Saudi Arabia’s “Great Game” in Yemen and America’s Deluded Response: Hillary Mann Leverett on CCTV’s The Heat

Hillary underscored the witlessly reflexive character of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen this week on CCTV’s The Heat, see here and (for YouTube) here.  Critiquing the ongoing Saudi military campaign in Yemen, Hillary points out that “no one in Washington is sure what the goal is, what the Saudis are trying to achieve.  It is certainly destabilizing, empowering of al-Qa’ida, and further inflaming the tensions throughout the region.”

Given simultaneous uncertainty about Saudi goals and clear evidence of downside consequences for U.S. interests, why have American policymakers let their country get sucked into supporting such an ill-conceived enterprise?  As Hillary explains, U.S. backing for the Kingdom’s latest escapade against its southern neighbor has virtually nothing to do with Washington’s concerns about on-the-ground developments in Yemen.  Rather, U.S. backing for Riyadh’s war in Yemen has virtually everything to do with America’s longstanding but increasingly dysfunctional strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia:

“Saudi Arabia is the linchpin, is the pillar of American policy in the Middle East, is the way the U.S. exercises its hegemony in the Middle East.  Without Saudi Arabia, we don’t have that kind of policy.  For the Saudis, Yemen is incredibly important, and that’s why we support this Saudi campaign in Yemen, even though it is squarely against U.S. interests, especially in terms of how it’s empowering al-Qa’ida—and even ISIS, the Islamic State—in Yemen and elsewhere.”

Hillary also discusses Iran’s real role in Yemen—it’s not what conventional narratives in Washington and Western mainstream media would have you believe—and the prospects for a political settlement In Yemen based on “devolved power.”

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett 


87 Responses to “Saudi Arabia’s “Great Game” in Yemen and America’s Deluded Response: Hillary Mann Leverett on CCTV’s The Heat”

  1. fyi says:


    Mr. Fyodor Lukyanov on the situation in the Near East:

  2. fyi says:


    Mr. Abdullah Toukan of CSIS on military balance in the Persian Gulf

  3. Irshad says:

    @fyi – I am confused by Mr. Fyodor Lukyanov – he says, Putin cancelled the s300 deal to Syria because it can be used against Isreal. But they will sell it to iran because it is a defensive weapon that cannot be used agains Isreal.
    In my estimation, the Syrians will only use S300 if isreal attacks Syria – it cannot be used for anything else – like baliistic missle for eg. And Mr Assad in an interview to Al-Manar TV did say the S300 had been delivered to Syria. So what is going? Who do we believe? And if the Russians dont give the S300, then Iran can deploy the Bavar 373 is she wants to in Syria, especially now that the Syrian army has faced losses on the battlefield and the Saudis – drunk on Yemeni blood – may decide to turn their unique alliance on Syria?

  4. Nasser says:

    Irshad says: May 6, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Actually Mr Lukyanov very much doubts, as do I, that Iran will ever get those S300s either.

  5. Irshad says:

    @Nasser – well if they dont deliver it to Iran, then it becomes clearer for the world how they are unreliable to countries that is friendly to them. They need to stop and realise that its because of IR Iran, that her soft under belly – Southern Russia is safe and mo Wahabi Zombies are being sent to help the local insurgents. It also blows a hole for all those dreamin for a multipolar world. It also means Iran needs to concentrate on indigenous SAM systems that is good enough to shootdown enemy aircrafts/missles and can be used to defend her regional allies such as Syria. What would Iran do if the Saudis turn their bombing campaign on Syria?

    And another question – why are the Yemenis using the SAMs they got to shootdown Wahabi airforce? And why not use the scud missles to target Wahabi airbases in Wahabistan?

  6. Irshad says:

    Why are the Yemenis NOT using their SAMs…*

  7. Nasser says:

    Irshad says: May 6, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    – I doubt they care too much about how reliable or unreliable they come across. Russian strategists feel the current impasse between US and Iran serves Russia’s interests superbly as two countries they don’t like are at each other’s throats. And furthermore US attention is diverted from Russia and sometimes even Russia can extract concessions out of these two countries by promising cooperation against the third party. Naturally they want this to continue as long as possible and have been careful to not do anything that would disrupt this situation. Now I don’t need convincing that Rusia and Iran would both be well served by having better ties but it is not I that need the convincing. Big powerful countries can afford to be callous and obstinate on many matters. (For example one can argue that the United States will be better served by lowering its global commitments and focusing more on domestic matters. That doesn’t mean they will take such advice though.)

    That said, with the start of their new Cold War and the seeming decision by the US to come to a ceasefire with Iran, they figured it would be wise to not burn all bridges with Iran and thus they publicized their decision to lift ban on weapons sales to Iran which btw does not equate to delivery of said weapons. And if such news increases suspicions and hinders cease fire between US and Iran then that is just an added bonus. You would notice how dismissive President Obama was at the news of Russia lifting ban on S300 sale, saying to the press it is a non issue.

    – As far as Russian underbelly goes, it is not like Russia expects a neutered Iran to suddenly and overnight become a US colony and harm its own interests and security of Shias by sponsoring Wahabism in the Caucasus. Indeed I agree such concerns are quite silly. Mr Lukyanov says as much in this presentation:

    – I put very little stock in the bravado of Saudi jounalists saying that once they are done with Yemen they would bomb Syria next. That is just nonsense for domestic consumption. In fact, the Yemen thing far from being a success greatly unsettled the Saudis about how Turkey and especially Pakistan didn’t fall in line with their plans.

    – I am sorry I can’t answer your question as to why Houthis haven’t managed to shoot down many Saudi planes. I am not sure what kind of SAMs they have that haven’t been bombed, what their capabilities, range and resistance to jamming measures are etc etc. One thing I do know is that air defense alone can’t protect a country against a large and determined and modern air force. (Israel hypothetically bombing Iran is a completely different matter as Iran is too far away and the nuclear targets are too dispersed and hardened to effectively be targeted by the Israelis. Which is why they always wanted the Americans to do it for them).

    – Of course I agree that Iran should concentrate on developing her own industries and capabilities. Whether it is begging Russians for defense or bootlicking the French for the automotive sector, it is just disgraceful how Iranians keep expecting other big powers to solve her problems. Remember that playing the Tsarist Empire against the British Empire resulted in Iran losing territory to both and both the Super Powers during the Cold War backed Saddam to the hilt. Unfortunately Iranian business community are full of dalals rather than engineers and they keep resisting Mr. Khamenei’s efforts to develop genuine indigenous capabilities. It will be good for Iran if hope dies. Hope, that US, France or Russia or anyone else would ever give Iran what it needs and thus Iran must develop those things herself. And it would be especially worrisome if Iran shortchanges funding for her own Bavar project to finance purchase of Russian SAMs in my opinion.

  8. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 6, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    The Near East was the broker of the trade with India, Indonesia, and China.

    When the Europeans found alternative trade routes, Near East slowly decayed.

    But the middle-man mentality did not die with it.

    It is hard tough slug to move out of that middle-man mentality; it is quite clear.

    One must be grateful for the positive consequences of the Iran-Iraq War as well as those of the Axis Powers-Iran Economic War; it has disabused Iranian leaders and certain sectors of Iranian polity from their quaint and pathetic notions.

    By the way, in India and Pakistan, the word “dalal” means “pimp”; one goes to a dalal to arrange access to prostitutes…

  9. Karl.. says:


    Maybe US was the one that didnt want Syria to have the missiles since they are bombing Syrian land at the moment?

  10. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 6, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    This was a very informative article and documented two things:

    1. Iran had tried to curry favor with Russia without getting anything in return – similar to the Iran’s India policy under Mr. Rafsanjani.

    2. That Russia had practiced an almost identical policy towards US and with an equally abysmal results.

    The key observation was this:

    ” The Kremlin had grown accustomed to dictating to the semi-isolated Islamic Republic the conditions of a Russian president’s meetings with his Iranian counterpart.” – when Putin wanted to visit Iran in 2012.

    This was basically the attitude of US, EU, India, and very many other states to Iran – they very seriously underestimated the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people [Americans did the same thing with respect to Russia during their Unilateral Moment – taking a passing phase of disorganization and weakness as a sign of decay and decline of the Rus.]

    The world has changed; and Iranians have created their sphere of influence – and they are a threshold nuclear weapon state and have survived the economic war against them for more than 4 years.

    The correct policy for Russia would have been to treat Iran normally (starting in 1991) and develop mutually beneficial reciprocal relationships to the utmost and not treat her as a tool for extracting favors from US and EU.

    They all expected Iran to roll over and die.

    When she did not, all those calculations and machinations were proved wrong.

  11. Irshad says:

    @Nasser – thank you for your reply!

    @Karl – the question then must be asked is this: If its ok for the US/UK/France to flood the Gulf and Isreal with their expensive weapons – which is used to bomb and kill Palestinians and Yemenis and to supress their own population desire for change, regardless of what others say – then why does Russia not sell her weapons to Syria/Iran regardless of what others say? Why does she care what US/UK/France says – she claims to be a soverign power, with a independent foriegn policy – but she then shoots herself in the foot by not fulfilling military contracts with her “allies” to appease Isreal/US etc. Just pathetic!

    As per fyi’s comment, Russia needs to stop using her allies to squeeze concessions out of the West. She has learnt a hard lesson over the Mistral affair. And also with Nato expansion and the desire for most countries for Western weapons (hint hint India), her market share of selling weapons is shrinking – for e.g. India awarded the fighter jet contract to France and not Russia!

  12. James Canning says:


    Russia did not expect Iran “to roll over and die”. Russia has been trying to achieve a deal on the Iranian nuclear dispute.

  13. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    May 7, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    Russia did not treat Iran in a neighborly manner – this much is clear.

    In a way, that worked out for the Iranians as they were forced further to realize that this is a world in which “Power has the final word” and thus induced them to develop their own internal strengths.

    Such lessons as Iranians have learnt over the last 60 or 100 years may not be new to the English but they were new to Iranians.

    We are still decades away to see and experience the full implications of the Iranian response to the economic war which was waged against them with aim being nothing less that the evisceration of their society and state.

    Just like the Iran-Iraq War, Iranians were pushed too far again.

  14. Nasser says:

    fyi says: May 7, 2015 at 10:08 am

    Thank you for your comments.

    I too am glad that Iranians were forced to learn these harsh truths. And as you have earlier said every non white ought to thank the heavens that the West once again and needlessly made an enemy out of the Russians; because otherwise resistance to the empire would become impossible for the rest of humanity.

    In your reply to Mr. Cannning you write: “We are still decades away to see and experience the full implications of the Iranian response to the economic war which was waged against them with aim being nothing less that the evisceration of their society and state.” Could you please expand on this?

  15. Rehmat says:

    fyi – do you what Brookings stands for?

    According to Gilad Atzmon, Brookings = Saban, the Muslim hating Zionist Jew.

    However, in its 2012 report, the Brookings Institute said: “A regime change in Iran is a PIPE DREAM”.

  16. Rehmat says:

    YEMEN has never been a Shia problem for the Saudi ‘royals’. YEMEN has always been a Zionist problem, even before the creation of the Zionist entity on Arab land in 1948.

    Saudi ‘royals’ and Israel supported Yemen’s Shia Zayidi Imamat against Egypt under Gamal Nasser (1962-70).

    In 2010, Jew Senator Joe Lieberman had predicted that America’s future war will be in Yemen. Lieberman was indirectly stating the strategic importance of Yemen for the Zionist entity. Yemen’s coastal Red Sea (which leads to Suez Cannal, Mediterranean and Dead Sea) is the only international water-way which links the Zionist entity with the outside world.

    It seems, Iran’s political support for the Shia-majority Houthi resistance against the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia ‘Axis of Evil’ has started showing good results.

    Viktor Titov PhD, a Russian geopolitical expert on Middle East affairs wrote on September 12, 2014: “If (Yemen’s) president and the prime minister do not rally their efforts, then the Houthis will get an easy victory without massive use of force or even efforts. This will result in creation of a pro-Iran Shia Islamic state in the north, which in turn force southerners to separate and create their own country and that is nothing less than a total rebalance of powers in the region.”

    The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia have accused the Islamic Republic for interfering in Yemen’s internal affairs by providing support for the marginalized Houthis against the regime in Sana’a. Houthis tribes which make almost half of Yemeni population, have been waging decades-long struggle to secure their rightful place in Yemen. Their struggle is lead by Ansar Allah (supporters of Allah), an Islamist organization.

  17. Sammy says:


    It’s all happening now as I’m receiving a multiplicity of posts, email, articles and memoranda from sources. Turkey is planning an illegal offensive in Syria which is expected to start during the next few days. Turkish opposition sources lay the blame for this on deteriorating poll numbers for Erdoghan’s ruling Justice and Development Party which has seen extensive set-backs during the last few months which include more accusations of defalcation, treachery and usurpation of power. Add to that the release of all accused military personnel in the Ergenokon “plot” and anti-Erdoghan protesters due to invalid or tainted evidence. Erdoghan’s fragrance in Europe has also been infused recently with notes of sewage, compost material and Camembert cheese. Erdoghan knows his days are numbered and he’s hoping a foreign adventure will divert attention from his unrelenting woes to a dream-like military campaign with all the bluster and hurly-burly of a world war.

    I have read that the Russians have warned Erdoghan about such adventures. We have written extensively about Russia’s strategic interests in maintaining a reliable warm-water port in the Mediterranean. Cypress, a EU member, is nice to have on board, of course, but Syria is a traditional ally with a president who looks eastward when it comes to planning the future of his country. The Cypriots have no such inclinations. Moreover, we have discussed the planned Iranian pipeline across Iraq to Syria’s ports carrying natural gas to Europe, of course, under the supervision of Gazprom, the Russian energy giant and monopoly. But, don’t forget also that the Russians have a commitment from Syria to develop the huge newly-discovered natural gas reservoirs under the Mediterranean. Russia will not give these up. Putin already told Patriarch Kiril that he would rather see terrorists dancing in the streets of Moscow than in Damascus.

    Iran has a mutual defense pact with Syria and that treaty could be invoked the moment Turks enter Syria with a bold armored force. Unlike the minor incursion to remove the tomb of Osman’s grandfather some months ago (with the apparent collusion of ISIS), an attack of the kind about which we are talking would be the natural trigger. I am monitoring Iranian newscasts closely looking for hints of preparations.

    From a NATO point of view, Turkey could not invoke its own membership status since it was invading a sovereign nation without U.N.S.C. or NATO resolutions backing the attack. Russia will demand condemnation of Turkey’s actions and a resolution memorializing the world’s contempt will be adduced. But, as my readers all know, the completely amoral and terrorism-supporting governments of France, Britain and the U.S. will veto the resolution in another act of hypocrisy so blatant one’s hands tremble at the mere intimation of vicarious embarrassment.

    The plan was hatched in Ankara under the auspices of the wretched banana-addicted apes of Qatar whose own interests would be smashed into oblivion if the Iranian pipeline was ever extended to Syria. The plan was to establish a solid foothold in the north of Syria. The Aleppo offensive has ground to a halt with the Syrian Army’s encirclement of the northern capital. Supply lines from Southern Turkey have been cut. Hence, the attack on Idlib which was accomplished using an heretofore unprecedented three-truck suicide barrage and (according to Syrian security sources), a breach in the defenses occasioned by a group of treasonous members of the National Defense Forces (PDC). This was followed by a takeover of most of the town of Jisr Al-Shughoor although no supply lines for government forces have yet been cut.

    With Iran’s sanctions set to expire soon after June, 2015, a new and energized Teheran would be the last thing the apes of Ankara and Riyaadh would want. Flush with new wealth, Iran could more easily buttress the economy of Syria as the SAA continues to sweep away the syphilis-carrying rats who keep mouthing that nihilistic and meaningless “Allahu Akbar”.

    The attack on Damascus would take place from the Qalamoon, Qunaytra and, possibly, from Der’ah in the south. The idea would be to overwhelm Syrian forces by utilizing Saudi Arabian air power. (Yawn). In the north, the Turks are expected to use their American-manufactured bombers to assist the Alqaeda rodents. Syrian missiles were supposed to be kept at bay by the Patriot Missile System batteries provided by certain NATO countries. The Turks have seriously miscalculated.

    Turkey’s miscalculations are typical of those which are concocted for political reasons. The Turks have failed to consider the presence of Syria’s Eskandar missile system which was deployed by Russia specifically to take out the Patriots. Once that is done and the Patriots are exuding smoke, Syria can rain SCUDs on all Turkey’s dams on the Euphrates. This will be Dr. Assad’s crowning moment.

    For the Saudis, this is no Yemen. Only the Zionists have experience skirting around the Pantsyr and Antei systems in place in southern Syria. The Saudis, whose pilots are almost all retired Egyptians and Pakistanis, will find the skies over Syria a bit more challenging than those over the poorest of Arab countries. No, the Saudis will have to look around carefully after Syrian SCUDs devastate their sprawling base at Tabook. And if Russia does what it seriously wants to do, i.e. give the Saudis a bloody nose with a few cruise missiles lobbed from the many submarines in the Red Sea, well, then we’ll be in a different world altogether. And, if the Iranians, enraged by hints the Saudis will execute Al-Shaykh Nimr Al-Nimr in a few days, decide to unleash their massive missile array at the Dhahraan oil fields, sing the Saudi simians “Sayonara”.

    All of you know that Hizbollah has positioned troops around the Jurood ‘Arsaal area with many also on the Syrian side. It’a joint Syrian-Hizbollah plan to eradicate the rats. In the meantime, the Syrian Army continues to plan and move in the Idlib area:


  18. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 7, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    I fully expect, in the ripeness of time, for Iranians (not the feeble-minded among them however) to begin to address the weaknesses that were revealed by the recent economic war against her.

    I am not saying anything profound here; I am going by the analogy with the war against Iraq during which, due to an arms embargo against Iran, Iranians could not even get barbed wire.

    Then and afterwards Iranians went through a very serious reassessment of their strategy and doctrines and method of fighting a war as well as industrial production of certain classes of weapons.

    To wit; they have developed ideas for asymmetrical warfare, have experimented with a variety of armored platforms, have developed a variety of submersibles, and have heavily concentrated and developed a missile force that is a very serious threat to enemies of Iran (having correctly assessed that they are decades away from indigenous mass-production of fixed wing and rotary air crafts).

    I expect that Iranians will not go through the exercise of eliminating their dependencies on the World Economy as controlled by the Axis Powers – in finance, in insurance, in foreign exchange, in wire transfer, in spare parts as well as develop retaliatory capabilities (which at the moment they do not have in economic warfare).

    Significantly, I expect trade with EU to be re-routed and remain so for many more decades; not just China or Korea but anywhere that they can get their hands on any goods or service.

    EU weaponized finance – they can never live that down.

  19. fyi says:


    From CSIS on US goals in “Central Region”

    May be Wahabis will help US, who knows, pigs might fly too…

  20. Nasser says:

    fyi says: May 8, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Is there any way for Iran to come to an understanding with ISIS and have it go after Saudi Arabia.

  21. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm


    Iranians and Syrian governments can convey a message to ISIS and propose a 10 year or a 25 year cease-fire.

    That would free Iran, Iraq, Syria, and ISIS to consolidate their gains in their respective areas.

    Since ISIS cannot be destroyed without massive aerial bombardments of Raqqa and Mosul, it follows that neither Iran nor Syria nor Iraq can destroy ISIS; they lack airplanes (fixed and rotary), thousands of thanks, towed and mobile artillery etc. to destroy ISIS.

    But please note that ISIS knows all of this and knows that it cannot be destroyed and further knows that Persian Gulf Arabs, Egypt, and Turkey and Jordan want it to remain alive and to attack Iran, Syria, and Iraq.

    ISIS will have to attack Jordan and Saudi Arabia in any case before long – so it might be amenable to such a deal.

    Eventually, US will have to destroy ISIS in collaboration with the Shia Crescent but we are not there yet.

  22. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    To hurt EU and hurt it immediately, Iran should find a way to accommodate drug transition across Iran to Europe from Afghanistan.

    Drug production in Afghanistan is the only modern economic sector of that country in which a product is produced with markets outside of her borders.

    I should imagine that Iranians can reach an un-written agreement with the Drug Lords or Drug Cartels (whatever their exact structure might be) in which drugs are transshipped across Iran with the proviso that they cannot be sold on the Iranian territory.

    Conceivably, even a transit tax (for using Iranian roads etc.) could be negotiated.

    This will help Afghanistan’s people immediately, reduce the casualties and costs of border patrol to Iran, and harm EU.

    Iran must stop doing things for free, specially for Axis Powers when they tried to destroy her economy and social fabric (turning Iranian women into prostitutes, just like what has been happening to Iraqi women since 1992.)

    In a way, that would be like Shia Lebanese farmers who plant hashish but export it to Egypt – never touching it themselves.

  23. Nasser says:

    fyi says: May 8, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    “Iran must stop doing things for free,…”

    – I absolutely agree with this sentiment. Iran should only engage in transactional relations with states that is not outright its ally. I can’t recall the title of the paper but it was written by Mr. Lukyanov right after the Ukraine crisis where he suggested Russia do the same thing with regard to the West.

    – We have discussed the drug topic before but you pointed to the example of Mexico as to why Iran never seriously considered this idea. Is there any indication whatsoever you have seen in policy papers, media wherever that Iranian authorities have considered this?

  24. Nasser says:

    fyi says: May 8, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    “ISIS will have to attack Jordan and Saudi Arabia in any case before long – so it might be amenable to such a deal.”

    – Could you please expand on this?

    Why would they be more open to a deal with Iran than say one with Saudi Arabia?

  25. James Canning says:


    Russia had no desire to “eviscerate Iranian society”. Russia wants a deal on the nuclear dispute, as do the other members of the group (P5+1).

  26. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    Mr. Larijani (Speaker of Majlis) mentioned something about it publicly a few months ago; he threatened EU.

    There is a danger of reprising what has happened in Mexico but I think the Iranian state is stronger than the Mexican state.

    Nevertheless, it is a danger – and it is up to Iranian leaders to assess that risk.

  27. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    May 8, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    If Russia did not wish to eviscerate Iranian society, she should have avoided sending Iran to UNSC.

  28. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 8, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    ISIS requires expansion for reasons of legitimacy as well as power and it must expand where there is a population welcoming it (like Eastern Syria and Western Iraq).

    Jordan has many who would support ISIS and so would very many Wahabis in Saudi Arabia.

    ISIS attacking Shia Arabs and trying to conquer majority Shia regions only ties it into an endless war which it cannot win.

    In my opinion, there is nothing that ISIS is saying or doing that is against Sunni Islam – tens of millions of Sunni Muslims will not be able to furnish any argument against its practices because none exist. Just look at Al Azhar.

  29. Nasser says:

    fyi says:
    May 8, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    Thanks again for your explanations.

  30. Nasser says:

    fyi says:
    May 8, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    A whole lot of nothing indeed. Wonder why Iran bothers to put up with it?

    There really isn’t anything that Iran needs from India. Except as a market for oil and gas but then again as you argued several times before, Iran ought to move to a spot market for said energy goods as soon as possible.

    Ties with Pakistan are much more important. I rather Iran sacrifice her own interests in Afghanistan to Pakistan than trying to cozy up to Russia or India there.

  31. Kooshy says:

    You zio boys be careful take a hold of yourselves and don’t go there again, we have tried this before, this kind of comments will again kick on a new round of whack a mole which I love to play with zios , please keep hold of yourselves and stop pretending you have solutions for Iran which you want to “put her hands on Hana” ( or as Americans say it gives her a sour tomb) like what our residence zio centric FYI just advised.

    “I should imagine that Iranians can reach an un-written agreement with the Drug Lords or Drug Cartels (whatever their exact structure might be) in which drugs are transshipped across Iran with the proviso that they cannot be sold on the Iranian territory. Conceivably, even a transit tax (for using Iranian roads etc.) could be negotiated.”

    FYI only Zionist jews like the type you live with are capable and can do what you advise here that Iranians should do “become a partner in drug trafficking”, by saying and advising this shit it really makes you a true pice of shit Zionist you are. Don’t go overboard with this kind of shit again.

  32. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 8, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Yes, it pains me to read pronouncements by Iranian officials – this late in the day – speaking of Iran, in essence, becoming the gas station of EU (or India, or China, or any of those “Cats and Dogs” – as my late grandmother would say).

    This is like a Hezbollah official late in 2006 suggesting Lebanon becoming the break basket for Israel.

    I agree with you that Iran needs to reconfigure her interactions solely on transactional basis – barring allies along whom she has fought.

  33. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    May 8, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Iranian government has been running drug rackets for a while now. There have been some news on it inside the country and some officials even accepted it, and even rationalized it in various terms. This is nothing new. I doubt they were only selling to Iranian kids. But then who knows. If baradaran ghachaghchi khodemoon, can smuggle other stuff why not this as well.

    But the point here not to be forgotten is that Western world is not as vulnerable to such things as is the third world countries. In lots of areas of Europe, the government already provides free of cost heroine to addicts. The superior self awareness of their governance structure, superb medical knowledge and the fact that most of these drugs were either invented/discovered there (heroine was invented for instance), makes impact of any such action rather not significant.

    Many a nation tried such tactics on white man. In South America, for instance when the natives brought the coca leaves to the white man, he even taxed cocoa leaves and sold it back the the natives. Later on he discovered cocaine in it, went on to promote it as a global export product so much so that even Sherlock Holmes was hooked on it. Still it is used in Western medicine.

    Long story short, a cargo cult nation can not even hope to create a dent in a self aware and scientific society by trying to hook it on something. Not even by running a global racket.

  34. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    May 8, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Until the day, this cargo cult does not realize the power lies in science and technology and not in prostituting itself and its people and its resources, nothing will change.

    Until the day, Iran can not take care of the most basic of her needs, for example producing enough food, medicine, medical equipment, internal combustion engines, consumer produces, heavy industrial equipment etc etc so that she would not need to beg and offer herself or parts of her body to this or that, nothing will change.

  35. Smith says:

    Nasser says:
    May 6, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    These are the points:

    An ADS is usually considered a defensive one but with a great range say 200 kilometers in case of S-300 or 400 kilometers in case of S-400, this can become a kind of an offensive weapon for small countries. Since even a single battery of such a system can enforce a no-fly-zone over such a petite nation.

    The version of S-300, Iran was buying from Russia was actually outdated even then. Russia has already stopped production of that model since a couple of years ago. They have moved on to more advanced varieties of this system. Even if they delivered this or a slightly more advanced or less advanced version to Iran some how, it will not improve Iran’s strategic position. The only good thing that can come out of it, is to use such a system to train personnel and to disassemble it and learn whatever can be learnt (Chinese have not yet fully been able to learn it, despite having access to this system since decades ago).

    ADS systems specially the ground based ones, are over-rated. The only effective and fool proof ones are in realm of science fiction. A technologically superior and determined attacker still can get through. The goal of designers of such systems is not providing an un-penetrable shield. The goal is to inflict whatever possible losses on an attacking air party and harass it, slowing down the rate of destruction of the attacking force. The ultimate defense remains the duty of the counter-offensive forces by escalating and counter-attacking the attacking country. The implications of this escalation coupled with slow rate of destruction, forces the perspective attacking party to reconsider its initial move. Without escalation, the attacking party only has to deal with slow rate of destruction of its targets that also only in initial stages of attack, which is very much acceptable.

  36. Smith says:

    North Korea develops second strike capability:

    Those on this site who were saying, Iran does not have the ability and the balls to develop this, should take note. A cartoonish nation with a cartoonish kid-dictator has done it.

    At the end of the day it is safer for a nation to have such a capability than to have Dr Zarif and Dr Rouhani and vocal anti-nuclear green peace lesbian activists.

  37. Smith says:

    Economy? What economy?

    Pathetic economy:

  38. Karl.. says:

    May 9, 2015 at 5:13 am

    Although we didnt see the full video of the shooting.
    If true, its indeed interesting that they do not only have capable subs but the knowledge to fire it off.

  39. Nasser says:

    Smith says: May 9, 2015 at 5:04 am

    Thank you for your informative post. Oh and welcome back!

    Could you please give more details as to what aspects of the system the Chinese have not been able to copy?

  40. James Canning says:


    Russia’s policy was to do what it could to keep the matter (Iranian nuclear dispute) before the UNSC. Why was this a mistake, in your view?

  41. Smith says:

    Nasser says:
    May 9, 2015 at 11:13 am

    You are welcome Mr Nasser.

    Chinese had problem with cold launch and solid rockets and had to bring in Russian assistance. The Russian systems use more robust guidance system architecture (SAGG+GAI) as compared to the simpler Chinese version (TVM). The Russian systems use Russian microprocessors designed for the job, not so the Chinese ones which use off the shelf processors. And if Chinese had cracked it all, they would not have funded the development and now buying the S-400.

  42. Smith says:

    How much money went into research last year on such a critical issue? What solutions are being developed for it? What agricultural research is being conducted to mitigate the problem?

  43. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    May 9, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Actually, the Islamic Republic has been very effective in harnessing the surface water resources of Iran by building a multitude of dams.

    I think the on-going but intermittent draught of the past 18 years has revealed the managerial and technical deficiencies of water resources in Iran.

    From a managerial point of view, rational usage could not be made of these water resources since the agricultural population demanded and got subsidized water. That is, 80% of water resources were consumed by the sector that produced 20% of GNP.

    Technically, modern agricultural technique were not adopted as quickly as the situation demanded – for a variety of reasons that are perhaps all too common to the Third World countries such as Iran.

    Lastly, there are indications that the draught in Iran is episodic and not persistent – there have been reports, fro example, of Zayandeh Rud being dry during Qajar times.

    Look at the bright side; these problems and issues are rapidly changing Iran as pushing problem-solvers up; Survival or Extinction.

  44. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    May 9, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Russia was one of those states that tried to take away sovereign rights from Iran – and I suppose in the future – from other states.

    UNSC created new illegal (within both NPT and the UN Charter) for Iran.

    Well, the Iranians told them were P5 could deposit those new obligations that they had created for Iran out of thin tissue of air.

    Let me make it plain Mr. Cannings:

    You cannot govern the world through illegal UNSC edits without being willing to annihilate large population centers of those states that are not willing to comply with this or that demand from UNSC.

    P5+1 have destroyed UN and NPT and CWBT and whole bunch of other things.

    You always complain about illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq.

    There was nothing illegal any longer since the underlying “Law”; the UN Charter, was already dead by that time.

    Take your pick when it was killed:

    1948 in Palestine, 1953 in Iran, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1975 in Sikhim, 1965 in Dominican Republic, 1973 in Chile, 1980 in Iran, 1994 in Yugoslavia, 2003 in Iraq, 2014 in Ukraine, 2010-present in Syria, and 2015 in Yemen.

    And there are many more ones in Africa that I did not even mention….

  45. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    May 9, 2015 at 5:23 am

    Something analogous occurred immediately after the Revolution in Iran and during much of the Iran-Iraq War period.

    Many industries died since they were dependent on imports of raw, semi-finished, or finished materials and components.

    I think the open-to-the-world policy of Mr. Rafsanjani and others must be revised; I think Iranian development must follow an autarkic model. Iran may never be able to have the capacity to retaliate against this Cat or that Dog but she can develop the capacity to not care one whit when the Cats hiss and the Dogs bark.

  46. Nasser says:

    fyi says: May 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    Brilliant! I even asked someone on this forum before why for a country so under sanctions as Iran, Iranians like him have so much faith in international trade and Ricardian economics?

    Yes all these sanctions wouldn’t mean a thing if Iran were a industrialized nation. Globalization can work for the US or China but not for a smaller country like Iran who wishes to remain independent. (To some extent this applies to Russia as well.)

    Iran must control and have the entire supply chain of critical industries located inside the territory of Iran to the extent possible. Her experience with the nuclear industry should have taught her that much. Iranian authorities should note how owning uranium mines or German steel companies abroad didn’t bring any benefit to Iran. Even the Petro Arabs make acquisitions in foreign tech companies. So what?! It doesn’t mean a damn thing if you don’t internalize the know how and the critical assets; otherwise it is just playing the West’s game. But good luck trying to convince those idiots in Khodro of these though; as for just one example.

    Sadly, I see no signs that the mafia style economics in Iran is about to change any time soon. I don’t see the government properly investing in areas like internal combustion engines, microelectronics or what have you. Iranians would often denigrate the American experience and system or the Soviet one but they didn’t really learn lessons from either. Iran’s crony capitalism doesn’t allow for proper capital accumulation or reward for innovation. And Iran’s sorry excuse for socialism doesn’t have capable central planning or ability to undertake large projects. They are just muddling along in a thoroughly disorganized fashion hoping that the world needs their oil and gas so much that they don’t really have any reason to change.

  47. A-B says:

    By declaring nuclear weapons ‘haram’, Ayat. Khamenei and Iran have reconciled the Sacred and Profane (i.e. NPT). Why not follow this to its natural conclusion and declare those who deal with this ‘haram’ as ‘najjes’/Unclean? I.e. it is Iran (and other CIVILIZED non-white people) who should boycott and shun those who actively and aggressively deal with nuclear weapons in breach of NPT, namely: the US, UK, France, Germans/EU and Russia. No freakin’ ‘secularist’ could even object to this!! It would be also NATURAL that what is associated with Western Harm and Disease (its consumer goods, brands, even tourerists) should provoke a gag reflex in the Iranians – if it wasn’t for Iranian’s irrational xenophilia; a misguided belief or hope that the Westerner MIGHT behave as Human. Finding precedence in Iran’s past and for the sake of continuity, one could even refer to Iran’s ancient Purity Laws; which one – or at least I – can argue is the root of Science. Of course, this idea, like so many great Iranian ideas, was stolen and perverted in HELL[en]ish Western lands; it had to be taken back and restored. As I said before, Truth is tainted (‘najjes’) when it is touched by the Europoop; as are Law, Money, and Power. So: to cleanse or reclaim Science, Law, Money and Governance we need a totally evidence based Fatwa that declares the anti-human West as Unclean.


  48. Jay says:

    fyi says:
    May 9, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    I agree!. The international legal system has not only deteriorated but it has, for all practical purposes, collapsed. Furthermore, there is little to no incentive for corrective action.

    What this means in practice is for Iran to use whatever this period of “agreement” will be to advance her basic scientific and technological base – not to become a petro-nation.

    Having said that, my understanding (form reading between the lines) is that at the highest levels of decision-making there is a commonality of purpose to this end (further build up of the technological base during the “agreement” period) and the agreement is a mere tactical pause. The real concern remains the extent to which this policy can be effectively implemented at the lower (and more importantly, operational) levels of directorates.

  49. M. Ali says:

    Offtopic, but since Friday, Tehran has been turned into an art museum for 10 days. All, and I mean ALL, billboards in Tehran have been turned into showcasing art from around the world,

  50. Amir says:

    Jay says:
    May 9, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    To tell the truth, late last year (Iranian calender) I was thinking this agreement could be a “breathing space” so to speak; unfortunately

    1) Many voted for this administration to lower exchange rates, so imports could become cheaper etc etc.

    2) Although what you described has been done before, and we stand here because resources were invested in projects in advance, by governments with less than satisfactory performances, I don’t see the consistency in the governments’ agenda: it is written by free-market economists and advocates of Austria school of economics. The government is emphasizing the importance of high-tech ventures, primarily because I) there are so many graduates in engineering (industry, biotech, computer, electronics, and many others that I don’t know), II) there is a perception that high-tech start-ups are less resource-demanding (maybe they are, I don’t know), and most importantly III) it wants their “trickle-down” effect on what is more demanding (security as a whole, but military purposes more obviously).

    3) The Petroleum ministry headed by B. Namdar Zanganeh is finally having its way; he has been arguing for long-term contracts to supply countries with natural gas, as a security measure; in a sense, tying our existence to others’ needs. This last phenomenon displays that “some” (I wanted to say many, but I don’t know, so…) are looking at the deal very very very seriously, as an everlasting deal.

    I just wanted to say that the economists of our country are those really behind the wheel, and they are driving us right over the edge, and they have the game sooooo good, that they could beat anyone who questions their judgments, with the club of “ignorant”, “backward”, “illiterate”, you name it.

    I don’t know much about anything, including economy, but I sense Dr Mousa Ghani-Nejad and co. are step-by-step implementing a plot, and killing us with a smile.
    امیدوارم که دچار یک بدبینی ابلهانه و ناشی از فقدان اطلاعات شده باشم وگرنه این آقایون حداقل 15 ساله افتادن به جون مملکت و تا ما رو در شبکه استثماری بین المللی حل نکنن دست بردار نیستن.ـ

  51. M. Ali says:

    So, it seems the best ideas proposed & discussed seriously by Nasser, Fyi, and Smith is:

    1) Ally with ISIS to push them towards other regional countries

    2) Ally with drug cartels to push drugs into the west

    The only positive thing I can take out of this is that these guys are not Iranians living in Iran. Hooray.

  52. Amir says:

    And! And, I didn’t mention the perimeters of the agreement, which seem, I can’t find a word, very disappointing? outright treason? giving everything and receiving vague promises?
    I’m not an expert, but I could be entitled to my own opinion, I suspect the agreement, in this form, would eventually lead to a place where the West doesn’t honor its commitments, everyday adds to its demands, creates all sorts of troubles, shifts sanctions from “nuclear sphere” to “security, terrorism, missile, human rights spheres”, or worst of all, places so many restrictions that what you suggested (a pause, regrouping and starting anew) would become just impossible.

    Keeping the momentum is vital. Those involved in the nuclear field can not stand by; they would change their field. Those making parts would change to other profitable branches (auto industry). And accepting a “mutually-agreed framework for R&D” is the worst thing any Iranian negotiator has ever accepted (like FOREVER EVER EVER EVER); it’s like to put a cap on our population and we have to kill the extra newborns (that’s exaggeration to some, but falls short of displaying the disaster to others).

    So… I’m not desperate (I think we could still turn this 180 degrees over) but the US fact sheet really left me puzzled. And the way Dr Salehi has been criticized, which made him retreat on some parts, and the history of what happened to earlier negotiators (e.g. Mousavian), I’m currently worried about what would happen to Dr Salehi. Rouhani reassured everyone last year that no one is going to be called a traitor if the negotiations falter, but he didn’t say that is without political consequences.

    I’m talking too much. Thanks, and good luck!

  53. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 9, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    When I look at where Mexico was in terms of state power and cohesion in 1980 and where she is today – and all because her leaders decided to abandon the autarkic development model and become an economic appendage to US – it is clear that the way forward for Iran.

  54. M. Ali says:

    Amir, I agree here,

    “And the way Dr Salehi has been criticized, which made him retreat on some parts, and the history of what happened to earlier negotiators (e.g. Mousavian), I’m currently worried about what would happen to Dr Salehi.”

    I would hate Salehi to be pushed towards a bad agreement by Rohani’s government and have Dr Salehi’s reputation destroyed. I greatly respect Dr Salehi, as do a lot of Iranian politicians from both side, and it would be a great loss, if he says something that turns out to be negative for Iran’s future.

  55. Amir says:

    M. Ali says:
    May 10, 2015 at 10:25 am

    I was paraphrasing what Dr Fereydoun Abbasi (ex-head of Iranian Atomic Agency) said last week, which was basically asking if Dr Salehi would turn out to be the scapegoat for politicians; right now is the “technical” expert, and the critics of the deal are shushed by pointing that Dr Salehi is presiding over the technical aspects. If, for example, Dr Salehi is acting based on political necessities, rather than technical factors, he would be held accountable, for decisions probably not of his own choosing, and that would be sad.

  56. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    May 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    Well, you know I am agreed with you but here are some extras:

    Running a functioning and successful autarkic model would necessitate efficient use of all resources in the country specially the human resources, and we all know how efficient Iran is in this regard.

    If any single thing is out there that differentiates between third world nations and the first world nations it is the development and utilization of human resources. I am afraid, the CORE problem of Iran is not about a model, or certain tactics or certain economic principles. It is something deeper. And unless this is not addressed we are not going to go anywhere. In a sense even Russians or Chinese despite their relative successes still have not been able to tackle their core problems once and for all.

    I am now, not interested in small time tactics or what this or that event will lead to. I have become more engaged with totality and the meaning of it all. Why some nations are thinking and others not? Why some nations are able to produce anything at will and others suffer and die but can not even create the hope of having such ability let alone in reality? Why some nations are retards and others so brilliant? Why all great mathematicians were born outside of Africa?

    You see it is rather futile to debate about economic models that are inventions of West in context of a cargo cult. Modern economic principles and theories have all been invented to solve the problems of Western societies whose foundations rest on science, technology, western culture and thinking. Such models can not solve the problems of a cargo cult. Not at least in a permanent and sustainable fashion.

    And you will be surprised what autarky would mean in these cargo cult societies. You probably do not know this but there was this subject in school by the name of madani or something. And in one of the books of this subject, a long rant was written about the vanity of Western lifestyle and how “bad” it is and how “futile” it is and all such BS and then they had this example at the end about American people having become so “lazy” and so “retard” and so “useless” that they can not even roll up and down their car window, therefore they have put buttons on their car doors doing the task for them. The indirect reference was to the superiority of Paykan and the supreme quality of its window crank-handle.

    Autarky in such societies does not mean the use of local resources and ingenuity and innovation to meet needs. It means starvation to malnutrition and austerity to pre-industrialized lifestyle and its rationalization in school books by maligning new technology and innovation. It literally means the killing and the ridicule of the need itself. Whether through religious trickery or through pseudo-science conspiracies.

    Bur you are right. I have to learn to look at the bright side. Just it is so hard to, in this case.

  57. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    May 10, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    I think it is instructive to compare the situation prevailing in Iran in 1294 with today – 1394.

    A lot has been done, but a lot more needs to be done; without a doubt.

  58. James Canning says:


    I think Russia is correct to support the UN and to seek to keep the Iranian nuclear dispute before the UNSC. Obviously you disagree.

  59. James Canning says:


    Speaking of Iraq, one aspect of the situation that I particularly regret is simply that Saddam Hussein’s own blunders helped his enemies set up the invasion of 2003.

  60. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    May 10, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    What, I think, is more deserving of regret by you as an Englishman is what UK’s complicity in the Mad King’s schemes during his Unilateral Moment of the last 20 years.

    Indisputably, by helping to destroy the foundations of the Peace of Yalta (“It is absolutely essential to be on the right side of the United States.”), UK only undermined her own security in decades to come with no discernible increase in her security by participating in the Madness of the King.

    The English people seem to have grasped this finally, not you, it seems.

  61. Nasser says:


    Could you please share with us your views on the recent developments in Syria?

  62. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    May 10, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    No qualitative changes have taken place on the battlefield in regards to the positions of the sides.

    Axis Powers, Turkey, Persian Gulf Arabs have pushed to make some gains that, in my opinion, are unsustainable.

    Geneva III is also going to go Nowhere, but it is going to get there very quickly.

    We are still about 2 years away from war-weariness to settle on the warring factions and populations.

    At that time, the side that can present a credible future of peace is the one that is going to prevail.

    In my judgment, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, US, EU, and Turkey have nothing credible to put on the table for consideration; they have already lost the war – even though they may be winning a battle here or there.

  63. Nasser says:

    fyi says: May 10, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Thank you.

  64. Jay says:

    Amir says:
    May 10, 2015 at 9:28 am

    This will be a deal that will be violated from day one! If one goes into the deal expecting this, and also knowing how to work the situations to one’s advantage, then one can come out ahead.

    I agree that a number of policies appear to be short sighted. Perhaps they won’t last long either!

  65. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    May 10, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    Yes. Alot has changed since then (or not, I’m not sure to be honest):

  66. Rehmat says:

    It seems, the ‘Republican for Israel’ and AIPAC have decided that Ted Cruz, ‘The Defender of Israel’ could be the next US president to kill the US-Iran nuclear deal if Obama signs it.

    “The Iran agreement is something the Israelis and the lobby will not tolerate, which is why they’re going to the mat to defeat this deal. If they succeed in defeating the agreement, and simultaneously President Obama, with the support of two-thirds of Congress that they induced to support Netanyahu, they will be viewed correctly as stronger than ever. They never brought down a president before. This will be a first. If, however, they lose—if, however, Obama succeeds in putting over this agreement—the lobby will be badly damaged. Not only because they lost but because, in the process, they were exposed as an ally of right-wing Republicans, not the bipartisan organization they claim to be. With the polls showing that Israel itself is increasingly out of favor with the Democratic base, they could be on the road to extinction,” says MJ Rosenberg, a former employee of AIPAC.

  67. Rd. says:

    Amir says:

    “1) Many voted for this administration to lower exchange rates, so imports could become cheaper etc etc.”

    Those ‘many’ may be in for a surprise, at least according to couple of econs I have come across, the exchange rate may actually end up around 3700-4500 range, which is were it may need to be!!!!

  68. James Canning says:


    In my view, Britain did a great deal to cause the US to intervene in Libya, militarily. And, obviously, I regret this. And Tony Blair’s foolish backing of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Etc.

  69. James Canning says:


    The ill-considered US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was VERY MUCH a scheme intended to help Israel keep significant parts of the West Bank permanently. This FACT is suppressed in most discussions of the invasion and its aftermath.

  70. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    May 11, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    And the wars to destroy Yugoslavia was for Israel too?

    And now the war to control Ukraine as well?

    Come off it man – UK leaders massively bet on the endurance of the American Order and lost.

  71. Karl.. says:


    Much talk about US from you, what about the UK?
    What about the ill-considered policy of the UK that have left Israel free to bomb colonize the last years?

    Just take this article from last week:

    “David Cameron worried over Labour’s ‘wrong’ direction on Israel”

    That says it all about Cameron’s acceptance for israeli crimes.

  72. Rehmat says:

    Argentinian Jewish FM dumps his Tribe over Iran

    Two weeks ago, Argentinian Jewish foreign minister Hector Timerman resigned as director of Buenos Aires-based Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) criticizing AMIA leaders for blocking a deal with Iran to jointly probe into the deadly bombing attack on AMIA in 1994 that killed 85 people including some Jews.

    “AMIA is still blocking progress in investigations into the (1994) terrorist attack. I resign as member of an organization that we were once proud of but now puts us to shame,” Timerman wrote in a letter to AMIA president Leonardo Jmelnitzky.

  73. Bussed-in Basiji says:

    Well, good to see everyone coming around on the economy to what Agha was saying 20 years ago.

    Also remember no final agreement has been made yet.

    I think Agha’s speech and deputy commander of Sepah’s very clear statements (“…we welcome war with America”) are closer to the reality of the matter than the various attempts at “goh-mali” by Rohani admin.

    “The time of ‘hit and run’ is over…”

    “I have repeatedly spoken about the nuclear negotiations and other such matters and we have said what we should have, but everyone – including our officials in charge of foreign policy, other officials and the outstanding personalities of society – should pay attention that if a people cannot properly defend their identity and greatness in the face of foreigners, then they will certainly receive a blow to the head [they will be humiliated]. There is no doubt about this. We should appreciate the value of our character and personality. The enemies issue threats. Just a few days ago, two American politicians issued military threats. And such threats are issued by many other politicians who do not have very important and sensitive positions. I do not understand. What does negotiation under the shadow of threats mean? They want us to negotiate under the shadow of threats! It appears as if there was a sword being brandished above our heads!

    The people of Iran are not like this. The people of Iran do not tolerate negotiating under the shadow of threats. Why do they issue threats? Why do they say nonsense? They say that under such and such circumstances, they may attack Iran. First, the hell you will do such a thing [audience chants “Death to America!”]. You do not dare do so and second, I said during the time of the former President of America – at that time too, he used to issue threats – that the time of “hit and run” is over. It is not the case that you can say, “We will hit them and then we will run”. This is not the case. Your feet will get stuck and we will chase you. The people of Iran will never let go of those who transgress against them. We will chase anyone who wants to do that.

    Everyone – including our negotiators – should pay attention to this. Our negotiators should constantly take red lines and the main guidelines into consideration. Of course, they probably do so. By Allah’s favor, they will take them into consideration and they will not cross these red lines. Nonetheless, it is not acceptable if they issue threats. Why do you issue threats? You do not need these negotiations less than us. Yes, we would like sanctions to be lifted, but even if this does not happen, we can manage on our own in other ways. This has been proven. One day, I mentioned this matter [Resistance Economy]. Fortunately today, I witness that economists, different officials and those who are familiar with economic matters of the country constantly repeat this. They say that it is not the case that the economic issues of the country are dependent on sanctions and that economic problems will be solved only if sanctions are lifted. Economic problems can be resolved with our own determination, intention, actions and measures whether sanctions exist or not. Of course, if sanctions do not exist, it will be easier to do so. If sanctions exist, it is a bit more difficult, but it is possible.

    We have such an outlook towards negotiations, but the current government of America is in real need of these negotiations. One of the fundamental points that they raise in their performance sheet is that they have managed to bring the Islamic Republic to the negotiating table and impose such and such a thing on it. They need this. If the other side does not need these negotiations more than us – and it definitely does – at least it does not need it less than we do. So, why do they issue threats? I do not agree with those negotiations which are conducted under the shadow of threats. They can go and talk to them. They can negotiate and reach an agreement. This is alright – of course, if they observe the main guidelines – but they should not at all accept imposition, bullying, humiliation and threat.”

  74. fyi says:


    CSIS Assessment of the Military Forces in the Persian Gulf

  75. James Canning says:


    If you believe David Cameron approved of Israel’s actions in Gaza, you simply are mistaken. Bear in mind an election took place in the UK last week.

  76. James Canning says:


    You seem to have forgotten the mantra from the days leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003: “The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad”.

  77. Karl.. says:


    James said:
    If you believe David Cameron approved of Israel’s actions in Gaza, you simply are mistaken.

    You need to stop lying.

    ​Cameron: Israel had ‘right to defend itself’ in Gaza

    James said:
    Bear in mind an election took place in the UK last week.
    Meaning what? That Cameron take bribes from pro-israel groups?

  78. James Canning says:


    If you think a comment by David Cameron, that Israel has a right to defend itself, means Cameron approves of Israel’s insane smashing of Gaza in 2008-09 and more recently, you simply are mistaken.