Obama’s Refusal to Respect Iran’s Sovereign and Treaty Rights Continues to Thwart Diplomacy, Leaving America on the Self-Defeating Path to War

Notwithstanding France’s simultaneously arrogant and craven grandstanding over Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor, the main reason for the failure of last week’s nuclear talks between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 was the Obama administration’s imperious refusal to acknowledge Tehran’s right to enrich uranium under international safeguards.  On this point, we want to highlight a recent post by Dan Joyner on Arms Control Law, titled, “Scope, Meaning and Juridical Implication of the NPT Article IV(1) Inalienable Right.” 

Dan opens with a favorable reference to our recent post on the issue, see here; he then focuses on how to interpret the NPT Article IV(1) right to peaceful nuclear energy—a subject he has already written about at some length.  He usefully inserts an excerpt from his excellent 2011 book, Interpreting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Interpreting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Pages 79-84.  This excerpt lays out Dan’s argument that the right to peaceful use of nuclear technology should be interpreted as “a full, free-standing right of all NNWS [non-nuclear-weapon states] party to the treaty, and not as a contingent right, contrary to the interpretation of some NWS [nuclear-weapon states].”  After elaborating this basic point, Dan continues:    

“The question of the scope of this right is one that continues to be debated.  I have looked to the Lotus principle in international law (see the excerpt from my book) to show that the lawfulness of NNWS’, and in fact all states’, indigenous nuclear fuel cycle activities can be shown to derive from the absence of any prohibition of these activities in international lawThis observation will, I have argued, serve to legally justify the full nuclear fuel cycle of activities within a NNWS, subject only to the positive requirements of Articles II and III of the NPT—i.e. no manufacture of nuclear explosive devices, and the conclusion of a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. 

The question of just what exactly is the nature and scope of the right recognized in Article IV(1) of the NPT, and what are its juridical implications (e.g. in tension with the UN Security Council’s order in Resolution 1696 for Iran to cease uranium enrichment), is a subject that I have been thinking/researching about recently…These questions actually raise some very deep issues of international law, and analyzing them properly requires serious work…But let me say this here. 

Article IV(1) of the NPT states that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”  In my view, the recognition by over 190 states parties to the NPT that all states have such an inalienable right, which I interpret to include all elements of the full nuclear fuel cycle including uranium enrichment, strongly suggests that the right to peaceful nuclear energy research, production and use is one of the fundamental rights of states in international law.  In my view, both fundamental and acquired rights of states should be understood to create in third parties, both states and international organizations, a legal obligation to respect those rights

This means that other states and international organizations are under an international legal obligation not to act in serious prejudice of states’ rights.  In the case of fundamental rights, this reciprocal obligation is of a jus cogens order, meaning that all states and international organizations are under a jus cogens order legal obligation not to act to seriously prejudice the fundamental rights of other statesWhen states or international organization do act in serious prejudice of a state’s fundamental rights, that action is an internationally wrongful act, and implicates the international responsibility of the acting state or international organization

According to this analysis, UN Security Council Resolution 1696, which commands Iran to cease uranium enrichment, constitutes a violation of international law, at least as to this particular command, and is void of legal effect (See Article 25 of the UN Charter). 

Note that the often heard rebuttal to this argument, which references Article 103 of the UN Charter, is in fact erroneous and inapplicable.  Article 103 of the UN Charter provides that “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”  My analysis, which is based on the recognition of a fundamental right of states in international law, and the juridical implication of an obligation in other states and international organizations to respect that right, is unaffected and unanswered by this provision, which merely recognizes that in the case of a conflict between UN member states’ international legal obligations under the Charter, and their obligations deriving from other sources, the Charter obligations trump.  It does not speak to the legal obligations of the Security Council as an organ of an international organization.  Nor does it speak at all to conflicts between the obligations of the UN Charter, and the rights of states in international law.  So again, Article 103 of the UN Charter is inapposite and inapplicable to this question.” 

Dan’s work on these issues is both breathtakingly clear and, as far as we are concerned, definitive.  (For more of his analysis on the illegality of Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, we refer everyone to his brilliant article, “The Security Council as Legal Hegemon,” published last year in the Georgetown Journal of International Law, see here.)    

More immediately, Dan’s work underscores an important reality:  the Obama administration’s hegemonically abusive refusal to recognize Iran’s right to safeguarded enrichment is not just diplomatically and strategically counter-productive—it is illegal

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


187 Responses to “Obama’s Refusal to Respect Iran’s Sovereign and Treaty Rights Continues to Thwart Diplomacy, Leaving America on the Self-Defeating Path to War”

  1. James Canning says:

    I think the P5+1 will accept Iranian enrichment to low levels. I doubt enriching to 20 would be acceptable. Perhaps Arak can be modified prior to completion, to lessen its objectionability.

  2. James Canning says:

    Peter Jenkins has an interesting assessment:


  3. Castellio says:

    I follow Dan’s argument and appreciate you bringing attention to it. Two subsequent thoughts: I wonder if there are legal precedents or other comparable cases to consider; and how can Iran act to protect its rights in the international legal system.

    I’m not saying it will, in fact, make a difference; I am saying it would be nice to know.

  4. Smith says:

    New website launched to convince white man that Iranians have the right to be humans too: http://nuclearenergy.ir/

  5. Neil M says:

    The tediously circuitous Forbes/Stratfor article linked by BiBiJon (8:47 pm) contained one forthright revelation, buried under the sub-heading All Things are Possible.

    Iran’s financial woes will be an opportunity for American companies to invest.

    That sentence nails the real reason for targeting Iranian civilians with ‘crippling’ sanctions and also exposes the Nuclear issue as a Kabuki-flavoured diversion from the 1%’s heartless greed and insanity.

  6. Essie Lashe says:

    Every country has the right to enrich uranium to whatever scale is needed. Iran must enrich at least up to 20% to provide fuel rods for medicalpurposes.

  7. Richard Steven Hack says:

    My analysis of the talks indicates to me that Obama is playing both sides against the middle. First, he is acting like “good cop” by seemingly pushing for a deal, even allowing Kerry (allegedly) to suggest the US would respect Iran’s sovereign rich to enrich. Second, he allows France to screw up the deal and then send Kerry out to denounce IRAN for screwing up the deal and issuing further threats. Third, he knows Netanyahu is going to attack Iran if Iran accepts ANY deal, thus letting Israel and France play “bad cop.”

    This allows Obama to SEEM to be seeking a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis, with the full knowledge that no such deal will be reached, or if Iran fools everyone and DOES agree to a deal, that Israel will proceed to attack Iran, thus justifying the US becoming involved – leaving Obama and his undeserved Nobel Peace Prize untarnished. This is Obama’s MAIN GOAL with regard to Iran – get a war started while remaining BLAMELESS – as opposed to George W. Bush and Iraq. This requires him to push Iran sufficiently to get Iran to do something to justify the war – which is what he has been doing unflinchingly for years now with unilateral sanctions – or, failing that, allowing Israel to start the war.

    Anyone who thinks Obama is seriously trying to get a deal that WILL resolve the crisis is delusional. Even Pepe Escobar, in his latest piece at Asia Times, appears to have been duped into believing that the US elites want a deal now. This is not the case. There is no way Obama is going to cross the people who financed his entire political career. US politics does not work that way.

  8. Rico says:

    -= Do not attack Iran to avoid a world war =-

    1. Iran has allowed inspections and agreed to keep enrichment below 20% so the idea that Iran would be creating a nuclear bomb is clearly a proposturous lie concocted to create the Jesuits third long planned world war to depopulate the earth to 500 million (Georgia Guide Stones without graffiti made by Anonymous) and create their satanic new world order.
    2. Israel has several missile shields including the Iron Dome which are able to ward of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles so Iran can not pose a threat to Israel, not even with nuclear weapons and preventing a third world war is therefore much more important.
    3. Israel has nuclear weapons (Dolphin submarines) so sanctions against Israel, not against Iran would be appropriate.


  9. Bibijon says:

    Neil M says:
    November 13, 2013 at 12:10 am

    Yes, in the cabaret too “money makes the world go round.” Surely, there’s more to it than just that. Also see Jonathon Steele today saying similar things.

    Richard Steven Hack says:
    November 13, 2013 at 4:06 am

    I think irresistibly strong forces, multitudes of them, are creating tectonic shifts. History will have to judge whether or not Obama manages the tumult as deftly as Bush senior did during the upheavals of USSR and disintegration of the Warsaw pact.

  10. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    It means get the rope and start hanging some politicians from lamp-posts, tie them behind tractors and pull them along the road.

    “Civil disobedience”, “demanding the truth from corporations” and the like is literally killing us over here.

    What “good” Americans have been doing so far in the face of these Zionist tools is a bunch of b.s.

    You might feel good about yourself for being “peaceful”, but God is not in the face of these vicious thugs and criminals called the American elites.

    Like I said, ultimately its the American “people” that suck when they don’t get rid of these criminals. Can’t “blame” sociopaths for taking advantage of “ignorant” people who are too “fat and bloated” to change their circumstances.

    There are no “victims” in America if you take a look at what other people have to endure in other places around the world.

    As the Quran says, God doesn’t change the state of a people/nation, until they start changing it themselves.

    We did it Iran with far less.

    A little more Garibaldi and a little less MLK.

    I know you understand.

  11. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Whether Iran “should” leave the NPT is not the issue.

    It “will” not leave the NPT in the foreseeable future.

    I would be interested to know in your opinion on when “the next opportune moment” for a US attack on Iran might be?

    You know, just a guess on your part, maybe with a quantitative indication of the probability.

    No? I know, it’s hard to make a “commitment” to a quantitative, hard number instead of just blowing stuff out of one’s arse at random.

    You know your 77 year prediction for the duration of the Islamic Republic wasn’t that bad.

    Certainly beat Soros’ prediction.

  12. nico says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    November 13, 2013 at 8:05 am


    Whether Iran “should” leave the NPT is not the issue.”

    Whether Iran will leave the NPT or not is not the issue.
    The issue is the financial crisis and the western crash to come.
    The US are finished.
    The Globalization as we know it is finished.
    We are in a Zombie economy. Already dead but still walking.
    We are in potentially in a pre-fascist era.

    What do the US care about the NPT ?
    We are in a clash of civilization and tribal struggle.

    The true question is whether the US leadership will accept to collapse peacefully and take responsibility for such USSR like crumble with dignity.
    Or whether they will feel the need to engage in another 20 years military campaign.

    IMO, there is clearly a domestic struggle to choose which path will be picked out.

    In addition, IMO the US is not able to wage war in ME again.

    The game is over.
    And I begin to believe that the containment policy is not even relevant anymore.
    Atually the economic and globalization collapse is near and the US are not in a shape to fight such struggle.

  13. Karl.. says:

    PressTV cover this article, though they get the website wrong.

  14. Rehmat says:

    Gary Samore, who is president of the Zionist Jewish group, ‘United Against a Nuclear Iran’, told journalists last month; “What they’re offering is really no different than what we have heard from the previous government, from Ahmadinejad’s government for the last couple of years.”


  15. fyi says:


    Mr. Obama, per US strategy of regime destruction in Iran, will have to keep the nuclear dispute alive.

    In case of Libya, the Axis Powers latches onto the late Mr. Qaddafi’s emotional outbursts.

    In case of Iraq they outright lied and fabricated a cause belli.

    In case of Yugoslavia, they first created the Kosovo Issue – through a speech by Mr. Bush I – and then picked its fruits under Mr. Clinton.

    They need a cause belli and they already have one; they would be loath to discard it in the absence of any desire for strategic settlement with Iran.

    I agree with Mr. Hack; Iran will be attacked at the first opportune time by the Axis Powers.

    I cannot tell when than would be but Mr. Obama and Bush have created and sustained that cause belli; the next US President or the one after could begin the war.

    Absent a revolt of the peasants in the United States – doubtful as they hate both Islam and Iran – or a palace coup – the war against Iran is on US agenda.

  16. Jay says:

    yet more inconsistency! You need to visit and reconcile your own writing. See below.

    James Canning says: November 12, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    “…ONLY reason for such a trebling was to probe for reaction on part of the West, to Iran’s getting closer to build nukes quickly.”

    James Canning says: November 12, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    “Jay, I have never said that Iran is trying to build nukes. Full stop.”

    James Canning says: November 12, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    “… Iran, that clearly was not building nukes or trying to get close to ability to build nukes quickly.”

  17. Fiorangela says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    November 13, 2013 at 7:51 am


    I get it, and you’re right.

    A lot less keyboard warrioring and a lot more putting it on the line like Tahrir Square I.

  18. Smith says:

    With US/UK aid and facilitation to destroy Iranian lives: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24919056

  19. fyi says:


    Mark Hibbs on the Arak reactor:


    The crucial texts are:

    “… the most valuable reactors (for nuclear research) in the world are those that create the most neutrons, and in fact these heavy water reactors do that.”

    “… there’s no way that …(US Government) … would permit Iran at the end of the day to have this reactor.”

    So, US will not recognize Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment or to nuclear developments based on Iranians’ judgments.

    Now, US planners and leaders know that these are deal breakers …..

  20. Smith says:

    There is no deal. It was all theater: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Nov-13/237792-hollande-obama-say-up-to-iran-to-accept-nuclear-deal.ashx#axzz2kY2aSdRP

    Only fools would still live in their wet dream paradise.

    Iran will be out of NPT before 2015 when US leaves Afghanistan.

  21. Smith says:

    Iran should really think about creating the world’s first Bitcoin bank:

  22. James Canning says:

    Tom Friedman’s column in The New York Times today says the US has many interests in common with Iran, and that better relations with Iran should be achieved, if possible, no matter how angry this makes some Gulf Arabs and Israel.

  23. James Canning says:


    What are economic benefits of Arak as a light-water facility? Possibly this would be acceptable to the US and rest of EU3+3.

  24. James Canning says:


    You appear to argue that if Iran is trying to get close to abiliity to build nukes quickly, this is tantamount to building nukes.

    Or, are you arguing something else? Why did Iran stockpile 20% U, in YOUR view?

  25. James Canning says:


    Most of the “peasants” in the US cannot find Iran on a map of the Middle East. And you think they “harte” Iran. Rubbish. If, on the other hand, you think a war in the Gulf would be backed by public opinion in the US, this in my view is correct – – provided Iran itself in effect starts the war.

  26. James Canning says:


    You continue to have a “bee in your bonnet”, regarding Yugoslavia. Most American leaders thought Yugoslavia’s disintegration should be a problem European countries dealt with.

  27. James Canning says:

    Neil M.,

    A prosperous Iran would offer more opportunities for investment by American companies, than an Iran struggling with things as they are today. I should think Forbes magazine knows this.

    But, obviously, Rouhani is quite right to see Iran should entice $100 billion in investment by Big Oil. If possible.

  28. James Canning says:

    Some interesting observations by Ali Reza Eshraghi, on this matter (and France’s role):


  29. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:
    November 12, 2013 at 7:26 pm
    “I think the P5+1 will accept Iranian enrichment to low levels. I doubt enriching to 20 would be acceptable. “

    You seem to suggest you do not believe in international law! Are you suggesting thuggery and lawlessness is the way to run the world affairs? No surprise there…

  30. Smith says:

    A real innovation from Iran, showing that with proper and sufficient allocation of R&D funds, Iran can solve problems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24929924

  31. nico says:


    Am I a gloom theorist in foreseeing tye collapse go come ?

    “”It’s not just the Fed, it’s central banking,” Jim Rogers exclaims toReuters in this brief clip, “this is absolute insanity.” As the world’s central banks, for the first time in history “try to debase their currencies,” simultaneously, Rogers cautions, “the world’s floating around on a huge artificial sea of liquidity.” Rogers goes on to explain that he doesn’t expect Bernanke to taper and fears that Yellen won’t either but hopes that she “knows that this is going to cause problems when they stop producing so much money.” His ominous warning, eventually “it’s going to dry up.. and when it dries up, we’re all going to pay the price for this madness.”
    Is the Fed doing more harm than good..?
    “Central Banks are making a terrible mistake…””

  32. nico says:


    “While chart analogs provide optically pleasing (and often far too shockingly correct) indications of the human herd tendencies towards fear and greed, a glance through the headlines and reporting of prior periods can provide just as much of a concerning ‘analog’ as any chart. In this case, while these 3 pictures can paint a thousand words; a thousand words may also paint the biggest picture of all. It seems, socially and empirically, it is never different this time as these 1936 Wall Street Journal archives read only too well… from devaluations lifting stocks to inflationary side-effects of money flow and from short-covering, money-on-the-sidelines, Jobs, Europe, low-volume ramps, BTFD, and profit-taking, to brokers advising stocks for the long-run before a 40% decline.Stocks look eerily similar…”

  33. Bibijon says:

    The game has to be played, even when results are certain

    Reading between the lines of all the stories out there, I think the important issue for Iran is:

    a) Break out of diplomatic/political isolation

    The more emollient Iran is towards allaying doubts about her nuclear intentions, the better for Iran. First because those who would give Iran the benefit of the doubt, would be chastened by Iran putting her best foot forward. Second, those with hidden agenda, aka strategies deliberately kept ambiguous, would be less able to mobilize public or international opinion to support their nefarious ‘end games.’

    b) Iran must assume and plan for ‘reversible sanctions relief’ to be reversed.

    c) Iran and US have a deal in place. Whether or not it will be written down, let alone whether it’ll be signed by P5+1 is not the story. Look for events elsewhere.

    E.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/syrian-troops-capture-damascus-suburb

  34. nico says:

    Anybody thinking I am lone fool regarding the near US (an OECD and globalized economy)collapse ?


    “Predicting the imminent collapse of the U.S. dollar, a Russian lawmaker submitted a bill to the country’s parliament on Wednesday that would ban the use or possession of the American currency.
    Mikhail Degtyarev, the lawmaker who proposed the bill, compared the dollar to a Ponzi scheme. He warned that the government would have to bail out Russians holding the U.S. currency if it collapsed.
    “If the U.S. national debt continues to grow, the collapse of the dollar system will take place in 2017,” said Mr. Degtyarev, a member of the nationalist Liberal Democrat Party who was a losing candidate in Moscow’s recent mayoral election.
    “The countries that will suffer the most will be those that have failed to wean themselves off their dependence on the dollar in time. In light of this, the fact that confidence in the dollar is growing among Russian citizens is extremely dangerous.”
    The bill would partially revive a Soviet-era ban on the dollar. It would prohibit Russians from holding dollars in the country’s banks, and banks also would be unable to carry out transactions in the dollar.
    However, Russians still would be able to buy or sell dollars while abroad, as well as hold dollar accounts in foreign banks.”

    But obviously greedy bankers and shortsighted lawless capitalist are the same all over the world. The same sold out oligarchy everywhere…

    “”Russian financial experts were largely critical of the bill, which they suggested was more about making political capital on the back of rising anti-U.S. sentiments in Russia than protecting the country’s economy.
    “The American financial system, despite all its existing problems, remains the most stable and low-risk in the world,” financial analyst Andrei Shenk said.””

    “The American financial system, despite all its existing problems, remains the most stable and low-risk in the world,”

    What a joke…

  35. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    I agree and no, never has a global economic collapse/structural shift and the concomitant political fallout been peaceful.


    I knew you would understand…

    I personally would like a little Michael Corleone with the Garibaldi as well.

    The Zionists are shamelessly violating America’s honor.

    I think you understand this one as well.

    That’s it. We need a coalition of Rednecks and Italians to fight the Zionists and restore American “honor”.

    Talk about “fat and bloated”, true, but they also understand “honor” which is sorely missing among nearly all American elites/Zionist whores these days.

  36. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 13, 2013 at 1:56 pm


    I am simply using your own words to demonstrate repeatedly to you and everyone else that you are inconsistent.

    You asked me to demonstrate your inconsistency in the previous thread and I am simply obliging.

  37. Bibijon says:

    Further to E.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/syrian-troops-capture-damascus-suburb

    European public opinion will be manipulated against France’s neo-napeolinism in the Mid East by the Anglo press. Syria happens to be as much of a keystone for the axis of resistance as it is the Achilles heel of French credibility with the Persian Gulf petro-emirates.

  38. Rehmat says:

    Former Head of Israeli Mossad (1998-2002), British-born Efraim Halevy in a recent interview he gave to Jewish website Al-Monitor on sidelines of a conference on Middle East security issues in Istanbul late last month, said that the current US-Iran diplomacy would be good for the Zionist entity in the long run.


  39. Fiorangela says:

    Bussed-in Basiji says:
    November 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm


    My Grandfather left his home and farm in Italy rather than allow his sons to be drafted into Mussolini’s army to fight in Ethiopia.

    Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao ciao ciao.

  40. James Canning says:


    What is inconsistent? I say I have not argued that Iran is building nukes. True? Obviously. I say that it would appear Iran is trying to get close to ABILITY TO BUILD nukes quickly. True? Obviously. And, equally obviously, there is nothing inconsistent.

  41. kooshy says:

    Good bless the Shieh resistance defending the Muslim ME under the leadership of Iran and only possible with unity of Shieh grand ayatollahs specially the command of grand ayatollah Khamenie

  42. James Canning says:


    Had I been alive in Setember 1939, and old enough to be aware of current events, I would have said Germany would conquer the west half of Poland in a matter of weeks.
    Saying this would not have meant I approved of the conquest.

    Best info I have, is simply that EU3+3 are unlikely to accept Iranian enrichment to 20%. I am merely a reasonably well-informed bystander.

    Why would I say the P5+1 will accept Iranian enrichment to 20, if I do not believe this?

  43. James Canning says:


    If you are trying to argue Iran should attempt to gain approval for stockpiling 20U, this in my view is bad advice.

  44. The Lion says:

    Until the Congress and President United States realizes that it is NOT the leader of the UN but a member, we will see arrogance in their demands that the World does it their way! Iran under the NPT has a right to enrich and to what ever it needs for Non Military use. If they are to be stopped from even the 20 percent needed to fuel their medical isotope reactor BUILT by the US, then every other country should be dealt with like wise! Actually I would welcome that scenario, Nuclear Submarines and Nuclear Aircraft carriers require 60% enrichment, making 20% and more enrichment illegal would mean the loss of the major weapons of US gunboat diplomacy!

  45. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    November 13, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    You should get out of San Francisco and see US; you need a “walk-about”, no doubt.

    I do believe that a war with Iran will be enthusiastically welcome by the people who live in the “fly-over America”; those with long hairs driving a $ 50 Chevy with Bush-Cheney bumper-stickers.

    You do not know America – that much is clear.

  46. Kathleen says:

    Please contact cspan’s Washington Journal and ask, beg them to have the Leveretts and Dan Joyner on to talk about the NPT and these articles. http://www.c-span.org/Journal/

    I have called into this program for years asking them to have particular guest on and to focus on specific topics especially the Israeli Palestinian conflict etc. Made it through the other day.

    I asked them to do a program on the NPT at 44:14

    Not the first time I have asked them to focus on this issue and have asked for them to have the Leveretts on. Been a long time since they have

  47. Smith says:

    “Not the first time I have asked them to focus on this issue and have asked for them to have the Leveretts on. Been a long time since they have”

    ~ You will have to get used to living without results and without hope. You will work for a while, you will be caught, you will confess, and then you will die. Those are the only results that you will ever see. There is no possibility that any perceptible change will happen within our own lifetime. ~ George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four

  48. masoud says:

    I predicted pretty much right after Rouhani’s election that it wouldn’t take past December for this whole detente campaign to blow up in his face, and look what we have here: In the very first round, we have team jackass preemptively conceding Iran’s production of 20% in toto, and scaling production of 5% to 2007 levels, and their peace partners in team weasel immediately place the new condition that Arak be taken apart as well. The biggest joke is that purely for variety’s sake team weasel’s arranged an internal rearrangement of the seats. Eight years ago, the EU3 where the reasonable good cops, and the US the stubborn bad cop, today they’ve switched. Likely this is purely for their own personal amusement.

    If this keeps up, Iran’s space program will be next on the chopping block, and within four years we’ll be more or less at Mexico’s level of sovereignty and independence.

    Javad Zarif would likely win the gold medal at World Diplomatic Cup, if such a thing existed, hands down. But sometimes, brilliant tacticians make horrible strategists.

    What the hell happened to Iran’s activist parliament? Anyone remember when they were impeaching ministers at the rate of two a week?

  49. fyi says:


    In the Court of the Mad King:

    Portion of the text of Rep. Trent Franks’ virtual AUMF Bill, HR3292:


    (C) Iran poses a threat to the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners, Congress hereby acknowledges that this Act constitutes current consultation with the President on Iran in order to provide for swift application of all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability and provides consent to the necessary and appropriate USE OF FORCE against legitimate targets in Iran to achieve the objectives described in paragraph (2).

  50. masoud says:

    Kathleen says:
    November 13, 2013 at 9:32 pm

    Nicely done Kathleen. God bless your heart.

  51. Karl.. says:


    I know its the first time you call and make contributions on these issues, good job!

  52. nico says:

    I do not know if it reported in English language MSM but the social atmosphere is explosive in France.
    Spontaneous strikes and riots are taking place evrywhere by average joe.
    It seems the current government is in its way out.

    The oligarchy dictature and the politicians disconnect with reality is not accepted anymore.

    No chance, Zero, Zilch, nada for the situation and financial squeeze occuring in Spain, Ireland or Greece to be accepted in France.
    In such situation French people use to cut heads…

    The end of the Euro is near as it is obvious that the French Politicians will be cornered to make radical reform very very soon.

    France even if not the more powerfull is certainly a political pivotal country in Europe.
    There is high chance the EU as we know it today is going to be dismantled in the coming years.

  53. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 13, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    I was using your words that appeared to tacitly agree with the neocon notion that Iran is trying to get close to building, or build, nukes.

    Perhaps Mr. Blair kept cabinet in the dark …


    but you should come out into the light James. You should not buy into the propaganda.

  54. Bibijon says:

    The Court of Lying Toads

    Just wondering what it must be like not to know who believe.

    Did the POTUS really want to stretch a hand to Iran? Why then were they working on STUXNET, FLAME, etc.

    Who was telling the truth about Iraq’s WMD?

    Is Kerry still believable after asserting there’s no al-Qaida in Syria?

    Should one believe Robert Gates about inadvisability of another large war in the Mid East?

    It must be a dizzying experience every time professional dissemblers sit around a table to discuss anything. And, if by total coincidence somebody does come up with the unvarnished truth, they will have the popularly despised Congress to mangle it into something unrecognizable with the help of the press.

    If you’re at a fork in the road, and there are two guys who you can ask for directions, but one of whom is a liar, how do you find your way?

    If you ask the question from either guy: “if I asked the other guy, which way would he point to?” then it doesn’t matter whether you ask the truthful guy or the liar; The opposite way to the answer you got is the right way.

  55. Rd. says:

    Bibijon says:

    “The Court of Lying Toads
    It must be a dizzying experience every time professional dissemblers sit around a table to discuss anything”

    Perhaps it is because there are so many different factions/interests to keep in mind. You know the DC crowd has to be PC to all the different interests that drives them to no where. They ship their jobs to china inc, etc to fund their imperial wars, it fails. They spend many B$$ for security apparatus, it blows back in their face as a security hole. So how do you approach this bunch of lying toads? With the in-your face hard-power approach (build nukes, declare war, etc)? So they can all rally around one cause!

    Or do you offer in your face hard-punch presidency of Ahmadinejad, and then turn around and showcase the soft-power Rohani administration? What may be ironic as a commenter on atimes noted, US hostage crises did not end in 1981!!!


    US is still hostage to IRI. So I say, let the lying toads keep shooting themselves in the foot. But that should not take away from IRI’s approach to talk peace when need be, or to stand tall on their principals and use hard-power.

    and Yes the war is an option on the table.. however, what they don’t talk much about is, given the over whelming amount of debt, the table has been taken as collateral. So folks can talk all they want about all the option but there is no table, figuratively to serve it on.

  56. fyi says:



    The article by Matthias Nass describes the deal:

    “Iran would enrich its uranium to not more than 5 percent: enough to run a nuclear reactor but insufficient for a nuclear weapon. Its stocks of 20 percent enriched uranium would be handed over. The Fordo enrichment site, located deep inside a
    mountain and secured against military strikes, would be decommissioned, as would the soon-to-be-completed heavy water reactor at Arak, which could also produce plutonium. Iran would submit to unrestricted monitoring of all its nuclear facilities by the IAEA.”

    So, Iran will have to be permanently be in an inferior position within NPT – as compared to US satrapy of Japan or Korea.

    Furthermore, this new deal would not guarantee Iran the right to enrich uranium and take away the right to build a reactor in Arak that does not use enriched uranium. Thus the sovereign right of Iran is taken away to have a meaningful nuclear program at all.

    Since the P5+1 have denied Iran access to enriched uranium for medical isotopes before, Iran cannot agree to a deal that denies it the right to produce medical isotopes either from their uranium plants or from Arak. The new P5+1 offer raises the bar so high that it is impossible for Iran to accept, effectively sabotaging any deal with Iran.

    An informal deal on 20% enrichment between US and Iran is the only real possibility – in my view.

  57. Karl.. says:

    November 14, 2013 at 10:54 am

    Not only that, Iran is supposed to do all this while the sanctions (majority) wouldnt be lifted. No wonder west loves the deal.

  58. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    November 14, 2013 at 11:25 am


    So the sanctions will remain in place while Axis Powers, Russia and China extract the maximum reduction of Iran’s strategic options.

    And all the while, the Mad King would be plotting to launch a war against Iran.

    P5+1 actions against Iran over the last 10 years, as well as India’s evisceration of their strategic understanding with Iran, were all predicated on quick Iranian surrender and capitulation.

    When that did not happen initially, they kept on escalating, hoping that the next step on the escalation ladder would break the will of the Iranians to resist.

    Which is what certain courtiers in the Court of the Mad King are contemplating now, again.

    Mr. Khamenei stated to them: “Do not test these people and this country…” – but like the late Mr. Khomeini’s advice to the Russians, it went unheeded.

    Now blood has been shed, Shia are inflamed across the Shia Crescent, 20 million people in Iran and in Syria have been pushed into poverty and the P5+1 think they can ram such a deal down Iran’s throat.

    Once again, they have miscalculated – quite evidently.

    There really is no incremental way back for P5+1, for Axis Powers, for India, etc.

    They have only one single viable strategic option – strategic settlement with Iran.

    But they will not take that since the Mad King is committed to the destruction of the Islamic Iran and his Barons with him.

    The Red Emperor and the Republican Tsar have no reason to intervene either; let the Mad King, his Barons, and the Grande Sofi fight one another – it is useful for both of them.

    I think once EU disintegrates, we should be able to see some movement on Iran from the Barons.

  59. Smith says:

    John Kerry says in case of successful negotiations and signing of a deal by Iran, more than 95% of sanctions would still remain (and perhaps more new ones implemented).

    As part of a deal only a small, tiny, microscopic fraction of Iran’s banking accounts frozen outside of Iran worth 45 billion dollars will be released to Iran just once (I guess in the tune of a few million dollars or even possibly only a few thousand dollars!): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24946990

    As can be seen, there is no deal.

    Iran must exit NPT.

    Iran must develop a nuclear deterrence aimed at taking favorite petite whore hostage.

    There is no other way.

  60. Karl.. says:

    If its true that almost all sanctions will be kept as kerry said, why is Iran apparently accepting such a deal? They arent winning anything, or does Kerry talk about the first phase of a deal?

  61. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    I think he is talking about the “first phase” of the deal, removing less than 5% of sanctions (and placing 50% more). Once they bind Iran in this first phase, then Iran will be bound like a slave to follow through with second phase and third phase too. The second phase is dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure completely and sending all Iranian nuclear workers/scientists to Guantanamo as part of the second phase deal which relieves 3% of sanctions (and adds 300% more). Then in third phase it is the dismantling of IRI and dismemberment of Iran because of yet unresolved and upcoming issues like Iran’s missile/space program, biochemical research, human rights etc etc. [You gotta learn doublespeak in order to understand what is going on here].

    Rouhani will make a huge mistake if he accepts such conditions. Rather actually repeating his earlier mistakes. When last time he froze Iran’s nuclear program completely, then Ahmadinejad had to face big problems restarting the work, since the West at the time was crying wolf that Iran is breaking the agreement by restarting the work. Half of Ahmadinejad’s presidency was spent on explaining to the world that the suspension was temporary and not a legal requirement. But it was too late. Because of that suspension, and restart of the work, all these sanctions were placed on Iran.

  62. Smith says:

    Iranians situation is exactly like in 1984 novel. Somewhere in it, Big Brother cut the ration of chocolate for every one to 20 grams per day. The next day there were demonstration all over praising Big Brother for “raising” the chocolate ration to 20 grams per day.

    (Certain) Iranians are also happy on sanctions relief, going ecstatic. But the truth is that the sanctions are only going to increase.

  63. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    November 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Mr. Khamenei was probably under pressure from the spineless and un-chastised Iranians to make a deal with P5+1.

    Most people, as you know, neither understand metaphysics nor geo-politics.

    He had to demonstrate that there is, in fact, no honorable deal available to Iran.

    Iranians understand “honor” very well, American and Europeans do not; they have too much gone into a hyper-rationalism to admit the role of emotions in the make up of human beings.

    Well, Mr. Khamenei has succeeded, in my view, in demonstrating that there is no “honorable” way forward with P5+1.

    His critics have no recourse now.

    Per the IMF reports, Iran’s economy will begin expanding again in 2014.

    This year – 2013 – was the second worse year for Iranian economy.

    Axis Powers, Russia, and China were bound to try to get the best deal they could this year.

    They have failed – in spite of the huge leverage that they thought they had.

    As I said 2 years ago, this confrontation with Iran is now permanent feature of the international arena and would persist for decades.

    Informal, tactical agreements between Iran and Axis Powers or Russia or China or India can be made – nothing written down – just oral agreements.

    Most likely, an oral agreement on 20% as well as maintaining the current break-out time frame of 2-months has been agreed to between US and Iran.

    We have to wait for the disintegration of EU as well as the emergence of a Sane King for any amelioration of this confrontation.

    US has not yet disavowed her enmity towards the enemies of Israel.

    We have to wait for that to changes as well.

  64. James Canning says:


    You are simply wildly wrong, if you believe the “confrontation” can continue to decades, if this in your view means Iran will try to complete Arak, stockpile more 20U, etc etc.

  65. James Canning says:


    You appear to argue Russia and China are determined that Iran not build nukes. If this be the case, I of course agree with you.

  66. James Canning says:


    I think Iran could see a suspension of most if not all sanctions, over time.

  67. James Canning says:


    You clearly have difficulty understanding how many businessmen in “the West” would very much like to see an easing or end to sanctions against Iran.

  68. James Canning says:


    A question for you: why did Iran treble production of 20% U? In your view, of course.

  69. Sokkandar says:


    I don’t believe that those who kept the ship sailing for almost 35 years now in an area comparable to the Bermuda Triangle are novice in their art. They might not have a ship comparable in size to the US or European “Union” ones, but one thing is certain: they’ve shown to be much better captains at the helm. If you think that this is not an important factor and the raw force, armement and tonnage of the ships are what only matter, then explain how they succeeded for the last 3 decades and why the same reason cannot apply for the future too. Obviously unless if you think that they haven’t succeeded at all and these last 35 years was a “disaster”.

  70. Karl.. says:


    I guess you are right, he refer to first phase, otherwhise a deal would make no sense for Iran. All sanctions must be removed in a deal, Iran should also get assurances by west that netanyahu wont attack if a deal is made.

  71. James Canning says:


    Tell me: what benefit to Iran accrues from Iranian stockpiling of 20% U?

  72. James Canning says:


    I have a very good understanding of America, and I have been in all 50 states.

    If Iran forces war in the Gulf, I would expect full support for Obama in that war. I have indicated this before.

  73. James Canning says:

    The Lion,

    Is it possible you do not know that Iran has enough 20% U to hand, to fuel TRR for 20 years?

  74. Ataune says:


    The number of years you are providing here are the top of the range in optimal production environment, i.e. in a mature industrial production facility which obviously Iran doesn’t have yet. In addition, these numbers are coming out of a well known mouth-piece for neo-con oriented propaganda site called ISIS. In reality the amount in Iran’s possesion right now should be enough for a 5 to 6 years TRR backup stock. This should be considered as a wise and prudent planning by anyone particularly an englishmen.

  75. James Canning says:

    Some interesting comments by Philip Giraldi, touching on Israeli effort to provide false intel regarding CW attack of Aug. 21st:


  76. James Canning says:


    I think you will agree Iran has done a poor job of convincing public opinion in the west that the only purpose of enriching 20U was to fuel the TRR.

    The solution, proposed many times by Iran, is for TRR fuel to be bought from “the West”.

  77. James Canning says:


    Can I assume you saw zero need for Iran to treble production of 20% U?

  78. Ataune says:


    I’m just trying to convince a “well informed” englishman that he is wrong about the 20 years number. Am I doing a poor job too?

  79. Smith says:

    England is holding on to tonnes of weapon grade highly enriched uranium (97%) in “official excess of its civilian and military program”: http://fissilematerials.org/countries/united_kingdom.html

    A few kilogram of Iran’s medium enriched material (20%) for use in a research reactor is not going to de-orbit the planet earth.

  80. Ataune says:


    That was a wise decision in my opinion. Without this, Kerry wouldn’t have sat with Iranians, giving legitimacy to THEIR vision of the “middle-east”. Don’t you think there is a reason why SA is mad ?

  81. Smith says:

    Karl.. says:
    November 14, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Sanctions will never be removed. In fact more new ones will be put on Iran. Until Iran becomes a nuclear armed state. Then they will respect Iran and the sanctions will either be removed at once as part of a strategic deal or over a period of time as part of their corrosion on the wave of passing history.

    And no Western guarantee can be trusted. English and French were never seen when Russia gobbled up norther Iran despite their guarantees to Iran at the time. French had given a guarantee to Iran that Iran will have unfettered access to Eurodif uranium enrichment plant and its produce. The same goes with Rossing uranium mine. There is no guarantee. The fate of Qaddafi has made that clear.

  82. hans says:

    nico says:
    November 14, 2013 at 7:42 am

    This article Is a new revolution quietly brewing in France?, goes further than what Nico writes.

  83. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    I am capable of responding in a simple and straightforward manner!

    You are asking me to speculate. Here is my speculation.

    Due to the configuration of the TRR, the production of the fuel plates and the fuel elements is likely to be done as a batch job. In this configuration, it is easier to produce several cores (three to five) all at once and store them. This is more efficient (in this case) when compared to stopping the production and then make one core every six or seven years.

    In other words, I don’t think it was bravado – it was simply a calculation of the most efficient path.

  84. Lysander says:

    First, a blessed ‘Ashura to the entire GtT community.

    My thoughts on what is happening:

    1) The US, institutionally, is not capable of reaching a square deal with Iran at this time. Obama’s personal opinions don’t matter very much. This will change only with time or a catastrophic event.

    2) The elites in the US would love to destroy Iran if they could. I don’t even think they would be happy with a new Shah-like government. They need to break it up into several warring ministates as per Libya or as they are trying with Iraq and Syria. Obviously, they cannot say this openly for the same reason a murderer can’t openly plan for his crime. There are elements of the US elites who understand this is no longer realistic and so they want to a deal. They are in the minority for now.

    3) Obama is very much a path of least resistance kind of guy. He personally may not seek war, but will stumble into it if that is the easiest thing for him to do.

    4) IMHO, Iran is doing exactly what it needs to do to demonstrate who is the adult in the room and who are the spoiled children. When that becomes clear, it will become harder and harder to maintain the sanctions regime on Iran.

    5) The risk in the latter is that when the sanctions regime against Iraq began to crumble, the US attacked. This is much harder to do with Iran, obviously, but…

    6) …A declining superpower will take foolish risks to reverse its decline…like a gambler makes bad bets in the hope of regaining his losses. So no one can be sure the US wont start a war, though its window of opportunity closes by the day.

  85. fyi says:

    Jay says:

    November 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    It matter not.

    Mr. Canning is under the impression that due to the strategic disparity obtaining between Iran and the Axis Powers (as well as Russia and China) Iranians have no choice but to surrender their nuclear industry – which is in a nascent phase.

    I think he really does not grasp the fact the strategic preponderance was brought to bear on Iran and failed to budge her.

    It failed.

    Realistically, there never was a chance for its success – Iran was going to be nuclear-ready and strategic settlement was the only path available after the Axis Powers gave Iraq to Iran.

    The Iranians” gains cannot be reversed – Syrian war failed as well.

    The Mad King and the Barons as well as the Republican Tsar and the Hindu Rajah, however, are adamant not to deal with this new geo-politically autonomous power in the Middle East.

    After all, for a hundred years they could do what they wanted there and the locals be damned!

    We will see more war, more violence, and more bloodshed until the situation changes.

    The Mad King & the Barons, the Republican Tsar, the Hindu Raja all have elected a policy course that a hostile nuclear-armed Iran is in their national interest.

    So be it.

  86. James Canning says:


    Given the considerable PR damage Iran was sustaining as a result of its announcment of trebling of production of 20% U, can you offer a guess as to the reason Iran did not offer an explanation of the decision to treble?

  87. James Canning says:


    Iran would be much stronger and richer today if it had never restarted enrichment of uranium. Your repeated claim that the US is unable to accept a powerful Iran is simply dead wrong.

    Yes, neocons, and other fanatical supporters of Israel, want to prevent a strong Iran, if possible.

  88. Ataune says:


    Iran started its fuel cycle project in the early 1970’s. So you are claiming that Iran would be stronger and richer than 40 years ago ? Dead wrong.

  89. Ataune says:

    “Iran doesnt have perpetua joy, sorrow or pain, Iran has perpetual interests”

  90. Ataune says:

    I think Lysander got the closest to the reality of the matter.

  91. James Canning says:


    I was referring to 2005. And Iran would probaslby have done OK, enriching to low levels. And even enriching to 20, provided it explained why it was doing this.

    Surely you can see the dangers to Iran created by buildup to 20,000 centrifuges.

  92. James Canning says:

    Ataune: what is your estimate of damage to Iranian economy, caused by nuclear dispute since 2005? $1 trillion? More?

  93. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 14, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Iran did inform the IAEA about the increase in production and reaffirmed the technical purpose of the increase in the May 25 2012 meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA.

    You appear to be far too preoccupied about the politics and not sufficiently concerned about the policy. Iran informed the IAEA about the plans for 20% production, about the increase, about the changing to fuel plates…. You suggest this is bad politics – bad theater. Yet, you seem to have difficulty understanding the real ramification of a bad policy – Iranian patients dying!

    Had the propaganda machine churning the other way, the fact that the West refused to help Iran take care of her ill cancer patients would have played “bigger politics” compared to Iran’s increase in production of a material she needed to take care of those patients. However, Iranians decided not to play politics with human lives at stake.

  94. James Canning says:


    Are you actually arguing Iran needs nearly 200 kg of stockpiled 20U, to prevent Iranian patients from dying?

  95. James Canning says:


    Most of the people I know in the US are included in the so-called “elite”. Few of them would like to see Iran smashed.

    I confess I am not close to many rich Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong.

  96. James Canning says:

    Ataune: Iran does not accomplish effective PR by making reports to the IAEA. Full stop.

  97. James Canning says:

    Jay: see above comment to Ataune.

  98. Richard Steven Hack says:

    My last post disappeared?

    Anyway, from this Reuters article:

    “The White House issued its own statement after the call saying the United States and France were in “full agreement” on the terms of the deal which they proposed to Iran, as well as their approach to negotiations.”

    That shows once again that OBAMA – NOT FRANCE – sabotaged the deal. France acted on OBAMA’s orders, not just Netanyahu’s.

    “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry later said that Western states had been united on the terms of a deal, but that Iran had not been able to accept it.”

    More proof that Obama goes along with France – they’re blaming Iran for the deal falling through.

  99. Ataune says:

    “Surely you can see the dangers to Iran created by buildup to 20,000 centrifuges”
    Industrial level enrichment was a project planned by the Shah regime and had, at least nominaly, the approval of the US administration.

  100. Ataune says:

    “Ataune: Iran does not accomplish effective PR by making reports to the IAEA. Full stop.”
    Maybe most anglo-american politicians are like an englishman in this forum. They can’t be convinced by facts and reality. They think their exceptionalism create by itself a reality beyond ours.

  101. Ataune says:

    “Ataune: what is your estimate of damage to Iranian economy, caused by nuclear dispute since 2005? $1 trillion? More?”

    Debka, the Israeli military propaganda site estimated it to 170 billions. The same number you gave, maybe a week ago…

  102. Ataune says:

    “Are you actually arguing Iran needs nearly 200 kg of stockpiled 20U, to prevent Iranian patients from dying?”

    Iran needs to be wise and prudent therefore the stockpile is needed. Would have you you recomended being un-wise and foolish to England, during let’s say Malouine war ? I do not think so.

  103. fyi says:

    Ataune says:

    November 14, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    I think they are loath to admit that their strategic preponderance does not guarantee success in coercing other states.

    In case of the new power in the Near East they have failed and are unwilling to accept that.

    In fairness, I think the English Baron is ready to adjust to reality – but he cannot since he needs the King, even he be Mad.

  104. Karl.. says:


    Just ignore him, hes a confused old man.
    In his world states like Iran have no rights and when they claim them, these people get furious. What it is is racism because just like in the days of british imperialism the arabs/muslims/africans had no rights and when claimed, they were tortured or killed. Its the same thing today where torturing is the sanctions. Just watch his obsession with 20%, its not sane.

  105. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    November 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    I agree with you that Iranian gains are irreversible – short of an insane war. Even in case of war, any paradigm obtained will be short lived.

    James’ point of view is helpful – it informs us of the underlying psychology of the West’s stance vis-a-vis Iran.

    Iran’s economy is forecasted to grow again in 2014, after a contraction due to sanctions. With increasing demand for energy by China and India and decreased energy production by KSA, the sanctions continue to become increasingly porous. Combined with Iran’s excellent resources, the appetite for relinquishing technological gains for sanctions relief will disappear. The public in the West will be presented with one choice – an insane choice – but one choice nevertheless, and that is war. Europe has to either unhitch her wagon from this wreck-to-be, or become part of the dust of history.

  106. Ataune says:

    Following Canning’s “argumentation” gives you some clarification on the psychological way the Anglo-American negociation team might conduct themselves so it can help understand the behavior of the politicians afterwards. Therefore I think the conversation is not without some merit.

  107. Ataune says:


    Agree on that with you.

  108. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 14, 2013 at 3:12 pm


    If that is all you learned from our interaction, it is regrettable.

  109. Karl.. says:

    November 14, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Yes thats a fair point, I have raised it myself awhile ago.

  110. Fiorangela says:

    Netanyahu’s and Foxman’s hysteria cover up what seems to be a bad bargain for Iran.

    – – –

    Informative video– How God Made the English A Chosen People

  111. Smith says:

    Sokkandar says:
    November 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    That reasoning is flawed. In flight/sailing instruction, you learn that being excellent at flying/sailing does not guarantee against the disaster. In fact too much confidence in one’s ability will end in doom. Safe flying/sailing constitutes of continuous reassessment of the situation on the ground and re-training. Some people here both pro-IRI and anti-IRI have argued endlessly with me and have not been able to understand the points, I raise. So they used to attack me personally because of their own intellectual inferiority. You can go back and read it. The nuclear deterrence is fool proof and guarantees peace for all and this is the core of my argument. But despite this, some people just want to live their life with their nucleus basalis turned off and that I can not change that. It is their choice.

    But here, I rephrase and raise a few points for you:

    1) Either one should not make enemies specially new ones and when one does not have the ability/capability to deter them or that one should prepare the tools for deterring those enemies. See, if it was like old times and IRI was another dynasty in Iran’s long history, one would not be worried as much. One would just say, if they fail, we will pick the pieces and move on. But this dynasty is different. It is also the guarantor of a religion much in danger. The failure of IRI is not going to be a simple failure of a political dynasty but also the failure of a religion. Stakes are high. That is why one should be careful. Only gheirat is not enough for deterrence.

    There is this story of a guy with lots of gheirat that was locked up in prison because he had beaten up a man who had teased his sister on street. The man later dies of the injuries and the brother who was the sole breadwinner goes to prison. He had four sisters. The hunger forces these sisters to prostitution. It is not only gheirat and emotions that play their role in life. But also solid planning and having the right tools to defend oneself. You pick the strongest guy in the world to the fight and then stand there empty handed. That is foolishness.

    Here is what Saadi had said about such a situation:

    پنجه بر شیر زدن و مشت با شمشیر کار خردمندان نیست

    2) Let’s say five million people with lots of gheirat, bravery and being highly momen but with empty hands rise up to defend their area. The enemy explodes a hydrogen bomb on top of them. What do you think will happen?

    3) Do you also believe in non-sense that Iran should be a slave to NPT and without nuclear weapons but US/NATO, Pakistan and North Korea should be nuclear armed?

  112. James Canning says:

    Interesting report by Danny Fortson, in the Sunday Times (London) Nov 3: “Iran sanctions deal reopens North Sea field”.
    Rhum field, closed since 2010, is to reopen. It supplied 4% of Britain’s gas before it closed. Is 50% owned by the Iranian Oil company, and other 50% is BP.

  113. James Canning says:


    If you are arguing that North Korea should not have nukes, I agree with you. Increasingly, this is the opinion of Chinese leaders too.

  114. James Canning says:


    You appear to suggest Iran can get by without exporting oil? Or are you claiming the risks of war would be too great, and thus there would be no blockade (assuming Iran makes no deal with P5+1)?

  115. James Canning says:


    If Iran will be unable to make a deal with P5+1, in the event Iran refuses to suspend enriching to 20, it is curious you try to argue this issue is irrelevant.

  116. James Canning says:


    A spokesman for Rouhani in Iran’s parliament said $600 billion had left the country in past two years due to the sanctions. And Iran loses at least $100 billion per year in lost oil sales. Do the math. $1 trillion may be low (as estimate of damage to Iranian economy due to nuclear dispute).

  117. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 14, 2013 at 5:52 pm


    I feel frustrated by your diversion from one topic to the next, and the cursory or haphazard way in which you seem to interpret statements.

    Please help me understand the logic by which you constructed the statements in the post at 5:52!!

    I am not playing rhetorical dodgeball with you!

  118. James Canning says:


    I was referring the the certainty that all Iranian oil exports will be blocked, if no deal with P5+1 is made. And from what I gather, the P5+1 will not accept Iranian enrichment to 20.

    You appear to argue Iran need not make a deal. This in effect means you believe a blockade would not result, at some point. Or, that cutting off all Iranian oil expoets would not force Iran to make a deal, or start a war. Which would mean no Irnain nuclear programme.

  119. James Canning says:


    You posted an estimate that Iran’s economy would grow in 2014. This estimate obviously assumes Iran’s oil exports would continue. Correct?

  120. James Canning says:


    You should read Philip Girladi’s piece that I linked today, regarding the threat by a number of Americans involved in US intelligence etc, to resign en masse, and go public with the phonied intel about Syria that was being used to set up a US attack (after Aug. 21st CW event in Syria).

  121. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm


    Numerous analysts, and multiple war game simulations, suggest that even a partial blockade will result in significant worldwide economic damage. China, for example, will not support such foolishness.

    The last man who admonished the neocons for promoting the blockade fantasy was no other than admiral Mullen.

  122. nico says:

    Jay says:
    November 14, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    “Please help me understand the logic by which you constructed the statements in the post at 5:52!!”

    Canning is an idiot.
    It is illusory to expect something consistent out of his tin hat.
    The only thing he is able to spit out on this site is racist, exeptionalist and supremacist statements and position.
    He uses sophism, lies and deceit to stupidly defend his stances.
    Truly arrogant and nut.

    By the way he never answered to my question regarding the Bolivarian government in southern america.

  123. A concerned world citizen says:

    If what I’ve been reading on some MSM about the nuclear deal is true, Iran’s getting a really humiliating and bad deal. How much more capitulation are those “reformists” willing to do before the sh*t hits the fan in Tehran?

    I’m under the impression that the “reformists”, to cover for their incompetence in economic management, have opted for “diplomacy” which they hope will result in sanction relief so that they can use that money for whatever development they want – they want to talk their way into success. Instead of focusing on how to improve the macro economic structures in Iran and improving Iran’s industrial/manufacturing sector, they’ve chosen the lazy approach by appeasing the US in order to get sanctions(some) lifted so they can show how good their diplomacy skills are.

    But not so fast..For many years, these “reformist” have been accusing the previous government of lacking in diplomacy and how their sloppy diplomacy’s weakened Iran. It seems the Supreme Leader’s given them enough rope to hang themselves by allowing them to go for the “negotiations” with their “skillful” diplomacy. And now we have it!! The goalpost’s been shifted again. The P5 + 1 are now making other demands that was unrelated to reaching of a deal during previous negotiations. Not only are they not happy with the concessions Iran’s made so far, they want to take it a step further by insisting Iran dismantle Arak and if possible, stop all enrichment – in fact, the whole 10 yards!!!

    The sh*t will hit the fan in Tehran soon. No amount of nice words and glossing overs will make this deal sound appealing to Iranians. Ruhani – “the moderate”, will have to come up with a better explanation to the people.

    Dr. Ahmadinejad was insulted, vilified and demonized by these “reformists” Akhoonds. But he never lost or gave anything away in defending Iran’s right. Now these “reformists” want to give everything away for the lifting of about 5% of the sanctions?????

    My question here is, after the nuclear capitulation, what next will those “moderates” surrender???

  124. nico says:

    “Fiat Money Inflation in France”
    book by Andrew Dickson White (November 7, 1832 – November 4, 1918) a U.S. diplomat, historian, and educator, who was the co-founder of Cornell University.

    The book is available in pdf format free of copyright.

    Alike the situation we are living today ?

    “What’s remarkable is how conventional histories of the period treat this huge economic reality as a mere footnote, and that’s mostly because historians are not usually alert to the cause-and-effect relationships in economics. But this book is different. The author puts the monetary story right at the center of the action and compellingly shows how it led to a national catastrophe:

    Inflation brought, as we have seen, commerce and manufactures, the mercantile interest, the agricultural interest, to ruin. It brought on these the same destruction which would come to a Hollander opening the dykes of the sea to irrigate his garden in a dry summer.

    It ended in the complete financial, moral and political prostration of France — a prostration from which only a Napoleon could raise it. [dictature and war as solution for economic woes…]

    This study was first written in 1896, and it has not been surpassed, and nor has its historiographical power been diminished.”

  125. Yousef Bozorgmehr says:

    Here is a letter I wrote to the LA Times about Iran’s right under Article IV:


  126. Don Bacon says:

    I see no “nuclear capitulation” in Tehran. You’re being overly concerned, overly dramatic.

    Citizens everywhere have a common enemy — their governments. Most people simply accept it and go about their business of their daily lives.

  127. A concerned world citizen says:

    Don Bacon says:
    November 15, 2013 at 9:28 am
    I see no “nuclear capitulation” in Tehran. You’re being overly concerned, overly dramatic.

    I may be overly dramatic, but what has the US given in return? All the bending over’s been done by Iran. I hope those in charge know what they’re doing..Just saying..

  128. Karl.. says:

    I agree we shouldnt be too negative, alternative is war and obama is apparently stupid enough to try such alternative.

  129. Sammy says:

    Confirming nico’s stance on the collapse of the Western financial system , the end is near :


    ‘The eurozone is not able to improve its lumbering economy because the 17-nation bloc is stuck in an “economic death spiral,” an economist tells Press TV…

  130. Don Bacon says:

    This is a charade that has little to do with foreign policy and no intention of ever being sensible nor fair. It is being done primarily for US domestic political reasons, as with most government foreign activities. There is much profit for the US in continuing to destabilize the Middle East while Kerry and Sherman do their theatrical performances. That part — the E3/EU+3 BS — will soon end.

    Meanwhile, Iran is dealing with the situation which is bound to change. The change will be for more ‘crippling sanctions’ which Iran will have to deal with as it has done in the past, in order to survive. In both cases its government promoting their own power, considering domestic politics. I see no “nuclear capitulation” in Tehran, and Iran hasn’t “bent over.” Iran hasn’t ceded any of its sovereign rights.

    Again: Citizens everywhere have a common enemy — their governments. Most people simply accept it and go about their business of their daily lives as best they can.

  131. Don Bacon says:

    A ‘booster rocket’ for the EU “economic death spiral” has of course been the ‘Iran sanctions.’ All sanctions affect not only buyers but also sellers, and Iran was a net buyer of things European until the ‘crippling sanctions’ terminated Iran/EU trade. Peugeot’s financial problems is a prime example.

    Iran now looks east, where the growth is.

  132. Smith says:

    Look at this fool: http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1112.html

    One wonders if these people are CIA agents embedded to bring down Iran.

    There is good possibility of this.

    Now that NSA scandal and Snowden affair has put everything bare, these people are pushing for Iran to be spied on even more.

    If there was any doubt about reformists being enemy of Iran, now that doubt should not be there.

    Instead of spending a few billions on making Iranian versions of facebook, twitter, google etc as Russia and China have done, these stupid people want to put even the most minuscule details of Iranian government, business and private lives on American servers.

    There is good possibility that these people are going to sell Iran to America for free. Nuclear and all.

  133. Smith says:

    Some bi-basirat people were defending Don Bacon when I used to expose him, as if he was their namoos.

    Now he has bared himself for everyone to see here.

    An enemy of Iran.

    Some one who is trying to put it in brains of people here that Iranian government is their enemy.

    Just like ever, these people who are hypocrites expose themselves and their intentions.

    They favor America to hold thousands of nukes and favor America to build tens of thousands nukes more but they are opposed to Iran having a dozen nuclear weapons for its defense.

    They come here, and defend the narrative the American government that Iran should not have nukes and then say Iranians should consider their government as their enemy.

    Then some bi-basirat, bi-khasiat cowards show up and defend these people.

    It should be a wake up call for the people here who still have got brains capable of thinking.

  134. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    Rouhani’s plan to entice US and European oil companies to invest $100 billion in Iranian oil & gas development is not “looking east”.

    But of course I agree with you the sanctions on Iran have been very expensive for the US, Europe, Japan.

  135. James Canning says:


    I would readily agree with you that a blockade of Iranian oil exports would risk serious global economic problems. But I for one would prefer this course, if the alternative is an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

  136. James Canning says:


    The US has made clear it will accept Iranian enrichment to low levels. Or, if you prefer, Obama has made clear his administration is prepared to accept such enrichment.

  137. James Canning says:


    Pose your question to me about Bolivia once again, if you do not mind doing so.

    I also request a specific statement of “lies” you claim I make.

    Karl accused me of “lying” when I said I thought Obama was willing to accept Iranian enrichment to low levels. Obviously, I was correct, and Karl was wrong. Equally obvious is that Karl has not conceded he falsely accused me of “lying”. Absurd.

  138. James Canning says:


    May I request a direct statement from you, on what will happen if Iran fails to make a deal with P5+1? Do you contend, like Jay, that Iran will continue to export oil at current levels? Or, do you expect such oil exports to be curtailed significantly, if not ended altogether?

  139. Smith says:

    US says that no comprehensive (strategic) deal is possible with Iran: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/15/un-ambassador-comprehensive-iran-nuke-deal-not-realistic-right-now/

    The current deal offered to Iran is for Iran to completely freeze its nuclear program, destroy its enriched uranium, accept Additional Protocol (and possibly CTBT), accept the reinterpretation of NPT that Iran has no rights what so ever, etc etc in exchange for US to release an Iranian government bank account in Malaysia with only three thousand dollars in it.

    This is it guys. Three thousand dollars for Iran to give up its entire nuclear program.

    The gift of reformist thinkers for Iranian nation.

    In other news, IAEA has confirmed that Rouhani has already frozen Iran’s nuclear expansion even without any result in talks.

  140. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    November 15, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    “I also request a specific statement of “lies” you claim I make.”

    I demonstrated time and again here your sophistry and deceptive statements.
    About the lies, that is directly linked and consequence of the above.
    Your typically briton perfidious stances is true sign of arrogance and supremacism.
    Exactly same as Sharon and Nyhaoo.
    You are the same and brothers in lies, immorality and supremacism.

    “May I request a direct statement from you, on what will happen if Iran fails to make a deal with P5+1?”

    I already stated that there is very low chance of war.
    As for the oil.
    Who care ? That is a civilizational clash.
    The white man wanting to keep supremacy over the muslims.
    The issue is that the Anglo do not respect others and the muslims the least.
    The Anglo consider that muslims only deserve the sewers of the world order.
    That is the issue from the Iranian revolution and going on.

    My take is that if Iran is not ready to accept total cut of their oil exports they should as well return the sewers right away.

  141. James Canning says:


    Please be more specific: do you think Iran will be able to continue to export oil, if no deal of any sort is reached with the P5+1?

    I fail to see a single instance of a “lie”, by me, that you are able to cite. Name one.

  142. James Canning says:


    I think Netanyahu is trying to block a deal between P5+1 and Iran, so that his programme of growing illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank can continue. What do you think? Please be specific.

  143. James Canning says:


    Surely you are well aware of the intense political opposition Obama faces, in the US, to his programme of resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran.

    Rouhani, with his deep knowledge of the US and American politics, comprehends what obtains.

  144. Richard Steven Hack says:

    Why the Iran Nuclear Talks Failed

    Important Quote:

    The publicly stated reasons by Western negotiators for suppressing the proposed deal range from the future of Iran’s heavy-water nuclear reactor in Arak, the fate of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to the level of 20% purity, the degree and the range of intrusive inspections, and more. The main reason, leaked by the Iranian media and officials (and confirmed by the Russian negotiators), however, lies elsewhere:

    The U.S. and its allies had made a promise to the Iranian team that if Iran authentically and satisfactorily complied with its “obligations” under the proposed “confidence building” interim deal for six months, they would at the end of the interim period reciprocate by: (a) recognizing Iran’s legal and legitimate right to peaceful nuclear technology; (b) recognizing its right to uranium enrichment to the level of 5 percent purity, the level needed for nuclear power plants; and (c) loosening and/or lifting sanctions on its oil and the banking system.

    Similar promises in 2005 led Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment for two years without any reciprocity in terms of the promised loosening of economic sanctions. Having learned from that experience, Iranian negotiators insisted this time that the above-mentioned three promises must be made in writing. And that’s when the Western nuclear powers’ bad faith negotiation was exposed, as they refused to put their promises in a written, guaranteed form.

    This shows, once again, that, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which clearly recognizes the right of member countries to peaceful nuclear technology, the real goal of the United States and its allies is to deny Iran this legal and legitimate right. More fundamentally, it shows that Iran’s nuclear program is used essentially as a pretext to change Iran from a sovereign to a client state.

    End Quote

  145. James Canning says:


    If you are in fact arguing Iran should stop exporting oil, shouldn’t you challenge Jay in his apparent contention Iran’s oil exports at current levels could continue even if there is no deal with E3+3?

  146. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    November 15, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    I amply answered to your questions.
    The issue is that it is unbalanced. You never answer logically, and you squirt single lines.
    Respect people here and maybe you will get some respect back.

    The issue is that you are totally unable or impotent to do just that.
    Actually your stance is that much supremacist and immoral that you need your perfidious and deceptive ways to communicate.
    I think I debunked you enough here and I will continue to do so if ane when I feel the need.

  147. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    November 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    “Nico,If you are in fact arguing Iran should stop exporting oil, shouldn’t you challenge Jay in his apparent contention Iran’s oil exports at current levels could continue even if there is no deal with E3+3?”

    What a bunch of solid BS.
    Is that a hidden and perfidious way to be ironic and insulting ? A la briton ?
    Or are you just a nut case ?

  148. Kathleen says:

    James I thought Japan had exemptions from parts of the sanctions against Iran

  149. Kathleen says:

    Take that, France: Iran has Halted Expansion of Nuclear Facilities: IAEA

    Kerry is smeared by Israel and its friends as ‘pigheaded’ adversary of Jewish state
    Philip Weiss on November 15, 2013

  150. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    The difference between you and Don is that one of you two has actually been to a real war.

    Guess which one of you two?

    His views on war are credible, yours are not. Sorry to tell you the “bitter truth”.

    Also, your devoted defense- as a self-proclaimed “Muslim”- of a person who says that the Prophet (sawas) should have ignored the revelations is, well, “revealing”.

    I’ll take old American soldier Don over coward runaway “didn’t want to waste my life in Iran” Gooz-pich any day. Unfortunately your secret crush on Gooz-pich clouds your intelligence on this.

    “Love makes blind…”

    In general my assessment of you is that you are mentally unstable- which often goes hand-in-hand with very high intelligence.

    Like your idol and James Canning, you need to blog less and speak more to a mental health care professional.

    Either that or you are an “agent provocateur”- a really crappy one BTW.

    Nuclear weapons are HARAAM according to the fatwa/hukm of your vali! Do you get it?

    You are the embodiment of bi-basirat. In fact you are so bi-basirat and obsessed with saying the opposite of what your vali is saying, that you being an “enemy” is much more probable.

    I would be glad to keep ripping you a new a-hole whenever it becomes necessary.

  151. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Don’t worry, with a little “narmesh qahremanane” Agha exposed what needed to be exposed.

    We all know how’s in charge…one eshare and everyone and their ammeh will be estizad if it becomes necessary.

    You would be pleasantly surprised to know who the sheep in Majlis want to estiza first.

    Keep smiling…

  152. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    Would have enjoyed talking to your grandfather about his life.

    How about we all say a big “ciao stronzo” and “va fan culo” to the Zionist controlling the US.


  153. Bussed-in Basiji says:


    All this means that FN will become stronger.

  154. Karl.. says:

    November 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Yes I suspect that too (no assurances), thing is then, why make a deal if Israel will be backed by west if they attack Iran?

  155. James Canning says:


    My reference to Japan was in context of its being a major oil importer, and paying higher prices due to the nuclear dispute. Same applies to Chian, though China does make various deals with Iran that alleviate some of the pain.

  156. James Canning says:


    Jay in fact argues that Iran can continue to export oil, even if there is no deal with P5+1. What is “insulting” about Jay’s position, or my reference to it?

  157. James Canning says:


    I asked you a simple question: do you think Iran will be able to continue to export oil even if it fails to make a deal with EU3+3?

    No answer?

  158. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    November 15, 2013 at 1:14 pm


    Fortuitously, a blockade and an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities are not the only options. Both sides have several other options at their disposal. Two examples are: continuation of the current cold conflict, and the other is the West’s acceptance of Iran’s nuclear rights in return for guarantees that include a detailed inspection regime. Since the latter would imply some advance toward an equal partner in the ME, I do not assign a high chance.

  159. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    November 15, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    “I asked you a simple question: do you think Iran will be able to continue to export oil even if it fails to make a deal with EU3+3?”

    Why do you care about Iran oil ?
    Many countries do well without oil to export.

    You should rather care about that.

    As provided in historical examples and the link of the pdf book I posted earlier, it can only finish in meltdown.

  160. Don Bacon says:

    Now the New York Times is reporting that:
    “Solution May Be Near for Iran Nuclear Deal, U.S. Official Says”

    On the “right to enrich” (which of course Iran has):
    “I am sure that whatever gets agreed to in this document, Iran will argue that they have the right to enrichment,” the senior administration official said, referring to the interim accord now under negotiation. “And we will argue, as I am sure the document will make clear, that nothing has been agreed as to the final dimensions of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program once it can assure the international community that it is peaceful.”

    So how can Iran assure a peaceful intent, when the US has been saying for years that Iran has nuclear weapon ambitions? (or some such foolishness)

    We were going to have a war on ambitions, and now peace on intent? It’s unreal.

    Meanwhile there are strong rumblings of discontent in the US Congress.

  161. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    November 15, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    Wanna know what you should care about ?
    Another example.

    “90 Years Ago: The End of German Hyperinflation”

    “Paper money, produced “ex nihilo” and injected into the economy through bank credit, is not only chronically inflationary, it also causes malinvestment, “boom-and-bust” cycles, and brings about a situation of over-indebtedness. Once governments and banks in particular start faltering under their debt load and, as a result, the economy is in danger of contracting, the printing up of additional money appears all too easily to be a policy of choosing the lesser evil to escape the problems that have been caused by credit-produced paper money in the first place. Looking at the world today — in which many economies have been using credit-produced paper monies for decades and where debt loads are overwhelmingly high, the current challenges are in a sense quite similar to those prevailing in the Weimar Republic more than 90 years ago. Now as then, a reform of the monetary order is badly needed; and the sooner the challenge of monetary reform is taken on, the smaller will be the costs of adjustment.”

  162. Karl.. says:

    This is non issue to argue that Iran hasnt the right to enrich, shameful that US reject laws like that.

  163. Bibijon says:

    Don Bacon says:
    November 15, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    “We were going to have a war on ambitions, and now peace on intent? It’s unreal.”


    The dispute regarding ‘the right to enrich’ will be resolved with ‘irresolution’ to Iran’s advantage. I.e. a wink and a nod, but nothing explicit. Iran will be deemed to be in keeping with her ‘international obligations’ while enriching on her soil.

    This type of scenario is to Iran’s advantage in that it will leave unsettled all the dust thrown up in the air regarding the “inalienable” right to enrich which doesn’t effect any nation, including Iran who are already enriching, while creating a restraint for other would be proliferaters.

  164. Don Bacon says:

    Yes, it’s kind of like the status of Taiwan, with an ambiguous oriental approach which nevertheless serves the purpose.

  165. Don Bacon says:

    Iran has agreed to halt the installation of new centrifuges. It already has about 20,000, of which only half are in operation, so that’s no big deal. Iran also has a new agreement with the IAEA which allows that agency to visit two non-nuclear facilities, the Gchine uranium mine and the Arak Heavy Water Production Plant. Not a big deal either.

  166. Don Bacon says:

    Saudi Arabia has been a major factor against an agreement, working together with France which wants more influence in the Gulf and might even be hopeful about Syria. But the Syria Army is enjoying some success, which probably works against an agreement since Iran benefits.

  167. Kathleen says:

    Here is Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown’s response to my communication asking him to support negotiations with Iran not more sanctions based on unsubstantiated claims. Of course had some idea that the had supported sanctions but had no idea he had been so instrumental on constructing and imposing Israel’s sanctions (owning the U.S. congress on this issue)on Iran. So discouraged with Dem Senator Sherrod Brown’s response. He is clearly a PEIP (progressive except for Iran and Palestine). I also begged him to consult with the Leverett’s before making more decisions about Iran.

    “Dear Ms. Galt:

    Thank you for getting in touch regarding Iran.

    I continue to be a strong advocate of doing everything we can to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition to being a cosponsor of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011, I cosponsored the Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012, and Senate Resolution 380, which urged increased economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran and affirmed U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. During the consideration of both the 2011 and 2012 National Defense Authorization Acts, I also supported specific amendments to impose tougher sanctions on Iran.

    As we put pressure on the Iranian government to disband its nuclear program, our resolve to support those in Iran who seek peace and freedom cannot waiver.

    I appreciate your sharing your concerns with me. Concerns for Iran are too important to be subject to partisan politics. As the Senate considers relevant legislation, I will keep your thoughts in mind.


    Sherrod Brown
    United States Senator”

  168. Kathleen says:

    Back at Senator Brown:

    “Dear Senator Brown,

    After having worked hundreds of hours for both of your Senate campaigns it is deeply troubling that you have played such a role in pushing for unnecessary sanctions against Iran. You must know there is no hard proof that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program and that they have the legal right to enrich uranium up to 20% for peaceful purposes as signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is also deeply disappointing that you would allow yourself to be driven by the demands of Israel and the Israeli lobby when it comes to U.S. foreign policy with Iran who signed the NPT long ago vs Israel who continues to refuse to sign the NPT and sits on a massive stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that go un inspected by the international community. Are you incapable of admitting to this horrific irony. This is the height of hypocrisy.

    Please begin consulting with former Bush administration officials Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett who stood against the invasion of Iraq based on unsubstantiated claims(which I know you voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution) and who have directly negotiated with Iran. Flynt is a former CIA middle east analyst. I believe they know far more facts about Iran than those who are driving you towards more unnecessary sanctions against Iran.

    I feel so strongly about this issue that if you continue to construct and push for more sanctions against Iran I will personally work against your next Senate run.

    Kathleen Galt
    Athens Ohio

    Links to the Leveretts website and talks

    Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on Charlie Rose


    Flynt Leverett at New America Foundation

  169. Karl.. says:


    Yes dissapoiting, however I applaude your efforts, I too try to reach out in various way.
    This Sherrod is clearly a warmonger. Note this line:

    “to disband its nuclear program,”

    These people wont tolerate any program in Iran

  170. Kathleen says:

    Have been lobbying Ohio’s Reps and others in D.C. for decades on this issue. We have to keep trying. They need to know we are out here.

  171. James Canning says:


    A number of Aipac stooges in the US Congress will have to accept an Iranian nuclear programme, provided that programme is limited.

  172. James Canning says:

    Foreign tourism in Iran is up substantially over past several months, compared to same months in 2012. (Front page story in Financial Times today)

  173. James Canning says:


    I have for many years worried about the dangers posed by too much printing of US dollars, by US gov’t. Decades, in fact. I have done a good bit of reading about financial panics, inflationary spirals, etc etc etc.

  174. James Canning says:

    Don Bacon,

    US intelligence has refused to revise the 2007 NIE on Iran, that Iran is not building nukes. Sustained heavy pressure from neocons, Israel lobby, etc etc, to do so.

    Many Aipac stooges in the US Congress do claim Iran is building nukes (in effect).

  175. James Canning says:


    You ask why I care about a cutoff of Iranian oil exports. One good reason: it would produce a financial crisis in Iran, that would be dangerous to the Middle East. Consider Syria, where civil war was in part the result of serious cash crisis suffered by Syrian government.

  176. James Canning says:


    I agree that the current situation (Iranian nuclear dispute) could continue for quite some some, but only if work on Arak continues to be suspended, and no further stockpiling of 20U takes place. There would be a significant risk of further sanctions, however.

    I think a rich and strong Iran would have a fairly easy time wielding greater influence in the Middle East. I would expect this to be automatic, provided common sense in foreign policy obtained. In other words, your hopes of greater power and influence for Iran in the ME would be fostered by a deal with P5+1.

  177. Rehmat says:

    Tom H. Hastings, director of Peace Voice in a recent article has suggested the “Peace Options” for the Obama administration; declare no military strike on Iran, cease military aid to Israel, apologize to Iranian people for Washington’s anti-Isran policies in the past, open embassy in Tehran, and lift sanctions on Iran in banking, medicine and scientific sectors.

    “You do not need to conduct a multivariate regression analysis to know that successful negotiation requires both carrots and sticks. Hardliners are stuck on sticks, both violent and economic, and even low and no-cost carrots drive them “round the bend.” Fine. Let them go. Constructive conflict management is the new realpolitik,” said Hastings.