتصاد ایران با رکود در پی آن آمد، قبل از هر چیز نیاز به شناخت و واکاوی ریشه‌ها و دلایل آن دارد. دهه هشتاد، دوران اتکای روزافزون اقتصاد کشور به درآمدهای نفتی و همچنین حاصل از صادرات انواع مواد خام و اولیه دیگر اعم از سنگ آهن، فلزات، تولیدات پتروشیمی و حتی محصولات کشاورزی بود. توسعه صنایع بزرگ کشور منجر به ایجاد اشتغال صنعتی لازم نشد و به رغم همه سرمایه‌گذاری‌های صورت گرفته، در شرایطی که در دهه هشتاد ارزش تولیدات صنایع بزرگ کشور 3.5 برابر شد، نیروی کار شاغل در آنها تغییری پیدا نکرد. در دوره 90-1378 به ترتیب اهمیت سه صنعت خودروسازی، شیمیایی و فلزات اساسی عهده‌دار بیش از نیمی از ارزش افزوده صنعتی ایجادی به شمار می‌روند لذا توام با تضعیف صنایع کوچک و متوسط بخش خصوصی دیده می‌شود به رغم بیش از یک هزار میلیارد دلار درآمدهای نفتی تراز اشتغال کشور صفر بوده و اشتغال صنعتی کاهش داشته است.مقایسه درآمدهای نفتی ایران با سرمایه‌گذاری مستقیم خارجی جهان طی دوره ۸ ساله (92-1384) نشان می‌دهدکه این درآمدها در رتبه پنجم سرمایه‌گذاری مستقیم خارجی جهان قرار گرفته و از کل سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در منطقه آسیای غربی یا آفریقا نیز بیشتر می‌باشد، لذا مشکل کمبود سرمایه و یا منابع نبوده است.

    در سال 1390 سهم بخش‌های مولد (صنعتی و کشاورزی) از کل تولید ناخالص داخلی ایران به 17درصد تنزل یافت که به مراتب کمتر از اغلب کشورها و حتی کشورهای عربی بود و در همین حال سهم ارزش افزوده بخش نفت به 25 درصد رسید. بخش اعظم ارزش افزوده صنعتی از صنایع رانتی بزرگ دولتی و شبه‌دولتی حاصل شد. بخش خدمات که در کشورهای توسعه‌یافته با تکیه بر خدمات صنعتی و خلق ارزش افزوده نقش بسیار مهمی ایفا می‌کند، عملاً در ایران علیه بخش‌های مولد فعالیت کرده است.
    در این سال در شرایطی که بیش از 70 درصد تجارت جهانی مبتنی بر صادرات کالاهای نهایی بود، بیش از 85 درصد صادرات کشور را مواد خام و به همین میزان واردات کشور را کالاهای نهایی تشکیل داد.

    طنز تلخ تاریخ کشور این بود که به رغم تجربیات تلخ نیم قرن اخیر، دولتمردان کشور به ویژه از ابتدای دهه هشتاد، عمق وابستگی اقتصاد کشور به درآمدهای نفتی را هر روز بیشتر کرده و با اخذ سیاست‌های اقتصادی علیه تولید (و به ویژه صنایع کوچک و متوسط بخش خصوصی) از قبیل کاهش نرخ تبدیل ارز حقیقی، تسهیل واردات، افزایش هزینه‌های تولید، عملا با تضعیف بخش مولد اقتصاد کشور را در برابر تحریم‌ها ضربه‌پذیر و شرایط را برای بروز تحریم‌ها مهیا کردند. به‌عبارتی دیگر دولت‌ها با اعمال ساز و کارهای ضد تولید، تحریم‌ها را علیه مردم و به ویژه بنگاه‌های صنعتی کوچک و متوسط بخش خصوصی تشدید کردند که از آن به عنوان خودتحریمی نام برده
    می‌شود. دولت‌ها با تقویت اقتصاد درون‌گرا و برون‌زا زمینه را برای تاثیرگذاری بیشتر تحریم‌ها مساعد کردند. اقتصاد دولتی نفتی دهه هشتاد چه با تحریم‌ها و چه بی‌تحریم‌ها اقتصاد کشور را به دوران رکود تورمی کنونی می‌رسانید.


  29. Smith says:

    Instead of begging for American air support in Iraq against Isis and instead of sending thousands of kids under the chain of Saddam’s tanks maybe it would be better to produce something like this from World War Two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg

  30. Smith says:

    It would still be effective. Americans based the design A-10 on this plane from World War Two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccOXrfBZoLE

    So what’s the problem? Not enough talent?

  31. Sineva says:

    Smith says:
    July 9, 2015 at 5:40 am
    Actually Smith iran loaned its Su25 fleet to the iraqis,also iran doesnt need to build 70 year old dive bombers,thats what the stuka is by the way,when it has literally dozens of aircraft both fixed wing and rotary that it can use as bomb trucks for attacking ground targets both fixed and mobile with pgms both iranian built and foreign supplied

  32. Cyrus_2 says:

    @ Karl

    A Twitter account for the Leveretts would also be helpful to boost this site :-)

    @ M.Ali

    “Was looking forward to the comments section being opened to discuss the current nuclear negotiations with other posters here, and already I have to scroll through Smith’s spam links.”

    That’s why this site needs to transform into a forum, or something alike.

    “the “good” news a few days back was Amano going to Tehran and coming back, and the headlines said that IAEA could finish its report on Iran’s PMD by end of 2015.”

    Gareth Porter has an interesting take on Amano’s visit to Iran:

    Then in the first days of the Vienna talks, Amano had a meeting with Kerry and two meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. That was followed by a quick Amano trip to Tehran to meet with President Hassan Rouhani and Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani.

    The result of the meetings with Amano, according to two Iranian officials who insisted on anonymity to discuss these sensitive negotiations, was an agreement between Amano and Iran that his final report would reflect “two narratives” on the issue of whether Iran had sought nuclear weapons.

    One of the Iranian officials told MEE that Amano had assured the Iranians that the Iranian case against the intelligence that the IAEA has touted in the past would be reflected in his report along with his anticipated repetition of the line taken by the IAEA in past reports.

    The sequence of events clearly indicates that Kerry made it clear to Amano that the United States wants him to issue a report that will contribute to the implementation of the agreement rather than becoming a stumbling block to it.

    If that’s the case, I hope Iran has received iron-clad guarantees from Amano that after December 2015 the PMD issue won’t be further used as an excuse for the current economic warfare against Iran.

  33. Amir says:

    With all respect due, that’s not the answer to Smith’s question. ALL of us and I mean literally every single Iranian living in Iran would be delighted if a working jet engine is developed so that F-5s wouldn’t be canibalized to provide engines (for the domestic jets). Lending Su27 to Iraq is something, mass-producing even the crappiest plane and giving it to Hezbollah (for example) is a totally different thing; keeping our spirit is something, knowing the truth is something else.

  34. Amir says:

    @M. AlI don’t get something; if the negotiations aren’t going to yield anything substantial, what are the negotiators doing? Managing the blaming game? Dividing the P5+1? Removinv hurdles from admission to SCO? Proving that we are not unreasonable?

  35. M.Ali says:

    I think they didn’t think the talks were going to be like this. In the leader’s last major speech that I was listening to, he mentioned that the Americans send Iranians a message through Oman indicating their willingness to remove all sanctions if Iran would play ball. Apparently, this message was sent during Ahmadenijad’s last years.

    Rohani & co thought that it would be an easy victory. Cut down on the holocaust talks, be a bit more diplomatic, and they could achieve an instant diplomatic victory, since it was the Americans THEMSELVES who were giving the offers!

    But once the talks started, they got bogged down, and after it being dragged on and on, they have put all their political capital in it. I think the problem now is WHO can walk out? Imagine being China, Russia, Germany, etc, having spend so much time on these talks, and Iran saying “no deal”? It would make us look like dicks!

    And if Zarif walks out, what else can Rohani offer to his voters?

    Anyway, let’s see the developments today & tomorrow. I’ve always been pessimistic on these talks, but a lot of people here & outside the net have different viewpoints them me. (a lot of them the usual conspiracy drivel, a friend told me a few days back that the deal was already done long time back and USA lost on purpose to Iran as a gift to Iran!!!)

  36. pragmatic says:


    In my humble opinion they are going to sign the agreement. The senate and congress will bark, but they won’t bite. Nonetheless, Barak can veto them. At the same time Iran will bend, but won’t break. The peace with Iran as you want it is there. In due course, all the American corporations are going to come to Tehran. We are about to see a change in the history of the world. 36 years ago Iran was dumped so countries such as Turkey, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain would rise. Now, it’s the time for Iran to rise. When I saw Cameron speech to congress and the way “indirectly” he supported the talks with Iran, I personally got the message!!!

    As you are well aware during the negotiations other topics than a nuclear issue has been discussed between Javad & John, i.e. Bashar Asad! Bashar is about to be history, unless they create an Alvieastan by the strandline of Syria. As I alluded in the previous topic, the Anglo/American elite achieved their main goal, which was separation of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. KSA is in their long term plan. Iran is going back to the golden era of 70’s with one difference, they’ll be more powerful than Imperial Regime.

  37. Sineva says:

    Amir says:
    July 9, 2015 at 7:09 am
    I dont know where you people get the idea that iran has to cannabalise its aircraft for spares,if this were true iran would have no functioning airforce at all as cannibalisation would not provide anywhere near the spare parts required to keep hundreds of airframes and hundreds more engines operational without virtually any us support for over thirty years now,so iran can certainly produce virtually any spare part if not indeed whole engines that any of its us supplied military aircraft need and has probably been able to do this for quite a few years now.As for my reply to smith I was simply pointing out that iran has no need to produce obsolete stukas when it has all the ground attack platforms it would ever need,I`m sure if iran wanted to it could produce a stuka even a modernised one but why bother?,as I said iran has all the bomb trucks for ground attack it would ever need,what irans af really could do with is more modern fighters

  38. M.Ali says:

    “Iran is going back to the golden era of 70′s”

    So-called “Reformists”, everyone.

  39. Amir says:

    I’m sorry, my mistake; what I said was based on what I have been hearing nonstop.

  40. Rehmat says:

    Anyone who has followed Barack Obama’s political carrier shouldn’t be surprised. He is a product of Detroit’s Jewish mafia.

    “I think when it is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president,” – Abner Mikvaner, former Chicago’s Zionist Congressman, a Federal Judge and White House counsel to former president Bill Clinton.

    As Iranian Spiritual Leader said on several occasions that he doesn’t trust Obama’s words as his actions are always different than what he says in public.

    The so-called “P5+1” meetings with Iran are nothing but a charade to cover Israeli crimes against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Jewish people around the world.


  41. Rehmat says:

    @ M. Ali

    Henry Kissinger had the best answer for your Zionist whining.

    On September 17, 2012, Cindy Adams in her column at the New York Post, quoted Henry Kissinger predicting that if the current isolation of the Zionist entity continues – the Zionist entity will be gone within next 10 years.

    “Reported to me, Henry Kissinger has stated – and I quote the statement word for word: “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel”. I repeat: “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel”, wrote Cindy Adams.

    “Do not argue with Mr. Kissinger’s know-how. He already knows how,” added Adams to emphasized her point.


  42. Pragmatic says:

    I referred to the hegemony & the geopolitics of the region!

  43. James Canning says:


    I doubt very much that Henry Kissinger thinks there is any likelihood Israel will not be around in 2022. Political problems arising from its failure to end the occupation will increase. however.

  44. Nasser says:

    Smith says: July 9, 2015 at 4:11 am

    Actually, you were the one to first educate me on this issue.

    In my defense I was too concerned with the immediacy of the problem of physical survival and thus suggested Iran should address that matter before tackling difficult structural reforms. I figured extreme physical risk ought to finally force one to look at things rationally. How wrong I was.

    It has become clear to me that without societal and economic structural reforms they can’t get anything done. Otherwise we will continue to see ad hoc band-aid solutions here and there and even more often so, show piece solutions, but not much else.

  45. M.Ali says:

    Why there is still no Iran nuke deal in Vienna: Escobar


    “Deep into a warm Viennese night, with the legendary Café Sacher already closed, it was still a long way to go. In a hotel room, an Iranian diplomat mused; “The Americans created a structure of sanctions they don’t want to destroy. Emotionally, they want to keep it.” It’s no wonder that most of the unresolved brackets in the final text still relate to US and EU sanctions.

    And there was the rub, once again; would the Obama administration, to its credit, finally let go of the weapon of choice of US foreign policy? That would be worthy of a gala celebration at the Vienna Staatsoper.”

  46. Kooshy says:

    Here are few current events facts that we can discuss and expand on
    1-No matter how the Greece financial problem is resolved Europe and Euro are permanently damaged and hard to recover which is a disadvantage to western hegemony.
    2- No matter how Ukraine events are resolved if they ever are or how they may fall, it has for long time damaged the relation between Russia and Europe and U.S. To a European and western disadvantage which is hard to recover.
    3- no matter how the Iranian nuclear file is resolved, settled or not the western sanction regime will not be as seriously upheld as before, as well as either way it proves US never seriously was able to mount an attack on Iran without serious consequences, it further proves western declining hegemonic power and the fact ” 6 FM of self described world powers will spend weeks to negotiate with Iran to resolve their BS proves the fact Iran is a serious rising power that can’t be easily dismissed. It further proves the traditional regional western clientele meaning
    Turkey, KSA, and Israel they do not poses an effective position as Iran does since no one is asking them to be on the table. Obviously a disadvantage to western position since they need to rearrange their positions or reshuffle their side of the regional board.
    4- No matter how much US, Turkey, European clientele or the Arabs try, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen will not be back to a pan Arab pro west foreign policy position, they will be more independent which is to Iran’s advantage and obviously a disadvantage to western hegemony.
    5- No matter how much US and her European clientele to disadvantage of their own interests try to insist on supporting their own Israeli regime project, just because of all 4 above mentioned strategic loses they can’t for much longer afford to keep protecting securing and paying a very big price for keeping Israel in a hostile neighborhood when no longer an strategic reason or need exist.

    I can think of more if I had time, but will continue if others expand

  47. Kooshy says:

    I should have wrote unresolved and on going global current events/ shifts / change on short lived post USSR world order. IMO in This now formatting new world order Iran will be stronger then any other country in Western Asia, naturally Iran will not adopt a hegemonic position but rather a cooperative position with priority to her co religious groups.

  48. Fiorangela says:

    Amir says:
    July 9, 2015 at 12:33 am

    Sadly, I don’t think we differ that much about American character.

    What can anyone say?

    I listen to Congresspersons and they all recite exactly the same talking points. They seem to have been hypnotized. I keep thinking of the opening scene in The Manchurian Candidate.

    What to do?

    Phil Giraldi wrote a column at Unz.com asking why Bush, Cheney etc are free men, not tried under charges created at Nuremberg for waging wars of aggression.

    I think the American people share that culpability.

    understatement alert: I am in the minority.

  49. Kooshy says:

    Well thinking of Greece and Ukraine, I think both of these problems eminent from the same failed geo-strategic positions/ wishful thinking, both were suppose to strengthen western hegemonic alliance or NATO but at the end both have become a burden to weaken this alliance that since the fall of USSR no longer is a defensive alliance but now reformatted as an offensive to cement the western hegemony of US and various European clientele. On the first case Greece, one should know one can never have a military alliance with anyone who they have an insolvable monetary financial problem/ differences with, how is Greece suppose to participate in security of Europe is she can’t pay and feed her people never mind spending on her military ? Can’t happen at the end if you want to keep Greece Germans and French and in a way Americans need to pay them. Same goes for Ukraine how is Ukraine is going to help on security of west
    and secure Eurasia for the westerners when not only Ukraine can’t pay for her fuel but she also has to buy her and yours supposed enemy, imagine how secure that entity is to be able to provide and enhance your and your clientele security? No matter how western press is trying to spin it, it isn’t working or looking good.

  50. Kooshy says:

    If it was looking good and working for them, Kerry an aristocrat and his three European co aristocrats, arrogant powers wouldn’t spend weeks away from their home in souring eye of their regional clientele in a hotel in a foreign country negotiating with a third world country, with olive skin Muslim middle Easter or as they so call it a mid-power.

  51. Kooshy says:

    Sorry to say it in this way but in the eye of the world with just the nuclear show alone regardless of limit ions etc. that it’s on، thier image is f,**ed thier global level of importance is lowered and Iran’s is rising.
    In today’s holywood PR spin information world that’s a win for Iran which more than anything is not at only the expense of the west but also at the expense of thier every regional clientele.

  52. kooshy says:

    The reason I think in this new now being formatted new world order Iran will not take a hostile hegemonic posture toward her region and neighbors, although Iran will be the most important powerful political regional power, is due to her lack of tangible/useful soft powers that can be used to attract Sunni Arabs, Iran’s inherited traditional soft powers which are not much help in Sunni Arab streets generally are three things Shieh Islam, Persian language, and the shared history and traditions of Ancient Iranian culture and history, these three Iranian cultural elements are very essential for unification of Iran and Iranian minded Shieh, Norooz lovers, and Persian speakers, but it’s not any help and can be a burden to keep the Sunni Arabs from being non-hostile or at least keeping them to not easily get agitated against Iran’ interest. So what will help Iran with Arab street to keep them close to Iran and win hearts and minds there, promoting Muslim Unity, Not being hegemon and arrogant, promoting self-determination and democracy base on Islam, promoting intellectual and practical Islam, allowing and promoting Arabs to come to Iran for medical help, education, avoid allowing and using anti-Arab racism etc.

  53. pragmatic says:

    “….All indications are that this will be the most intrusive regime ever negotiated. We are going to have eyes and ears everywhere, and that includes being able to go to some sensitive sites, including military sites where we suspect they have done work on nuclear weapons research in the past.

    The Supreme Leader gave a speech a couple of weeks ago where he said that he would never allow inspections on these military facilities. But he added an adjective; “unconventional” inspections. And this is the art of diplomacy, defining what is conventional, what is “unconventional.” We believe this problem actually has been solved.”…..

  54. pragmatic says:

    Who do you think needs this agreement more? Iran, the U.S., P5+1? It seems like there are a lot of reputations on the line here.

    Iran desperately needs this deal. The sanctions regime put in place by the U.S., U.N. and EU has devastated the Iranian economy. Sanctions have been essential in pressuring the Iranians to come to the table and negotiate away key parts of their nuclear infrastructure. As a CRS report by Kenneth Katzman demonstrates:

    Sanctions caused Iran to suffer its first gross domestic product (GDP) contraction in two decades — about 5% contraction in 2013… Iran’s economy is 15%-20% smaller than it would have been had sanctions not been imposed. Many Iranian businesses have failed, the number of nonperforming loans held by Iranian banks increased to about 15%-30%, and many employees in the private sector have gone unpaid or underpaid. The unemployment rate is about 20%.
    Sanctions drove Iran’s crude oil sales down about 60% from the 2.5 mbd of sales in 2011, reducing Iran’s crude oil sales revenue from 100 billion in 2011 to about 35 billion in 2013 and even less in 2014… The JPA caps Iran’s crude oil exports at about 1.1 mbd.
    Sanctions caused the value of the rial on unofficial markets to decline about 56% from January 2012 until January 2014. The unofficial rate is currently about 37,000 to the dollar, and the government has repeatedly adjusted the official rate (currently about 27,000 to the dollar) to reduce the spread between it and the unofficial rate.
    The drop in value of the currency caused inflation to accelerate during 2011-2013. The Iranian Central Bank acknowledged an inflation rate of 45% in July 2013, but many economists asserted that the actual inflation rate was between 50% and 70%. The sanctions relief of the JPA has helped reduce the inflation rate to about 30% currently.

    Mr. Rouhani, the president of Iran, was elected on an economic reform package. But in order to do that, he has to end the sanctions, and in order to do that, he has to make a deal. He’s up for reelection in two years; there are important elections next year in the parliament and their government bodies. He needs this deal in order to kick start the economy, in order to aid his political faction in the complex Byzantine Iranian political system.

    But there’s another reason. The Middle East is in a chaotic situation. We don’t live there. Iran does. They’re in the middle of this. They feel besieged by the chaos around them, and they are intervening in many of these conflicts; they say to protect their interests, while we look at it as stoking the conflicts. They need to break out of the diplomatic isolation they’re in and reengage the West, the U.S. in particular, to try to find some solutions for the instability in their region.

    Those are two strong motivators for getting this deal done.

  55. pragmatic says:

    and the government has repeatedly adjusted the official rate (currently about 27,000 to the dollar)


  56. kooshy says:

    Watch this if you haven’t yet it’s fascinating discussion

    Tehran pivot?


  57. M.Ali says:


    “Iran desperately needs this deal. ”

    Iran wants this deal, it doesn’t desperately need it. If it did, it would not be taking two years. It would take 5 mins, because after listening to all of US demands, their only answer would be ” yes sir “

  58. Pragmatic says:


    Desperately had different ranges.

  59. Smith says:

    Nasser says:
    July 9, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Thank you. I very much appreciate it.

    Again in your defense lets see with this deal done, and Iran getting access to over 150 billion dollars within less than a year what they are going to do with it. Will they invest this money in buying some critical technologies or as always will they start to import cargo like there was no tomorrow?

    The core thing here which our detractors are not able to understand is rather very simplistic in rational terms. That without discarding the Occasionalism of Iranian culture, the destiny of this nation will not change whether with and without negotiation or with and without religious conformism. The problems of Iran lie in the inability of this culture to think.

    As I linked above to that simpleton akhond who believes in Japanese progress being due to their following “Islamic principles” and Buddhism being another manifestation of Islam, shows the depth of our problem. I would not be surprised at all if he also believes Avecenna invented MRI and discovered DNA. With such irrational cargo cultist mythology, no progress can be hoped for.

    Not much different from someone who believes that one or half a dozen monkey versions of old rusting Su-25 of Saddam’s air force provide enough close air support in service of a country of 80 million people and 1.7 million square kilometers, for no less than the next seven centuries or whatever, till the Messiah shows up. To these people, that Iran bought and cannibalized Ethiopian and Vietnamese F-5’s obviously is a good example of national industriousness.

    Absence is critical thinking over why Iran can not design and mass manufacture Ju-87G a Close Air Support variant of Ju-87’s, which was so successful in the hands of fearless pilots that US having learnt in Vietnam about the vulnerability and inability of fast flying jets like F-5’s and F-4’s to provide CAS, went on and designed A-10 based on the Ju-87G. Just like Ju-87G, the A-10 is a very simple design, slow moving, inexpensive yet highly survivable and lethal. The creator of A-10 Mr Sprey had made it a requirement that every one in the design team of A-10 to read the biography of the most famous pilot of Ju-87G and one of the best pilots the world has ever known, the Late Hans-Ulrich Rudel. That is how A-10 was born: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdy84YGf1k

    But obviously these emotional people feel (as opposed to think) that there is nothing to be learnt from a 70 year old plane that they still can not build even a single copy of, let alone mass manufacture it. The Western world understandably is moving away from the concept of close air support in favor of more expensive and technologically complex option of stand off weapons and PGM’s. Because CAS has an inherent risk to the pilot undertaking it. But for a people like Iran who “CLAIM” they are not afraid of death, CAS remains a simple, inexpensive and effective solution. The only hindrance seems to be the IQ required to design and mass manufacture these platforms.

    The fact of the matter is, there is no shortage of natural resources, investment, necessity and emotion. What is lacking is the ability to think rationally. Even now that they have to bow down to kadkhoda, it seems they have not learnt that their Achilles heel is their own ineptitude. After 36 years they are coming to the same conclusion as Shah who believed that Iranian nation can not survive and progress alone and without having relations with United States, due to inherent inabilities of Iranian culture to meet its own most simple needs. As someone confessed above, the wish is to go back to “golden era of 70’s”. In other words, these past 36 years were a failed experiment. In yet other words, the cargo won.

    The tragedy of this nation is its inability to think. The greatest tragedy of all. Whether 200 years ago or now.

  60. Smith says:

    This is what happens when you can not learn from Ju-87G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkXdXqHqkds&list=PL921FCD21F22973E9

  61. Sineva says:

    “that Iran bought and cannibalized Ethiopian and Vietnamese F-5′s obviously is a good example of national industriousness”
    That was back during the iran-iraq war in the mid 80s a very different situation than exists today

    “Absence is critical thinking over why Iran can not design and mass manufacture Ju-87G a Close Air Support variant of Ju-87′s, which was so successful in the hands of fearless pilots that US having learnt in Vietnam about the vulnerability and inability of fast flying jets like F-5′s and F-4′s to provide CAS, went on and designed A-10 based on the Ju-87G. Just like Ju-87G, the A-10 is a very simple design, slow moving, inexpensive yet highly survivable and lethal. The creator of A-10 Mr Sprey had made it a requirement that every one in the design team of A-10 to read the biography of the most famous pilot of Ju-87G and one of the best pilots the world has ever known, the Late Hans-Ulrich Rudel. That is how A-10 was born”

    Smith iran does not need a close air support fixed wing aircraft and it certainly doesnt need to build a 70 year old dive bomber which was what the stuka was,iran has plenty of aircraft that can be used for ground support,ironically the a10 these days is not used in the role that it was intended for ie a get in close and strafe them with guns and unguided rockets and bombs but as a bomb truck staying at altitude and delivering pgms and iran has plenty of aircraft that can do that job,interestingly irans airforce has started to receive its first batch of refurbished/rebuilt ex iraqi su22 ground attack aircraft which is even more impressive considering the state they were in by the mid 90s and the fact that iran never operated the type,but hey I guess you`ll find reasons to disparage that as well,I mean why should iran waste its time refurbishing/rebuilding 1980s su22s when it should be building 1930s ju87s,right?

  62. Smith says:

    This is what happens when you can not learn from Ju-87G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Xn7l32i1I

    Iranians were trapped and killed.

    Those monkey versions of Iran’s ex-Saddam Communist built planes could not save them.

  63. Smith says:

    Another nation that chose to learn from Ju-87G: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

  64. Smith says:

    The incomprehension in a static culture of a exploratory society: http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/434562/ict/comunication

    In comments we read:

    خدا عقلو از آدمیزاد نگیره … دیوانه

    چطور دلشون میاد این گوشی های زیبارو با تیر بزنن؟

    اینجوری که کفران نعمت میکنند نون پیدا نمیکنن برا خوردن

    کفران نعمت

  65. Smith says:

    Cargo is on its way.


    مدیرعامل واحد ترکیه ای تویوتا برای فروش خودرو به ایران در صورت برداشته شدن تحریمهای غربی ابراز علاقمندی کرد.

    آرهان اوزر، رییس و مدیرعامل تویوتا در ترکیه در مصاحبه ای با رویترز گفت: تویوتا علاقمند به فروش خودرو به کشور همسایه ایران است.

    واحد تویوتا موتور در ترکیه در پی کاهش ارزش روبل که به بازار خودروی روسیه ضربه زد، با کاهش 30 درصدی صادرات در نیمه اول سال 2015 روبرو شد اما امیدوار است با فروش داخلی و صادرات به اروپا و نقاط دیگر این ضرر را جبران کند.

    کارخانه آداپازاری ترکیه مدلهای تویوتا کرولا و تویوتا ورسو را تولید می‌کند و توان تولید 150 هزار دستگاه خودرو در سال را دارد که حدود 1.5 درصد از تولید جهانی 10 میلیون خودروی تویوتا به حساب می‌آید.

  66. Smith says:

    Hojatolislam-Valmoslemin Professor Doctor Rasoon Jafarian:


    بی خیال علم شویم

    تجربه بنده در یک مجموعه کوچک علمی که مشغول تدریس هستم این است که هیچ نوع حرکت علمی سودمندی که بتوان گفت مسیر علم تاریخ را روشن تر کرده و راه های تازه ای در کویر دانش ایجاد کرده باشد صورت نگرفته است.

    کارهای تاریخی انجام شده در کشور ما اولا و بالذات، هدف مند و ایدئولوژیک است. بیشتر آنها قصد زدن راه را دارند نه روشن کردن راه ها و برملا کردن حقایقی که وجود دارد. این شامل برخی از کارهای خودم هم می شود که اصلا قابل ذکر نیستند.

    تلاش هایی هم به اسم تحلیل و با روش کاربست نظریات اجتماعی مدرن انجام می شود که باید به کل بی خیال آنها شد. بماند که نود و پنج درصد پایان نامه ها چسب و قیچی است و برخی از آنها حتی یک حرف تازه، یک کشف جدید که بتوان گفت متنی را یافته اند که دیگران نداشته اند یا نصی را پیدا کرده که کسی آن را نداشته، یا یک روش تحلیلی جدی را بکار بسته اند و توانسته اند نوری بتابانند، وجود ندارد. … جلد تاریخ … ایران را هم هرچه نگاه کردم برای سرگرم کردن این است که ما تاریخی داریم. اما بیشتر آنها، حتی ارزش یک مقاله عالمانه را که یک مسأله مهم را کشف کرده باشد، ندارد.

    به نظرم نسبت به علم تاریخ و این که این علم در داخل کشور بتواند یک مکتب نوینی را به لحاظ نظری پایه گذاری کند، یا آثاری را تولید کند که بتواند ناگفته هایی را که اساسی است مکشوف سازد، باید بی خیال شد.

    البته چیزهایی مانند تواریخ محلی به وفور نوشته می شود که موادی را از مشاهدات روزانه مثل اقدامات شهرداری و بلدیه و امثالهم در آن می آورند و شاید بدرد آینده بخورد. مثل آمارهایی که اداره آمار می گیرد و بعدها استفاده می شود. اینها که ارزش تاریخی و پژوهشی ندارد هرچند همین ها هم باید باشد. مع الاسف همانها هم بیشتر فله ای و گردآوری آنها بدون روش علمی و گاه با مطامع خانوادگی و سیاسی است. ولی باز هم بودش بهتر از نبودش است.

    علم، ممکن است در یک مقاله چند صفحه ای ارائه شده باشد، اما ارزش آن از یک اثر چندین مجلدی بیشتر باشد. آن چندین مجلد بکار می آید اما پیشرفت علمی نیست. کشف در علم تاریخ معنای عام و خاص خود را دارد. هم درآنچه با دیگر علوم مشترک است و هم آنچه ویژه تاریخ است. لااقل می توان یک مقاله با تتبع گسترده که موی لای درز آن نرفته باشد ارائه داد.

    امروز داشتم مقاله نود سال پیش تقی زاده را در باره ناصرخسرو می خواندم که سال 1305 نوشته، واقعا شگفت زده شدم (مقدمه دیوان اشعار چاپ 1307ش) . بعید می دانم حتی امروزه روز، کسی به این سادگی بتواند مشابه آن را بنویسد. البته نادره هایی داریم که با تسلط، قلم می زنند و یادداشت امروز آقای پورجوادی در باره ابوزید و تصوف از آن دست بود. اینها آدم را امیدوار می کند، اما آنچه در دانشگاه ها می گذرد دست کم در اطراف ما، جدی نیست. یک معلمی ساده است که شاگردانی را برای معلمی آماده می کند.

    ما البته هفتصد سال است به این وضع عادت کرده ایم و دنیا هم خوشبختانه نتوانسته روی ما تاثیر بگذارد. تا اینجا من پیشرفتی در این علم نمی بینم چه برسد به شتاب.

  67. M.Ali says:

    Talks still going on, it seems now they are looking at Monday. However, it seems there is some pessimism in the little tibits that are reaching the journalists.

    Iran is claiming that USA has changed some of their promises, after the recent talks that went on between Obama and the negotiation team.

    Iran seems to however to willing to play the waiting game. While Kerry was threatening yesterday they won’t talk forever, Zarif and co say they will talk as long as necessary. This could mean that Iran doesn’t want to appear like to the rest of the players as the country that walked out of the talks.

    If USA walks out, this could be enough to widen the crack in the sanctions. China & Russia will make the best of it, and it is doubtful that Germany will not want to get itself involved.

    USA’s only option, if it walks out, is to seriously consider military action. But that’s probably been discussed to death internally and put aside. USA onlyy talks as a final resort. Look at Iraq, it took them from deciding to attack to attacking to kicking out saddam less time than it has taken to talk in Vienne alone.

  68. Karl.. says:

    M Ali,

    Indeed, talks in deadlock all of a sudden, apparently US is chaning its style just hours before the deadline, apparently the criticism against the deal in the US is apparently too much for the weak obama, so instead of claiming and celebrating a possible deal – making a case for it, he instead fall back to appease the anti-deal crowd. Very weak by him but not surprising, he has no backbone.


    As the Friday deadline looms the negotiators on Tehran’s nuke deal seem to be in deadlock, with the US reportedly refusing to accept Iran’s rights, particularly concerning the relief from sanctions.

    “While the Iranian team is showing flexibility, the Americans are refusing to accept Iran’s obvious right, particularly on sanctions,” a source told Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency on Thursday evening.

    The West has “toughened its stance within last few hours, and in a clear U-turn even refuses to accept Iran’s nuclear rights,” an unnamed source told Iranian State TV.

  69. pragmatic says:

    The more I read Zibakalam’s articles the more I like his guts in writing the truth. Before our own Hossain Shariatmadari’s of this site start bombarding Sadegh remember none of you are as pundit about Iran and its culture as Sadegh is, in addition to Iran’s politics. Once again, he pinned baradar hossain.


  70. fyi says:

    pragmatic says:

    July 10, 2015 at 7:55 am

    Like very many others, Mr. Zibakalam does not grasp the threat to the continued existence of Iran as a unitary and coherent state since 1998 when India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons.

    Better be safe than sorry.

    By the way, “Happiness” is for children and feeble minds….

  71. Pragmatic says:

    KSA foreign minister is too raw! He just opened his a-hole again!! He is a puppet of Bush family.
    Read what he said today.

  72. James Canning says:

    The Iranian foreign minister has an excellent piece in the Financial Times this week, regarding the way forward in the Middle East.

  73. Kathleen says:

    “anytime anywhere” inspections. When will Israel be required to come to the table and sign the NPT?